The Old Testament

[Djevv]

That is *smile* btw, and you know it. Well hopefully you do.

The current consensus is it came from an almost infinitely dense singularity. That is not nothing.

An 'infinitely dense singularity' is science speak for 'we have absolutely no idea where it came from or what it was'. Infinite in our universe has no meaning: in maths it is like saying x/0.

I find it amusing when the OBVIOUS logical conclusion of your beliefs is discussed and you guys hit the roof so to speak. Something from nothing is completely indefensible, and any other belief system is reasonable in comparison.

 

[Djevv]

As Evo points out this is essentially a strawman. Current evidence suggests that the universe is expanding from a singularity (not nothing). Whether it will eventually contract in a cycle is unknown. Whether this is just one universe in a multiverse of expanding and/or contracting universes is unknown. The elephant in the room is explaining how your God exists outside of this reality.

Difficult, but not as difficult as explaining something from nothing.

I do challenge my own preconceptions. I have yet to see you discard the central preconception you have (which has no explanation) and look at reality around you without that theist prism. Dismissing criticisms without addressing them is a lame retort.

You are making the claim, it is up to you to demonstrate the correctness of your claim.

There is nothing like the morality of the Bible in other religions??! You admit that the concepts aren't original....where do you think they were assimilated (to be kind) from?

I made the claim they were originally from the Bible and are Biblical ideas. You have yet to show they originated elsewhere.

So how do YOU discriminate between the error-free message and the error-riddled human element?

You still don't get it, it isn't a work of history or science. It's not error riddled either. The community of Faith interprets it by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think the Jews are big fans of the New Testament (speaking of the Bible as a whole from the Christian perspective). As to how to tell if something is divinely inspired, why not weigh up the evidence? I presented the reasons why I have huge doubts over its divine origins. I have yet to see a reasonable counter to those doubts.

Faith is suck it and see, I'm afraid, Panther. I have made an effort to show both in this thread and the other two that it is a reasonable thing to believe and there are numerous other net apologists as well but if you disagree thats fine by me.

 

[evo]

An 'infinitely dense singularity' is science speak for 'we have absolutely no idea where it came from or what it was'.

Thats right. So then we both agree science doesn't speak about where it came from. It makes no claims on "beginnings"

Infinite in our universe has no meaning: in maths it is like saying x/0.

Not really sure what this means.

I said 'almost' btw.

I find it amusing when the OBVIOUS logical conclusion of your beliefs is discussed and you guys hit the roof so to speak.

How is it obvious?

Something from nothing is completely indefensible, and any other belief system is reasonable in comparison.

You have just admitted it is a strawman--- science doesn't know. Why wouldn't we complain about mendacious forms of argument?

We alll agree something from nothing is indefensable--no one here is defending it-- so why keep bringing it up?

 

[Djevv]

Thats right. So then we both agree science doesn't speak about where it came from. It makes no claims on "beginnings"

The singularity as I understand it was a beginning point - but not a desirable one as it is a scientific impossibility (how can anything be 'infinite' in this universe?) - however I am way outside my field.

Not really sure what this means.

It's a mathematical singularity, try it on a calculator any number divided by 0!

How is it obvious?You have just admitted it is a strawman. Why wouldn't we complain about mendacious forms of argument?

We alll agree something from nothing is indefensable--no one here is defending it-- so why keep brining it up?

The universe MUST have had a beginning scientifically, numerous lines of evidence, a beginningless universe is a furphy. In my worldview the design, concept and energy of the universe came from God - it originated with him. Where did the design and concept come from in your world view - nothing - nature is all there was or ever will be - but it hasn't always been. Where did the energy come from, it can't create itself?

 

[evo]

The universe MUST have had a beginning scientifically,

Why?

And more importantly, why is it assumed that this universe constitutes "everything"? There is no way you can know that.

For example, why can't a bigger universe birth this one; or two dimensions (membranes) banging together create a universe (that is the basic hypothesis M-theory), and so on?

numerous lines of evidence, a beginningless universe is a furphy.

You haven't said why. What lead you to this belief?

In my worldview the design, concept and energy of the universe came from God- it began with him

Well then a beginingless God is a furphy . ;D 8)

Where did the design and concept come from in your world view - nothing -

Not nothing, it always was, and always will be. Nature or "everything" just changes forms, it always has. That is the only thing we can be certain of --"change"--cause and effect. That is the one truism of reality; the transcendental truth, if you like.

You are right though about being no design in my worldview. Why is a 'design' an essential element?

"Nature just is". You can't get any more parsimonious than that.

- nature is all there was or ever will be

Now you are getting the idea. What is wrong with that worldview?

- but it hasn't always been. Where did the energy come from, it can't create itself?

Where does energy come from in your worldview? Oh that's right, God -- very scientific.

 

[jayfox]

You miss the point jayfox. It's not about the whale or the snake legs. They are only examples of how perception, interpretation and assumption could be factors in regard to other things you preach about on here. Who knows how the stories have changed as they've been passed down and translated over the years.

But that's just the point, the Bible has been written in various translations over hundreds of years and the message stays exactly the same. Sure you may substitute "great fish" for "whale" here and there but that is absolute nitpicking, and the guts of the message, the absolute basics of it, i.e. Who God is, the story of Jesus' life and death, how we should live our lives, who goes to Heaven and Hell etc., are exactly the same as they always were, in every translation.

If people want to look for irrelevant, perceived problems that do not in any way change the message of the Bible then I think you are completely missing the message of the Bible, which is sad. We shouldn't be wasting time debating things that are not an issue when there are so many major portions of the Bible which actually do matter.

Ad just for interest sake, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, due to the people who were writing it (i.e. Jews in OT and Gentiles in NT times). The Bible was first translated into English in the 1500's and the most popular tradional version of the Bible, The King James Version, was written in the 1600's and modified to it's current state in 1769. It was the most popular version of the Bible for over 300 years until translations in today's english, like the New International Version, was created. These versions were created because today's people were struggling to understand the text with all the Old English language that was used (thee's thou's etc.).

 

[Djevv]

Why?

And more importantly, why is it assumed that this universe constitutes "everything"? There is no way you can know that.

For example, why can't a bigger universe birth this one; or two dimensions (membranes) banging together create a universe (that is the basic hypothesis M-theory), and so on?

However you want to cook your universe the whole sheebang must, scientifically, have a beginning. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are Laws (higher than a Theory) and have never been broken. The energy to make the universe go MUST come from somewhere - matter and energy CANNOT be eternal and will run down and suffer heat death eventually. Where did the energy/matter come from originally? To me your ulimate answer is 'nothing'.

You haven't said why. What lead you to this belief?

Scientific laws mandate it.

Well then a beginingless God is a furphy . ;D 8)

But how else do you get the energy required? Much less of a Furphy than a beginningless universe.

Not nothing, it always was, and always will be. Nature or "everything" just changes forms, it always has. That is the only thing we can be certain of --"change"--cause and effect. That is the one truism of reality; the transcendental truth, if you like.

You are right though about being no design in my worldview. Why is a 'design' an essential element?

"Nature just is". You can't get any more parsimonious than that.

No design lol. We know the universe has been fine-tuned exquisitely to the n-th degree - this very probably indicates design. It has laws that make it work and have produced all we see including life - I can't see how this could be an accident either. The Probability of this is vanishlingly small. Parsimony should not be applied to wrong ideas. They should be discarded.

Now you are getting the idea. What is wrong with that worldview?
Where does energy come from in your worldview? Oh that's right, God -- very scientific.

Where does it come from in your worldview? Did you check your calculator readout on my singularity - ERR most likely. This describes your worldview from a scientific standpoint - an error! Any alternative is better than that.

 

[evo]

However you want to cook your universe the whole sheebang must, scientifically, have a beginning. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are Laws (higher than a Theory) and have never been broken. The energy to make the universe go MUST come from somewhere - matter and energy CANNOT be eternal and will run down and suffer heat death eventually. Where did the energy/matter come from originally? To me your ulimate answer is 'nothing'.

Scientific laws mandate it.

Your underlying theory (ie God-diddit) breaks an even more fundamental law than the first and second law of thermodynamics. Those two laws rely on Newtonian Physics which applies The law of cause and effect.

But how else do you get the energy required? Much less of a Furphy than a beginningless universe.

What caused God other than you imagination?

No design lol. We know the universe has been fine-tuned exquisitely to the n-th degree

We do ? How so?

- this very probably indicates design. It has laws that make it work and have produced all we see including life - I can't see how this could be an accident either. The Probability of this is vanishlingly small.

The Paul Davies defense, a favourite of the modern theist.

Have you ever considered that science may be mans attempt to 'model' reality? If so,wouldn't it follow that it would all 'fit' by definition? To be fair this is lost on most scientists too (including Dawkins)

Parsimony should not be applied to wrong ideas. They should be discarded.

Yes true. Pay that one.

Where does it come from in your worldview? Did you check your calculator readout on my singularity - ERR most likely. This describes your worldview from a scientific standpoint - an error!

*smile*.You know very well nothing is settled in regard to the beginning and the end of universe in regard to the scientific community's opinion on this.

that is why they just spent billions on the CERN accelerator.

As usual you are only talking half the story and appealing to any science that may save your sorry God's ass and ignoring all alternatives.

One example-- I can't really be ferked finding others evidence, the footy is starting soon:

wiki: The ultimate fate of the universe is a topic in physical cosmology. Many possible fates are predicted by rival scientific theories, including futures of both finite and infinite duration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

Any alternative is better than that.

You aren't suggesting any alternative, you are positing God.

Hehe, scientific argument attempts for the existence of God. Show some self-respect man. ;D

 

[Disco08]

Dear God it's hard to keep up here.

 

[jayfox]

When will you people start to believe and stop the punishment that we are having to endure? You would think after 30 years of being plagued with losing with skill-less players you might actually repent and believe so we can all head to the promised land!

 

[Rosy]

....... and the guts of the message, the absolute basics of it,..... who goes to Heaven and Hell etc., are exactly the same as they always were, in every translation.

I'd appreciate some verses that explain who goes to heaven and who goes to hell if you have time please jayfox. Especially interested in the context of your comments on there that I'll go to hell and also god taking children from other religions. Also can you tell me the passage to read in regard to your comments that god wouldn't allow Abraham to kill his son.

 

[glantone]

He murdered his brother. God let him off lightly.

That doesn’t answer my question so let me put it another way: why does God afford instant compassion to Cain by marking him to protect him when he has just committed the first murder ever on planet earth?

And from that, is it reasonable to assume that God views committing murder here on earth a lesser sin than rejecting God as our divine creator, which as you know leads directly to eternal pain and suffering in hell? I know they’re both sins but only one guarantees you the fast lane on the highway to hell, right?

I tend to think of radical Islam as an Old Testament like religion - at least in tems of their very harsh rules.

So do I. And when you think of radical Islam love and forgiveness are not the first words that come to mind, right. More like fear, repression, violence, very poor dress sense, bad teeth.
Yet you maintain the OT to be right and true, the word of God, something we should believe in.

How can any God or faith like yours in the OT or the Telebans in their holy documents, that is so intolerant of transgressors legitimately lay claims on love and compassion and forgiveness? It seems very contradictory.

It's not in the text but it seems that he worshipped God.

Where does it seem he worshipped God? You're importing an outcome, an outcome that is satisfactory to your sensibilities but one that is simply not supported by the text in any way. I understand where you're coming from but no-one can know for sure if Adam ended up in heaven or hell.


By the way, I love the King James version…... so theatrical, like those Jason & the Argonauts type 60’s movies! Great with baked beans on toast and a cuppa.

 

[glantone]

GEN 6

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

What does this mean?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

By the way, I love the King James version…... so theatrical, like those Jason & the Argonauts type 60’s movies! Great with baked beans on toast and a cuppa.

Lovin' your work. Classic quote.

 

[glantone]

GEN 6

5 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

When God says “for it repenteth me that I have made them” is God expressing some kind of divine responsibility for the failure of man?
He has created a thing that has failed badly, again. The more I read the more I feel God is almost like a juvenile God still learning his craft, still working his way through things, floundering.

God creates heaven and angels with free will (fabulous) but fails to win full support
So God expels Satan after an attempted coup

God creates earth and the universe (fabulous) but fails to stop Satan from dwelling in his own garden, Eve & Adam reject God’s orders
So God expels Adam & Eve and dishes out all kinds of nasty punishments

In time everything goes wrong. No one will listen to him.
So God murders all life bar for Noah and his lot.


How can any God that has the power to create the universe and all that is good in it choose global holocaust over all other possible alternatives to right the world?

Children too young to sin, animals not capable of sin, innocents – all must die, except Noah and his crew.
How does one justify total global holocaust?

With all due respect is this not psychotic stuff?

 

[evo]

Children too young to sin, animals not capable of sin, innocents – all must die, except Noah and his crew.
How does one justify total global holocaust?

With all due respect is this not psychotic stuff?

The irony is, as far as I can gather , the 'people of the book' (ie the Jews) have actually transcended a literal interpretation of the old Testament long ago; and now actually do perfom a fair measure of sophisticated theological based philosophy. (Perhaps you may have noticed that many high profile intelligent Jews like Woody Allen, many of the stand up comics, 20 th century philosophers and writers, etc are ostensibly atheists)

These days it is only really the Christians who regard the OT as literally the 'word of God' rather than an allegorical inspiration.

 

[glantone]

thanks Panthera, likewise. Everyone who reads this thread gets to either brush up on or take a crash course in Christian, scientific and philosophic povs. In my case it's all three.... couldn't be happier.

Yeah, I have, evo.
Woody Allen and Larry David (my two favourite comedians) nearly always make known their lack of religion, more specifically their lack of jewishness in their works. Always funny stuff.

 

[the claw]

thanks Panthera, likewise. Everyone who reads this thread gets to either brush up on or take a crash course in Christian, scientific and philosophic povs. In my case it's all three.... couldn't be happier.

Yeah, I have, evo.
Woody Allen and Larry David (my two favourite comedians) nearly always make known their lack of religion, more specifically their lack of jewishness in their works. Always funny stuff.

yep i agree very good thread and educational. i must admit im a neandertal when it comes to all three povs. let me say this doesnt stop me having a pov based on what i like to think is common sense and what actual facts are presented.

when looking at the bible i first ask myself what is its origins what does it represent what facts is it based on what insight to the times it was written in does it give.

in simple laymans terms the bible or christianity is a simple offshoot from the jewish bible. it came into being on the sole basis to allow, to use a muslim term the infidels access to god. it was something that was both a political and religous no no that ultimately cost the originator his neck if the bible is to be believed. i dont even buy that line. i believe jesus lived to old age.

there are lots of differing views and versions out there all of which have just as much veracity than the bibles.
me my mind is open to all possibilities i just require facts to substantiate those possibilities.

i believe as we evolve as a species and our knowledge grows our ability to explain things grows also.

 

[Djevv]

Your underlying theory (ie God-diddit) breaks an even more fundamental law than the first and second law of thermodynamics. Those two laws rely on Newtonian Physics which applies The law of cause and effect.
What caused God other than you imagination?
We do ? How so?

The Paul Davies defense, a favourite of the modern theist.

Have you ever considered that science may be mans attempt to 'model' reality? If so,wouldn't it follow that it would all 'fit' by definition? To be fair this is lost on most scientists too (including Dawkins)

Yes true. Pay that one.
*smile*.You know very well nothing is settled in regard to the beginning and the end of universe in regard to the scientific community's opinion on this.

that is why they just spent billions on the CERN accelerator.

As usual you are only talking half the story and appealing to any science that may save your sorry God's ass and ignoring all alternatives.

One example-- I can't really be ferked finding others evidence, the footy is starting soon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe
You aren't suggesting any alternative, you are positing God.

Hehe, scientific argument attempts for the existence of God. Show some self-respect man. ;D

Its a very, very simple idea, nature does not naturally create matter/energy and it is not eternal so how did it get here? Seems to me the only alternative is supernatural. This is not an explanation of how, but where. Looking that link, heat death (or the evasion thereof) is featured in more than one. To me many of the hypotheses featured are the scientific version of special pleading for naturalism so the obvious conclusion does not rear its ugly head.

Of course none of this proves there is a God who designed, brought into being and provided the energy, I'm only pointing out that it a reasonable way to think.

 

[Djevv]

That doesn’t answer my question so let me put it another way: why does God afford instant compassion to Cain by marking him to protect him when he has just committed the first murder ever on planet earth?

God is compassionate and He probably wanted to spare the parents the pain of losing both their sons.

And from that, is it reasonable to assume that God views committing murder here on earth a lesser sin than rejecting God as our divine creator, which as you know leads directly to eternal pain and suffering in hell? I know they’re both sins but only one guarantees you the fast lane on the highway to hell, right?

All Sin is bad - all equally leads to death.

So do I. And when you think of radical Islam love and forgiveness are not the first words that come to mind, right. More like fear, repression, violence, very poor dress sense, bad teeth.
Yet you maintain the OT to be right and true, the word of God, something we should believe in.

The OT suited the harsh times in which it was written. Christians live according to the New Testament. But you learn a lot about the nature of God from the OT.

How can any God or faith like yours in the OT or the Telebans in their holy documents, that is so intolerant of transgressors legitimately lay claims on love and compassion and forgiveness? It seems very contradictory.

Do you every punish your child? Why? Remember society in those days was only one or two steps from barbarism and laws were typically harsh to keep order.

Where does it seem he worshipped God? You're importing an outcome, an outcome that is satisfactory to your sensibilities but one that is simply not supported by the text in any way. I understand where you're coming from but no-one can know for sure if Adam ended up in heaven or hell.

Eve worshipped God when her son was born, but you are right, nobody knows.

By the way, I love the King James version…... so theatrical, like those Jason & the Argonauts type 60’s movies! Great with baked beans on toast and a cuppa.

Yes it is beatiful the way Shakepeare is - even if you have to concentrate hard when you read it.