What Do the Bible and Quran Say About the Sun?
arah
What Do the Bible and Quran Say About the Sun?
By: Prof.dr. Ibrahim Khalil
The Bible which says that:
ï ¶The sun does not go down for the poor,
ï ¶The sun stood still,
ï ¶The sun is ashamed and confounded and
ï ¶The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun
Or the Quran which says that:
The sun is running to its "Mustaqarr".
Before dealing with the topic of the running Sun in Quran versus Bible
versus Sciences, it is essential to give some statistical hints.
The total words in the Bible are 788,280 while total words in the
Quran are 77,473. It follows that, the Bible is more than 10 times the
Quran word-wise. In other words, the Bible has the potential of more
than 10 times than the Quran to exhibit its topics.
Back to the Sun, it is mentioned more than 170 times in the Bible and
32 times in the Quran, i.e. the Bible mentions the Sun more than five
times versus the Quran.
The Sun in the Bible:
We can not interpret all the verses of the Sun in the Bible, I have
picked some of them; however, the reader can search this topic to find
out by himself that there is no relation between the Biblical sun and
the Sun that we know as regards the scientific points of view.
The sun does not go down for the poor as mentioned in:
Deuteronomy 24:15
At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down
upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry
against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.
The sun stood still, according to:
Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book
of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted
not to go down about a whole day.
The sun and moon stood still as described by:
Habakkuk 3:10-12
10 The mountains saw thee, and they trembled: the overflowing of the
water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted up his hands
on high.
11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of
thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.
12 Thou didst march through the land in indignation, thou didst thresh
the heathen in anger.
The LORD God is a sun and shield as mentioned in:
Psalm 84:11
For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and
glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.
The sun is ashamed according to:
Isaiah 24:23
Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD
of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his
ancients gloriously.
The sun is ashamed and confounded as described by:
Jeremiah 15:9
She that hath borne seven languisheth: she hath given up the ghost;
her sun is gone down while it was yet day: she hath been ashamed and
confounded: and the residue of them will I deliver to the sword before
their enemies, saith the LORD.
The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun (that is
impossible from the scientific point of view) as mentioned in:
Isaiah 30:26
Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and
the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days,
in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and
healeth the stroke of their wound.
The healing in the wings of the Sun according to:
Malachi 4:2
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise
with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as
calves of the stall.
The Sun in the Noble Quran
The Quran tells us that Allah the Almighty created the Sun which is a
sign that indicates the Power and the Mercy of Allah.
I will give the reader only one verse (Surah 36:38) which according to
my own translation says in its first half:
"And the Sun is running to its "Mustaqarr"
This verse is translated by some scholars as:
"And the Sun runs (on course) unto a resting place. That is the Decree
of the Exalted in Might, the All Knowing." (36:38)
Others translate this verse as:
"And the Sun runs her course for a period determined for her: that is
the decree of (Him) the exalted in Might the All-Knowing."
In these translations, the Arabic word "Mustaqarr" is translated to a
"period determined" or a "resting place".
However, "Mustaqarr" does literally mean to dwell in for a specific
period in a certain place.
Hence the Quran describes three important issues as regards the Sun in
four words:
First, the Sun is running.
From the Scientific point of view, we know that the Sun runs with a
speed of about 12 miles per second.
Second, the Sun is dwelling in what we call the Solar system and the
Solar Apex.
Third, the Sun has to reach its determined position or place in a
determined period of time.
Modern Scientists could determine the "Mustaqarr" of the Sun according
to its speed and can expect its predetermined positions in a specific
period of times.
They would be able to do their job with minimal errors.
However, Allah, the Almighty knows precisely with absolutely no errors
the exact "Mustaqarr" of the Sun.
All of these three scientific principles about the sun are described
in the original Arabic language in four words.
My question to the intellectual fair one: Is the Quran quoted from the
Bible? The Bible which says that the sun does not go down for the
poor, the sun stood still, the sun is ashamed and confounded, the
light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun or the Quran which
says that the sun is running to its "Mustaqarr".
On the other hand, Allah, the Almighty not only knows precisely with
absolutely no errors the exact "Mustaqarr" of the Sun but also does
know exactly our "Mustaqarr" in the afterlife. So, the wise one has to
be ready for that day.
Steve Hayes
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
duke
What a wacko post.
>What Do the Bible and Quran Say About the Sun?
>
>By: Prof.dr. Ibrahim Khalil
>
>
>The Bible which says that:
>
>ï?¶The sun does not go down for the poor,
>
>ï?¶The sun stood still,
>
>ï?¶The sun is ashamed and confounded and
>
>ï?¶The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun
The dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
DavidH
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3468279pfb7i2ndai...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:55:48 -0700 (PDT), arah <arah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What a wacko post.
>
>
>
Straight from the mental institution near Al Qara'in in Saudi Arabia from
jane aka arah aka nur
Location of IP address
89.147.3.40:
Near Al Qara'in in Saudi Arabia.
person: Tariq Alzubaidi & Ahmed S Al Ghamdi
address: P.O.Box 10400, Jubail 31961 , Saudi Arabia
phone: +966 3 3453050
Yahoo says:
so once again you post your fake islam convert sara bokker right? she never
exists
lol
a model named sara bokker has never existed. fake islam propaganda
lol
ilbe...@gmail.com
> What Do the Bible and Quran Say About the Sun?
>
> By: Prof.dr. Ibrahim Khalil
>
> The Bible which says that:
>
>
> The sun stood still,
>
> The sun is ashamed and confounded and
>
> The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun
Thanks for this treatise, but, could you explain to us why your Koran
says when Jesus returns he will exterminate all of Christianity ?!
ilbe...@gmail.com
The Catholic Mass is the biggest form of mockery to the one real only
Mass that took place 2000 years ago by Christ himself in this human
body.
ken
wrote this shit:
> The Catholic Mass is the biggest form of mockery to the one real only
> Mass that took place 2000 years ago by Christ himself in this human
> body.-
Do you have ANY idea just how fucked up you are, Dicksucka????
arah
Sara Brokker never exist?
Check for yourself
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1640/
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1640/
Sara Bokker, Former Actress and Model, USA
How, Sara Bokker, a former actress, model, fitness instructor and
activist gave up the glamorous Miami lifestyle for Islam and found
true liberation with Islam and the Islamic dress code for women.
I am an American woman who was born in the midst of America’s
“Heartland”. I grew up, just like any other girl, being fixated with
the glamour of life in “the big city”. Eventually, I moved to Florida
and on to South Beach of Miami, a hotspot for those seeking the
“glamorous life”. Naturally, I did what most average Western girls
do. I focused on my appearance and appeal, basing my self-worth on
how much attention I got from others. I worked out rigorously and
became a personal trainer, acquired an upscale waterfront residence,
became a regular “exhibiting” beach-goer and was able to attain a
“living-in-style” kind of life.
http://masoodmemon.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/hijab-is-the-new-symbol-of-womans-liberation/
n Jul 18, 3:29 pm, "DavidH" <nos...@invalid.org> wrote:
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
arah
Both Islam and Christianity expect the return of Jesus at the end of
times, and both expect trials and tribulations to occur at the time.
Many of the themes of these trials are similar, but they are also very
different in detail and definition. Both religions expect the nation
of believers to be the final victors, but the Christian believes that
these are defined as the believers in the Gospel of the New Testament
and in Christ as ‘the Savior’ and ‘the Incarnation’ of God, whilst the
Muslim knows that it refers to those who believe in the pure
monotheism entailed in submission to the One and Only True God.
The return of Jesus is preceded in both religions by signs, again
similar in general description, but subtly different in detail. Both
religions teach that the return of Jesus will be preceded by a great
and powerful figure of falsehood and temptation, called the Maseeh ad-
Dajjal (The False Messiah) by the Muslims and the Anti-Christ by the
Christians. Before this event other signs that agree with each other
include a general increase in immorality and fornication, murder and
crime, and general lawlessness, debauchery and falling away from
religion and true knowledge. Accompanying these signs of civil
malaise will be internecine[1] wars, and natural disasters following
closely one upon the other.
Islam sees Jesus’ return as a completion of his life and work, which
he left incomplete.[8] As the true Messiah, he alone has the power
granted to him by God to defeat the false Messiah at the end of time.
His rule will witness the invasion of the Gog and Magog, whom not even
he will be able to defeat. Rather, he will pray to God who will then
destroy them Himself. The end of the Gog and Magog will herald the
beginning of a world hegemony in which every one will believe, or at
least submit to, his reign as God’s representative. He will rule by
God’s Law as taught by Muhammad (i.e. Islam), may the mercy and
blessings of God be upon him, until he dies at the age of about 70 or
75. In this period of time there will be plenty for all, and peace
throughout the world. Then, some time after he dies and is buried,
all the Muslims will be caught up by a breeze and wafted into the
hereafter. The remaining people on earth will be unbelievers, and
they alone will witness the final chapter of earth.
Many of these events described in Islam echo the concept of the
Messiah at the end of times conceived of in Judaism, although they
believe the Law with which he will reign will be the Law of Moses,
rather than Muhammad, may God praise them both. Both Islam and
Judaism regard the coming of the Messiah as essentially uniting,
gathering believers together from the ends of the earth. Both see his
rule as returning to the fundamentals of faith and Law. Both see his
role as that of a leader who will fight God’s war against the forces
of evil, and that this war will be followed by a peaceful hegemony in
which God’s Law will prevail throughout the world.
Christians believe that Jesus is alive today, and many denominations
believe him to be active. They also believe that he has been
resurrected already, and that he will never die again. The Muslim
position, however, is that he never died, and therefore is still
alive. It says in the Quran, that the Jews claim:
“We killed Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, Messenger of God.”
However, God denies this, as the verse continues:
“But they killed him not, nor crucified him; It was only a likeness
shown to them: Most certainly they killed him not. Rather, God lifted
him up to Himself.” (Quran 4:157-8)
This action of lifting is literally an upward movement, physically
being taken from the earth into heavens, just as he will be physically
brought back on the wings of angels from the heavens to the earth when
he returns. Christians estimate his age to be 31-33 years of age at
ascension, because the synoptic Gospels are considered to describe
approximately 1 year of his life. The Gospel of John purportedly
describes 3 years of his life from the moment he began preaching, of
which Luke says:
“And Jesus himself began to be about 30 years of age, being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph … and (he) was led by the spirit into the
wilderness.” (Luke 3:23 and 4:1)
Muslim scholars agree. Hasan Basri said, “Jesus was 34, while Sa’eed
bin Mussayyib said, “He was 33,” when he was lifted up to heaven.[1]
“And there is none of the People of the Book but will believe in him
before his death, and on the Day of Judgment, he will be a witness
against them.” (Quran 4:159)
God, here, is talking about the ‘People of the Book’ believing in
Jesus before the latter dies well after he was lifted up into the
heavens. The implication is that he is not yet dead. In fact, he is
securely kept by God until he completes his appointed term. As God
says in the Quran:
“It is God Who takes away the souls at the time of their death, and
(the souls) of those that die not during their sleep. He keeps those
for which He has ordained death and sends the rest for a term
appointed.” (Quran 39:42)
And:
“It is God Who takes away the souls at night, and has knowledge of all
that you have done by day, and raises you up again that a term
appointed be fulfilled; then will you be returned unto Him. Then He
will inform you of all that you used to do.” (Quran 60:60)
‘The term appointed’ denotes the numbered days of our lives, already
known and confirmed by God. The word “to take away” is a promise made
by God to Jesus which God will do when His messenger is threatened by
disbelief. The Quran informs us that He told Jesus:
“Indeed I will take you (away) and lift you up to Myself and purify
you from those who disbelieve…” (Quran 3:55)
Thus we have a promise of God fulfilled when he saved Jesus from
crucifixion, and another that will be fulfilled when He returns Jesus
to earth and he completes his life here - a promise confirmed in the
revelation given to Mary at the annunciation:
“God gives you tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be Jesus
Christ, son of Mary, held in honor in the world and in the hereafter,
and one of those who are nearest (to God). He shall speak to the
people in infancy and when middle-aged[2], and shall be of the
righteous.” (Quran 3:45-46)
Since middle-aged is older than the early thirties, this prophecy
concerns his speaking to the people after his return. So this second
promise (that everyone will believe in him before he dies) concerns
his second mission when he descends to earth again. When he arrives,
he will be the same age as he left, and then he will live for another
forty years.[3] The Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be
upon him, said:
“There is no prophet between me and him (Jesus), and he shall
descend. He… will stay in the world for forty years; then he will die
and the Muslims will offer the funeral Prayer for him.” (Abu Dawood,
Ahmed)
The return of Jesus will be close to the end of time. In fact, his
descent will be one of the major signs the final hour is due. The
Quran discloses that:
“He (the son of Mary) shall be a known sign of the Hour; so have no
doubt concerning it and follow Me.” (Quran 43:61)
His appearance will be followed by only two or three other
unmistakable portents. Among these are the appearance of the
beast[4], the wafting of the believers from the earth[5], leaving only
disbelievers behind, and the rising of the sun from the west.[6]
The ten major signs, among which is the second coming of Jesus, are
summarized in one hadeeth:[7]
“The Hour will not come until you see ten signs: the smoke; the False
Messiah; the Beast; the sun rising from the West; the descent of Jesus
son of Mary; the Gog and Magog; and three tremors - one in the East,
one in the West, and one in Arabia, at the end of which fire will
burst forth from the direction of Aden and drive people to the place
of their final assembly.” (Ahmed)
May God save us from disbelief and preserve us from being among those
who witness the final moments.
Continue our research
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/365/
> says when Jesus returns he will exterminate all of Christianity ?!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Antares 531
wrote:
>
>Both Islam and Christianity expect the return of Jesus at the end of
>times, and both expect trials and tribulations to occur at the time.
>Many of the themes of these trials are similar, but they are also very
>different in detail and definition. Both religions expect the nation
>of believers to be the final victors, but the Christian believes that
>these are defined as the believers in the Gospel of the New Testament
>and in Christ as ‘the Savior’ and ‘the Incarnation’ of God, whilst the
>Muslim knows that it refers to those who believe in the pure
>monotheism entailed in submission to the One and Only True God.
>
The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that He was not crucified but had a
likeness crucified in His place, then appeared before the people,
claiming to have been raised from the dead. Yet they regard Jesus as a
reliable and acceptable prophet.
So, if being a liar and a deceiver is acceptable behavior of a
"reliable" prophet, how do we know that any other prophets they look
up to were not also liars and deceivers?
Gordon
>> > ?The sun does not go down for the poor,
>>
>> > ?The sun stood still,
>>
>> > ?The sun is ashamed and confounded and
>>
>> > ?The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun
psst
>
>The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that He was not crucified but had a
>likeness crucified in His place, then appeared before the people,
>claiming to have been raised from the dead. Yet they regard Jesus as a
>reliable and acceptable prophet.
>
>So, if being a liar and a deceiver is acceptable behavior of a
>"reliable" prophet, how do we know that any other prophets they look
>up to were not also liars and deceivers?
>
>Gordon
I love it when a fan of one of the bible-derived religions
tries to shoot down one of the others using rationality.
All of you guys are so much closer to those of us
who say it's all made-up bull than you will ever
be willing to admit.
• R. L. Measures.
duke
>> The dukester, American-American
>>*****
>> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> Pope Paul VI
>> *****
>The Catholic Mass is the biggest form of mockery to the one real only
>Mass that took place 2000 years ago by Christ himself in this human
>body.
Interesting comment, when it can all be found in the 4 gospels.
Antares 531
Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
things that can not be explained otherwise.
Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory is another example of this. It is
interesting to note that those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory
seem so congruent with the levels of Heaven mentioned in the Bible.
Then, there's the Big Bang Theory that is very much in agreement with
the Bible's information, "In the beginning, God created...."
Now, add onto this by contemplating the possibility that there is some
form of cosmic intelligence at the quark level that functions much
like the synapses in our human brains. If, somehow, all the quarks
that exist are linked together by some means similar to quantum
entanglements, this could provide means for a cosmic
intelligence....God.
Gordon
Bob LeChevalier
>On 18 Jul 2011 21:45:56 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <1jk8279pqp8574iqj...@4ax.com>, Antares 531 says...
>>>
>>>The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>>Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that He was not crucified but had a
>>>likeness crucified in His place, then appeared before the people,
>>>claiming to have been raised from the dead. Yet they regard Jesus as a
>>>reliable and acceptable prophet.
>>>
>>>So, if being a liar and a deceiver is acceptable behavior of a
>>>"reliable" prophet, how do we know that any other prophets they look
>>>up to were not also liars and deceivers?
>>>
>>>Gordon
>>
>>
>>I love it when a fan of one of the bible-derived religions
>>tries to shoot down one of the others using rationality.
>>
>>All of you guys are so much closer to those of us
>>who say it's all made-up bull than you will ever
>>be willing to admit.
>>
>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>things that can not be explained otherwise.
There is no evidence at all for any religion.
There is no reason to believe that anything "can not be explained
otherwise". We may not have the explanation for everything yet, but
that does not mean that there is none.
>Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory is another example of this. It is
>interesting to note that those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory
>seem so congruent with the levels of Heaven mentioned in the Bible.
Ignorant nonsense.
>Then, there's the Big Bang Theory that is very much in agreement with
>the Bible's information, "In the beginning, God created...."
Ignorant nonsense.
>If, somehow, all the quarks
>that exist are linked together by some means similar to quantum
>entanglements, this could provide means for a cosmic
>intelligence....God.
If, somehow, wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
Hint: every particle is linked to every other particle by strong,
weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational fields. That doesn't make
them intelligent.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Antares 531
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>On 18 Jul 2011 21:45:56 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1jk8279pqp8574iqj...@4ax.com>, Antares 531 says...
>>>>
>>>>The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>>>Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that He was not crucified but had a
>>>>likeness crucified in His place, then appeared before the people,
>>>>claiming to have been raised from the dead. Yet they regard Jesus as a
>>>>reliable and acceptable prophet.
>>>>
>>>>So, if being a liar and a deceiver is acceptable behavior of a
>>>>"reliable" prophet, how do we know that any other prophets they look
>>>>up to were not also liars and deceivers?
>>>>
>>>>Gordon
>>>
>>>
>>>I love it when a fan of one of the bible-derived religions
>>>tries to shoot down one of the others using rationality.
>>>
>>>All of you guys are so much closer to those of us
>>>who say it's all made-up bull than you will ever
>>>be willing to admit.
>>>
>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>
>There is no evidence at all for any religion.
>
There are indeed many areas of consideration that lead one to the
school of thought that God exists. What created this
universe/multiverse? Chance or God? The evidence for one is as strong
as for the other, yet there is no objective proof for either option.
Some go with the random chance idea. I go with the God created idea.
Random chance is just not an adequate explanation for the EXTREME
complexity of this multiverse, with no intelligent designer involved
at all.
>
>There is no reason to believe that anything "can not be explained
>otherwise". We may not have the explanation for everything yet, but
>that does not mean that there is none.
>
Somewhat correct, but you're leaving God out of this set of
conjectures. Why?
>
>>Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory is another example of this. It is
>>interesting to note that those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory
>>seem so congruent with the levels of Heaven mentioned in the Bible.
>
>Ignorant nonsense.
>
>>Then, there's the Big Bang Theory that is very much in agreement with
>>the Bible's information, "In the beginning, God created...."
>
>Ignorant nonsense.
>
>>If, somehow, all the quarks
>>that exist are linked together by some means similar to quantum
>>entanglements, this could provide means for a cosmic
>>intelligence....God.
>
>If, somehow, wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
>
>Hint: every particle is linked to every other particle by strong,
>weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational fields. That doesn't make
>them intelligent.
>
There is particle linking, as you mention above, then there is
something like particle entanglement. Vast difference. Entanglement
provides means for instantaneous communication across infinite
distances. The other forms of particle linkage are limited to the
speed of light.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got any evidence at all that that happened?...Thought not.
Harry K
harry k
> Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >On 18 Jul 2011 21:45:56 -0700, psst <psst_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >>In article <1jk8279pqp8574iqjql2jc638pn12qt...@4ax.com>, Antares 531 says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nor does a bunch of fundies in a group hug make them intelligent.
Harry K
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:25:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>
>>There is no evidence at all for any religion.
>>
>There are indeed many areas of consideration that lead one to the
>school of thought that God exists.
Perhaps, but there is no EVIDENCE.
>What created this universe/multiverse?
Who says anyone or anything necessarily created it?
>Chance or God?
Why are those the only possibilities you consider?
>The evidence for one is as strong as for the other,
The evidence for either is nonexistent at this point.
>yet there is no objective proof for either option.
Therefore, why bother worrying about it, until we get some evidence?
>Some go with the random chance idea. I go with the God created idea.
Some go with sticking to what we know and can show evidence for.
>Random chance is just not an adequate explanation for the EXTREME
>complexity of this multiverse,
Says who?
And who says that the universe is so extremely complex?
Remember that the "extreme" complexity of life on earth derives from
simple chains of chemicals of exactly 4 different types and yet
doesn't fill more than a tiny fraction of the possible complexity
space for such chemical chains.
That we don't know the simple rules that explain everything doesn't
mean that there aren't simple rules.
And who insists that all chance be "random"?
>with no intelligent designer involved at all.
To have an intelligent designer as an explanation for creation, you
need an explanation of who or what created an intelligent designer
capable of designing "EXTREME complexity". Otherwise the claim of
such a designer just begs the question.
The simpler explanation is that the universe is the way that it is
because it WORKS. If it didn't work, then the universe wouldn't exist
at all. If it worked differently, then the rules that make it work
differently would be different (and yet probably no less and no more
complex than the rules for this universe).
You are trying to invent a solution to a problem that needs no
solution, and then imposing a particular kind of solution because it
suits your intellectual fantasies.
>>There is no reason to believe that anything "can not be explained
>>otherwise". We may not have the explanation for everything yet, but
>>that does not mean that there is none.
>>
>Somewhat correct, but you're leaving God out of this set of
>conjectures. Why?
Why would I include someone or something for which there is no
evidence. Occam's Razor calls for us not to add unnecessary entities
into the explanation. None is necessary.
>>>If, somehow, all the quarks
>>>that exist are linked together by some means similar to quantum
>>>entanglements, this could provide means for a cosmic
>>>intelligence....God.
>>
>>If, somehow, wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
>>
>>Hint: every particle is linked to every other particle by strong,
>>weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational fields. That doesn't make
>>them intelligent.
>>
>There is particle linking, as you mention above, then there is
>something like particle entanglement. Vast difference.
How do you know?
>Entanglement provides means for instantaneous communication across infinite
>distances.
So what?
>The other forms of particle linkage are limited to the speed of light.
If so, so what? (IIRC, it has not been proven that gravitational force
propagation is limited by the speed of light. Hence the "if").
You seem to be assuming that a "cosmic intelligence", whatever that
means, requires faster than light communications.
We cannot possibly know that, since we have no examples of a "cosmic
intelligence" to investigate.
Antares 531
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:25:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>>
>>>There is no evidence at all for any religion.
>>>
>>There are indeed many areas of consideration that lead one to the
>>school of thought that God exists.
>
>Perhaps, but there is no EVIDENCE.
>
First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
matters.
As to EVIDENCE. There are indeed many things that have not yet been
explained, scientifically, which can be explained by attributing the
whole creation/management of the multiverse to a form of cosmic
intelligence. Gordon
>
>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>
This is indeed a hard question to answer, but I see it as an on-going
process that had no beginning and will have no end. To conceptualize
this in two dimensional space/time, think of a fractal pattern on a
sandy beach. Where does it begin and where does it end. Now, extend
this fractal pattern idea on into n-dimensional space and the whole
scenario really does get complex.
God created and is still in the process of creating Himself. And, God
is in the process of refining and perfecting us created beings. We are
here on this planet for the purpose of learning enough about sin and
rebellion to assure God that we will NEVER EVER want to go back and
explore it any further, once we've been granted immortality and
absolute sovereignty.
And, those who choose to reject this plan will be deleted from the
roster. That is, if one does not want to accept God and subscribe to
His training/development process this person can serve no useful
purpose beyond this mortal phase in God's creation. He/she/it will be
deleted. Even those who reject God serve as training examples to those
who are going along with God's plan. Gordon
>
>Who says anyone or anything necessarily created it?
>
It exists, therefore it had to have been created. This goes beyond
our temporal reference frame, and may not be such that we can
comprehend it while limited to this four-dimensional space/time that
we are able to perceive. Gordon
>
>>Chance or God?
>
>Why are those the only possibilities you consider?
>
What other possibilities are there for me or for anyone else to
consider. Either the universe/multiverse just popped into existence by
some chance/probability process, or some form of intelligent designer
was in control of the process. Gordon
>
>>The evidence for one is as strong as for the other,
>
Quiet true. This is indeed balanced such that any individual can make
their own choice as to whether they go with God or go without God.
Gordon
>
>The evidence for either is nonexistent at this point.
>
Here, I totally disagree. The only thing that exists is evidence. That
is, there is no objective, verifiable proof, either way. Gordon
>
>>yet there is no objective proof for either option.
>
>Therefore, why bother worrying about it, until we get some evidence?
>
>>Some go with the random chance idea. I go with the God created idea.
>
It is a learning opportunity that will lead me ever closer to
understanding what God is and what His goals are. And, I want to be
retained, so I can experience the further developments beyond the end
of my mortal phase of existence. Gordon
>
>Some go with sticking to what we know and can show evidence for.
>
We really don't KNOW anything. All we have before us is the best, most
widely accepted scientific assessments of the current time. These will
undoubtedly change with time, and many of the scientific ideas we have
today will be abandoned as greater understanding becomes available.
Gordon
>
>>Random chance is just not an adequate explanation for the EXTREME
>>complexity of this multiverse,
>
>Says who?
>
Most who have tried to make random chance fit in with the creation of
the multiverse agree that it doesn't. This might be compared to
tossing a coffee can full of coins and having them all land heads-up.
Then repeating the process and getting all heads-up, again, then
repeating the process and getting all heads-up, on and on. Of course
probability allows for such as this but if someone claimed that it had
actually happened I'd be very skeptical. Gordon
>
>And who says that the universe is so extremely complex?
>
Who could possibly argue that the universe is NOT extremely complex?
Can any group of scientists create life? Can any group of scientists
initiate matter from a point of nothingness? Gordon
>
>Remember that the "extreme" complexity of life on earth derives from
>simple chains of chemicals of exactly 4 different types and yet
>doesn't fill more than a tiny fraction of the possible complexity
>space for such chemical chains.
>
But for this to have happened as a matter of chance with no
intelligence involved until those creatures had advanced to the point
where their own intelligence intervened is beyond any probability.
Gordon
>
>That we don't know the simple rules that explain everything doesn't
>mean that there aren't simple rules.
>
Quite true, but God set things up such that some of it is very simple.
It's the very complex, very extensive, very overlapping sequence of
events that probability just doesn't explain. Gordon
>
>And who insists that all chance be "random"?
>
With no form of cosmic intelligence, how could chance be anything
other than random. Gordon
>
>>with no intelligent designer involved at all.
>
>To have an intelligent designer as an explanation for creation, you
>need an explanation of who or what created an intelligent designer
>capable of designing "EXTREME complexity". Otherwise the claim of
>such a designer just begs the question.
>
As I stated earlier in this response, God created and is still
creating Himself. He operates outside our temporal frame, so this is
hard to fit into our concept of time. From our temporal perspective,
God is absolutely, totally complete and perfect, but from his temporal
frame He the process is on-going. Gordon
>
>The simpler explanation is that the universe is the way that it is
>because it WORKS. If it didn't work, then the universe wouldn't exist
>at all. If it worked differently, then the rules that make it work
>differently would be different (and yet probably no less and no more
>complex than the rules for this universe).
>
This is true, but it works the way it is because God set it up with
the necessary natural laws that are required in order for it to work.
Gordon
>
>You are trying to invent a solution to a problem that needs no
>solution, and then imposing a particular kind of solution because it
>suits your intellectual fantasies.
>
I'm not trying to "invent" a solution. I'm trying to understand the
situation that exists. Gordon
>
>>>There is no reason to believe that anything "can not be explained
>>>otherwise". We may not have the explanation for everything yet, but
>>>that does not mean that there is none.
>>>
>>Somewhat correct, but you're leaving God out of this set of
>>conjectures. Why?
>
>Why would I include someone or something for which there is no
>evidence. Occam's Razor calls for us not to add unnecessary entities
>into the explanation. None is necessary.
>
Would you leave any other firm, well established, widely accepted
scientific theory out of your reasoning? For instance, do you reject
Super String-Membrane Theory simply because it can not and probably
never will be provable? Mathematics alludes to the explanation offered
by SS-M Theory but we do not have means for objectively proving things
below the Planck length. Gordon
>
>>>>If, somehow, all the quarks
>>>>that exist are linked together by some means similar to quantum
>>>>entanglements, this could provide means for a cosmic
>>>>intelligence....God.
>>>
>>>If, somehow, wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
>>>
>>>Hint: every particle is linked to every other particle by strong,
>>>weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational fields. That doesn't make
>>>them intelligent.
>>>
>>There is particle linking, as you mention above, then there is
>>something like particle entanglement. Vast difference.
>
>How do you know?
>
Quantum entanglements have been verified, many times. The interaction
between entangled particles is not limited to the speed of light. Yet
no tests have ever shown things like gravity, strong and weak fields
interact at trans-light speed. This is still at the conjecture level,
but in a sense is like the idea that God exists. One can either accept
or reject it, but no one can PROVE it. Gordon
>
>>Entanglement provides means for instantaneous communication across infinite
>>distances.
>
>So what?
>
A form of cosmic intelligence that permeates the entire multiverse
could not function if there were long delays in the transmission of
information. This would be like a person walking along and tripping
over a curb, but not being able to sense this tripping event for a
long time. By the time the brain got the message and tried to send
corrective signals back to the leg muscles the person would be down
and beyond controlling, avoiding or recovering from the fall. Gordon
>
>>The other forms of particle linkage are limited to the speed of light.
>
>If so, so what? (IIRC, it has not been proven that gravitational force
>propagation is limited by the speed of light. Hence the "if").
>
>You seem to be assuming that a "cosmic intelligence", whatever that
>means, requires faster than light communications.
>
It absolutely would require instantaneous communication. If the
synapses of our human brains could not communicate very rapidly we
would not be able to manage our posture/balance, etc. Extend this to
cosmic dimensions and the need for faster than light, instantaneous
communications is an absolute requirement. Gordon
>
>We cannot possibly know that, since we have no examples of a "cosmic
>intelligence" to investigate.
>
Here, I agree. We can not KNOW, but we can explore and learn, or we
can close the door to our mind and just let things go. But this may
end up in a way that isn't the best outcome for those who choose to go
this way.
Those who reject God and refuse to try to learn about Him will likely
be deleted from existence or otherwise removed from any association
with God. That is, they may end up in a space/time that has been
created or moved through a multiverse portal such that it and the
beings within it can NEVER come back to the side of that portal where
God's project is going on. Gordon
psst
>
>On 18 Jul 2011 21:45:56 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <1jk8279pqp8574iqj...@4ax.com>, Antares 531 says...
>>>
>>>The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>>Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that He was not crucified but had a
>>>likeness crucified in His place, then appeared before the people,
>>>claiming to have been raised from the dead. Yet they regard Jesus as a
>>>reliable and acceptable prophet.
>>>
>>>So, if being a liar and a deceiver is acceptable behavior of a
>>>"reliable" prophet, how do we know that any other prophets they look
>>>up to were not also liars and deceivers?
>>>
>>>Gordon
>>
>>
>>I love it when a fan of one of the bible-derived religions
>>tries to shoot down one of the others using rationality.
>>
>>All of you guys are so much closer to those of us
>>who say it's all made-up bull than you will ever
>>be willing to admit.
>>
>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>
Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
experimental test for thousands of years.
The results are always the same. When the last believer
in any given deity dies, the deity does nothing.
There is no counter-evidence.
Replacing a discredited deity with a new one while
claiming it is really the old one is merely gaming
the experiment and is not valid counter-evidence.
You yourself engage in this subterfuge.
There may be scientific questions that have not been
fully answered yet, and there always will be,
but there are no artifact-extant historical events
that *require* a deity to be explainable. Not one.
Deity interaction just happens to be indistinguishable
from plausible ordinary natural explanation every time?
As the saying goes, sooner or later one of us is going
to start looking pretty stupid -- the point where rational
people came to the conclusion that primitive deity-involving
explanations were pretty stupid has already long been passed.
Drawing vague parallels and similarities between
science and the stories found in scriptures, as you do
below, is a ridiculous parlor game considering how
science has discredited over the years so much of what
religious scripture and supposedly "inspired" religious
zealots used to claim was knowledge. And that doesn't
even count the stuff that was destroyed as being heretical
by someone or other.
Right here, you are engaged in updating
a discredited deity that never showed up after
two thousand years. You have mutated this deity from
a returning force that will set things right and
destroy the evil, to some sort of Star Trek type
of quark-connected cosmic superbeing. You're merely
dressing up deity-belief as speculative/science fiction,
but it does nothing to add the first piece of *evidence*
-- you don't have "some very substantial evidence";
You have *zero* evidence and a whole lot of story-telling,
which you then glue to whatever your opinions are about
morality.
All any morality system consists of is opinions.
Nothing more. Just opinions. The problem with
organized religion is that each fights to claim that
their morality system is *more than opinion*
-- and the only thing that is more than opinion
is objective fact.
This in a nutshell is the fallacy of all religion
and the reason why having all this religion around
has always led to strife, not greater morality.
The greatest force for actually achieving improvements
in morality systems have come recently in history and
ue to secular humanist ideas and the effects they have
had on the primitive religions.
Why has secular humanist approach succeeded?
Simply because it has no use for supernatural
mumbo-jumbo or supernatural claims for the inherent
superiority of some point of morality-opinion.
Opinions about morality are fine, and a very worthy
subject for humans to discuss, arguably the most important.
But not only doesn't it need the supernatural mumbo-jumbo,
discussions between people with various opinions about
morality are *retarded* by those who insist on their own
brand of deity-dictated mumbo-jumbo.
There can be no peace in the world until everybody
is willing to lay down their religions -- for they
are literally weapons.
duke
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>On 18 Jul 2011 21:45:56 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1jk8279pqp8574iqj...@4ax.com>, Antares 531 says...
>>>>
>>>>The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>>>Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that He was not crucified but had a
>>>>likeness crucified in His place, then appeared before the people,
>>>>claiming to have been raised from the dead. Yet they regard Jesus as a
>>>>reliable and acceptable prophet.
>>>>
>>>>So, if being a liar and a deceiver is acceptable behavior of a
>>>>"reliable" prophet, how do we know that any other prophets they look
>>>>up to were not also liars and deceivers?
>>>>
>>>>Gordon
>>>
>>>
>>>I love it when a fan of one of the bible-derived religions
>>>tries to shoot down one of the others using rationality.
>>>
>>>All of you guys are so much closer to those of us
>>>who say it's all made-up bull than you will ever
>>>be willing to admit.
>>>
>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>
>There is no evidence at all for any religion.
Now that's a stupid and unlearned comment. Even the blind can see the organized
groups of worshippers of God.
>>If, somehow, all the quarks
>>that exist are linked together by some means similar to quantum
>>entanglements, this could provide means for a cosmic
>>intelligence....God.
>If, somehow, wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
>Hint: every particle is linked to every other particle by strong,
>weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational fields. That doesn't make
>them intelligent.
But ............. why are they linked?
duke
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:25:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>>
>>>There is no evidence at all for any religion.
>>>
>>There are indeed many areas of consideration that lead one to the
>>school of thought that God exists.
>
>Perhaps, but there is no EVIDENCE.
There is a plethora of evidence for many of us.
>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>Who says anyone or anything necessarily created it?
Existence mandates creation.
>>Chance or God?
>Why are those the only possibilities you consider?
None representing greater reality.
>>The evidence for one is as strong as for the other,
>The evidence for either is nonexistent at this point.
Maybe not for you, but there is for us.
>>yet there is no objective proof for either option.
>Therefore, why bother worrying about it, until we get some evidence?
Our judgment by God comes when we die, not when you get your evidence.
>And who says that the universe is so extremely complex?
>Remember that the "extreme" complexity of life on earth derives from
>simple chains of chemicals of exactly 4 different types and yet
>doesn't fill more than a tiny fraction of the possible complexity
>space for such chemical chains.
God is great - doing it with only 4 chains.
>That we don't know the simple rules that explain everything doesn't
>mean that there aren't simple rules.
>And who insists that all chance be "random"?
>>with no intelligent designer involved at all.
Then why is up?
>>Somewhat correct, but you're leaving God out of this set of
>>conjectures. Why?
>Why would I include someone or something for which there is no
>evidence. Occam's Razor calls for us not to add unnecessary entities
>into the explanation. None is necessary.
God is that razor. You remain clueless.
duke
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:34:34 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:25:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>There is no evidence at all for any religion.
>>>>
>>>There are indeed many areas of consideration that lead one to the
>>>school of thought that God exists.
>>
>>Perhaps, but there is no EVIDENCE.
>First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
>to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
>matters.
You SHOULD argue with him. One set of evidence - he says no, you say yes. He
rejects existence mandating creation, you accept it.
>>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>This is indeed a hard question to answer
It doesn't require an answer. It exists, and growing larger at an increasing
rate stemming from an initial point of nothingness.
It's creation at it's finest. The supreme Creator's name is God.
duke
>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
>as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
>experimental test for thousands of years.
There has been no test.
>Right here, you are engaged in updating
>a discredited deity that never showed up after
>two thousand years.
?? He came back on the 3rd day. Are you thinking of another return?
psst
>
>On 20 Jul 2011 20:45:03 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>
>>Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
>>as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
>>experimental test for thousands of years.
>
>There has been no test.
>
Every culture with a proposed deity demonstrated
that its deity was bogus when that culture was destroyed.
When Jewish culture was destroyed, its deity did nothing,
demonstrating its non-existence. A new deity was crafted
within the cultural chaos of the times and was elaborated
upon and mutated from there. Many sub-cults of European
and American New Testamentism are already either dead
or brain-dead-discredited such as the JWs, as the deity
they proclaimed was returning in some specific year, didn't.
Take your pick, there are many to choose from, and protest
all you want they they were not the *real* Christianity,
you are merely making a special pleading argument for
exempting whatever cult you favor that happens to still
be around but refuses to commit itself to any particular
deity action that can be objectively tested by
post-medieval thinking standards.
Oh, there's been a test of the all-deities-are-bogus
hypothesis alright, and it has been so successful in its
predictive power that it has cowed every deity-cult
into either extinction, absurd re-invention, or predicting
only deity actions in some conveniently and utterly
unspecified future date.
arah
> The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
Provide proof to your statement, if you can't you are the liar!!!!.
Antares 531
wrote:
>On Jul 18, 6:37 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
Quoting from my J.M. Rodwell 2003 print of the English translation of
the Koran;
Sura 4:156 And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
Now, if we consider the generally held belief that Jesus appeared
before many people after his crucifixion, he surely must have gone
along with this deception. Wouldn't this make Jesus a liar and a
deceiver? Or, were the authors of the Koran the liars and deceivers?
And, if it is honorable for a prophet to be a liar and a deceiver,
would there be any reason to think that the other Islamic prophets
were not liars and deceivers, also.
Gordon
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2011 20:45:03 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
> >>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
> >>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>
> >Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
> >as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
> >experimental test for thousands of years.
>
> There has been no test.
>
> >Right here, you are engaged in updating
> >a discredited deity that never showed up after
> >two thousand years.
>
> ?? He came back on the 3rd day.
Even if that were true, and we have no way of verifying it, "He" has not
been seen since.
--
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:34:34 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:25:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>There is no evidence at all for any religion.
>>>>
>>>There are indeed many areas of consideration that lead one to the
>>>school of thought that God exists.
>>
>>Perhaps, but there is no EVIDENCE.
>>
>First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
>to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
>matters.
So what?
>As to EVIDENCE. There are indeed many things that have not yet been
>explained, scientifically, which can be explained by attributing the
>whole creation/management of the multiverse to a form of cosmic
>intelligence.
That is not an "explanation" of anything. That is a hand-waving.
There is as much evidence that "Godidit" as there is that "The Flying
Spaghetti Monster did it". And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is NOT a
"cosmic intelligence".
>>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>>
>This is indeed a hard question to answer,
There may be no answer, if the question is nonsense.
>but I see it
No one cares what you see, unless you have some supporting evidence.
>To conceptualize this
Why would I want to conceptualize something that you have no evidence
for?
>in two dimensional space/time, think of a fractal pattern on a
>sandy beach. Where does it begin and where does it end.
Why would I care?
>God created and is still in the process of creating Himself.
And you know this because?
>And, God is in the process of refining and perfecting us created beings
And you know this because?
>We are here on this planet for the purpose of learning enough about sin and
>rebellion to assure God that we will NEVER EVER want to go back and
>explore it any further, once we've been granted immortality and
>absolute sovereignty.
And you know this because?
>And, those who choose to reject this plan will be deleted from the roster.
A plan for which there is no evidence that it even exists?
>That is, if one does not want to accept God and subscribe to
>His training/development process this person can serve no useful
>purpose beyond this mortal phase in God's creation.
Your theology is showing.
>>Who says anyone or anything necessarily created it?
>>
>It exists, therefore it had to have been created.
False assumption.
>>>Chance or God?
>>
>>Why are those the only possibilities you consider?
>>
>What other possibilities are there for me or for anyone else to
>consider.
That you cannot conceive of other possibilities, does not mean that
they do not exist. And why should it matter that we "consider" them?
It is perfectly possible that the correct explanation is something
beyond our capability to "consider"
>Either the universe/multiverse just popped into existence by
>some chance/probability process, or some form of intelligent designer
>was in control of the process.
False dichotomy.
>Quiet true. This is indeed balanced such that any individual can make
>their own choice as to whether they go with God or go without God.
>Gordon
>>
>>The evidence for either is nonexistent at this point.
>>
>Here, I totally disagree. The only thing that exists is evidence.
There is NO evidence.
>That is, there is no objective, verifiable proof
Proof is something completely different from evidence.
We do proof in mathematics. We gather evidence in science.
>>>Some go with the random chance idea. I go with the God created idea.
>>
>It is a learning opportunity that will lead me ever closer to
>understanding what God is and what His goals are.
Not likely.
>>Some go with sticking to what we know and can show evidence for.
>>
>We really don't KNOW anything.
Correct.
>All we have before us is the best, most
>widely accepted scientific assessments of the current time. These will
>undoubtedly change with time, and many of the scientific ideas we have
>today will be abandoned as greater understanding becomes available.
But until there is scientific evidence of a God, those scientific
assessments and ideas will not include God.
>>>Random chance is just not an adequate explanation for the EXTREME
>>>complexity of this multiverse,
>>
>>Says who?
>>
>Most who have tried to make random chance fit in with the creation of
>the multiverse agree that it doesn't.
So what? Their ignorance is no excuse.
>This might be compared to
>tossing a coffee can full of coins and having them all land heads-up.
>Then repeating the process and getting all heads-up, again, then
>repeating the process and getting all heads-up, on and on. Of course
>probability allows for such as this but if someone claimed that it had
>actually happened I'd be very skeptical.
Your skepticism is irrelevant.
After that coffee can of coins has been tossed, there is some
particular set of heads and tails that results. WHATEVER that
particular pattern is, before the tossing, the chances of that
particular pattern is exactly the same as the chances for all
heads-up.
EVERY result is equally improbable. But one of them happened, and
thus is a certainty.
>>And who says that the universe is so extremely complex?
>>
>Who could possibly argue that the universe is NOT extremely complex?
Me.
That we don't know the explanation, does not mean that there is no
simple explanation. Computers do all sorts of apparently highly
complex things, and yet ultimately they are only massive sets of
identical binary switches following and immense numbers of very simple
rules.
>Can any group of scientists create life?
We don't know. Probably at some point.
>Can any group of scientists initiate matter from a point of nothingness?
We don't know. Possibly at some point.
But of course, the correctness of an explanation is entirely
independent of whether scientists can do either of those things, (or
even whether those things have ever happened).
>>Remember that the "extreme" complexity of life on earth derives from
>>simple chains of chemicals of exactly 4 different types and yet
>>doesn't fill more than a tiny fraction of the possible complexity
>>space for such chemical chains.
>
>But for this to have happened as a matter of chance with no
>intelligence involved until those creatures had advanced to the point
>where their own intelligence intervened is beyond any probability.
How do you know what the probability is?
As I said, the probability for any particular ordered-pattern for a
million coin flips is exactly the same - extremely small. But after
that million coin flips, one of those patterns has a probability of
100%.
>>That we don't know the simple rules that explain everything doesn't
>>mean that there aren't simple rules.
>>
>Quite true, but God set things up
How do we know that God set anything up?
>It's the very complex, very extensive, very overlapping sequence of
>events that probability just doesn't explain.
Probability can explain ANYTHING. After it happens, the probability
of it happening is 100%.
>>And who insists that all chance be "random"?
>>
>With no form of cosmic intelligence, how could chance be anything
>other than random.
That you can only conceive of this false dichotomy is your limitation.
Chance can be non-random by being constrained by non-random rules.
Weighted dice do not give a random result (and dice can be weighted
without someone intelligent causing then to be)
>As I stated earlier in this response, God created and is still
>creating Himself. He operates outside our temporal frame, so this is
>hard to fit into our concept of time. From our temporal perspective,
>God is absolutely, totally complete and perfect, but from his temporal
>frame He the process is on-going.
Non-answer. Who created His temporal frame?
>>The simpler explanation is that the universe is the way that it is
>>because it WORKS. If it didn't work, then the universe wouldn't exist
>>at all. If it worked differently, then the rules that make it work
>>differently would be different (and yet probably no less and no more
>>complex than the rules for this universe).
>>
>This is true, but it works the way it is because God set it up with
>the necessary natural laws that are required in order for it to work.
You have no evidence of this, and there is no need for any God to have
done so.
>>You are trying to invent a solution to a problem that needs no
>>solution, and then imposing a particular kind of solution because it
>>suits your intellectual fantasies.
>>
>I'm not trying to "invent" a solution. I'm trying to understand the
>situation that exists.
You have no evidence on which to base any such understanding
And you clearly lack the education needed to understand what is
already understood.
>>>>There is no reason to believe that anything "can not be explained
>>>>otherwise". We may not have the explanation for everything yet, but
>>>>that does not mean that there is none.
>>>>
>>>Somewhat correct, but you're leaving God out of this set of
>>>conjectures. Why?
>>
>>Why would I include someone or something for which there is no
>>evidence. Occam's Razor calls for us not to add unnecessary entities
>>into the explanation. None is necessary.
>>
>Would you leave any other firm, well established, widely accepted
>scientific theory out of your reasoning?
???
>For instance, do you reject
>Super String-Membrane Theory simply because it can not and probably
>never will be provable?
I simply ignore Super String-Membrane Theory, until it is testable (I
don't require that it be "provable" - science is not mathematics).
It is irrelevant until it is useful. And it cannot be tested, it is
not useful.
Furthermore, until there is evidence, it is not a "theory", but merely
a hypothesis.
>Mathematics alludes
Mathematics can allude all sorts of nonsense, which may or may not
have anything to do with reality.
>>>>Hint: every particle is linked to every other particle by strong,
>>>>weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational fields. That doesn't make
>>>>them intelligent.
>>>>
>>>There is particle linking, as you mention above, then there is
>>>something like particle entanglement. Vast difference.
>>
>>How do you know?
>>
>Quantum entanglements have been verified, many times.
That doesn't make them "different".
>The interaction between entangled particles is not limited to the speed of light.
So what?
>Yet no tests have ever shown things like gravity, strong and weak fields
>interact at trans-light speed.
IIRC, gravity has not been tested.
But it doesn't matter.
You are assuming that trans-light speed is both necessary and
sufficient for "cosmic intelligence". There is no reason to believe
it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
>This is still at the conjecture level,
Which means it is invented nonsense.
>but in a sense is like the idea that God exists.
Which means it is invented nonsense.
>One can either accept or reject it
Or ignore it, which is the most convenient response.
>but no one can PROVE it
You have this unscientific hangup about proof. Proof is irrelevant.
Evidence is necessary.
>>>Entanglement provides means for instantaneous communication across infinite
>>>distances.
>>
>>So what?
>>
>A form of cosmic intelligence that permeates the entire multiverse
>could not function if there were long delays in the transmission of
>information.
How could you possibly know how a cosmic intelligence works, and what
it would need in order to function?
You are just piling more conjectures on your original conjecture, and
it is all invented nonsense.
>This would be like a person walking along and tripping
>over a curb, but not being able to sense this tripping event for a
>long time.
So what?
In point of fact, when we trip over a curb, we react to it long before
we are conscious that we have tripped. Reflex actions are based on
relatively local nervous interactions without rising to the level of
consciousness. In some life forms, local reflex response is all that
they need or have.
AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS OR NEEDS ANY SORT OF
GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE.
>>>The other forms of particle linkage are limited to the speed of light.
>>
>>If so, so what? (IIRC, it has not been proven that gravitational force
>>propagation is limited by the speed of light. Hence the "if").
>>
>>You seem to be assuming that a "cosmic intelligence", whatever that
>>means, requires faster than light communications.
>>
>It absolutely would require instantaneous communication.
Why?
>If the synapses of our human brains could not communicate very rapidly we
>would not be able to manage our posture/balance, etc.
Nonsense.
>Extend this to
>cosmic dimensions and the need for faster than light, instantaneous
>communications is an absolute requirement. Gordon
No, it is only a requirement for your silly conjectures.
>>We cannot possibly know that, since we have no examples of a "cosmic
>>intelligence" to investigate.
>>
>Here, I agree. We can not KNOW, but we can explore and learn,
Without evidence, we cannot learn anything.
>or we can close the door to our mind and just let things go.
There are plenty of more useful things to waste time on.
>But this may end up in a way that isn't the best outcome for those who choose to go
>this way.
If you cannot gather evidence, then have no control over any outcomes
(assuming that you want such control).
>Those who reject God and refuse to try to learn about Him will likely
>be deleted from existence or otherwise removed from any association
>with God.
Your evidence is lacking as to this "likelihood". And without
evidence it is silly conjecture (i.e. invented nonsense") of utterly
no import.
>That is, they may end up in a space/time that has been
>created or moved through a multiverse portal such that it and the
>beings within it can NEVER come back to the side of that portal where
>God's project is going on.
So what? If we don't know it, why would we care (assuming that
"caring" is even a plausible consideration in such a circumstances -
the dead don't care about anything, and don't miss it at all).
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:00:03 -0500, Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net>
>>First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
>>to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
>>matters.
>
>You SHOULD argue with him. One set of evidence
There is no evidence.
>>>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>
>>This is indeed a hard question to answer
>
>It doesn't require an answer.
Wisdom from the ignorant.
>It exists, and growing larger at an increasing rate stemming from an initial point of nothingness.
Apparently so.
>It's creation at it's finest.
Evidence is lacking that it is a "creation" at all.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:34:34 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>Perhaps, but there is no EVIDENCE.
>
>There is a plethora of evidence for many of us.
None at all.
>>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>>Who says anyone or anything necessarily created it?
>
>Existence mandates creation.
No it doesn't.
>>>The evidence for one is as strong as for the other,
>>The evidence for either is nonexistent at this point.
>
>Maybe not for you, but there is for us.
Nonexistent. Period.
>>That we don't know the simple rules that explain everything doesn't
>>mean that there aren't simple rules.
>>And who insists that all chance be "random"?
>>>with no intelligent designer involved at all.
>
>Then why is up?
Maybe it isn't.
>>>Somewhat correct, but you're leaving God out of this set of
>>>conjectures. Why?
>
>>Why would I include someone or something for which there is no
>>evidence. Occam's Razor calls for us not to add unnecessary entities
>>into the explanation. None is necessary.
>
>God is that razor. You remain clueless.
You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
Bob LeChevalier
Bob LeChevalier
>On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:34:15 -0700 (PDT), arah <arah...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 18, 6:37 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>> Jesus was a liar and a deceiver.
>>
>>Provide proof to your statement, if you can't you are the liar!!!!.
>>
>Quoting from my J.M. Rodwell 2003 print of the English translation of
>the Koran;
>
>Sura 4:156 And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
>Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
>they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
>
>Now, if we consider the generally held belief that Jesus appeared
>before many people after his crucifixion, he surely must have gone
>along with this deception.
There was no such "generally held belief".
That is like saying that the Birther "widely held belief" that Obama
wasn't born in the US necessarily requires that Obama to have gone
along with some deception, when the simpler explanation is that the
"widely held belief" was false
>Wouldn't this make Jesus a liar and a deceiver?
No. It makes the holders of the "belief" fools.
>Or, were the authors of the Koran the liars and deceivers?
>And, if it is honorable for a prophet to be a liar and a deceiver,
Did God deceive Job, who believed that God was responsible for his
troubles, or did Job deceive himself by presuming that God had to be
the explanation for something he had NO EVIDENCE was caused by God?
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:00:03 -0500, Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net>
>
>>>First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
>>>to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
>>>matters.
>>You SHOULD argue with him. One set of evidence
>There is no evidence.
Evidence is why we have faith.
>>>>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>>>This is indeed a hard question to answer
>>It doesn't require an answer.
>Wisdom from the ignorant.
Existence demands creation.
>>It exists, and growing larger at an increasing rate stemming from an initial point of nothingness.
>Apparently so.
There you go - creation at it's finest.
>>It's creation at it's finest.
>Evidence is lacking that it is a "creation" at all.
A very stupid and illogical statement.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:34:34 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>>Perhaps, but there is no EVIDENCE.
>>
>>There is a plethora of evidence for many of us.
>None at all.
Not in the vacant lot in the 6 inches between your ears, of course.
>>>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>>>Who says anyone or anything necessarily created it?
>>Existence mandates creation.
>No it doesn't.
Easy to say when you can't support it.
>>>That we don't know the simple rules that explain everything doesn't
>>>mean that there aren't simple rules.
>>>And who insists that all chance be "random"?
>>>>with no intelligent designer involved at all.
>>Then why is up?
>Maybe it isn't.
Do you have an alternative. You usually do make up wild unfounded statement
anyway, so try now.
>>>>Somewhat correct, but you're leaving God out of this set of
>>>>conjectures. Why?
>>
>>>Why would I include someone or something for which there is no
>>>evidence. Occam's Razor calls for us not to add unnecessary entities
>>>into the explanation. None is necessary.
>>God is that razor. You remain clueless.
>You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
Occam's razor is creation.
duke
>In article <r76g279cp5ij8b6k2...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>
>>On 20 Jul 2011 20:45:03 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>
>>>Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
>>>as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
>>>experimental test for thousands of years.
>>
>>There has been no test.
>Every culture with a proposed deity demonstrated
>that its deity was bogus when that culture was destroyed.
Humankind has not been destroyed.
>When Jewish culture was destroyed, its deity did nothing,
>demonstrating its non-existence.
Oh, nooooooooo, I missed that one. When???
> A new deity was crafted
>within the cultural chaos of the times and was elaborated
>upon and mutated from there.
What you don't understand the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has been here for
13.7 billion years, min.
>Take your pick, there are many to choose from, and protest
>all you want they they were not the *real* Christianity,
>you are merely making a special pleading argument for
>exempting whatever cult you favor that happens to still
>be around but refuses to commit itself to any particular
>deity action that can be objectively tested by
>post-medieval thinking standards.
There is only one God almighty. What there is are various groups that select
and pick from what they want to believe about the one.
That's why there are 38,000+ protest_ant churches, all (with overlap) profession
what they want to believe and what to reject, but all say "Jesus is Lord".
duke
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:34:15 -0700 (PDT), arah <arah...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 18, 6:37�pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>> The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>>> Jesus was a liar and a deceiver.
>>>
>>>Provide proof to your statement, if you can't you are the liar!!!!.
>>>
>>Quoting from my J.M. Rodwell 2003 print of the English translation of
>>the Koran;
>>
>>Sura 4:156 And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
>>Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
>>they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
>>
>>Now, if we consider the generally held belief that Jesus appeared
>>before many people after his crucifixion, he surely must have gone
>>along with this deception.
>
>There was no such "generally held belief".
NOt in your evil world, of course.
>>Wouldn't this make Jesus a liar and a deceiver?
>No. It makes the holders of the "belief" fools.
Or truth believers.
>>Or, were the authors of the Koran the liars and deceivers?
>>And, if it is honorable for a prophet to be a liar and a deceiver,
>Did God deceive Job, who believed that God was responsible for his
>troubles, or did Job deceive himself by presuming that God had to be
>the explanation for something he had NO EVIDENCE was caused by God?
The latter.
>
>lojbab
>---
>Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
The dukester, American-American
Antares 531
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:34:15 -0700 (PDT), arah <arah...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 18, 6:37 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>> The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>>> Jesus was a liar and a deceiver.
>>>
>>>Provide proof to your statement, if you can't you are the liar!!!!.
>>>
>>Quoting from my J.M. Rodwell 2003 print of the English translation of
>>the Koran;
>>
>>Sura 4:156 And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
>>Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
>>they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
>>
>>Now, if we consider the generally held belief that Jesus appeared
>>before many people after his crucifixion, he surely must have gone
>>along with this deception.
>
>There was no such "generally held belief".
>
Bob, here's a link that contends that there are currently about 2.2
billion Christians on this old planet. The world population is
estimated at about 6.8 billion, so, I must agree, the Christian
population isn't the majority. Yet, surely their assessment on this
matter would constitute a "generally held belief" that you imply does
not exist. And, there are many, other than Christians, who have read
and accepted the idea that a very large number of people who lived
during that time frame surrounding Christ's crucifixion believe that
the story has some firm reality. Like the Muslims who came along
several hundred years later, some of those people may not have
accepted the Lord's Crucifixion as truth, but they DID acknowledge
that the story of His appearance before many people, afterward, was
being widely circulated.
The question is, how did so many people fall for this story if it was
a hoax? And, if it was a hoax, surely this fellow called Jesus must
have been supportive of this hoax, as the Muslims believe...(honorable
prophet/liar and deceiver).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country
Gordon
>
>That is like saying that the Birther "widely held belief" that Obama
>wasn't born in the US necessarily requires that Obama to have gone
>along with some deception, when the simpler explanation is that the
>"widely held belief" was false
>
This is another topic, entirely, but I still wonder why Obama was and
still is so very reticent to publish his birth credentials. He sure
does make it seem that he is trying to conceal some evidence that he
doesn't want the general public to have access to. Gordon
>
>>Wouldn't this make Jesus a liar and a deceiver?
>
>No. It makes the holders of the "belief" fools.
>
Or, maybe it makes rejecters of this belief fools.
Bob, you reinforce another point I've presented many times in these
threads. Anyone has the option of making their own sovereign choice as
to whether to go with God or go without God. Had things been set up
such that I or any other Christian could objectively prove God's
existence your option to ignore God and go on without Him would be
greatly curtailed. It's a "You go your way and I'll go mine,
situation."
>
>>Or, were the authors of the Koran the liars and deceivers?
>>And, if it is honorable for a prophet to be a liar and a deceiver,
>
>Did God deceive Job, who believed that God was responsible for his
>troubles, or did Job deceive himself by presuming that God had to be
>the explanation for something he had NO EVIDENCE was caused by God?
>
As to the idea that God was responsible for Job's troubles, think of
this as a matter of God having created the universe and all the
natural laws that exist within the universe. Now, if something bad, or
something good happens, surely it must have been regulated and
governed by those natural laws. And, those natural laws represent God,
himself.
A very simple way to comprehend this is to consider what would happen
if you walked over the rim of a very deep, very steep walled canyon.
Obviously the fall would kill you and, yes, God created gravity that
would make this happen, so, in a sense, one could say that God would
kill you if you walked over the rim of that canyon.
The book of Job and most other Bible stories should NOT be interpreted
in a literal way. These old stories convey messages that are embedded
into a simple story that was/is easy to tell. Those ancient people,
most of whom could not read or write, could tell these stories and
spread the information from tribe to tribe, down through the
generations, without losing the embedded critical information.
And, presenting this information in this format gives people such as
yourself an option to cop out. It's called freedom of choice.
We modern, well educated people can still interpret these old stories,
and understand the embedded meanings, if we will not let our selfish
superior assessments get in the way. All we need to do is assess the
embedded meanings of these stores as we know those ancient, illiterate
people did. We can easily revert to their scale, but they could NOT
have interpreted this information had it been given them in a modern,
scientific format. So, to be equally fair to all generations, God gave
us the information in a format that could be easily handled by any one
from any generation/time frame.
Gordon
>
Antares 531
This is quite true, but one more point...Satan has been and will
continue to be a major influencing factor in all those deviations into
some religion that was not God inspired. All religions that won't
stand the test against the Word of God are false religions, initiated
and sustained by Satan. Gordon
arah
That doesn't not mean Jesus lied!!!!
The bible was not written by Jesus nor proved reading by Jesus. We
muslim believe the bible was corrupted.
Continue reading the Quran and you will noticed that what Quran said
about the "people of the book"
Qur'an 3:64-71 Surah Ale-'Imran (The Family of 'Imran)
Say: "O people of the Book! come to common terms as between us and
you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners
with Him; that we erect not from among ourselves Lords and patrons
other than Allah." If then they turn back say: "Bear witness that we
(at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's will)."
Ye people of the Book! why dispute ye about Abraham when the Law and
the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye no understanding?
Ah! ye are those who fell to disputing (even) in matters of which ye
had some knowledge! but why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no
knowledge? It is Allah Who knows and ye who know not!
Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian but he was true in faith and
bowed his will to Allah's (which is Islam) and he joined not gods with
Allah.
Without doubt among men the nearest of kin to Abraham are those who
follow him as are also this Apostle and those who believe; and Allah
is the Protector of those who have faith.
It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you
astray. But they shall lead astray (not you) but themselves and they
do not perceive!
Ye People of the Book! Why reject ye the Signs of Allah of which ye
are (yourselves) witnesses?
Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe truth with falsehood and
conceal the truth while ye have knowledge?
There Is No God but He the Exalted in Power the Wise
Qur'an 3:18-20 Surah Ale-'Imran (The Family of 'Imran)
There is no god but He: that is the witness of Allah His angels and
those endued with knowledge standing firm on justice. There is no god
but He the Exalted in Power the Wise.
The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His will): nor did
the people of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each
other after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of
Allah Allah is swift in calling to account.
So if they dispute with thee say: "I have submitted my whole self to
Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the people of the
Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?"
If they do they are in right guidance but if they turn back thy duty
is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants.
Exceed Not in Your Religion the Bounds
Qur'an 5:77-80 Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread)
Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of
what is proper) trespassing beyond the truth nor follow the vain
desires of people who went wrong in times gone by who misled many and
strayed (themselves) from the even way.
Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who
rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary:
because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.
Nor did they (usually) forbid one another the iniquities which they
committed: evil indeed were the deeds which they did.
Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil
indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them
(with the result) that Allah's wrath is on them and in torment will
they abide.
Commit No Excesses in Your Religion
Qur'an 4:171 Surah An-Nisaa (The Women)
O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of
Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than)
an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a
Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Apostles. Say
not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One
Allah: glory be to him: (for Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him
belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as
a Disposer of affairs.
Revealing Much That You Used to Hide in the Book
Qur'an 5:15-19 Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread)
O People of the Book! there hath come to you Our Apostle revealing to
you much that ye used to hide in the Book and passing over much (that
is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) Light
and a perspicuous Book.
Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of
peace and safety and leadeth them out of darkness by His Will unto the
light guideth them to a Path that is Straight.
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of
Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah if His Will
were to destroy Christ the son of Mary his mother and all everyone
that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the
heavens and the earth and all that is between. He createth what He
pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."
(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah and His
beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay ye are
but men of the men He hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth and
He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of
the heavens and the earth and all that is between: and unto Him is the
final goal (of all)."
O people of the Book! now hath come unto you making (things) clear
unto you Our Apostle after the break in (the series of) Our apostles
lest ye should say: there came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and
no warner (from evil): but now hath come unto you a bringer of glad
tidings and a warner (from evil): and Allah hath power over all
things.
Disapprove for No Other Reason than That We Believe in Allah
Qur'an 5:59 Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread)
Say: "O People of the Book! do ye disapprove of us for no other reason
than that we believe in Allah and the revelation that hath come to us
and that which came before (us) and (perhaps) that most of you are
rebellious and disobedient?"
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/peopleq.htm
On Jul 21, 7:21 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
arah
faith you will be burned in hellfire forever. It not about other, it's
about our own believed.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Not everyone who calls out to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in
heaven will enter.
Is there a True Religion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfpgKCHkOs
� R. L. Measures.
<38c65679-fbbd-4088...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, arah
<arah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It not the issue of majority or minority. If you follow the wrong
>faith you will be burned in hellfire forever. It not about other, it's
>about our own believed.
>...
� the hellishly hot place of eternal punishment for what is essentially
not kowtowing to the dicta of "holy men" was invented by them. [5th
century].
"Lord, what fools these mortals be!" -- Puck.
--From A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act 3, scene 2 i, 115) by Wm. Shakespeare
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
psst
>
>On 21 Jul 2011 06:16:26 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <r76g279cp5ij8b6k2...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>>
>>>On 20 Jul 2011 20:45:03 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>>
>>>>Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
>>>>as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
>>>>experimental test for thousands of years.
>>>
>>>There has been no test.
>
>>Every culture with a proposed deity demonstrated
>>that its deity was bogus when that culture was destroyed.
>
>Humankind has not been destroyed.
>
A pointless distinction as you share detailed cultural traits
with an exceedingly small percentage of the cultures
that have ever existed.
Humankind will outlive your religion and your deity
will be forgotten and demonstrated to have been fiction.
>>When Jewish culture was destroyed, its deity did nothing,
>>demonstrating its non-existence.
>
>Oh, nooooooooo, I missed that one. When???
>
It is not a coincidence that the beginnings of the cult
of Jesus coincided with the Romans destroying Jerusalem
and burning the temple of the Jewish deity to the ground.
The Jewish deity did nothing, continuing the pattern the
hypothesis predicts that it wouldn't do anything, because
it never did anything except for what storybooks say,
apparently careful to leave no objective artifact evidence
behind that is impossible to explain save for deity-interaction.
And please don't drag out the old the Jews weren't
worthy of not being saved from destruction nonsense,
but the world was given this New Deal deity instead
by the same Jewish deity. Most people 2000 years ago
were comparatively primitive and effectively retarded by
today's standards. Getting masses of them to believe
stupid things on 100% hearsay was not difficult.
>> A new deity was crafted
>>within the cultural chaos of the times and was elaborated
>>upon and mutated from there.
>
>What you don't understand the God of Abraham, Isaac
> and Jacob has been here for
>13.7 billion years, min.
>
Deity bait and switch necessitated by cultural upheaval
and updated for the era enlightened by Darwin et al.
Our deity is neverchanging, our deity doesn't destroy
us at regular intervals because (fill in the blanks with
whatever your particular sub-cult says) -- make up your
minds by embracing rationality.
>>Take your pick, there are many to choose from, and protest
>>all you want they they were not the *real* Christianity,
>>you are merely making a special pleading argument for
>>exempting whatever cult you favor that happens to still
>>be around but refuses to commit itself to any particular
>>deity action that can be objectively tested by
>>post-medieval thinking standards.
>
>There is only one God almighty. What there is are various groups that select
>and pick from what they want to believe about the one.
>
>That's why there are 38,000+ protest_ant churches, all (with overlap) profession
>what they want to believe and what to reject, but all say "Jesus is Lord".
>
And when there are no more humans saying "Jesus is Lord"
Jesus will do nothing, being a fictional deity.
Antares 531
>In article <8hsi27pg42ufrh4tl...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>
>>On 21 Jul 2011 06:16:26 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>There has been n>>>In article <r76g279cp5ij8b6k2...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>>>
>>>>On 20 Jul 2011 20:45:03 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>>Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
>>>>>as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
>>>>>experimental test for thousands of years.
>>>>
psst, if you were to outline God's agenda, in so much as this
human/earth project is concerned, what would you rank as most
important? That is, should God protect us from the results of our
blunders, or should he let us go on as our selfish motives lead us,
then when we get into trouble, let us feel the full force of the
effects of our selfishness?
My assessment is that God has set us up here for the primary purpose
of learning. We are to learn enough about sin and rebellion to assure
God that NONE of us will EVER want to go back and explore it any
further, once we've been granted immortality and absolute sovereignty.
Without this hands-on training phase that we are currently going
through, we would all be struck with the same curiosity and desire to
explore sin and rebellion that caught Lucifer/Satan and led him into
his fall.
Had God curtailed Lucifer's snooping, that would NOT have resolved the
problem. Sooner or later another, then another, then another would
have fallen into the same state, and eventually God would have to put
all His created beings into a less than fully sovereign state. That
isn't what God wants from all of us. He wants us to be fully sovereign
and fully reliable. When we reach that level we will do God's will
reliably because God's will shall then be exactly and precisely our
own will. We won't be pre-programmed puppets or intimidated slaves. We
will be fully sovereign and fully reliable to interact with God at his
own level.
The above is my assessment, and I do not claim any infallible
insights. Take it for what it's worth.
Gordon
Antares 531
wrote:
>It not the issue of majority or minority. If you follow the wrong
>faith you will be burned in hellfire forever. It not about other, it's
>about our own believed.
>
Those who exercise their sovereign choice to follow the Lord will be
lead by His Holy Spirit and if these people are sincere they will find
the path that God wants them to follow. Not everyone has the "same
cross to bear." Therefore not everyone will be lead the same way, but
if their response is comfortably congruent with the written Word of
God (The Bible) they are on the right track.
>
>"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
>heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
>New Living Translation (�2007)
>
Right on! There is always that misleading by Satan that trips up a lot
of people. They may think they are following the will of God, but if
their lives aren't harmonious with the Word of God, they are on the
wrong track.
Antares 531
wrote:
> Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net>
arah, the entire range of misunderstandings in these matters is
induced by our human nature to try to rationalize all things in terms
of this four-dimensional space/time that we are able to perceive.
God operates outside our space/time, and many of His traits and
actions are hard for us to understand and reconcile with our natural
ways of thinking. God is fully capable of being everywhere
(Omnipresence) at all times, yet this is only one God, not an infinite
number of gods cropping up at all points of the universe.
Also, God can appear or interact here in our space/time in multiple
forms and ways, simultaneously, without dividing Himself into
separate, individual gods. It is a very serious error to place
restrictions upon God and his power of omnipresence and omniscience.
God DID appear in the flesh as the human being we know as Jesus, yet
this was still God, not some second deity that parallels God. Also,
God appears by means of his Holy Spirit to all who have a state of
unity with Jesus. This is just another example of God's power of
omnipresence.
No one can connect to God by any means other than by having a state of
unity with Jesus. Rejecting Jesus as God incarnate totally blocks
one's access to God.
By way of analogy, think of a firewall/router (Jesus) that serves as a
connection means for a large number of office or college computers
(individual persons), with a main frame computer (God). The
firewall/router and the mainframe computer are actually one computer
(God is one) with two separate facets. Our connection with God through
this firewall/router is by means of a Wi-Fi setup (Holy Spirit).
Any computer (person) that does not have a connection (Wi-Fi Holy
Spirit) with this firewall/router (Jesus) can not have access to the
mainframe computer (God) by any other means. Inventing another
"prophet" and outlining another path to God simply won't work. It's a
"do it God's way or do it the wrong way" situation.
The Muslims and all others who reject Jesus as our Lord and Savior
have closed themselves away from God and, unless they relent and
change their thinking, they will NEVER be a part of God's kingdom.
The pre-Muslims, starting with Abu Bakr and his cronies, rejected
Jesus as God incarnate because they did not want to become subservient
to the Roman Catholic Religious Organization and the Western Roman
Empire. Their response to this was to "invent" another prophet to
replace and supersede Jesus, then establish the center of their new
religion at Mecca, such that it could NEVER, EVER be integrated with
the Roman Catholic Religious Organization and the Western Roman
Empire. But, they surrendered their passport into the Kingdom of God
when they did this.
Gordon
Antares 531
wrote:
>It not the issue of majority or minority. If you follow the wrong
>faith you will be burned in hellfire forever. It not about other, it's
>about our own believed.
>
The way I think this all comes together in the end is that God will
have completed his on-going process of separating good from evil, then
He will move all that is evil-not good through a portal such that it
will be eternally separated from the part of the multiverse that
contains only that which is good, but no evil.
From God's side of this portal, observing this transition through the
portal will be something like the reversal of the Big Bang. And, yes,
it will appear to be hot as hell.
From the perspective of anyone in the other side of this portal
(hell), eternally separated from God, it will not be hot but will be
just a separated space/time universe system, much like the one we
currently live in.
It's all a matter of perspective, depending upon which side of the
portal the viewer is on.
Gordon
Antares 531
wrote:
I agree that hell is one hell of a place, and I surely would not like
to be there, but I don't think we should take a simplistic, literal
interpretation of the Biblical information on just what hell is.
Engage in a bit of mental gymnastics here and try to fit the Bible's
information harmoniously with the scientific understanding we
currently have. But, keep in mind that our scientific understanding is
still a LONG way short of complete and perfect.
Do the Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory extra dimensions fit in
with the Bible's information about levels of Heaven? I think they do.
Does the Big Bang Theory fit in with the Bible's information about the
creation? I think it does.
Would a Big Crunch fit in with the Bible's information about all who
are not retained by God in his kingdom being moved through a portal
into another, totally separated space/time universe/multiverse, and
eternally separated from God's kingdom? I think it fits very well.
From God's side of a portal like this, that separated
universe/multiverse would look hot as hell, but from the perspective
of any conscious beings in that separated universe/multiverse, it
would be about like the universe that we now occupy, except that all
which is good would have been removed. God is in the process of
separating good from evil, and that other side of the portal will be
the dominion of all that is evil. I surely wouldn't want to be there!
Gordon
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:21:00 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:00:03 -0500, Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net>
>>
>>>>First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
>>>>to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
>>>>matters.
>
>>>You SHOULD argue with him. One set of evidence
>>There is no evidence.
>
>Evidence is why we have faith.
Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>>>>>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>>>>This is indeed a hard question to answer
>>>It doesn't require an answer.
>>Wisdom from the ignorant.
>
>Existence demands creation.
No.
>>>It exists, and growing larger at an increasing rate stemming from an initial point of nothingness.
>>Apparently so.
>
>There you go - creation at it's finest.
No.
>>>It's creation at it's finest.
>>Evidence is lacking that it is a "creation" at all.
>
>A very stupid and illogical statement.
Only for someone who assumes the contrary is it "illogical".
Bob LeChevalier
>>>God is that razor. You remain clueless.
>>You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
>
>Occam's razor is creation.
As I said. You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
Bob LeChevalier
>>Every culture with a proposed deity demonstrated
>>that its deity was bogus when that culture was destroyed.
>
>Humankind has not been destroyed.
"Humankind" is not a culture.
>> A new deity was crafted
>>within the cultural chaos of the times and was elaborated
>>upon and mutated from there.
>
>What you don't understand the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has been here for
>13.7 billion years, min.
There is no evidence that such a God exists, and indeed no evidence
that the people called Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in certain stories
actually existed.
>>Take your pick, there are many to choose from, and protest
>>all you want they they were not the *real* Christianity,
>>you are merely making a special pleading argument for
>>exempting whatever cult you favor that happens to still
>>be around but refuses to commit itself to any particular
>>deity action that can be objectively tested by
>>post-medieval thinking standards.
>
>There is only one God almighty.
Your evidence is lacking.
Bob LeChevalier
>>> A new deity was crafted
>>>within the cultural chaos of the times and was elaborated
>>>upon and mutated from there.
>>
>>What you don't understand the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has been here for
>>13.7 billion years, min.
>>
>>>Take your pick, there are many to choose from, and protest
>>>all you want they they were not the *real* Christianity,
>>>you are merely making a special pleading argument for
>>>exempting whatever cult you favor that happens to still
>>>be around but refuses to commit itself to any particular
>>>deity action that can be objectively tested by
>>>post-medieval thinking standards.
>>
>>There is only one God almighty. What there is are various groups that select
>>and pick from what they want to believe about the one.
>>
>This is quite true, but one more point...Satan has been and will
>continue to be a major influencing factor in all those deviations into
>some religion that was not God inspired. All religions that won't
>stand the test against the Word of God are false religions, initiated
>and sustained by Satan. Gordon
Your evidence is lacking.
In light of your pseudoscientific effort to link God with science, I
call your attention to this article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/opinion/la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718
which provides a set of REAL evidence that human beings invented
God(s), rather than vice versa. It isn't "proof", but it is evidence,
something all your n-dimensional hand-waving completely lacks.
Bob LeChevalier
>psst, if you were to outline God's agenda,
There is no evidence of a God. There is no evidence that God has an
"agenda".
>in so much as this human/earth project
What project is that?
Earth is an infinitesimal part of the universe, and there is no
especial reason to expect that human beings are even the most
important creatures on earth, assuming that "importance" is a
meaningful concept.
>That is, should God protect us from the results of our blunders,
Who are we to say what God "should" do?
>My assessment
Based on nothing but the anthropomorphic assumption that if God
"wants" something, it would be something we would recognize as a
legitimate motivation.
>is that God has set us up here for the primary purpose of learning.
He is supposedly all-powerful. If He wanted us to learn something, He
simply decrees it, and it is so.
>We are to learn enough about sin and rebellion to assure
>God that NONE of us will EVER want to go back and explore it any
>further, once we've been granted immortality and absolute sovereignty.
Who says that we will be granted such things, assuming that they have
any meaning.
>Had God curtailed Lucifer's snooping, that would NOT have resolved the
>problem.
Of course it would.
>Sooner or later another, then another, then another would
>have fallen into the same state,
An omnipotent God could simply say "no one will fall into this state"
and such would be the case.
>and eventually God would have to put
>all His created beings into a less than fully sovereign state.
So what?
>That isn't what God wants from all of us
How could you possibly know what "God wants from all of us"?
>He wants us to be fully sovereign and fully reliable.
He could have made us that way if He "wanted" it.
>When we reach that level we will do God's will reliably
Then we are implicitly NOT sovereign, but puppets.
>because God's will shall then be exactly and precisely our
>own will. We won't be pre-programmed puppets
Of course we would be.
>We will be fully sovereign
Not if we are reliably going to do exactly what God wants.
>and fully reliable to interact with God at his own level.
Says who?
>The above is my assessment, and I do not claim any infallible
>insights. Take it for what it's worth.
It is worth nothing. Zilch. Zippo.
Bob LeChevalier
>>There was no such "generally held belief".
>>
>Bob, here's a link that contends that there are currently about 2.2
>billion Christians on this old planet.
Whoopie do.
>The world population is
>estimated at about 6.8 billion, so, I must agree, the Christian
>population isn't the majority.
And most labeled "Christians" don't believe very much in common.
>Yet, surely their assessment on this matter
What assessment is that?
>would constitute a "generally held belief"
No. The belief of a minority, even a large minority, is still not
"generally held".
>And, there are many, other than Christians, who have read
>and accepted the idea that a very large number of people who lived
>during that time frame surrounding Christ's crucifixion believe that
>the story has some firm reality.
What kind of reality?
>Like the Muslims who came along
>several hundred years later, some of those people may not have
>accepted the Lord's Crucifixion as truth, but they DID acknowledge
>that the story of His appearance before many people, afterward, was
>being widely circulated.
There is no question that the "story was widely circulated".
So is the story of Luke Skywalker and the story of Harry Potter and
the story of Hamlet.
>The question is, how did so many people fall for this story if it was
>a hoax?
Did they actually "fall for it"?
As to the answer to your question, for several hundred years,
Christians murdered anyone in territories that they controlled who
didn't convert.
>And, if it was a hoax, surely this fellow called Jesus must
>have been supportive of this hoax,
Why? Even if He really existed, the essentials of the "hoax" were
perpetrated by Paul long after He was gone.
>as the Muslims believe...(honorable prophet/liar and deceiver).
Your misrepresentation of Muslim belief is noted.
>>That is like saying that the Birther "widely held belief" that Obama
>>wasn't born in the US necessarily requires that Obama to have gone
>>along with some deception, when the simpler explanation is that the
>>"widely held belief" was false
>>
>This is another topic, entirely, but I still wonder why Obama was and
>still is so very reticent to publish his birth credentials.
Because it is no one's business.
>>>Wouldn't this make Jesus a liar and a deceiver?
>>
>>No. It makes the holders of the "belief" fools.
>>
>Or, maybe it makes rejecters of this belief fools.
Actually, it makes anyone who wastes time deciding to believe or not
believe fools.
>Bob, you reinforce another point I've presented many times in these
>threads. Anyone has the option of making their own sovereign choice as
>to whether to go with God or go without God. Had things been set up
>such that I or any other Christian could objectively prove God's
>existence your option to ignore God and go on without Him would be
>greatly curtailed.
Nonsense.
>>Did God deceive Job, who believed that God was responsible for his
>>troubles, or did Job deceive himself by presuming that God had to be
>>the explanation for something he had NO EVIDENCE was caused by God?
>>
>As to the idea that God was responsible for Job's troubles, think of
>this as a matter of God having created the universe and all the
>natural laws that exist within the universe. Now, if something bad, or
>something good happens, surely it must have been regulated and
>governed by those natural laws. And, those natural laws represent God,
>himself.
So God did cause it, you say.
>The book of Job and most other Bible stories should NOT be interpreted
>in a literal way. These old stories convey messages that are embedded
>into a simple story that was/is easy to tell. Those ancient people,
>most of whom could not read or write, could tell these stories and
>spread the information from tribe to tribe, down through the
>generations, without losing the embedded critical information.
But somehow YOU know what information is both embedded and critical
and not literal.
Sorry, but I have no high estimation of your insight.
>We modern, well educated people can still interpret these old stories,
>and understand the embedded meanings, if we will not let our selfish
>superior assessments get in the way.
Personally, I think it is you who has "selfish superior assessments"
in the way.
>All we need to do is assess the
>embedded meanings of these stores as we know those ancient, illiterate
>people did.
We have no idea what they did, but it certainly had nothing to do with
n-dimensional spaces.
>We can easily revert to their scale, but they could NOT
>have interpreted this information had it been given them in a modern,
>scientific format. So, to be equally fair to all generations, God gave
>us the information in a format that could be easily handled by any one
>from any generation/time frame.
He gave us no information. The Bible is Man's creation, not God's.
psst
First of all, I'm sure it's clear from my posts and that you
are aware that I say there are no deities whatsoever.
Bob is better than I am at concisely expressing objections
I have as well to the irrationalities of deity belief thinking.
So understand that the proposition you are asking me to
comment on is entirely preposterous to me, but since you
have prefaced it with an "if" I will comment. I'm kinda
bored tonight.
You talk about training humans and levels to be
achieved and how this is all supposed to make us
want to have a will congruent with this supposed deity
-- it is absurd to propose that a human can be trained
in one environmental reality for the purpose of making
it see the wisdom of acting in a very specific way in
entirely different environmental reality. Behavior is
environmentally influenced and constrained to an
enormous degree, not to mention being inextricably
tied to bodyform and bodyform condition.
Do you posit an afterlife environment that is precisely
like that on earth? If not, I propose that your
speculations are absurd. I'll start you off with one
specific illustrative example of my objection.
On earth, humans must do something to procure
their food. It is a central and indispensable part
of living and of every culture that has ever existed,
and something that absolutely every religious
philosophy has offered a *great deal* of lessons
and training in.
Exactly how do you think an afterlife can *possibly*
be of a sort where any of this training would be of
any application whatsoever, and if this afterlife of
yours is one where this centrally important human
activity is not at all still even present as a centrally
important human activity, what possible sense
does it make to imagine that your "training program"
scenario makes sense, let alone was designed
by a deity?
My primary point is that all proposed deity-plans
are meaningless to even try to evaluate for truth
content without knowing the actual and precise
conditions that constitute an afterlife, even if
there is one.
Since there is no such data, all that anyone says or
said about it might as well be fiction, even if it isn't.
Another of countless rational observations that
contributes to making the atheist hypothesis the
only one acceptable to the rational thinker.
Antares 531
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:21:00 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:00:03 -0500, Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net>
>>>
>>>>>First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
>>>>>to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
>>>>>matters.
>>
>>>>You SHOULD argue with him. One set of evidence
>>>There is no evidence.
>>
>>Evidence is why we have faith.
>
>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>
Nope, faith is what one has when evidence is available, leading one to
an opinion, but a firm objective proof has not yet been devised.
If scientists didn't have faith in their ideas they would not put
forth the effort and expense required for further studies and testing
of their ideas. Gordon
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:21:00 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:00:03 -0500, Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net>
>>>
>>>>>First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
>>>>>to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
>>>>>matters.
>>
>>>>You SHOULD argue with him. One set of evidence
>>>There is no evidence.
>>
>>Evidence is why we have faith.
>
>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
Hebrews 11:1 (New International Version)
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do
not see.
We have evidence, but no proof, of the life and times of one Jesus the Christ.
>>>>>>>What created this universe/multiverse?
>>>>>This is indeed a hard question to answer
>>>>It doesn't require an answer.
>>>Wisdom from the ignorant.
>>Existence demands creation.
>No.
No wonder you lack a brain.
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:59:27 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:21:00 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:00:03 -0500, Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net>
>>>>
>>>>>>First, please let me point out that I'm not arguing with you or trying
>>>>>>to change your mind to my way of thinking. I'm just discussing these
>>>>>>matters.
>>>
>>>>>You SHOULD argue with him. One set of evidence
>>>>There is no evidence.
>>>
>>>Evidence is why we have faith.
>>
>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>>
>Nope, faith is what one has when evidence is available, leading one to
>an opinion, but a firm objective proof has not yet been devised.
Absolutely, lobjob is a dufus.
Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as
true.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>God is that razor. You remain clueless.
>>>You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
>>
>>Occam's razor is creation.
>
>As I said. You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
Or, creation is Occam's razor.
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:00:12 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
Unfortunately, I see satan active is all humankind religions. We are all
sinners, only Jesus never sinned. Heb 4:15.
The faiths of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all God inspired. But
humankind's reaction is the major challenge. Letting satan in causes man to
deviate from the fullness of the teachings of Jesus, the Father and the Holy
Spirit.
duke
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>> A new deity was crafted
>>>>within the cultural chaos of the times and was elaborated
>>>>upon and mutated from there.
>>>
>>>What you don't understand the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has been here for
>>>13.7 billion years, min.
>>>
>>>>Take your pick, there are many to choose from, and protest
>>>>all you want they they were not the *real* Christianity,
>>>>you are merely making a special pleading argument for
>>>>exempting whatever cult you favor that happens to still
>>>>be around but refuses to commit itself to any particular
>>>>deity action that can be objectively tested by
>>>>post-medieval thinking standards.
>>>
>>>There is only one God almighty. What there is are various groups that select
>>>and pick from what they want to believe about the one.
>>>
>>This is quite true, but one more point...Satan has been and will
>>continue to be a major influencing factor in all those deviations into
>>some religion that was not God inspired. All religions that won't
>>stand the test against the Word of God are false religions, initiated
>>and sustained by Satan. Gordon
>
>Your evidence is lacking.
That's what I say about you.
duke
>In article <8hsi27pg42ufrh4tl...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>
>>On 21 Jul 2011 06:16:26 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <r76g279cp5ij8b6k2...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>>>
>>>>On 20 Jul 2011 20:45:03 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>>Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
>>>>>as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
>>>>>experimental test for thousands of years.
>>>>
>>>>There has been no test.
>>
>>>Every culture with a proposed deity demonstrated
>>>that its deity was bogus when that culture was destroyed.
>>Humankind has not been destroyed.
>A pointless distinction as you share detailed cultural traits
>with an exceedingly small percentage of the cultures
>that have ever existed.
The only cultures to be destroyed are those that didn't believe in a supreme
creator. Since God first revealed himself to man, most if not all cultures are
still here.
>Humankind will outlive your religion and your deity
>will be forgotten and demonstrated to have been fiction.
>>>When Jewish culture was destroyed, its deity did nothing,
>>>demonstrating its non-existence.
>>Oh, nooooooooo, I missed that one. When???
>It is not a coincidence that the beginnings of the cult
>of Jesus coincided with the Romans destroying Jerusalem
>and burning the temple of the Jewish deity to the ground.
But, but, but when was the Jewish culture wiped out? Please, tell me.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Every culture with a proposed deity demonstrated
>>>that its deity was bogus when that culture was destroyed.
>>
>>Humankind has not been destroyed.
>
>"Humankind" is not a culture.
>
>>> A new deity was crafted
>>>within the cultural chaos of the times and was elaborated
>>>upon and mutated from there.
>>
>>What you don't understand the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has been here for
>>13.7 billion years, min.
>
>There is no evidence that such a God exists, and indeed no evidence
>that the people called Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in certain stories
>actually existed.
Well, none in the vast expanses of the 6 inches between your ears.
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:45:12 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:34:15 -0700 (PDT), arah <arah...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 18, 6:37 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>>>> Jesus was a liar and a deceiver.
>>>>
>>>>Provide proof to your statement, if you can't you are the liar!!!!.
>>>>
>>>Quoting from my J.M. Rodwell 2003 print of the English translation of
>>>the Koran;
>>>
>>>Sura 4:156 And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
>>>Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
>>>they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
>>>
>>>Now, if we consider the generally held belief that Jesus appeared
>>>before many people after his crucifixion, he surely must have gone
>>>along with this deception.
>>There was no such "generally held belief".
>Bob, here's a link that contends that there are currently about 2.2
>billion Christians on this old planet. The world population is
>estimated at about 6.8 billion
I believe 2.2 was current with 6.2. None the less, the people of the one God
almighty (Christians, Jews, Muslims) was 54% then. Bring in the Hindus and
buddhas and other faiths at least believing is some form of higher calling
leaves the atheist wannabe's at about 3-4% of the world population.
Lobjob is a loser.
duke
>It not the issue of majority or minority. If you follow the wrong
>faith you will be burned in hellfire forever.
No you won't.
duke
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>There was no such "generally held belief".
>>>
>>Bob, here's a link that contends that there are currently about 2.2
>>billion Christians on this old planet.
>
>Whoopie do.
>
>>The world population is
>>estimated at about 6.8 billion, so, I must agree, the Christian
>>population isn't the majority.
>
>And most labeled "Christians" don't believe very much in common.
But right at 100% profess "Jesus is Lord".
duke
> Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net>
>
>That doesn't not mean Jesus lied!!!!
>
>The bible was not written by Jesus nor proved reading by Jesus. We
>muslim believe the bible was corrupted.
Then of what value is the koran?
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:59:27 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>>
>Nope, faith is what one has when evidence is available, leading one to
>an opinion, but a firm objective proof has not yet been devised.
No.
>If scientists didn't have faith in their ideas they would not put
>forth the effort and expense required for further studies and testing
>of their ideas.
Science doesn't do "faith".
Bob LeChevalier
>>>Evidence is why we have faith.
>>
>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>
>Hebrews 11:1 (New International Version)
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do
>not see.
Hebrews is not an authority on the English language.
However, it supports my assertion. "assurance about what we do not
see" means precisely "believing when you lack evidence", since in
those days, evidence was limited to what could actually be seen.
>We have evidence,
Not really.
>but no proof, of the life and times of one Jesus the Christ.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:01:37 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>God is that razor. You remain clueless.
>>>>You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
>>>
>>>Occam's razor is creation.
>>
>>As I said. You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
>
>Or, creation is Occam's razor.
As I said. You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:36:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>There was no such "generally held belief".
>>>>
>>>Bob, here's a link that contends that there are currently about 2.2
>>>billion Christians on this old planet.
>>
>>Whoopie do.
>>
>>>The world population is
>>>estimated at about 6.8 billion, so, I must agree, the Christian
>>>population isn't the majority.
>>
>>And most labeled "Christians" don't believe very much in common.
>
>But right at 100% profess "Jesus is Lord".
I doubt that, given (as we have discussed) that people are
oftenlabeled "Christians" based on baptism or parental claim. Most of
Europe is "Christian" but largely areligious.
And those who so profess don't all mean the same thing by that
statement.
Bob LeChevalier
>I believe 2.2 was current with 6.2. None the less, the people of the one God
>almighty (Christians, Jews, Muslims) was 54% then.
Jews and Muslims do not believe in the Triune God. Their God is
entirely singular.
psst
>
>On 22 Jul 2011 10:28:30 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <8hsi27pg42ufrh4tl...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>>
>>>On 21 Jul 2011 06:16:26 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <r76g279cp5ij8b6k2...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On 20 Jul 2011 20:45:03 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Consider religion as a theory that hasn't yet been proven, but for
>>>>>>>which there is some very substantial "evidence" and there are many
>>>>>>>things that can not be explained otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Consider men proclaiming the existence of deities
>>>>>>as a hypothesis that has been subjected to an
>>>>>>experimental test for thousands of years.
>>>>>
>>>>>There has been no test.
>>>
>>>>Every culture with a proposed deity demonstrated
>>>>that its deity was bogus when that culture was destroyed.
>
>>>Humankind has not been destroyed.
>
>>A pointless distinction as you share detailed cultural traits
>>with an exceedingly small percentage of the cultures
>>that have ever existed.
>
>The only cultures to be destroyed are those that didn't believe in a supreme
>creator.
Name the destroyed ones that are on the list
that informed your claim.
> Since God first revealed himself to man,
> most if not all cultures are still here.
The culture you consider first isn't even still here.
>
>>Humankind will outlive your religion and your deity
>>will be forgotten and demonstrated to have been fiction.
>
>>>>When Jewish culture was destroyed, its deity did nothing,
>>>>demonstrating its non-existence.
>
>>>Oh, nooooooooo, I missed that one. When???
>
>>It is not a coincidence that the beginnings of the cult
>>of Jesus coincided with the Romans destroying Jerusalem
>>and burning the temple of the Jewish deity to the ground.
>
>But, but, but when was the Jewish culture wiped out?
> Please, tell me.
>
When Jews no longer made animal sacrifices
to their deity.
Antares 531
The "Triune God" is also singular, but He operates in a space/time
frame that not limited to the four-dimensional space/time we are able
to perceive. Thus, this singular God can/does appear to us as triune,
simply because we sometimes don't think outside the box of our
space/time.
It is a very serious error to put our four-dimensional space/time
restrictions on the Almighty God.
Think of it this way...if your neighbor had God's omnipresence
ability, and could be in multiple places at the same time, this
neighbor could be at work, at home interacting romantically with his
wife, and in the back yard playing with his children, all at the same
time. If a person who couldn't understand this neighbor's power of
omnipresence were observing these things he/she would likely think
there were three separate (triune) individuals, when actually it is
only one, with the power of omnipresence.
Gordon
Antares 531
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:34:15 -0700 (PDT), arah <arah...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 18, 6:37 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>> The fundamental problem with Islam is that they believe and teach that
>>>> Jesus was a liar and a deceiver.
>>>
>>>Provide proof to your statement, if you can't you are the liar!!!!.
>>>
>>Quoting from my J.M. Rodwell 2003 print of the English translation of
>>the Koran;
>>
>>Sura 4:156 And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
>>Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
>>they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
>>
>>Now, if we consider the generally held belief that Jesus appeared
>>before many people after his crucifixion, he surely must have gone
>>along with this deception.
>
>There was no such "generally held belief".
>
Josephus and other historical writers seemed to think there was a
"generally held belief" that Jesus was raised from the dead and
appeared before a large number of people afterward. Gordon
>
>That is like saying that the Birther "widely held belief" that Obama
>wasn't born in the US necessarily requires that Obama to have gone
>along with some deception, when the simpler explanation is that the
>"widely held belief" was false
>
>>Wouldn't this make Jesus a liar and a deceiver?
>
>No. It makes the holders of the "belief" fools.
>
>>Or, were the authors of the Koran the liars and deceivers?
>>And, if it is honorable for a prophet to be a liar and a deceiver,
>
>Did God deceive Job, who believed that God was responsible for his
>troubles, or did Job deceive himself by presuming that God had to be
>the explanation for something he had NO EVIDENCE was caused by God?
>
duke
>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:59:27 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>>>
>>Nope, faith is what one has when evidence is available, leading one to
>>an opinion, but a firm objective proof has not yet been devised.
>
>No.
>
>>If scientists didn't have faith in their ideas they would not put
>>forth the effort and expense required for further studies and testing
>>of their ideas.
>
>Science doesn't do "faith".
Science confirms faith and will one day prove the existence of God.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>Evidence is why we have faith.
>>>
>>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>>
>>Hebrews 11:1 (New International Version)
>> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do
>>not see.
>Hebrews is not an authority on the English language.
Neither was Jesus.
>However, it supports my assertion. "assurance about what we do not
>see" means precisely "believing when you lack evidence", since in
>those days, evidence was limited to what could actually be seen.
No, it means "lack of proof".
Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as
true.
I have evidence galore.
>>We have evidence,
>Not really.
Absolutely.
>>but no proof, of the life and times of one Jesus the Christ.
The dukester, American-American
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:01:37 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>God is that razor. You remain clueless.
>>>>>You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
>>>>
>>>>Occam's razor is creation.
>>>
>>>As I said. You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
>>
>>Or, creation is Occam's razor.
>
>As I said. You appear to clueless as to what Occam's Razor is.
>---
>Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Creation is Occam's razor.
duke
>>>>>Every culture with a proposed deity demonstrated
>>>>>that its deity was bogus when that culture was destroyed.
>>>>Humankind has not been destroyed.
>>
>>>A pointless distinction as you share detailed cultural traits
>>>with an exceedingly small percentage of the cultures
>>>that have ever existed.
>>
>>The only cultures to be destroyed are those that didn't believe in a supreme
>>creator.
>
>Name the destroyed ones that are on the list
>that informed your claim.
I don't know of any. They existed long, long ago.
>> Since God first revealed himself to man,
>> most if not all cultures are still here.
>The culture you consider first isn't even still here.
Name it.
>>>Humankind will outlive your religion and your deity
>>>will be forgotten and demonstrated to have been fiction.
>>>>>When Jewish culture was destroyed, its deity did nothing,
>>>>>demonstrating its non-existence.
>>>>Oh, nooooooooo, I missed that one. When???
>>>It is not a coincidence that the beginnings of the cult
>>>of Jesus coincided with the Romans destroying Jerusalem
>>>and burning the temple of the Jewish deity to the ground.
>>But, but, but when was the Jewish culture wiped out?
>> Please, tell me.
>When Jews no longer made animal sacrifices
>to their deity.
But they're here, STILL HERE!!
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:36:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>There was no such "generally held belief".
>>>>>
>>>>Bob, here's a link that contends that there are currently about 2.2
>>>>billion Christians on this old planet.
>>>
>>>Whoopie do.
>>>
>>>>The world population is
>>>>estimated at about 6.8 billion, so, I must agree, the Christian
>>>>population isn't the majority.
>>>
>>>And most labeled "Christians" don't believe very much in common.
>>
>>But right at 100% profess "Jesus is Lord".
>I doubt that, given (as we have discussed) that people are
>oftenlabeled "Christians" based on baptism or parental claim.
Christian baptism is definitive. You can be a good Christian or a bad
Christian, but you are still a Christian.
> Most of
>Europe is "Christian" but largely areligious.
And they will still be judged as Christians. Shame on them. I think the bible
uses the word "backslider".
>And those who so profess don't all mean the same thing by that
>statement.
Once a Christian, always a Christian - a good one or a bad one, but still to be
judged as a Christian who decided for himself to turn against what God said.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>I believe 2.2 was current with 6.2. None the less, the people of the one God
>>almighty (Christians, Jews, Muslims) was 54% then.
>
>Jews and Muslims do not believe in the Triune God. Their God is
>entirely singular.
All the same God almighty who revealed himself to Christians as a triune
Godhead.
Antares 531
I think science is very close to being able to prove God's existence,
and I also think that when this is accomplished, we will see a
dramatic change in the way this whole world functions.
I'm always awed when I read some Bible passages and notice that the
information fits very well into our scientific understanding. When all
these pieces are clearly understood and assembled we will "know" that
God exists.
Job 1:7 mentions Satan going to and fro in the earth and from walking
up and down in it. Note that Satan mentions only two dimensions. Does
this mean that Satan is present here in our midst, in two dimensional
form, from our perspective? Fully present, yet totally beyond our
ability to objectively evaluate his presence?
This seems rational when considered in the light of Super
String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory. If we designate the three spatial
dimensions we are able to perceive as X, Y & Z, then designate Satan's
dimensions as W, X & Y this would explain why he is walking back and
forth (dimension X), and up and down (dimension Y) but his dimension W
is not perceivable to us...at our current level of scientific
understanding. Maybe it will be, some day soon? Gordon
psst
Where are there still Jews who make animal sacrifices
to their deity in the temple they said they were
supposed to according to their deity?
There are none. Not one. It is an extinct religion.
The deity at the center of this extinct religion
was thus demonstrated to have been a fiction.
Retool this fictional deity any way you like
if you find the results returned by this particular
test of the hypothesis not to your liking,
but data is data.
psst
Job 1:7
And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary,
"Whence comest thou?"
And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith,
"From going to and fro in the land,
and from walking up and down on it."
Sounds like the guy's just walking around on
the earth to me...maybe you have to live in San Francisco
to appreciate the finer points of the three-dimensionality
of hills...
Antares 531
Yet, Satan seems to have been limited to only two dimensions, from our
space/time perspective. He didn't walk back and forth, to and fro & up
and down, from this space/time perspective. His back and forth
movements seem to have been restricted to his W dimension. Gordon
psst
You keep insisting that a simple passage that would have
been understandable then as describing the ordinary motion
of someone walking around, and still is a perfectly acceptable
way to describe this, somehow really is odd and mysteriously
describes only two-dimensional motion.
Your argument is that it's weird that this thousands of years
old biblical passage doesn't contain *three* explicit phrase
descriptions of dimensional movement ("back and forth,
to and fro & up and down") rather than the only two phrases
it needs to convey meaning clearly? You must be kidding.
Talk about reading meaning into things...
Maybe you'll have better luck if you look at Job
in the original language. Since you're proposing to
"prove" things via a methodology that compares
ancient texts with modern speculative scientific theories,
shouldn't you be using the original language and cultural
assumptions of the period they were written in anyway,
for this purpose?
Antares 531
psst, you're over reacting, here. I'm not trying to prove or disprove
anything. I'm just pointing out some things that catch my attention
and hold my interest. A few points here and a few points there and a
few more points elsewhere, on and on, may eventually lead to a MUCH
deeper understanding of what it's all about.
This might be compared to a police investigator looking at the bits
and pieces of evidence, hoping to somehow fit them all together and
reach a firm conclusion as to what happened and why. No single bit of
evidence will "do it all" but all the pieces, correctly assessed and
fitted together should eventually provide the answers we all are
seeking. Gordon
jane
> All the same God almighty who revealed himself to Christians as a triune
> Godhead.
Please provide your evidences, I can't find it in the bible.
jane
> >>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
How do we know if there is a God?
duke
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 08:29:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 21:09:11 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Antares 531 <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:59:27 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>>>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>Nope, faith is what one has when evidence is available, leading one to
>>>>an opinion, but a firm objective proof has not yet been devised.
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>>If scientists didn't have faith in their ideas they would not put
>>>>forth the effort and expense required for further studies and testing
>>>>of their ideas.
>>>
>>>Science doesn't do "faith".
>>
>>Science confirms faith and will one day prove the existence of God.
>I think science is very close to being able to prove God's existence,
>and I also think that when this is accomplished, we will see a
>dramatic change in the way this whole world functions.
>I'm always awed when I read some Bible passages and notice that the
>information fits very well into our scientific understanding. When all
>these pieces are clearly understood and assembled we will "know" that
>God exists.
>
>Job 1:7 mentions Satan going to and fro in the earth and from walking
>up and down in it. Note that Satan mentions only two dimensions. Does
>this mean that Satan is present here in our midst
I believe that satan is the evil in our hearts. And it is our need to overcome
him.
>, in two dimensional
>form, from our perspective? Fully present, yet totally beyond our
>ability to objectively evaluate his presence?
>This seems rational when considered in the light of Super
>String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory. If we designate the three spatial
>dimensions we are able to perceive as X, Y & Z, then designate Satan's
>dimensions as W, X & Y this would explain why he is walking back and
>forth (dimension X), and up and down (dimension Y) but his dimension W
>is not perceivable to us...at our current level of scientific
>understanding. Maybe it will be, some day soon? Gordon
I'm still struggling with strings, much less super strings. :-)
duke
>On Jul 24, 4:31 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>
>How do we know if there is a God?
We have evidence galore.
duke
What makes you think the bible is the only place? The existence of the
universe required a supreme creator. His name is God. And it is alluded to in
Genesis 1.
Genesis 1:1 (New International Version)
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
duke
>In article <mm7o279fon73re7te...@4ax.com>, duke says...
>>
>>On 23 Jul 2011 18:56:46 -0700, psst <psst_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>When Jewish culture was destroyed, its deity did nothing,
>>>>>>>demonstrating its non-existence.
>>
>>>>>>Oh, nooooooooo, I missed that one. When???
>>
>>>>>It is not a coincidence that the beginnings of the cult
>>>>>of Jesus coincided with the Romans destroying Jerusalem
>>>>>and burning the temple of the Jewish deity to the ground.
>>
>>>>But, but, but when was the Jewish culture wiped out?
>>>> Please, tell me.
>>
>>>When Jews no longer made animal sacrifices
>>>to their deity.
>>But they're here, STILL HERE!!
>Where are there still Jews who make animal sacrifices
>to their deity in the temple they said they were
>supposed to according to their deity?
I'm a Christian. If you want to see what they cook today, go to Israel.
>There are none. Not one. It is an extinct religion.
>The deity at the center of this extinct religion
>was thus demonstrated to have been a fiction.
It's not an "extinct" religion. Jews all over the world still have the temples,
have passover meals, day of atonement, and the other holy days, etc.
Not only that, but the Jewish faith is still a major part of the Christian
faith.
>Retool this fictional deity any way you like
>if you find the results returned by this particular
>test of the hypothesis not to your liking,
>but data is data.
Yes, thank God for that.
Antares 531
There are numerous ways to interpret this and other related Biblical
information, but I don't know any means for determining which is
closest to absolutely right. All I hope to do is exchange information
and insights with others who are interested and who have studied these
things enough to offer some insights. Hopefully, if I gather enough
information I can deepen my understandings, and maybe help others come
to a better, more firm interpretation.
I do think that Lucifer/Satan exists as a spiritual entity and that he
has a significant level of influence/control over things that are
going on here on earth.
I go along with the allegorical interpretation of Job 1 & 2 that seems
to say that God has granted Lucifer/Satan a nearly unlimited range of
influence over our lives, up to a point. But Satan is restricted from
absolutely destroying all our habitat, us included. Gordon
>
>>, in two dimensional
>>form, from our perspective? Fully present, yet totally beyond our
>>ability to objectively evaluate his presence?
>
>>This seems rational when considered in the light of Super
>>String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory. If we designate the three spatial
>>dimensions we are able to perceive as X, Y & Z, then designate Satan's
>>dimensions as W, X & Y this would explain why he is walking back and
>>forth (dimension X), and up and down (dimension Y) but his dimension W
>>is not perceivable to us...at our current level of scientific
>>understanding. Maybe it will be, some day soon? Gordon
>
>I'm still struggling with strings, much less super strings. :-)
>
SS-M Theory is so very interesting to me. I really can't claim to
fully understand it, but I do see reason to regard it as a very strong
possibility, and if it ever can be proven, we may have insights into
the nature of those levels of Heaven that, from our perspective, are
rolled up like a scroll to less than a Planck length.
Extending this a bit, I think we may eventually understand that when
Jesus was seen walking on water, he was actually making a transition
from the first level of Heaven into this space/time universe we
perceive. He may have been walking along a solid surface (street of
gold?) in the first level of Heaven as he passed through some kind of
a portal into this space/time.
Just how Jesus would have managed all this is obviously beyond our
present understanding, but given that He created the multiverse
(Heavens and the earth) I'm willing to assume that He knows how to
manage transitions such as moving back and forth between the
space/time levels of Heaven and this universe. Gordon
Antares 531
wrote:
>On Jul 24, 4:31 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>Faith is what you have when there is no evidence.
>
>How do we know if there is a God?
>
Humbly, sincerely submit and pray for guidance. God will reveal
Himself to anyone who will curtail their intuitive resistance and
sincerely seek communication with Him, by and through Jesus, our only
means of contacting God.
Gordon
Antares 531
wrote:
>On Jul 24, 4:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of
God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God,
when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love
of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not
grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and
this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who
is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is
the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by
water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth
witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in
earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree
in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is
greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his
Son.
Antares 531
Very true, and God did this by initiating the Big Bang, which we of
the scientific community widely accept.
Also, the other dimensions stipulated in Super String-Membrane (SS-M)
Theory seem entirely congruent with the Bible's information concerning
the levels of Heaven.
Why do some not accept the congruency and harmony between science and
the Bible in matters such as these?
Gordon
Gregory A Greenman
gordonl...@swbell.net says...
>
> >
> psst, if you were to outline God's agenda, in so much as this
> human/earth project is concerned, what would you rank as most
> important? That is, should God protect us from the results of our
> blunders, or should he let us go on as our selfish motives lead us,
> then when we get into trouble, let us feel the full force of the
> effects of our selfishness?
I'd go with the former. Imagine a two year old child sticking
its fingers in an electric socket (or doing something else that
will prove fatal) why would you suggest that it's better for god
to let that child die than to let it live? It is not acting in a
selfish manner, it is merely acting upon its curiosity. It has
not learned that electricity is dangerous. And, it won't learn
that because it will be dead. Further, any other moral lessons
that you think god is trying to teach will be missed so it won't
learn those either.
Now, think of Anne Frank. She hid from the Nazis because they
wanted to kill her for nothing more than being jewish.
Unfortunately, the Nazis eventually found her, put her in a
concentration camp and she died. Who learned a moral lesson from
that? She didn't, she died. The Nazis didn't, they went to their
graves thinking that they were doing a good thing. And, of
course one of the amazing things about this is that according to
christian beliefs, she is now being tortured in hell while the
christians that tortured her in life are carousing with jesus in
heaven.
Neither the hypothetical child in my first example nor Anne
Frank were victims of their own selfishness. So, I suggest that
you rethink your position as it clearly does not explain what
actually happens in the real world.
>
> My assessment is that God has set us up here for the primary
> purpose
> of learning. We are to learn enough about sin and rebellion to assure
> God that NONE of us will EVER want to go back and explore it any
> further, once we've been granted immortality and absolute sovereignty.
And yet people sin even when they are quite old. So, either
there is something magical that happens when you die that
suddenly makes you decide to not sin anymore (and, if that's the
case, why doesn't god make that magic happen while you're still
alive?) or you're just wrong.
Further, many people die long before they would have learned
anything about sin. I worked with a pregnant lady a few years
ago. I hadn't spoken with her in several months so next time I
phoned her, I asked how her baby was, since it was then well
past her due date. I expected to hear about how beautiful her
baby was and how happy she and her husband were but instead she
told me that the baby died about a month after it was born. So,
how much do you think that baby learned about sin during that
month? I'm thinking not much. Which kind of falsifies your
conjecture, doesn't it?
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Gregory A Greenman
gordonl...@swbell.net says...
Did that. No god showed up. Looks like you're wrong.