I didn't say that "the existence of God cannot be disproved" was proof of His existence. You read too much between my lines.

It is not an argument for belief, it is an argument against Athiesm, as opposed to Agnostism.

And he IS funny dammit! (sings white and nerdy)

I wasn't referring to you, your post just reminded me.



Ah yes, but personally I find that everytime a religious person argues against Atheism, it is to defend their own belief.

In terms of what one knows, it is impossible to be anything but agnostic. In terms of what one believes in, it is very much possible to be an atheist or a theist; and there are good reasons to be an atheist - Occam's razor, say.

Like lie-ins on Sundays.

: )

That is a reason not to be a Christain. Two COMPLETELY different things.

As for Ocam's razor, wich is more simple. 1. We are able to understand the laws of nature because they were designed. or 2. We are able to understand the laws of nature because random things happened producing a result where more random beings were able to randomly figure them out?

Ocam's razor is a silly mode of discussing anything beyond a concrete physcial problem.

If I was forced to be religious, I'd go with either Hinduism or Taoism. The philosophy behind them is so much better (in my opinion) that the whole Judaeo-Christian/Islaamic thing.

Explaining nature through a designer isn't simpler (Easier to explain, maybe) because you then need to explain the Designer.

Additionally, you are horribly ignorant of why we can understand the laws of nature.

The fundamental laws of the Universe being what they are is simply a one-off thing. Imagine a gigantic control panel, with a knob, or a button, for each law and physical constant in the Universe. God's control panel, if you will.

There are, as you can guess, an infinite amount of settings; only a tiny minority of which will yield an universe where self-aware beings (Like us) can evolve. Such a combination can be ridiculously unlikely.

But it only has to be reached once; the fact that we are here talking about it proves that the Universe was set up for life. However...

Any knob-twiddler capable of designing the Universe's settings to kickstart life would have to be intelligent; therefore, it would have to be complex, and big, and powerful, and organized. It would be, in other words, very unlikely to appear spontaneously - In fact, vastly less likely to appear spontaneously than the chances of all the knobs and toggles aligning correctly by chance.

This is known as the anthropic principle; the reason the Universe is accomodating to life is that, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here talking about it. The Universe may originate from completely random settings; the existence of a vast, complex personal entity to set it demands an explanation of its own. If you say said entity just came about by chance, you are further multiplying the unlikeliness of it all; if you postulate a Creator for the Creator, then you're just regressing back through further iterations of unlikely, improbably complex entities making other improbably compelx entities. God has no real power to explain the Universe, because you need to explain Him, too.

And thus, "God created the Universe; God just exists" becomes "The Universe just exists", because the latter is more parcimonious. Using God to explain the existence of the Universe is more or less like a coroner that, faced with a gunshot wound, postulates that space aliens must have used a perforating tool to make a hole, applied heat to mildly scorch it, sprinkled residual gunpowder around, placed a bullet inside the wound, and dropped an empty shell casing in the crime scene.

Besides being a fairly useless statement completly misses my point.

The world could have lots of different ways it works. However, by some chance, we have been able to find out how it works, and have been able to find a pattern in the way things work.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, but seemingly there is only one way in which cells reproduce.

Actually, there is more than one way in which cells ordinarily reproduce; and it is not inconceivable that there are other chemical mechanisms which lead to self-replicating molecules and furthermore to self-replicating chemical machines (That is, life). But they just didn't arise on Earth; perhaps a planet with a different chemical composition would produce a different sort of self-replicating toolset.

That is no proof. Unless you want to admit that god can exist as well. If you believe that there is another planet where cells reproduce through something else other then division, (Which being it is such a simplistic process, is very very unlikely) then you would be making the same leap of faith Christians make in their belief of god.

So much for being grounded in reality.

I'm not saying it has happened (For all we know, we're alone in the Universe, but that is rather unlikely) I'm saying it's possible... and you don't even need cells to reproduce (Virii do it by parasitising other cells; extremely primitive lifeforms probably did it by co-opting pre-existing aminoacids into being copies of them).

There's nothing wrong with speculation and imagination about what is possible; it's just when you turn a could into an is, or an ought into an is, that you're going into mythology territory. Again, a naturalistic worldview is grounded in reality because:

1) It only accepts the existence of things whose existence has been observed, and...

2) It only accepts to possibility of existence of things which have been theoretically proved to be possible, or likely; of course, everything is possible, but not everything is reasonably likely. Particularly, extremely complex beings popping out of nowhere which are also undetectable is outside the realm of likely possibility.

There is more I want to reply to (for example, I want to jump in on the discussion about the Anthropic Principle), but that will have to come later. You forum trolls need to slow down!

Anyway, have some replies for Daganev first.


Actually, I disagree. There are some things which are presented for the first time by the prophets. For example, everything we know about the Messiah and the New Jerusalem comes from the prophets. As I mentioned before, I also believe Hoshea and Shir HaShirim teach us a side of God which is not clearly depicted in other places in the Bible.

Also, semantically, we understand the changes that came with Jesus differently. The Law was written for the sake of God's people, to help keep them pure. Temporary sacrifices were made in expectation of a greater sacrifice. After the sacrifice of Jesus, we were permamently purified, and the 'priesthood of the believer' was instituted. It is not so much that the Law no longer applies, but that it was fulfilled and served the purpose for which it was always meant. We no longer have to worry about eating unclean animals, because we are always clean.

So, in our understanding at least, it is not so much that Jesus removed any part of the Bible; it is more that God's Covenant evolved into what it was always meant to be.



While the prophets are not God, the Word they bring to us is God's Word. There are countless times where the prophets attribute their words to God. I believe that, while we are supposed to test the prophets (as Devarim suggests), should they pass the test we would be foolish to take their word as anything but God's on.

I have always been interested in religions based on false prophets (Mormonism is one I've always found particularly interesting). I've wondered why, even seeing that the prophecies have failed, people do not give up. It's a sign of very strong faith, I suppose, but as Arlie Hoover said 'faith without reason is blind.' Of course, he also added that 'reason without faith is empty.'

Now, a novel or two for Verithrax:

Actually, both of those are perfectly reasonable processes. It is reasonable to expect that for every question, there is some answer. If science, logic, and philosophy cannot provide the answer conclusively, then we are left to speculate using reason and evidence. In reality, both of the processes you mention, personal testimony and the written record of the Bible all constitute evidence. They will not yield absolute proof, but then neither will any branch of science.

I could formulate a pretty large list of items which science is simply unable to adequately explain. At this point, you can choose to either have faith in God, or have faith in another unknown (a natural law, or something else we don't know about which might explain what we observe). Either way, it's just the semantics of what you call that unknown.




It's not entirely accurate to say that God can see into the future. God Himself is outside of time, overlooking all of it at once. There is no past or future for Him. Actually, physics supports this sort of concept of 'atemporality' by suggesting that time itself is not infinite, but that's a whole different conversation. Regardless, the universe is nondeterministic in that there are life forms which are able to make decisions which are not predetermined. These decisions may be affected by a huge number of factors, but it is not directly causal.

As for the Theory of the One Force...Physicists have discovered four primary forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. Under certain conditions, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force can be observed as different aspects of the same force, referred to as the electroweak force. In even more extreme conditions, it is believed that the strong nuclear force could also be another aspect of the same force. The ultimate theory is that there is really just one underlying force (referred to as quantum gravity). If this is all true then there is truly one underlying force which can be studied, understood, and predicted, which is decidedly deterministic.

Theoretically, yes. There is nothing inherently stopping me from going through life without making any mistakes. If I make a mistake, it is because I screwed up and made that mistake, not because there is some cosmic alignment which conspired to prevent me from performing correctly. However, people have universally failed at living life without mistakes, and I have little doubt that we will continue to do so.



You assume that God did not have the forsight to see that it would all happen. Sometimes, the best way to do things is through a process, rather than all at once. You might as easily say that Henry Ford was viciously stupid when he implied that the person at the beginning of the assembly line would only take the first step. He obviously did not have the forsight to see that the product wouldn't be finished after that step.

Again, who's to say He doesn't? We wouldn't expect to see people forming a new religion every time God spoke to someone; we would expect that person to either A. already be a follower of his or B. join all of His followers that are already here.



You seem to be making the assumption that, given more time, this person would change. The easy answer is that God always knows. He knows what is in the heart of a person; he knows whether more time would lead to them changing. He does not rob anyone of their chance to do the right thing; he just controls how long he allows them to do the wrong thing.

Except that the people who followed the Bible gave up all of those different dieties to follow only One God instead (an bizarre concept, then). That is quite a lifestyle change, not to mention things like sexual purity, etc..



Followers of Baha'i and Scientology were never punished simply for what they believed.

Actually, this isn't true. Jesus taught peace, and did not even fight against the Roman authorities. When questioned, he even encouraged paying the emperor's heavy taxes, and rebuked his disciples for fighting the guards when he was arrested. He always taught submission to authority, except when it conflicted with God's authority. Christians opposed the Zealots who wanted to force the Romans out.

Secondly, even if Christianity had spread as a social reform, pushing off the oppressive ruler, how could it ever then make the move to become the religion of the state which it was supposedly opposing?



The first part is only true when those parts are taken out of context. Jesus didn't teach social control; though he did teach that some things are inherently wrong, he did not teach condemning the people who do those things.

Leviticus is a book of Law that outlined practices for the Jewish church. It is not used as a moral code or for social control in any situations I am aware of, though I could be mistaken in that. If it is used that way, it is not because that is how it is intended.

There are a few mistaken statements here.

1. Romans were opposed to Christianity (and Judaism, for that matter) because they both taught that there could be only one God, and refused to view Caesar as a god. They were mistrusted from the beginning, though it did not become official or organized until Nero.

2. Biblical scholars believe Jesus died somewhere around AD 30. Paul was killed in AD 66 (and references to his collective letters are found around AD 96). Given that Acts chronicles Paul's life and does NOT mention his final imprisonment and death, it is safe to assume it was written before AD 66. Luke obviously comes before Acts, since it is mentioned in the opening of the book of Acts. Many scholars believe Mark came even before Luke, since Luke seems to have taken some things from Mark's gospel and incorporated them into his own. Even if we don't say that Mark came before Luke, given the dating of the gospels, there was NOT that great a span of time before Jesus' death and the writing of the gospels, especially for an oral society.

3. There are very few historians who doubt the existance of a man named Jesus; the evidence for his life is far from dodgy. The real thing people question is whether he ever truly claimed to be God, or wheter his claims were true if he did.

4. Nero reigned from AD 37-68; he came into power very soon after Christ's death, and disliked the Christians from the beginning. He blamed them for the fire in AD 64, but they were already hated before that, this just exacerbated it and made it more official. Most of the other Roman emperors also abused Christians up until Christianity was legalized by Constantine in 313 (and it did not become the official religion of the state for quite awhile after that). This era is documented by several different sources. I'd recommend a look at this article on wikipedia, which goes into a pretty good bit of detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_per...tians_by_Romans




There is one notable problem with this...natural selection only postulates about physical abnormalities that are then passed on somehow to the children. There were some theories about learned traits being propogated in children, but they were rejected because there is no evidence that this is even possible. In order to talk about predisposition for or against a given act, you must make the assumption that there is some physical gene somewhere in the body which controls that given action, the mutation of which allowed for the predisposition for or against that action to be propogated. That seems like a large assumption which we don't yet have any evidence to support.

So, in other words, "we don't know?" That leaves us back at the beginning...



What I really mean to imply is that Science has a tendency to be unable to explain things, or to be misinterpreted to mean things which it does not. For example, we all have a lot of faith in gravity. If the Bible were to say that gravity was actually a repulsive force rather than an attractive one, many people would accuse Christianity of foolishness, since obviously we can observe that gravity is attractive...Those people, however, would be incorrect. Phycisists who study the big bang believe that the only way matter could have separated the way it did is if, for a very brief time, gravity was actually a repulsive force, pushing things away from each other.

I don't believe that Science will ever contradict the truth; I believe strongly in logic and science. I think the problem is that we place too much faith in Science, elevating it from a process of study to religious status (through statements like "I believe that Science will discover that someday..."). This is not an accusation against you personally, but an observation of society in general.



I agree that meaning and purpose are concepts which we assign. What you are explaining is not really 'Why is the Universe the way it is?' but 'How did the Universe come to be the way it is?' They are both viable questions, but they are distinctly different questions.

As for the things we don't know, really it just comes down to what you want to call the things you can't understand. You may want to say 'there are things out there which make absolutely no sense and seem to violate natural laws, but some day we will understand them all.' This is a statement of faith in Humanism, which is supported by some amount of evidence (demonstrations of when we have come to understand things which we previously did not). I might say 'there are things out there which make absolutely no sense and seem to violate natural laws, but I will trust that God knows what he is doing.' This is a statement of faith in God, which is also supported by some amount of evidence (support for the Bible and its origins, observations of miracles which science has yet to even address). The real object is to decide which makes more logical sense, and which is more of a stretch. That is where we still disagree.

And last (for now) is Shiri:

You're right, even we as Christians disagree on a lot of things. I believe there is one absolute truth, and most likely none of us have it all right. I do understand your point here though; that people might adapt their beliefs for comfort. I don't doubt the truth in that, it's demonstrably accurate. What I mean to imply is that this doesn't go only one way. While there are Christians who subconsciously believe simply because they want to be comforted, there are also Atheists who subconsciously believe simply because it is more comfortable for them. Some of us like the idea of being the supreme decision makers, with no ultimate consequences.



Heaven is a motivator, but it should only be so for those who genuinely want to spend forever with God. Hell is really nothing more than eternal separation from God (the fire and gnashing of teeth and such are symbolic, I believe), which will prove to be an indescribable punishment for those who have to experience it. There are examples of God intervening through prayer (actually, there are studies that show that a sick person who is prayed for is more likely to recover, and recover more quickly than a person who is not prayed for - even if they don't know they're being prayed for). Still, there are just as many cases of prayers going unanswered. That said, I again get your point about the comfort offered by believing that God will intervene and change things.

As for your last statement, you're again correct, the majority of Christians are brought up as Christians, but that does not make it false. The majority of people who believe in the Water Cycle only believe it because they were taught about it from the time they were young.

They're not reasonable because they both beg the question: "And where did God come from?" Entities need not be multiplicated needlessly.

Or you can admit, "We don't know." That phrase isn't said nearly enough in the world. "We. Do not. Know." Think about it. It's foolish and arrogant to think you know better than scientists because you have a myth to explain things away from you; generations of scientists have worked very hard to explain things, one by one, building upon the work of past generations; while most religions haven't been doing anything for ages - They just have this one book, and trust it to be true. The truth is, you don't know any better than me - You just believe in things which aren't true to mask your ignorance; I think it is better for humanity if we face our own ignorance and try to find answers by ourselves, instead of relying in preposterous myths to keep us from having to actually think.

Also, I can compile a list of things in the Bible which are factually inaccurate... but of course, those are all "metaphors", and regardless of how absurd they are, they're all true if you'll just accept a vast swath of apologetics.
Actually, some Christian authors support the notion that God is eternal, not timeless. Regardless, God being timeless still means he can see into the future. If I had a two-dimensional Universe in my desk, with time being the third dimension (So that the minute universe appears as a sort of oblong box) I would still be able to see the future and the past of it. Being from the outside looking in doesn't mean He can't see, or that He isn't aware of how we experience time.

And what you erroneously call the "One Force" is one of the variations on the notion of the TOE (Theory of Everything). Except, you made up your own name for it, because apparently calling it what everyone else calls it is bad in some way. Although, I can't seem to find any sources about your particular conjecture; at any rate, it is irrelevant to the non-deterministic nature of the Universe, as Heisenberg's principle still applies whether the Universe runs on one force, or forty-two.

Then again... how is your notion that you can lead a life entirely free of sin in any way plausible?

But why is it necessary for God to wait thousands of years before sending down Jesus? What's so important that was happening in the meantime? Why weren't the rules the way Jesus made them from the beginning?
I'd love to see some real, concrete, non-anecdotal proof of God talking to someone. I'm also curious as to why God has elected not to come down and talk to me, right now, and tell me to stop this nonsense. Why would He make it painfully easy for some people to believe in him, and absolutely impossible for other people to believe in him? How is that fair?

How does God knowing fit in with free will? And anyway, doesn't that mean that every single person killed in a natural disaster was either already saved, or never going to repent? Isn't that a bit far-fetched?
You are under the impression either thing is unusual; they're not.

Maybe because what they believe in is vastly less objectionable (If not less silly) than Christianity. But anyway, numerous groups of people were persecuted in history; didn't keep many of them from spreading or continuing to exist.
What was that Jesus quote, the one about a sword? But of course, everything Jesus said is a metaphor, or a parable, or not really important. The fact is that Roman oppression of Christianity made being a Christian a gesture of rebellion against the Romans (Regardless of whether you also conspired to murder Caesar and bring down the state) which aided in its spread through already disgruntled provincial populations. By the fourth century CE, it had achieved such a critical mass of people Constantine had no choice but to make it an official state religion in a sort of last-ditch effort to keep the populace from strangling him.
The first part is only true when those parts are taken out of context. Jesus didn't teach social control; though he did teach that some things are inherently wrong, he did not teach condemning the people who do those things.

Because you've had a personal conversation with your fictional God and know exactly how he intended for the Bible to be used. Pity you won't share the information with all the bible scholars who wasted their lives reading this one book, and what amounts to the world's largest edition of CliffsNotes on that one book...

I like these studies, because then I can annoy the people who think I'm a jackass for believing in magick.

Actually the study found that if you DO know you are being prayed for, you were worse off then not being prayed for.

Again, Verithrax, stop believing what you read on the internet so much. "We don't know" or "I don't know" is said very often by many people all over the world. However, people don't tend to say that on their websites of "answers" and tend not to write that in their blogs either, because what would be the point of that? (other than to appear to other online idiots that they are now "honest" and have more "street cred")

Wouldn't it be great if you opened up the OED, looked up the word "is" and saw: "We are uncertain of the exact definition, so we will leave it open to further investigation"

There actually isn't all that much use for the word "is." I'm cool with there not being a definition. Japanese, as far as I've ever seen or studied, barely uses it.