Atheist Creation myth - Page 6 - Jamaica Talk

Infidel · #76 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Bear this in mind, in a court of law, not everything for which evidence is presented turns out to actually be true, and not everything for which no evidence (which is admissable to the court) can be presented is false. Guilty people are "proven" innocent, and innocent people are "proven" to be guilty in courts of law all over the world, every day. So the fact that in your opinion, evidence presented to you of God's existence would not hold up in a court of law, does not mean that God does not exist. Human courts of law are flawed. Judgements they make are fallable.

Well, since you haven't presented any such evidence, your whole point is moot.
By making reference to the courts, I meant evidence that would stand up to logic and reason.

Quote:

People who don't understand aspects of scripture often rush to judegment and conclude that there must be an error, or a contradiction. Careful study of the scriptures, with God's guidance, will lead to clarity

Ok then. For the THIRD time......who was Jospeh's father?

Quote:

The fact that I wake up every morning to live in an intricately designed, complex world is sufficient evidence for me that an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful being exists. To me, it's incredible that someone could experience all this, and deny the existence of the Creator.

I fail to see how man's failure to explain everything in nature is evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god. Man has always used a god to explain what he does not understand.

Quote:

It is not up to believers to prove anything to aetheist. It is up to aetheists to open their eyes and minds to see the evidence that is already around them. Because something is not presented to you in the way that you want it, does not make it invalid or not credible. It could just mean that do not understand it.

Wrong. Atheism is the default position. No one is born with no knowledge of any religion or any god. They have to be indoctrinated. Theists make incredible claims and must therefore provide credible evidence to support these claims.

bountyx · #77 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

Well, since you haven't presented any such evidence, your whole point is moot.
By making reference to the courts, I meant evidence that would stand up to logic and reason.

You mean your logic and reason which makes sense to you based on what you understand. Things you don't understand will make no sense to you and therefore will appear illogical to you. That may not be the case for another person.

Quote:

Ok then. For the THIRD time......who was Jospeh's father?

Several explanations have been proposed for this apparent discrepancy.

Quote:

Ancient Jewish genealogies often skipped generations, in part because there were no terms for "grandson" and "grandfather." Any male one was descended from was one’s "father," regardless of how many generations back he was. Similarly, any male descended from you was your "son," no matter how many generations down the line he was. This is why the Hebrews were called "the sons of Israel" hundreds of years after the original Israel (Jacob) died.

Quote:

The second century historian Julius Africanus, a native of Israel, records information given by Christ’s remaining family in his day. According to their family genealogy, Joseph’s grandfather Matthan (mentioned in Matthew) married a woman named Estha, who bore him a son named Jacob. After Matthan died, Estha married his close relative Melchi (mentioned in Luke) and bore him a son named Heli. Jacob and Heli were thus half-brothers.

Unfortunatley, Heli died childless, and so Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

Read the article...

It's possible that this kind of leverite marriage involving posthumous adoption, could have been the case.

Other explanations have been offered, but the Bible did not elaborate into the details surround that issue. So it's difficult to say with certainty what the true expalanation is.

This, however, does not mean that there is an error or that the Bible is not credible. The Bible delivers the message it was intended to deliver in the way it was intended to deliver it. That message is of God's plan of salvation for man and the blueprint on how man can live a righteous life in preparation for Heaven.

The message of the Bible, the Word of God, is perfect - it was inspired by God. As I said earlier though, how men interpret and communicate the word of God through the ages, is subject to human imperfections. Despite this, God has not allowed His Word and message to be compromised. His Word still represents and accomplishes what He intended it to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

I fail to see how man's failure to explain everything in nature is evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god. Man has always used a god to explain what he does not understand.

It is not man's failure to explain everything in nature that is evidence for the existence of a superior being, but it is nature itself which does this. There are scientists who accept that the complexity and intricacy of nature itself shows evidence of design, and designs are created by a desinger

Quote:

Against this dominant Darwinian view, Thaxton's argument for Intelligent Design, reduced to simplest terms, runs like this: The DNA molecule, the basis of life, is a message, he says. It is information coded in a double helix. It's not like a message; it is the message. The molecule itself is an elaborate, complex design that is a message.

We humans know from experience that, when there's a message, an intelligence created that message, Thaxton says. No other explanation will suffice to account for the existence of the message. We don't receive letters from a random, undirected source, for example. Thus the implication is clear that DNA, a message, was produced by intelligent design. "We know from experience that when there is a design, there is a designer."

Behe takes on Darwinism from a different angle. A Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania, Behe argues that life at its most fundamental is "irreducibly complex," a phrase he has added to the Intelligent Design debate. To explain what he means by irreducibly complex, Behe talks about a mousetrap, a human construction made up of a base, hammer, spring and holding bar, each of which is needed for the mousetrap to work. Without any one of the aspects, the mousetrap would not be a mousetrap.

Nature, too, has examples of irreducible complexity - the system in a cell that targets proteins for delivery to subcellular compartments, for example. Almost every one of the components that make up this system is necessary for the system to work. Without one of the components, the proteins are not delivered to their proper destination.

Behe argues that the development of such an elaborate and complex system in Darwinian evolutionary terms by one small step after another simply won't do, because during any step prior to all the complex parts working together, the system would be nonfunctional. What is the probability of all those parts that have to work together starting to work together at a given moment? Just as the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap indicates a design that renders the possibility of its parts working together, so the irreducible complexity of the cellular protein-delivery system indicates design.

Behe likes to quote from Darwin himself to show the importance of irreducible complexity when it comes to Darwinian theory. In the Origin of Species Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Behe believes that the existence of such a complex organ already has been demonstrated.

Read the full article...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

Wrong. Atheism is the default position. No one is born with no knowledge of any religion or any god. They have to be indoctrinated. Theists make incredible claims and must therefore provide credible evidence to support these claims.

And for aetheists to accept the credible evidence of the very breath which they take, and the world they wake up to, they need to take the filters from before their eyes and see what is already before them.

Infidel · #78 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Other explanations have been offered, but the Bible did not elaborate into the details surround that issue. So it's difficult to say with certainty what the true expalanation is.

In other words, you don't know. Perhaps you would like to explain the rest of the errors and contradictions.

Infidel · #79 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

It is not man's failure to explain everything in nature that is evidence for the existence of a superior being, but it is nature itself which does this. There are scientists who accept that the complexity and intricacy of nature itself shows evidence of design, and designs are created by a desinger

And as I said earlier, assuming for argument's sake that there was/is a designer, this is still not evidence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeng, invisible sky man.

Infidel · #80 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

You mean your logic and reason which makes sense to you based on what you understand. Things you don't understand will make no sense to you and therefore will appear illogical to you. That may not be the case for another person.

I was not aware that there were different types of logic. Either something is logical or it is not.

1. Nature is complex and intricate.
2. Therefore it must have been designed.
3. All deisgns have a designer.
4. Therefore nature's designer is all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-present, invisble sky-man.

This seems to be your line of reasoning. Unfortunately for you, it is illogical.

Infidel · #81 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 05:57 PM

Quote:

And for aetheists to accept the credible evidence of the very breath which they take, and the world they wake up to, they need to take the filters from before their eyes and see what is already before them.

What credible evidence do you point to? The illogical argument of intelligent design? Try again.

Read this for starters.

bountyx · #82 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

In other words, you don't know.

No, I personally don't know for sure. It's not really important to me, so I don't get distracted by it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

And as I said earlier, assuming for argument's sake that there was/is a designer, this is still not evidence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeng, invisible sky man.

What qualities would you attribute to the designer of the universe? What kind of abilities do you think the designer of such complex, intricate system of life would need to have in order to create all that is?

Quote:

I was not aware that there were different types of logic. Either something is logical or it is not.

1. Nature is complex and intricate.
2. Therefore it must have been designed.
3. All deisgns have a designer.
4. Therefore nature's designer is all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-present, invisble sky-man.

This seems to be your line of reasoning. Unfortunately for you, it is illogical.

To you it is illogical, to me it makes perfect sense. Though I would have phrased it more like this:

1. The universe is vast, complex and intricate.
2. Therefore universe must have been designed.
3. All designs have a designer.
4. To design a system as vast, complex and intricate as the universe, the designer must possess qualities far superior to anything human beings could imagine. The designer must have been able to see all that he designed. The designer must have had the power to create the design and make it reality.
The designer must have had the ability to interact with all aspects of the design and oversee it.

And don't worry about me, I'm well taken care of

Infidel · #83 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

To you it is illogical, to me it makes perfect sense. Though I would have phrased it more like this:

1. The universe is vast, complex and intricate.
2. Therefore universe must have been designed.
3. All designs have a designer.
4. To design a system as vast, complex and intricate as the universe, the designer must possess qualities far superior to anything human beings could imagine. The designer must have been able to see all that he designed. The designer must have had the power to create the design and make it reality.
The designer must have had the ability to interact with all aspects of the design and oversee it.

Here's why your argument is illogical.
Let us assume that the above postulation is correct. By your logic:

1.Your god is more vast and more complex than the universe, since he created the vast and complex universe.
2.Therefore your god must have been designed.
3.All designs have a designer.

Who designed your god?

bountyx · #84 (**permalink**) 12-23-2004, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

Here's why your argument is illogical.
Let us assume that the above postulation is correct. By your logic:

1.Your god is more vast and more complex than the universe, since he created the vast and complex universe.
2.Therefore your god must have been designed.
3.All designs have a designer.

Who designed your god?

What makes you think that a being as powerful as God has to conform to human logic or definition? Who says concepts such as time, creation etc. have to apply to God? He created the rules that bind the physicalities of our universe. When a programmer writes a computer programme, does the programmer have to conform to the same rules that bind his programmes?

Indeed the exact details of what/who is God is a mystery we'd all like to know. And I'm confident that in His own way and in His own timing, He will reveal it.

It is enough for me to know that He created me. It is enough for me to know that He provides for me. It is enough for me to know that He has a plan for me transcend the misery of this world and spend eternity with Him. So that's what I focus on. Not on things which for now, have no expalanation which any of us are capable of handling.

Infidel · #85 (**permalink**) 12-24-2004, 12:58 PM

Quote:

What makes you think that a being as powerful as God has to conform to human logic or definition? Who says concepts such as time, creation etc. have to apply to God?

Because they apply to everything else.

Quote:

When a programmer writes a computer programme, does the programmer have to conform to the same rules that bind his programmes?

If he didn't follow the same logic that binds his program, he wouldn't be a very good programmer, since his programs wouldn't run.

bountyx · #86 (**permalink**) 12-24-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

Because they apply to everything else.

Clearly, an all powerful being wouldn't be just like everything else. Hence one has to open oneself to the possibility that the rules which bind regular entities, may not apply to that all powerful being. This is were many people face the difficulty. They cannot accept the possibility of something they cannot readily understand or relate to.

Quote:

If he didn't follow the same logic that binds his program, he wouldn't be a very good programmer, since his programs wouldn't run.

There are rules and conditions which govern programs that do not apply to human beings. Computer programs represent a subset of the functionality of the human brain and thought process. Therefore, a program may reflect the logic of the programmer, but is limited. There is much more that the brain of a human programmer can do which lies outside the realm of the program to deal with. If a program is not written process certain kinds of input, then to the program, that kind of input is invalid. To the programmer, that input is not invalid in the real sense, but he may feel that it is not needed for the program to perform its function at that time. When it is necessary, the programmer modifies the program to accomodate it.

Similarly human beings operate in a world where certain principles, rules or logic apply to this world. This may be representative of some aspect of the characteristics of the Creator of the world. However there is more to the Creator than what human beings are able to understand based on their experience in this world. When the time is right, all will be revealed.

Infidel · #87 (**permalink**) 12-26-2004, 03:26 AM

Quote:

This may be representative of some aspect of the characteristics of the Creator of the world. However there is more to the Creator than what human beings are able to understand based on their experience in this world. When the time is right, all will be revealed.

And this assertion is based on what again? The error-filled inerrant bible?

bountyx · #88 (**permalink**) 12-27-2004, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

And this assertion is based on what again? The error-filled inerrant bible?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

kc4u · #89 (**permalink**) 12-31-2004, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel

Here's why your argument is illogical.
Let us assume that the above postulation is correct. By your logic:

1.Your god is more vast and more complex than the universe, since he created the vast and complex universe.
2.Therefore your god must have been designed.
3.All designs have a designer.

Who designed your god?

Computer programmes have limitations as to those set by the programmer, so does humans and the way we think, we do not have infinite thinking. Therefore we are not allowed to garner such info - due to the limitation.

Baz · #90 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:48 PM

(I know this is an old thread but I just couldn't bare to leave his question unanswered.)

[quote=Infidel]Ok then. For the THIRD time......who was Jospeh's father?
[quote]

I have an answer for you Infidel. Hope I help.

Anyway,

In jewish tradition, some husbands are also considered 'sons' by their father-in-laws. So either Heli or Jacob may be Joseph's biological father and one Mary's biological Father. Mary also has the same root descendants as her husband Joseph: King David, Abraham, etc. (yes, they were VERY distantly related).

I looked up the two Bible quotes you posted earlier Infidel and I notice that according to the geneologies, King David had two descendants, Nathan and Solomon. In the two geneologies you referred to, the family line was EXACTLY the same until Nathan and Solomon from David split it off.

The Geneologies are waaay different after Nathan and Solomon with completely different people who were distantly related from both sides. Eventually, the family tree reunited again with the marriage of Mary and Joseph both of whom are direct decendants of King David and even further back, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

God not only blesses and makes promises to individuals, but entire bloodlines I notice. God set aside a SPECIAL bloodline coming down through Abraham to David, then eventually Jesus. God held a special covenant with them. I think that's why Abraham and David are most refered to in the Jew's ancestry. Jesus was called the root of David and in Genisis God promised Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and in (Gen.22:15-18) God swore to Abraham that because He was willing to sacrifice his own son Isaac, little did He know, God would be more than willing to sacrifice HIS Son, the Lamb of God in the future for the sins of all of humanity, you and me

.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Creation of Woman	Nandii	Make Me Laugh	5	04-18-2004 06:52 AM