Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[tommykins]

Uh, Stephen Hawking does believe in God. And I believe had God been more than a fictional character he would believe in himself too. So your picture is funny, but completely incoherent. Once again thanking the gullible theists for their insightful and knowledgeable contributions.

That's what he just said? :S

 

[chamelia]

He said you would rather listen to the guy that believes i God, than the guy that believes in God. Yeh? That's how I took the photographic comparison to read.

 

[postnatal]

He said you would rather listen to the guy that believes i God, than the guy that believes in God. Yeh? That's how I took the photographic comparison to read.

i was hoping someone would get this. i was criticising the kind of religious people that say people who believe in the scientific origins of the universe have no merit on the sole basis that they assume a majority of these scientists to be subversive and anti-religion.

 

[boganxcore]

Had you a small amount of information on the big bang theory, you would realise it's occurrence was firstly a highly improbable event. The initial occurrence and it's improbability is what makes our existence so precious and it would be ignorant to consider a second occurrence in such a relatively small time frame.

You can attempt to reduce both the God and the atheist theory to the finest details. But, given the choice of an irreducible supernatural being who initial being has no theory, or the irreducible big bang theory, all stable minded men would know which was the more probable.

i dunno, a lot of religious people also believe that the big bang theory is correct as well

 

[pman]

i dunno, a lot of religious people also believe that the big bang theory is correct as well

The discussion i was having with one of the pastors at church today who is also a lecturer in ancient Greek s about this exact topic....He pointed out that the majority of Christian scholars outside of North America actually believe that the creation story in the bible is a metaphor and only a very tiny percent of the old testament is literal...only the gospels (especially that of Luke) are truly literal as are the Epistles and the book of Acts. Psalms is clearly poetry as is Genesis..not exactly what the north american fundamentalist block want you to think.....The only so called miracles that should be taken as literal are those performed by Jesus Christ and his disciples.

There are discrepancies between the gospels...my question to you is -if they were collaborating on a work of fiction, wouldn't they at least have double checked to make sure their stories matched up?

 

[BOS Negro]

of course that nigga exist


how else would friend chicken hav been invented???/


answer me that!

 

[SylviaB]

Stephen Hawking is agnostic

he uses the word 'god' often in his writing, but only to illustrate points etc

 

[SylviaB]

The discussion i was having with one of the pastors at church today who is also a lecturer in ancient Greek s about this exact topic....He pointed out that the majority of Christian scholars outside of North America actually believe that the creation story in the bible is a metaphor and only a very tiny percent of the old testament is literal...

It's SO funny. >99% of Christians who have ever lived in history, including the greatest thinkers in the history of your faith, all took the bible literally.
But OH WOW all of a sudden since there has been scientific evidence to show that creationism is total bullshit, Christians now don't take it literally. What a coincidence!
I mean never mind the fact that there is nothing in the bible to suggest that it's a metaphor, and the inanity of a supposedly benevolent god making a book essentially about how to avoid being TORTURED FOREVER all "metaphorical" and "non-literal" without actually telling anyone about the last bit

There are discrepancies between the gospels...my question to you is -if they were collaborating on a work of fiction, wouldn't they at least have double checked to make sure their stories matched up?

So people who lived at different times and places who never had the chance to meet each other would have "collaborated"? COOL AS!

And obviously when people say the bible is bs they don't think that all the authors are purposely lying, just that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, so even then they're not going to conspire or whatever

 

[supercalamari]

I beleev in chocolate cake.

 

[boganxcore]

It's SO funny. >99% of Christians who have ever lived in history, including the greatest thinkers in the history of your faith, all took the bible literally.
But OH WOW all of a sudden since there has been scientific evidence to show that creationism is total bullshit, Christians now don't take it literally. What a coincidence!
I mean never mind the fact that there is nothing in the bible to suggest that it's a metaphor, and the inanity of a supposedly benevolent god making a book essentially about how to avoid being TORTURED FOREVER all "metaphorical" and "non-literal" without actually telling anyone about the last bit

well it's not like god taught the christians everything to do with science and he told them 'shhh keep it secret until everyone else discovers it'. haha. they're learning at the same time.

i do see your point though

 

[postnatal]

de god is awesome m8

do you ever post anything useful?

 

[pman]

It's SO funny. >99% of Christians who have ever lived in history, including the greatest thinkers in the history of your faith, all took the bible literally.
But OH WOW all of a sudden since there has been scientific evidence to show that creationism is total bullshit, Christians now don't take it literally. What a coincidence!
I mean never mind the fact that there is nothing in the bible to suggest that it's a metaphor, and the inanity of a supposedly benevolent god making a book essentially about how to avoid being TORTURED FOREVER all "metaphorical" and "non-literal" without actually telling anyone about the last bit

Actually, in the late 18th century, most religious scholars believed that the bible was almost entirely metaphorical..this was the liberal movement. In the early twentieth century the fundamentalist movement came out of thew United States but instead of taking an intellectual argument to the liberals, they bombarded the printing presses and labeled everyone that wasn't a fundamentalist a heretic. This changed the course of american (and the worlds ) Christianity forever...Most non-American scholars now take a line somewhere between the two factions.

So people who lived at different times and places who never had the chance to meet each other would have "collaborated"? COOL AS!

And obviously when people say the bible is bs they don't think that all the authors are purposely lying, just that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, so even then they're not going to conspire or whatever

Well, in theory they lived at a similar and overlapping time, Luke was quite possibly in the garden of Gethsemane with Jesus just before he was arrested but more importantly, they could all read the earlier ones and would have made sure that the stories added up.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

do you ever post anything useful?

 

[b00m]

I've always found this pic pretty freaky:*

.. it's also written in a Church document that ~the last Pope on earth would be under control of Satan



*i realise the top pic originates from the bottom.. but nonetheless he looks scarily alike Darth Sidious

 

[Scorch]

Actually, in the late 18th century, most religious scholars believed that the bible was almost entirely metaphorical..this was the liberal movement. In the early twentieth century the fundamentalist movement came out of thew United States but instead of taking an intellectual argument to the liberals, they bombarded the printing presses and labeled everyone that wasn't a fundamentalist a heretic. This changed the course of american (and the worlds ) Christianity forever...Most non-American scholars now take a line somewhere between the two factions.

The problem is that the Bible itself clearly takes itself seriously. The exodus, the conquests of Joshua, the kingdom of David; it's all meant to be taken entirely seriously. While your history of biblical interpretation is not correct (for examples the overwhelming theory within Biblical archaeology was, only until 30-40 years ago, that the exodus actually happened), it basically reduces the wisdom of the Bible to the same type of wisdom that any non-historical fairytale does.

Well, in theory they lived at a similar and overlapping time, Luke was quite possibly in the garden of Gethsemane with Jesus just before he was arrested but more importantly, they could all read the earlier ones and would have made sure that the stories added up.

I'm sure you're already familiar with what I have to say about the historicity of the New Testament.

Uh, Stephen Hawking does believe in God. And I believe had God been more than a fictional character he would believe in himself too. So your picture is funny, but completely incoherent. Once again thanking the gullible theists for their insightful and knowledgeable contributions.

Would just like to point out that the God of Hawkings is similar to the one of Einstein, a more deistic/pantheist deity; definitely not a religious or theistic God in the slightest.

 

[pman]

The problem is that the Bible itself clearly takes itself seriously. The exodus, the conquests of Joshua, the kingdom of David; it's all meant to be taken entirely seriously. While your history of biblical interpretation is not correct (for examples the overwhelming theory within Biblical archaeology was, only until 30-40 years ago, that the exodus actually happened), it basically reduces the wisdom of the Bible to the same type of wisdom that any non-historical fairytale does.

Key word there is archeology as you probably know. The texts are often written in the form of a "wisdom text", it does not seem logical to take such a text literally. Yes exodus was taken literally and it may ave happened (we just haven't found the evidence yet) but this does seem exceedingly unlikely. The form of say, the gospel of Luke says straight out, "this is a history" but books such as Genesis, Exodus, Job and Psalms seem to be entirely metaphorical...Its this North American Fundamentalist group spreading misinformation again, if you didn't believe in genesis and the exodus you were a heretic, remember that around the end of the 18th century, it was the other way around.

I'm sure you're already familiar with what I have to say about the historicity of the New Testament.
.

Yes, it does seem unlikely that the New Testament is Historically accurate, that is indeed, the basis of faith. One of your arguments though, the "eclipse" being impossible is a load of shit. There is NO eclipse mentioned in the bible, just three hours where the sun did not shine, these are not the same thing. An eclipse will never last for three hours so that can be ruled out immediately. It was possibly a particularly dark storm cloud or something similar, I wouldn't say for sure.

 

[Scorch]

Key word there is archeology as you probably know. The texts are often written in the form of a "wisdom text", it does not seem logical to take such a text literally. Yes exodus was taken literally and it may ave happened (we just haven't found the evidence yet) but this does seem exceedingly unlikely. The form of say, the gospel of Luke says straight out, "this is a history" but books such as Genesis, Exodus, Job and Psalms seem to be entirely metaphorical...Its this North American Fundamentalist group spreading misinformation again, if you didn't believe in genesis and the exodus you were a heretic, remember that around the end of the 18th century, it was the other way around.

No, this is not true. Firstly, they are, and have been entirely intended to be taken seriously in some form from the 7th century until the 17th century. What happened was that as scientific advancement and the scientific method progressed, it was discovered that a great deal of things said in the Bible were patently false or impossible; theology then had to react, and they did so by a series of new 18th century arguments that said "... well I guess this is all a metaphor then", but that is such a foolish idea. The Bible even exclusively contradicts it.

Secondly, exodus did not happen. We've found the evidence and it proves conclusively that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanite cultures of the Palestinian highlands, not out of some kind of exodus.

Yes, it does seem unlikely that the New Testament is Historically accurate, that is indeed, the basis of faith. One of your arguments though, the "eclipse" being impossible is a load of shit. There is NO eclipse mentioned in the bible, just three hours where the sun did not shine, these are not the same thing. An eclipse will never last for three hours so that can be ruled out immediately. It was possibly a particularly dark storm cloud or something similar, I wouldn't say for sure.

Actually this example was from the Old Testament, and actually does not mention an eclipse but that one of God's prophets (Joshua, I think? I'll look it up) was able to make the sun turn the other way around the Earth for a day (or some period of time).

I just looked this up, in fact, and there are two that I could have mentioned:

1. 1. God made the sun and moon stand still in the sky for "about a whole day".
   2. There are two points during the Old Testament at which God makes the sun move backwards in the sky such that the shadow on a sundial moves the other way.

Both of these are self-evidently absurd.

 

[SnowFox]

I've always found this pic pretty freaky:*

.. it's also written in a Church document that ~the last Pope on earth would be under control of Satan



*i realise the top pic originates from the bottom.. but nonetheless he looks scarily alike Darth Sidious

Tell me about it.

 

[pman]

No, this is not true. Firstly, they are, and have been entirely intended to be taken seriously in some form from the 7th century until the 17th century. What happened was that as scientific advancement and the scientific method progressed, it was discovered that a great deal of things said in the Bible were patently false or impossible; theology then had to react, and they did so by a series of new 18th century arguments that said "... well I guess this is all a metaphor then", but that is such a foolish idea. The Bible even exclusively contradicts it.

It does and it doesn't, some parts of the bible say outright that this is fact, others are more wisdom texts and seem more like the creation myths of the surrounding areas...it would have blown the minds and totally confused the Jews if god had presented a paper on big bang theory. They just weren't equipped to deal with it, it had to be phrased in a way that they could relate to and understand. The ancients had no understanding of quantum mechanics.

Secondly, exodus did not happen. We've found the evidence and it proves conclusively that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanite cultures of the Palestinian highlands, not out of some kind of exodus

I did say it was quite possibly a metaphor...i couldn't find any papers saying exactly where the Israelites came from.

Actually this example was from the Old Testament, and actually does not mention an eclipse but that one of God's prophets (Joshua, I think? I'll look it up) was able to make the sun turn the other way around the Earth for a day (or some period of time).

I just looked this up, in fact, and there are two that I could have mentioned:

1. 1. God made the sun and moon stand still in the sky for "about a whole day".
   2. There are two points during the Old Testament at which God makes the sun move backwards in the sky such that the shadow on a sundial moves the other way.

Both of these are self-evidently absurd.

the gospel of john I think it is states something along the lines of, "it was dark from the 6th hour to the 9th hour and the sun ceased to shine", this was at the time of Jesus death. In reaction to your movement the other way of the sun-I think one of the Muslims posted something about retrograde motion in another thread.

 

[Scorch]

It does and it doesn't, some parts of the bible say outright that this is fact, others are more wisdom texts and seem more like the creation myths of the surrounding areas...

Yes, and the parts that are supposed to be historical have little to no factual basis (wanderings of the patriarchs, the exodus, the conquests of Joshua, the kingdom of Solomon/David, etc) in the slightest, and the parts that are apparently 'wisdom texts' have the same amount of wisdom that we find in other ancient mythological texts such as the Iliad or Aeneid; a literary wisdom, not any factual wisdom.

it would have blown the minds and totally confused the Jews if god had presented a paper on big bang theory. They just weren't equipped to deal with it, it had to be phrased in a way that they could relate to and understand. The ancients had no understanding of quantum mechanics.

This is just supposition, and rather pointless. It has already been pointed out that it is bafflingly absurd to conceive of the idea that God would intentionally inspire Palestinian peasants to write a book claiming omniscience and explanation of the key questions of the universe but in reality delivering answers and ideas that he was entirely aware were incorrect.

I did say it was quite possibly a metaphor...i couldn't find any papers saying exactly where the Israelites came from.

I could recommend you to a couple, if you're genuinely interested. If you're not, I can sum it up very quickly for you.

We have 9th century BC settlements in the northern highlands of Palestine (that is, not Jerusalem, which was an insignificant hill-fort until the 7th century BC, despite what the Bible says) can be clearly identified with as historical a picture of the Bible's Kingdom of David (problematised, of course, by issues of political propaganda relative to the 7th century culture within which the Bible was written), and the vast majority of these sites remained continuously occupied, having avoided a lot of the late Bronze Age political turmoil via relative independence. Not only that, but through the analysis of dietary habits, artefacts, political organisation and the relative literary evidence, we can show that whatever it was the same culture inhabiting these sites from the 8th century, when we can definitely prove that this is an Israelite culture we are dealing with, back into the 12th and 13th centuries BC.

Basically it was part of a gradual demographic shift, with pastoral, nomadic traditions from the eastern plains interacting with the sedentary Canaanite cultures of the western basin. This interaction, combined with socio-political factors, resulted in the emergence of a distinct culture in these conditions which does not appear to be entirely unified or self-conscious until the 9th century BC. But in these sites we definitely can see the very early roots of a distinct Israelite culture emerging in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age.