- 23,800
- Philippines
Sorry. No matter how many times it's said, I still don't have any Jewish blood.
I'm half Malay / half Japanese... absolutely not descended from Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham or other.
Last edited:
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,489 comments
- 1,154,450 views
Sorry. No matter how many times it's said, I still don't have any Jewish blood.
I'm half Malay / half Japanese... absolutely not descended from Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham or other.
Interestingly, it has been replied to me that there is no Standard Model of the Big Bang Theory. Unfortunately, that is incorrect, and casts doubt on the rest of the legitimacy of what follows. Nevertheless, we can presume that the poster is informed, and made a simple error. The Standard Model of the Big Bang:
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-bbang-cosmology.pdf
Unfortunately as well, the poster is unaware of the implications of the BGV Theorem. Hawking disagrees with the poster, and that is a major reason why Hawking has postulated the unbounded model of the Big Bang, in order to circumvent the implications of the BGV Theorem. Let us suppose however, that the majority of cosmologists are incorrect, and that the youtube atheists and our poster, are correct, and move on.
Our poster then says that scientists don't believe anything. The definition of a 'belief' is:
1.An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
If scientists think the proposition, "Science is valuable" is true, then scientists have a belief in the truth of that proposition.
Let us suppose though, that scientists do not believe anything at all, like our poster would have us believe-- err, let us not use the word 'believe'.
The poster then provides 'strawman' arguments, and knocks them down easily.
For examply, he/she claims I argued that the universe must have a cause/reason for it's existence, because if it didn't exist, it wouldn't need an explanation. Having studied logic at the University level, I would certainly not argue in that form.
Rather, I argue that we would be arbitrary to presume that the Universe's existence given the Standard Model, need no explanation.
As for 'seeing' God, I have not seen God. However, do you believe there is a planet noone has ever seen? If so, then you believe in something you haven't seen. I am glad you agree that we need not see a thing, in order to have good reasons for believing it exists.
As for god of the gaps, this is only pertinent when we are not dealing with the universe's existence as a whole. If we were to explain the existence of nature by appealing to nature, we would not be explaining anything -- unless it is possible for the universe to necessarily exist.
Interestingly, noone has responded to the current state of modern analytic philosophy, that if God is possible, then He must exist. This is believed by atheist philosophers -- not just theists. If anyone is interested why atheist philosophers believe this, feel free to pm me.
As for the Cambridge mathematician and philosopher who has provided a probabilistic argument for the existence of God, you can look at the atheist site 'infidels.org', where they these internet atheists attempt to address it. If you don't believe that Cambridge University is biased in favour of theism, then you can look at their resources as well.
He uses Baye's Theorem, which is:
P(h | e & k) = P(e | h & k) P(h | k) / P(e | k)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gabe_czobel/swinburne.html
As for the problem of evil, many of you may be surprised to know that atheist philosophers believe that the logical problem is now solved, thanks to the work of Alvin Plantinga. That is to say, atheist philosophers now believe that just because there is evil in the world, that it doesn't mean that an all-powerful, all-loving God does not exist. What these atheist philosophers do however, is try to provide a probabilistic argument to show that God probably does not exist, because of the existence of evil. If any of the atheists here have a probabilistic argument, I would be most appreciative if it could be provided. We could then analyse it together.
On another forum, I have attempted to provide the strongest arguments FOR atheism. These are garnered from modern academics, such as Jordan Howard Sobel, and Graham Oppy, who are some of the leading philosophers of atheism today. I also include Hawking's unbounded model, and try to demonstrate how it is most consistent with the theory of time which philosophers of time, affirm. If anyone is interested in a theists look at the most defensible arguments FOR atheism, then feel free to pm me.
A word of caution: If any theist wants to find the strongest objections to theism, then popular level books are not very valuable. You will have to spend large amounts of money on academic works specifically written for academics, and which are not sold in the local bookstore. Although Dawkins and Hitchens are popular, those who spend their lives studying atheism and theism have much more substantial material. They can also be very expensive however, unless you are a member of an academic society or fellow of a University
kind regards
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-bbang-cosmology.pdf
Unfortunately as well, the poster is unaware of the implications of the BGV Theorem. Hawking disagrees with the poster, and that is a major reason why Hawking has postulated the unbounded model of the Big Bang, in order to circumvent the implications of the BGV Theorem. Let us suppose however, that the majority of cosmologists are incorrect, and that the youtube atheists and our poster, are correct, and move on.
Our poster then says that scientists don't believe anything. The definition of a 'belief' is:
1.An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
If scientists think the proposition, "Science is valuable" is true, then scientists have a belief in the truth of that proposition.
Let us suppose though, that scientists do not believe anything at all, like our poster would have us believe-- err, let us not use the word 'believe'.
The poster then provides 'strawman' arguments, and knocks them down easily.
For examply, he/she claims I argued that the universe must have a cause/reason for it's existence, because if it didn't exist, it wouldn't need an explanation. Having studied logic at the University level, I would certainly not argue in that form.
Rather, I argue that we would be arbitrary to presume that the Universe's existence given the Standard Model, need no explanation.
As for 'seeing' God, I have not seen God. However, do you believe there is a planet noone has ever seen? If so, then you believe in something you haven't seen. I am glad you agree that we need not see a thing, in order to have good reasons for believing it exists.
As for god of the gaps, this is only pertinent when we are not dealing with the universe's existence as a whole. If we were to explain the existence of nature by appealing to nature, we would not be explaining anything -- unless it is possible for the universe to necessarily exist.
Interestingly, noone has responded to the current state of modern analytic philosophy, that if God is possible, then He must exist. This is believed by atheist philosophers -- not just theists. If anyone is interested why atheist philosophers believe this, feel free to pm me.
As for the Cambridge mathematician and philosopher who has provided a probabilistic argument for the existence of God, you can look at the atheist site 'infidels.org', where they these internet atheists attempt to address it. If you don't believe that Cambridge University is biased in favour of theism, then you can look at their resources as well.
He uses Baye's Theorem, which is:
P(h | e & k) = P(e | h & k) P(h | k) / P(e | k)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gabe_czobel/swinburne.html
As for the problem of evil, many of you may be surprised to know that atheist philosophers believe that the logical problem is now solved, thanks to the work of Alvin Plantinga. That is to say, atheist philosophers now believe that just because there is evil in the world, that it doesn't mean that an all-powerful, all-loving God does not exist. What these atheist philosophers do however, is try to provide a probabilistic argument to show that God probably does not exist, because of the existence of evil. If any of the atheists here have a probabilistic argument, I would be most appreciative if it could be provided. We could then analyse it together.
On another forum, I have attempted to provide the strongest arguments FOR atheism. These are garnered from modern academics, such as Jordan Howard Sobel, and Graham Oppy, who are some of the leading philosophers of atheism today. I also include Hawking's unbounded model, and try to demonstrate how it is most consistent with the theory of time which philosophers of time, affirm. If anyone is interested in a theists look at the most defensible arguments FOR atheism, then feel free to pm me.
A word of caution: If any theist wants to find the strongest objections to theism, then popular level books are not very valuable. You will have to spend large amounts of money on academic works specifically written for academics, and which are not sold in the local bookstore. Although Dawkins and Hitchens are popular, those who spend their lives studying atheism and theism have much more substantial material. They can also be very expensive however, unless you are a member of an academic society or fellow of a University
kind regards
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
Arguing the existence of an unobserved planet is arguing the existence of something that has been proven can exist and which fits within our understanding of the physics underlying the Universe.
Arguing the existence of God is arguing the existence of something that has not been proven to exist, is unobservable and which is not supported by our current understanding and which can neither be proven or disproven by our current level of understanding.
A probabilistic argument is meaningless, as there is no basis for assigning the probability of God, any more than there is basis for assigning the probability of the existence of FSM or an invisible anvil hanging over each of our heads. Arguing probabilities for or against God is like arguing whether there is black light, given that there is white light (and no, I'm not talking about "blacklight", but an actual, projectable beam of zero radiance).
This is not to say I don't believe in a prime source... but that I still see no convincing evidence for it, either way.
Arguing the existence of God is arguing the existence of something that has not been proven to exist, is unobservable and which is not supported by our current understanding and which can neither be proven or disproven by our current level of understanding.
A probabilistic argument is meaningless, as there is no basis for assigning the probability of God, any more than there is basis for assigning the probability of the existence of FSM or an invisible anvil hanging over each of our heads. Arguing probabilities for or against God is like arguing whether there is black light, given that there is white light (and no, I'm not talking about "blacklight", but an actual, projectable beam of zero radiance).
This is not to say I don't believe in a prime source... but that I still see no convincing evidence for it, either way.
Last edited:
- 87,886
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Nope. You're smooshing together two terms with little regard for their specific meanings.
What you linked to is the "standard Big Bang model". This is a model of the Big Bang that is considered the standard. "The Standard Model" specifically deals with the behaviours of subatomic particles - the quarks, the leptons and the bosons - through a unification of electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces. But not gravitation. That would be a Theory of Everything.
While the Standard Model can be used to explain certain mechanisms of the Big Bang, it's only a part of the standard Big Bang model. The two things exist independently of one another - there is no such thing as the Standard Model of the Big Bang.
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin requires a singularity - the entirety of space-time confined to one sub-Planck space. The no-boundary proposal requires a singularity - the entirety of space time confined to one sub-Planck space. The two do not disagree. The only difference is in terminology - the Hartle-Hawking universe has no boundaries because, prior to the universe occupying an area of one Planck unit, neither space nor time existed.
The irony of your use of BGV/H-H and your misuse of the term "Standard Model" is that the Standard Model doesn't work at the level of singularities - at Planck and sub-Planck (zero) distances and times. Pre-Planck Epoch theories - including standard Big Bang models - do not utilise the Standard Model in any way.
One definition of a "belief" is that. Another is:
"Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."
homeforsummer's point was quite clear. "Belief" is required where proof (or testability) does not exist, but where proof (or testability) exists - or "science" - there is no requirement for belief. Thus, while many scientists do indeed believe in certain things, belief is not a part of science.
Falling back on more favourable dictionary definitions to redefine the words he used, to the exclusion of the meaning of the statement, is unbecoming of someone who "studied logic at the University level".
For anyone who did not understand that 'Standard Model of the Big Bang', also means, 'Standard Big Bang Model', I apologise. For everyone else who read my post and understood that I was clearly making the distinction from Hawking's unbounded model, thank you for being charitable.
If anyone still does not know that there is a thing called 'The Standard Model of The Big Bang', you may be interested in reading a book called:
'Our Cosmic Origins', published by Cambridge University Press. The part of interest is appendix E which is titled: 'The Standard Model of The Big Bang'.
I am correct then, that there is such a thing as 'The Standard Model of The Big Bang'.
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511549199&cid=CBO9780511549199A117
If I have broken any rules of this form, please inform me and give me the chance to correct myself. Otherwise, we should all agree now that I was correct in using the term, 'The Standard Model of The Big Bang'. I apologise if I use terms which are used by academic writers, and which may not be known by others.
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~pettini/Physical Cosmology/lecture16.pdf
Here is a quote from that link, by a University lecturer on cosmology:
"The fact that
b;0(CMB) =
b;0(BBNS)
is a remarkable success of the standard model of the Big Bang,"
As for the unbounded model, it has no well-defined singularity, because time and space converge. As for my use of the BGV Theorem, it is also their use of their theorem. It is independent of the physical constraints or constants of the Universe at planck time.
As for the definition of belief, perhaps it was clear to homeforsummer that 'belief' refers to unfounded opinion. I had hoped it was just as clear when I said that scientists believe certain theories, that they weren't just having unfounded opinions. I used the term first, and I used it with it's primary meaning. Homeforsummer implied that 'beliefs' are unfounded or non-reasonable. I was attempting to show him/her how I was using the word, and that my usage of it is proper. It it is desired for me to use a different word, I will be happy to oblige.
If any of this was 'unbecoming', I hope to be more charitable in the future. I have given reason for the legitimacy of the words I have used, and hopefully we can focus on the arguments.
I believe that the only thing we are left to argue are the implications of the BGV Theorem, and the Standard Model of the Big Bang -- which is also often called the Standard Big Bang Model.
kind regards
If anyone still does not know that there is a thing called 'The Standard Model of The Big Bang', you may be interested in reading a book called:
'Our Cosmic Origins', published by Cambridge University Press. The part of interest is appendix E which is titled: 'The Standard Model of The Big Bang'.
I am correct then, that there is such a thing as 'The Standard Model of The Big Bang'.
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511549199&cid=CBO9780511549199A117
If I have broken any rules of this form, please inform me and give me the chance to correct myself. Otherwise, we should all agree now that I was correct in using the term, 'The Standard Model of The Big Bang'. I apologise if I use terms which are used by academic writers, and which may not be known by others.
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~pettini/Physical Cosmology/lecture16.pdf
Here is a quote from that link, by a University lecturer on cosmology:
"The fact that
b;0(CMB) =
b;0(BBNS)
is a remarkable success of the standard model of the Big Bang,"
As for the unbounded model, it has no well-defined singularity, because time and space converge. As for my use of the BGV Theorem, it is also their use of their theorem. It is independent of the physical constraints or constants of the Universe at planck time.
As for the definition of belief, perhaps it was clear to homeforsummer that 'belief' refers to unfounded opinion. I had hoped it was just as clear when I said that scientists believe certain theories, that they weren't just having unfounded opinions. I used the term first, and I used it with it's primary meaning. Homeforsummer implied that 'beliefs' are unfounded or non-reasonable. I was attempting to show him/her how I was using the word, and that my usage of it is proper. It it is desired for me to use a different word, I will be happy to oblige.
If any of this was 'unbecoming', I hope to be more charitable in the future. I have given reason for the legitimacy of the words I have used, and hopefully we can focus on the arguments.
I believe that the only thing we are left to argue are the implications of the BGV Theorem, and the Standard Model of the Big Bang -- which is also often called the Standard Big Bang Model.
kind regards
Last edited:
SuperCobraJet
(Banned)
- 2,472
- Virginia USA
- SuperCobraJet1
Sorry, but I disagree.
Guilt is not a behaviour, but an emotion that can affect behaviour.
It can be learned but only in concert with one's individual makeup.
You just gave a good example of why.
Most psychopaths are very intelligent, so they are plenty capable of learning.
To the contrary, its very right.
Thank God for guilt.
A world full of psychopaths, would be a very scary thing.
Guilt is a product of the heart, not the head.
I think you are confusing guilt with her reaction to your displeasure.
I don't think she knows that what she is doing is wrong, as much as she knows you don't like it and will react accordingly.
Real guilt is when your are sorry for what you did, not sorry you got caught.
They don't have any freewill at all.
They are completely subject to their instincts.
Hi Niky
I was responding to the question of if I have seen God or not. It seems you and I agree, that we need not see something in order to have good reasons for thinking it exists. I am glad we agree.
As for the probability of God's existence, you presuppose what is called the frequentist view of probability. Today, many more mathematicians affirm the possibility of intrinsic possibilities. If you still affirm the frequentist view, you may enjoy the agnostic physicist Paul Davies books, which explain why even on a frequentist view of probability, many physicists think God probably exists. As for intrinsic probabilities, you may like to consider the case of infinity as used in science. The law of parsimony acts upon the assumption that simpler explanations are intrinsically more probable than more complex explanations. We do not have a frequentist probability for believing in the heliocentric model instead of the geocentric model, but we still affirm the heliocentric model as more probably true. Regardless, there are arguments and reasons for thinking God exists, which we haven't even begun to address yet. We can consider the case of the world ensemble theory later if you like.
Kind regards
I was responding to the question of if I have seen God or not. It seems you and I agree, that we need not see something in order to have good reasons for thinking it exists. I am glad we agree.
As for the probability of God's existence, you presuppose what is called the frequentist view of probability. Today, many more mathematicians affirm the possibility of intrinsic possibilities. If you still affirm the frequentist view, you may enjoy the agnostic physicist Paul Davies books, which explain why even on a frequentist view of probability, many physicists think God probably exists. As for intrinsic probabilities, you may like to consider the case of infinity as used in science. The law of parsimony acts upon the assumption that simpler explanations are intrinsically more probable than more complex explanations. We do not have a frequentist probability for believing in the heliocentric model instead of the geocentric model, but we still affirm the heliocentric model as more probably true. Regardless, there are arguments and reasons for thinking God exists, which we haven't even begun to address yet. We can consider the case of the world ensemble theory later if you like.
Kind regards
- 87,886
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It doesn't.
Just as "theory" doesn't mean "idea".
Bolded is where you're going wrong.
In a title it would be capitalised - titles traditionally capitalise all but syntax words. But there is no "Standard Model of the Big Bang". There's a "standard model of the Big Bang". The Standard Model deals with subatomic particles and the non-gravitational forces that govern their interactions. The standard model of the Big Bang is a chronological explanation of the events between 0 + Planck Time and the present day - which invokes the Standard Model (along with general relativity) in parts.
More to the point, the singularity is not "well-defined" because the measurements required to define it don't exist. There is no space so you cannot say how big it is.
"Unbounded", in this instance, does not mean "without limits". It means "the boundaries do not exist". The Hartle-Hawking singularity is still sub-Planck, but dimensionless due to the non-existence of dimensions.
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin simply gives a start point to the universe's inflationary stage. Hartle-Hawking defines that point as being dimensionless. There is no conflict between the two.
homeforsummer's point was, still, very clear that there is no need to "believe certain theories" because they are testable and have evidence. Those who have not availed themselves of the evidence can believe in them if they wish, but it's not a requirement.
For the usage to be "proper" you will need to demonstrate that someone who accepts that which has been proven to be true is exhibiting the same behaviour as someone who thinks something for which there is no evidence is true - you argued that they have equal weight and both are reasonable positions.
You should probably read the context.
TankAss's point was that we are immediately capable of sinning once we have learned how to feel guilt - feeling guilty means you are smart enough to know what is wrong, according to him. Since psychopaths demonstrably know what is wrong but feel no guilt, the existence of the feeling of guilt is not an indicator of being smart enough to know what is wrong.
The heart doesn't have any products. It takes oxygenated blood produced by the lungs and pumps it to the rest of the body, while taking deoxygenated blood produced by the rest of the body and pumps it to the lungs.
Guilt is a product of the prefrontal cortex - the higher function processor of the brain, which governs behaviour. Emotion is a product of the limbic system.
Which is amusing, since she does it without us even knowing she's done anything wrong. It's often the first indicator that she's done something wrong, which leads us to investigate where she's been recently to find out what it is...
Yes. They feel the need to do something and they just do it. Ultimate free will.
- 249
- Ireland
- firstmivec
Here's some more information on that subject.
First, let us review the key elements in the account of the creation of the first man. Regarding adam, the bible says: “ god proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (genesis 2:7)
“the first man is out of the earth and made of dust.” “the first man adam became a living soul.” (ge 2:7; 1co 15:45, 47) that was in the year 4026 b.c.e.
Is this statement scientifically credible?
the book nanomedicine states that the human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements—carbon, iron, oxygen, and others—are all present in the “dust” of the earth. Thus, as genesis states, humans truly are formed “out of dust from the ground.”how did those lifeless building blocks come together to form a living human? To illustrate the enormity of the challenge, consider the nasa space shuttle, one of the most complex machines ever devised. This technological marvel contains a staggering 2.5 million parts. It took teams of engineers years to design and put it together. Now consider the human body. It is made up of some 7 octillion atoms, 100 trillion cells, dozens of organs, and at least 9 major organ systems. How did this biological machine of mind-boggling complexity and superb structure come to be? By blind chance or by intelligent design? Moreover, what makes humans live? Where does the spark of life come from? Scientists confess that they do not know. In fact, they cannot even agree on an acceptable definition of life. To those who accept the idea of a creator, the conclusion is obvious. The source, of course, is god.
What of the description in genesis that eve was fashioned from adam’s rib? (genesis 2:21-23)
Were adam and eve merely allegorical (fictional) persons?
Is it unreasonable to believe that all of us descended from the same original parents?
Definition: adam was the first human creature. The hebrew term ’a•dham′ is also properly translated “man,” “earthling man,” and “mankind.” eve, the first woman, was adam’s wife
“science now corroborates what most great religions have long been preaching: Human beings of all races are . . . Descended from the same first man.”—heredity in humans (philadelphia and new york, 1972), amram scheinfeld, p. 238.
“The bible story of adam and eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: That all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.”—the races of mankind (new york, 1978), ruth benedict and gene weltfish, p. 3.
Acts 17:26: “[god] made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.”
- Does the bible present adam simply as an allegorical character representing all early mankind?
luke 3:23-38: “jesus himself, when he commenced his work, was about thirty years old, being the . . . Son of david . . . Son of abraham . . . Son of adam.” (david and abraham are well-known historical persons. So is it not reasonable to conclude that adam was a real person?)
gen. 5:3: “adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name seth.” (seth certainly was not fathered by all early men, nor did all early men father sons at 130 years of age.)
Today, many dismiss the bible account of adam and eve as mere myth. Yet, most scientists acknowledge that the human race is a single family with a common origin. Many theologians find it impossible to deny that the effects of original sin committed by a common ancestor were transmitted to mankind. Belief that man developed from more than one source would oblige them to say that an original sin was committed by several forefathers. In turn, this would compel them to deny that christ, “the last adam,” redeemed mankind. But jesus and his disciples did not face such a dilemma. They recognized that the genesis account is factual.—1 corinthians 15:22, 45; genesis 1:27; 2:24; matthew 19:4, 5; romans 5:12-19.
If “the first man adam” was simply allegorical, what about “the last adam,” jesus christ?
1 cor. 15:45, 47: “it is even so written: ‘the first man adam became a living soul.’ the last adam became a life-giving spirit. The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven.” (thus denial that adam was a real person who sinned against god implies doubt as to the identity of jesus christ. Such denial leads to rejection of the reason it was necessary for jesus to give his life for mankind.
How did jesus himself view the genesis account?
matt. 19:4, 5: “[jesus] said: ‘did you not read [at genesis 1:27; 2:24] that he who created them [adam and eve] from the beginning made them male and female and said, “for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh”?’” (since jesus believed the genesis account to be factual, should we not believe it too?)
Jesus christ, the most credible witness in the bible, acknowledged the existence of adam and eve. When challenged on the subject of divorce, jesus answered: “from the beginning of creation ‘[god] made them male and female. On this account a man will leave his father and mother, and the two will be one flesh’ . . . Therefore what god yoked together let no man put apart.” (mark 10:6-9) would jesus use an allegory to establish a binding legal precedent? No! Jesus quoted genesis as fact.
In addition, again and again the bible presents adam and eve as real human beings, not as mythical characters. Here are some examples:
• “[god] made out of one man every nation of men.”—acts 17:26.
• “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus . . . Death ruled as king from adam down to moses.”—romans 5:12, 14.
• “the first man adam became a living soul.”—1 corinthians 15:45.
• “adam was formed first, then eve.”—1 timothy 2:13.
• “the seventh one in line from adam, enoch, prophesied also regarding [the wicked].”—jude 14.
The bible supplies a complete, documented record of genealogy reaching from the first century of the common era all the way back to the first humans. (luke 3:23-38; genesis 5:1-32; 11:10-32) as our first ancestors, adam and eve had a definite influence on us. And what the bible tells us about them helps us to understand the circumstances that affect our lives today.
The Domino Effect
Many sincere churchgoers think that belief in Adam and Eve is not essential to being a good Christian. On the surface, this might appear to be the case. But let us follow this line of reasoning and see where it would lead us.
Consider, for example, a Bible doctrine dear to the heart of most churchgoers—the ransom. According to this teaching, Jesus Christ gave his perfect human life as a ransom to save people from their sins. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16) As we know, a ransom is a payment of a corresponding value to redeem or buy back something lost or forfeited. That is why the Bible describes Jesus as “a corresponding ransom.” (1 Timothy 2:6) Corresponding to what, we might ask? The Bible answers: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22) The perfect life that Jesus sacrificed to redeem obedient mankind corresponds to the perfect life that Adam lost as a result of the original sin in Eden. (Romans 5:12) Clearly, if Adam did not exist, Christ’s ransom sacrifice would be rendered completely meaningless.
Rejecting or trivializing the Genesis account about Adam and Eve creates a domino effect that undermines nearly every major teaching in the Bible! Such a way of thinking leads to a host of unanswered questions and a faith with nothing to stand on.—Hebrews 11:1.
Last edited:
- 29,452
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Neither.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Actually, we don't agree at all. I was pointing out the massive difference between belief in something which we know is possible because physics predicts it and we have examples to draw from... and belief in something for which we have no evidence and which no model which describes reality with any reasonable accuracy predicts.
And the heliocentric model? Uh... When did we wind the clock backwards? Last I looked, this was the 21st Century...
Have you even read what you posted? your quotes claim the geneaological tree in Genesis is factual and applies to all humans. Unfortunately, for it to apply to us Asians, too, it would have to be a few hundred thousand years longer than it is.
Wonderful how we come from dust, eh? And yet we are not made of silicone...
...or quartz... or gold...
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
I felt a need for an epilogue to the end of the discussion I have been having with others on this thread.
I believe that Christianity is true because of my personal witness of the self-authenticating Holy Spirit upon my heart. I do not believe in God because of any of the arguments I have brought to your attention, rather I thought that using them may help the unbeliever to come to know God. Please understand that, should my arguments have been weak or unconvincing to you, that is my problem and not God's. It only would show that I am a poor apologist - not that God doesn't love and care for you.
I believe that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life and I would rejoice for anyone to come to know Him and enjoy the same kind of relationship that I, along with many others have with Him. I promise that if you sincerely seek God you will find Him, no matter how long it may take.
And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-10)
Thanks. I will still read this thread because I am very interested in the discussion.
I believe that Christianity is true because of my personal witness of the self-authenticating Holy Spirit upon my heart. I do not believe in God because of any of the arguments I have brought to your attention, rather I thought that using them may help the unbeliever to come to know God. Please understand that, should my arguments have been weak or unconvincing to you, that is my problem and not God's. It only would show that I am a poor apologist - not that God doesn't love and care for you.
I believe that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life and I would rejoice for anyone to come to know Him and enjoy the same kind of relationship that I, along with many others have with Him. I promise that if you sincerely seek God you will find Him, no matter how long it may take.
And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-10)
Thanks. I will still read this thread because I am very interested in the discussion.
Strittan
Premium
- 4,133
- Sweden
- Strittan
First of all, it's not the first time you take farewell in this thread, and secondly, I don't think you're interested in the discussion at all, because if you had learned anything from the discussion, you wouldn't have posted what you just did.
I'm kinda curious though, why you have kept coming back and posted in this thread as many times as you have, because all you do is desperately trying to shove The Bible up atheist's bottoms, and you very rarely (if ever) make sense doing so.
- 249
- Ireland
- firstmivec
Have you even read what you posted? your quotes claim the geneaological tree in Genesis is factual and applies to all humans. Unfortunately, for it to apply to us Asians, too, it would have to be a few hundred thousand years longer than it is.
Wonderful how we come from dust, eh? And yet we are not made of silicone...
Hmm.. anyway here's some more information on that subject.
The origin of language & race
Gen. 9:18, 19: Noahs sons who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth. . . . These three were Noahs sons, and from these was all the earths population spread abroad. (After God destroyed the ungodly world by means of a global flood in Noahs day, the earths new population, including all the races known today, developed from the offspring of Noahs three sons and their wives.) Thus, after listing 70 offspring of the sons of Noah, the Genesis account says: From these the nations were spread about in the earth.Ge 10:32.
Up until some point after the global flood of Noahs day, all mankind continued to be of one language and of one set of words. (Gen. 11:1) The Genesis account describes the uniting of some part of the post-Flood human family in a project opposed to Gods will. Instead of spreading out and filling the earth, they wanted to centralize human society. They now said: Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth.Genesis 11:4. They concentrated on a site that became known as the plains of Shinar in Mesopotamia. Evidently this was also to become a religious center, with a religious tower. (Gen. 9:1; 11:2-4) However, Almighty God broke up their project. He did this by confusing their common language. This made impossible any coordinated work on their project. It led to their scattering to all parts of the earth.Gen. 11:6-9
Historians
Historians have long pointed to the plains of Mesopotamia as the original home of civilization and language. This, in fact, is in full agreement with what is recorded in the Bible. The book of Genesis, in chapter 11, describes an event that took place in the land of Shinar, in Mesopotamia, which provides the needed clue to our investigation.
Available non-Biblical evidence is in harmony with this account. Concerning the focal point from which the spreading of ancient languages began, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Oriental language scholar, observed: If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.
In the book After Its Kind, Byron C. Nelson says: It was man that was made, not the Negro, the Chinese, the European. Two human beings whom the Bible knows as Adam and Eve were created, out of whom by natural descent and variation have come all the varieties of men that are on the face of the earth. All races of men, regardless of color or size, are one natural species. They all think alike, feel alike, are alike in physical structure, readily intermarry, and are capable of reproducing others of the same character. All races are descended from two common ancestors who came full-formed from the hand of the Creator. This is the testimony of Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:7, 20-23; 3:20; Acts 17:26; and Romans 5:12.
What explains the development of the various racial characteristics?
All men living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and are derived from a common stock. . . . Biological differences between human beings are due to differences in hereditary constitution and to the influence of the environment on this genetic potential. In most cases, those differences are due to the interaction of these two sets of factors. . . . Differences between individuals within a race or within a population are often greater than the average differences between races or populations.An international body of scientists convened by UNESCO, quoted in Statement on Race (New York, 1972, third ed.), Ashley Montagu, pp. 149, 150
A race is simply one of the partially isolated gene pools into which the human species came to be divided during and following its early geographical spread. Roughly one race has developed on each of the five major continental areas of the earth. . . . Man did indeed diverge genetically during this phase of history and we can measure and study the results of this divergence in what remains today of the old geographical races. As we would expect, divergence appears to be correlated with the degree of isolation. . . . When race formation took place on the continents, with the bottlenecking of thousands of populations in isolated gene pools all over the world, the gene-frequency differences we now see were established. . . . The paradox which faces us is that each group of humans appears to be externally different yet underneath these differences there is fundamental similarity. (Heredity and Human Life, New York, 1963, H. L. Carson, pp. 151, 154, 162, 163) (Thus, early in human history, when a group of people were isolated from others and married within the group, certain distinctive combinations of genetic traits were emphasized in their offspring.)
HOW HUMAN VARIETY CAME TO BE
It is apparent that a better understanding of racial differences is needed to help us to temper our reactions. An examination of how these differences originated will help us to react in a realistic and moral way, rather than to be swayed by extremists.
You might reasonably ask at this point, Where did the races with their clearly defined characteristics, so different from one another, come from? How do you explain the tall Scandinavians with their fair skin and blond hair, or the stocky Eskimo with their thick black hair, flattened noses and slanted eyes.
In answer, scientific studies have shown that differences among living things are, basically, a matter of genetics (genes are minute particles that determine heredity). The potential for variety is inherent in all living things, including man. Says Zoologist Ernst Mayr: To speak of pure races is sheer nonsense. Variability is inherent in any natural population.
Now to help understand how the races developed from this variability, let us illustrate: Did you know that horticulturists have been able to isolate certain variations in plants, such as exceptional size? They can then develop strains of those plants that all have that same feature. To apply this illustration to man, suppose a group of people were isolated geographically from the rest of the human family, just as the horticulturist isolates a strain of plants with which he is working. Certain characteristics among those people would become stronger, or dominant, throughout the groups descendants. Eventually a new race would develop, yet it would remain human.
That this is exactly what happened is documented scientifically and historically. Professor S. A. Barnett, zoologist at the Australian National University, defines race as a group which shares in common a certain set of genes, and which became distinct from other groups as a result of geographical isolation. Scientists can only guess how this geographical isolation came about. But there is one historical source that fits all the facts available.
Let us focus our attention back on the time when there were not, as yet, any races. According to the historical report, it could be said of mankind that they are all a single people with a single language! (Genesis 11:6 ) In agreement with this, Professor of Zoology L. C. Dunn says that there may have been a time when the human race was actually one marriage community, because even today all races have many of their genes in common, as though they had all obtained them from a common source.
However, an attempt was made to keep mankind in one location for religiopolitical purposes (as mentioned above) It failed. Had this attempt been successful, men would not have spread rapidly over the earth. But the Creators purpose for mankind differed. He expressed it not long before: Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.Gen. 9:1; see also 1:28.
Was this purpose to be realized? Yes, very effectively. The Creator suddenly caused men to speak different languages so they could not understand one another. What better way to make them separate? Picture what must have taken place: Unable to communicate as one people, little groups, now isolated by the barrier of language, moved off on their own. As they spread farther afield, distance added another barrier to communication. The record of these events says that God scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth. (Gen. 11:8) Isolated by location and by language, the descendants of each group multiplied and developed the distinct features of their race.
A question that may come up here is: Have the races become so different from one another that each one is another species? Zoologist Mayr makes this comment in answer:
All the different kinds of living man on the face of the earth belong to a single species. . . . As a matter of fact, the various races of man are less different from each other than are the subspecies of many . . . animals. Yet a few misguided individuals have . . . divided him into five or six separate species by using such artificial criteria as white, yellow, red, or black skin color. Such a division . . . is completely contrary to the biological species concept.
Thus we can see how very accurately the Bible record parallels the known facts. As the apostle Paul plainly stated to the men of Athens in the first century of our Common Era, God made out of one man every nation of men. Or, as The New English Bible puts it: He created every race of men of one stock, to inhabit the whole earths surface.Acts 17:22-26.
UNESCO Declarations
Perhaps the most authoritative scientific declarations on race were made by a group of experts gathered together by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). Meetings were held in 1950, 1951, 1964, and 1967 at which an international panel of anthropologists, zoologists, doctors, anatomists, and others jointly produced four statements on race. The final statement emphasized the following three points:
A All men living today belong to the same species and descend from the same stock. This point is confirmed by an even more eminent authority. The Bible says: [God] made out of one man [Adam] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.Acts 17:26.
The UNESCO statement continues:
B The division of the human species into races is partly conventional and partly arbitrary and does not imply any hierarchy whatsoever. . . .
C Current biological knowledge does not permit us to impute cultural achievements to differences in genetic potential. Differences in the achievements of different peoples should be attributed solely to their cultural history. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potentialities for attaining any level of civilization.
____
The publication The Races of Mankind, by anthropologists R. Benedict and G. Weltfish, observes: The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin. These writers also point out that the intricate make-up of the human body couldnt possibly have just happened to be the same in all men if they did not have a common origin.
The pamphlet Race and Biology, by L. C. Dunn, professor of zoology at Columbia University, says: All men clearly belong to one species, being alike in all the fundamental physical characters. Members of all groups may intermarry and actually do. Then it goes on to explain: Yet every man is unique and differs in minor ways from every other man. This is in part due to the different environments in which people live and in part to differences in the genes which they have inherited.
Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as a superior or an inferior race, a pure or a contaminated race. Characteristics such as the colour of ones skin, hair, or eyesthings that some may consider racially importantare no indication of ones intelligence or abilities. Rather, they are the results of genetic inheritance.
Indeed, racial differences are minimal, as Hampton L. Carson writes in Heredity and Human Life: The paradox which faces us is that each group of humans appears to be externally different yet underneath these differences there is fundamental similarity.
- 87,886
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Lifted from Yahoo! Answers, uncited?
Well, I'm convinced.
Well, I'm convinced.
- 7,638
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Guessing doesn't count. The Bible got lucky and picked something that's close to the answer, but how it got there is ridiculous.
Also, none of this stopped the church from treating other races or cultures differently.
As evolution explains. Humans evolved in Africa or there about, then migrated. Enough time passed for them to develop different traits, cultures, and languages, and that led to today.
- 249
- Ireland
- firstmivec
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,348
- United States
- 87,886
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It predates your exact same answer (word for word) by 3 years. So "yes".
Of course portions of that answer also appear, word for word, in earlier texts, including an implausibly mindless "have you been brainwashed by evolution" short essay from 35 years ago.
Either way, you copied those sources and did not cite them. That's plagiarism.
- 31,748
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Hi Niky,
Someone implied to me that we need to see a thing before we can believe it exists. I think that we csn believe a thing exists, if we have good evidence -- even if we haven't seen it. Do you agree that we are justified in believing something to exist if we have evidence, even if we haven't seen it? If so, then I am glad we agree. Perhaps you think that there is no evidence for God. It is possible to think that, and still believe that we can think things exist which we haven't seen, as long as we have evidence.
Kind regards
Someone implied to me that we need to see a thing before we can believe it exists. I think that we csn believe a thing exists, if we have good evidence -- even if we haven't seen it. Do you agree that we are justified in believing something to exist if we have evidence, even if we haven't seen it? If so, then I am glad we agree. Perhaps you think that there is no evidence for God. It is possible to think that, and still believe that we can think things exist which we haven't seen, as long as we have evidence.
Kind regards
- 23,800
- Philippines
If you read further back in the thread, I have posted something or another to the effect that "seeing is not believing".
Evidence must be looked at with an open mind. Open, not in the sense that you are willing to accept explanations for said evidence that are fantastic, but in the sense that you are willing to discard any preconceived notions of what that evidence might suggest.
People see lights in the sky and see it as evidence of aliens. Refusing to consider the possibility that these lights are evidence for car lights reflected off the sky... heat inversion mirages (and it's usually heat inversion mirages)... birds or bats... experimental aircraft... meteors... balloons... time travellers... superheroes holding a rave... or perhaps, simply... regular airplanes.
"Evidence for God" would be very difficult. Perhaps a hole in space-time hanging stationary against the night sky spelling out the number "42" would suffice. Perhaps the rapture. But each of these would be evidence of the possibility of the phenomena themselves, not the totality of what we consider "God".
Which is why I neither believe or disbelieve. There is no convincing evidence for traditional Gods, like Yahweh/Allah/Jehovah or Brahmin... and plenty against. And there is no evidence either for or against God the Prime Mover, simply because, as we have stated, Physics cannot predict or model what lies beyond the Universe.
Evidence must be looked at with an open mind. Open, not in the sense that you are willing to accept explanations for said evidence that are fantastic, but in the sense that you are willing to discard any preconceived notions of what that evidence might suggest.
People see lights in the sky and see it as evidence of aliens. Refusing to consider the possibility that these lights are evidence for car lights reflected off the sky... heat inversion mirages (and it's usually heat inversion mirages)... birds or bats... experimental aircraft... meteors... balloons... time travellers... superheroes holding a rave... or perhaps, simply... regular airplanes.
"Evidence for God" would be very difficult. Perhaps a hole in space-time hanging stationary against the night sky spelling out the number "42" would suffice. Perhaps the rapture. But each of these would be evidence of the possibility of the phenomena themselves, not the totality of what we consider "God".
Which is why I neither believe or disbelieve. There is no convincing evidence for traditional Gods, like Yahweh/Allah/Jehovah or Brahmin... and plenty against. And there is no evidence either for or against God the Prime Mover, simply because, as we have stated, Physics cannot predict or model what lies beyond the Universe.
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
Err... hang on there for a second. After accusing me of making strawman arguments (which I didn't - your initial arguments were logical fallacies word-for-word, I just presented them in a clearer format), you've done a pretty good job of utterly twisting what I said before.
What I actually said was:
...which is nothing like saying we need to "see a thing before we can believe it exists".
My point is that we don't have "good evidence" to suggest that God exists. Certainly nothing that's more compelling than other evidence that suggests how things work without God.
Science doesn't require "belief" to explain how something works. In fact, you could argue that science would be better with belief completely removed, as having belief that a certain result can be expected could skew the testing procedure - I'd not normally bring it up myself, but exaggerated climate change figures are a good example of this, changing the testing procedure to ensure the result matches the believed norm.
This is exactly what pseudoscience does. It takes a result - our knowledge of the big bang, for example - and then twists vaguely plausible scientific processes to make it look like God was the inevitable propagator of such an event. It's making the process fit the results.
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
- 24,066
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
*fixed*
Similar threads
