Which I just did and ... hey... I typed Pharaoh and he was not on the quiz but he appears on the list! :P
...And yet they sadly wonder why some are deleted.
I suggest an easy version with Most Popular Names, in order of appaerance and including Ben Hur or Charlton Heston.
(Richard Gere played a bible character also, didnt he?)
Please edit that quiz to be more accurate.
Personally, I prefer the pagan gods of old Europe, they too were very silly and fickle, but at least they had the good grace to not pretend they were anything else. Silly bible.
I say, "one of the many..." because I will not believe that Jehovah is a misogenist or that there is any reason why Jesus could not have been married. Yet no mention is made of this in our present bible.
Apply to become a priest today
Or something like that.
Yeah, I can't think of a good one either
What's the point of your football analogy? Are you suggesting there is a point in time at which the Universe will be exactly half it's final age, so it must have a beginning, in order to have a final age, in order to have a "half-time" age,....? That is a little logical fallacy called begging the question.
Your whole bit about inextricably linking space with time needs some more explaining before I understand what you're trying to say but just because something is beyond our comprehension doesn't make it false and why do you think time would no longer be time if it were infinite?
Also, I think you miss the meaning of my football analogy. I was not implying that the universe has a halfway point in that, I was merely stating that in order for time to reach the present, it has to have a beginning. If time has no beginning, it becomes impossible to reach right now, because there if an infinite amount of time that has to pass before it can get to the present.
P1- Everything that exists in the Universe had a cause
P2- The Universe exists
C- The Universe had a cause
Problems with this argument include the fact that the Universe is not in the Universe and so the conclusion does not follow the premises.
If you are trying to argue for God as a first cause (quote "hence religion") then your own argument precludes the possibility - if everything that exists had a cause, and God had no cause, then God does not exist. If God exists with no cause then it undermines your first proposition (that everything had a cause) and removes the necessity for God in the first place.
I don't know where you are getting this 0=5 thing from or what you are trying to prove with it, nor why you are trying to show that time cannot exist without space and vice versa. And again, just because the Universe had a beginning, does not necessarily mean it will have an end
My assuming that God is the first cause does not underming my first proposition. If my first proposition was that everything has a cause, it would, but that was not my proposition. Everything that comprises the universe has a cause. God is not a part of the universe, so he does not fall into the same rules. Since we are part of the universe, this is hard to comprehend, but as you pointed out earlier, "Just because something is beyond out comprehension doesn't make it false." I was using the 0=5 argument to portray that the universe could not cause itself to exist, which I think we agree on. I was linking space and time to prove that the universe cannot be infinite, which I think we also agree on.
You are even stating that your God, being a God which exists as an entity which is not part of the Universe, does not need a cause - why are you then assuming that the Universe does require a cause when it is not itself a part of the Universe?
We certainly do not agree that the Universe could not “cause itself” - I have no idea why the Universe came into existence (or even if there is a why), the difference is that you are stating that you do believe you know but you are basing that belief on knowledge which you cannot possibly have. I also haven't suggested that I don't believe the Universe can be infinite – quite the opposite, I have stated that just because it had a beginning does not mean that it must have an end.
We seem to have different definitions of infinite. By my definition, infinite is going endlessly in both directions, past and present, like a line on a graph. By yours, infinite is going endlessly in one direction. It is irrevelant whose definition is right; we both are saying the universe had a beginning.
And thanks for the format info.
No, we do not. You are assuming it and I am saying that the assumption is not justified - we simply cannot know whether the Universe is subject to the same laws as what it contains.
You may find this interesting - First Cause
This, I think, is your argument for the universe. Since it is beyond our level of understanding, and probably always will be, it could also be exempt from the laws of reality. This I cannot deny. The universe could be outside the laws of our reality, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Granted it is not hard to confuse me, but I can't believe in what seems impossible without any evidence to support it.
But anyway, if you are going to talk about an omnipotent God then we can disprove that right now - could an omnipotent God create a rock too heavy for that God itself to lift? No: not omnipotent as it can't create the rock. Yes: not omnipotent as it can't lift the rock.
"You can't believe in what seems impossible without any evidence to support it" - but that is exactly what belief in a God is...
The real question is can God create a contradiction. He cannot.
As to a belief in god being without evidence, I will pull from Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." If you found a pencil laying on the ground, you could reason that a tree didn't grow around a stick of lead and then break off forming a sharp point, which then fell onto a precisely accurate piece of cylindrical rubber encased with metal. No, someone made it.
You raise a good point with the first part of your post though - if we were going to have any kind of sensible discussion about religion, God, etc then we would first need to define what your supernatural beliefs are, including what you believe the nature of your God to be. Until we do that we cannot be sure that we are talking about the same thing and it would be tempting to think that defining words after an argument is raised could potentially be a case of moving the goalposts
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
He descended into hell;
on the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from there He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
I am a Protestant believer. I believe in the total depravity of man, and that it is by God's grace alone that any men show some semblance of good. I believe that all men are condemned by sin, and that we can be justified before God not by our works, but by the works of our Messiah, Jesus Christ, who died and took ownership of, and responsibility for, my sins.
I am not ashamed of these beliefs, and am willing to defend them, by the grace of God.
If you truly believe that you do indeed have even a semblance of empirically evinced evidence for the existence of any form of supernatural truth, then please explain why you hold the specific beliefs which you have purported to be true - i.e. why you are a Christian (and seemingly a staunch Bibliolatrist) rather than a Hindu, Parsi,
Jedi, Pastafarian or other. I mean really, the tripe that your last 2 posts consists of reads like a supernatural, horror B-movie at best
Where do you get off presuming the "total depravity of man" and how dare you condemn others with such a sweeping statement? You may be that psychologically damaged but you have no justification in assuming that others are similarly tarnished.
"they are responsible for their own decisions", while at the same time claiming that "it is by God's grace alone
that any men show some semblance of good" and that "everything that comes to pass is preordained by God".
So which is it? It seems that with your God it's a case of being damned if you do and damned if you don't.
That is not the mark of any kind of God that I would want to put any faith in.
Make your mind up - are you Catholic ("I believe in ... Holy Catholic Church") or Protestant ("I am a Protestant believer")? You can't truly be both.
As for empirically derived justification, I believe in two forms, that is Natural and Special revelation. Natural revelation can be seen all around us- it is the convincing factor for spirituality in general. Before fancy science came about, everyone believed in a god of some type. Now I'm not saying science is bad; in fact I believe that science further justifies belief in God- but more on that later. Natural revelation, or simply nature, defies the theory of evolution(which is oddly recognized as fact by the scientific community despite their claims that science cannot prove fact) and rebukes the idea that Earth was a cosmic accident. The biodiversity found on Earth portrays not random mutations of genes, but life that was created to survive and thrive.
Special Revelation, or the Bible, convinces me more or natural revelation and is the reason I am not a Hindu, starwarsguy, Buddhist, etc. I simply believe that everything in the Bible is true, and after reading it and many other things written by men, believe that there is simply no comparison between the writing.
Speaking of animals, surely you can see the difference between humans and animals? For one, clothing. Humans cover their dishonorable parts, and no animals do likewise. Humans make complex contraptions to simplify work. Humans domesticate animals. Harness animals. This is not the work of evolution. If so, what sets us apart? Brain size? Thumbs?
As for being Catholic or Protestant, you are mistaken. Catholic means worldwide, so when I say I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, I believe in the worldwide fellowship of believers. Very different from Roman Catholic, in which I agree- you cannot be Roman Catholic and Protestant.
Wow, where to start... Revelation, special or natural, is not evidence - it is merely assertion. You "feel like" the only explanation for Life, the Universe and Everything is your God, and the world "looks like" it couldn't exist without your God, therefore you believe your God is the only explanation. That is not evidence.
Natural revelation is not "simply nature” - that is a fallacy of equivocation and if we are being generous then we can assume that you were not intentionally being misleading. Scientific observations of biology in nature very strongly support the theory of evolution, of which much of what you wrote is not even wrong. And FYI, evolution has now actually been observed taking place - Lenski experiment.
What makes you Christian - other religions purport special revelation and have their own sacred texts so that is really no explanation, again it is no more than assertion. Considering the historical and scientific inaccuracies, the frequently self-contradictory details and the terrible moral teachings, the Bible clearly can’t be empirically true (inaccuracies) or relatively true (contradictions), and even if it were consistent and accurate any reasonable person wouldn’t want it to be true (bad morals).
What are you talking about? Humans are animals – Genus: Homo, Family: Hominidae…. Kingdom: Animalia. That’s a really weird argument - just because we learned to wear clothing (which incidentally we did a long time before Christianity existed) does not make us special in the eyes of some prudish sky censor. Also, we may generally do it better, but other animals have learned to use tools and even farm other animals – as an example, there is a type of ant which farms aphids but I can’t remember what it is called.
TL;DR - assertions are not evidence and attacking one side of a false dichotomy does not promote the other side.
If you observe the things that science generally supports and describe them, this is arrogance, dishonesty, and intentional provocation deserving of punishment and censure.
On the other hand, if you believe yourself to know more about the origins of the Universe than the most brilliant and knowledgeable astrophysicists and cosmologists in the world, discarding their theories in favor of the invisible-magic-man-did-it hypothesis, that's not arrogant at all.
As to honesty- I said nothing at all about zeroes or fives. And the origin of the Universe is irrelevant. The Universe has been around for billions of years. Human religions started to be invented a few thousand years ago. We know pretty well how, where, and why most of these religious traditions began. We can test the empirical claims that each make and find them to be false. And we can acknowledge that, yes, they are all fictions.
That said, apparently only getting half them is a pretty good score on this one!