independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
| Author | Message |
Why does anything exist? Because nothing is impossible. Because nothing is something too. You can never have nothing, it is impossible. | |
Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Bring back  | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
iGene said: can never have nothing, it is impossible.
yep. Ben E.King was a bloody liar when he sang "I who have nothing" | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'll skip to your point shall I?
"It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ONLY LOSERS FEAR A MORE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD~~Sananda Maitreya Beware of men that will not go down! (I wish my momma had taught me all this)-BklynBabe | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
^^who are you to decide what's a relevant question ? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
iGene said: Because nothing is impossible. Because nothing is something too. You can never have nothing, it is impossible.
I see 'nothing' wrong in that argument!  | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: I'll skip to your point shall I?
We don't know how the universe started, therefore god did it. And not only that, this god is handily described in a book written about 2000 years ago. I'll skip to my point as well shall I? You have no more idea of the answer than I, or anyone else does. But all the stories we've come up with so far have shown themselves to be laughably baseless. Further, introducing any creator is not a logical or satisfying answer since it merely increases the complexity of the problem, rather than solve it or even alleviate it. You won't change your mind because you are not objective and do not require logic or evidence for your faith. And you won't convert me for the same reasons. There. End of thread. Our Origin can never be proved...Period. I believe we were created because i find it laughably unlikely that this world and it's operation was randomly stumbled upon by nothingness/somethingness. There are evidences in that Book written 2000 years ago that would would require extreme amounts of neglect to ignore. (i.e. the prophecies foretelling the coming of a messiah, and then the life of Christ fulfilling all of them.) | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: razor said: I'll skip to your point shall I?
We don't know how the universe started, therefore god did it. And not only that, this god is handily described in a book written about 2000 years ago. I'll skip to my point as well shall I? You have no more idea of the answer than I, or anyone else does. But all the stories we've come up with so far have shown themselves to be laughably baseless. Further, introducing any creator is not a logical or satisfying answer since it merely increases the complexity of the problem, rather than solve it or even alleviate it. You won't change your mind because you are not objective and do not require logic or evidence for your faith. And you won't convert me for the same reasons. There. End of thread. Our Origin can never be proved...Period. I believe we were created because i find it laughably unlikely that this world and it's operation was randomly stumbled upon by nothingness/somethingness. There are evidences in that Book written 2000 years ago that would would require extreme amounts of neglect to ignore. (i.e. the prophecies foretelling the coming of a messiah, and then the life of Christ fulfilling all of them.) Not to mention that there were so many direct witnesses to Jesus' life. I'm not aware of any writings from those times that say, "Hey, don't believe all this stuff you're hearing about this Jesus guy. It's all poppycock". The Jews do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. Does anyone know what they were writing about Jesus during his life and the 50 or so years thereafter? Second Funkiest White Man in America   It sure is nice having adults running our government now | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RodeoSchro said: seekingtruth said: Our Origin can never be proved...Period. I believe we were created because i find it laughably unlikely that this world and it's operation was randomly stumbled upon by nothingness/somethingness. There are evidences in that Book written 2000 years ago that would would require extreme amounts of neglect to ignore. (i.e. the prophecies foretelling the coming of a messiah, and then the life of Christ fulfilling all of them.) Not to mention that there were so many direct witnesses to Jesus' life. I'm not aware of any writings from those times that say, "Hey, don't believe all this stuff you're hearing about this Jesus guy. It's all poppycock". The Jews do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. Does anyone know what they were writing about Jesus during his life and the 50 or so years thereafter? Orthodox Jews were offended by the life of Jesus, or at least his claims to be the messiah. Look at it this way....They had been teaching for generations that the Messiah was going to come to earth and establish a Kingdom; the Kingdom, as they envisioned it, would be with a king, a palace, and an army. Jesus was not about that, He was about a spiritual kingdom, so then they rejected Him. The same issues are still occurring in traditionalists in Christianity. We have applied all these labels on what can and cannot be God, and then reject it if it offends those labels...How many devout Christians "experience God" in non-christian activities. That is something that is changing, thank God. People in the church are beginning to realize that we are part of God's story, not the other way around. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said:[quote] razor said: I'll skip to your point shall I?
We don't know how the universe started, therefore god did it. And not only that, this god is handily described in a book written about 2000 years ago. I'll skip to my point as well shall I? You have no more idea of the answer than I, or anyone else does. But all the stories we've come up with so far have shown themselves to be laughably baseless. Further, introducing any creator is not a logical or satisfying answer since it merely increases the complexity of the problem, rather than solve it or even alleviate it. You won't change your mind because you are not objective and do not require logic or evidence for your faith. And you won't convert me for the same reasons. There. End of thread. Our Origin can never be proved...Period.
That remains to be seen. Either way, whether they will or won't doesn't affect this debate at this point in time so 
I believe we were created because i find it laughably unlikely that this world and it's operation was randomly stumbled upon by nothingness/somethingness.
But you are happy that a creator can be randonmly stumbled upon/created by nothingness/somethingness? The creator, by definition, must be more complex than the creation. As such, again, adding the creator just adds to the complexity of the problem and so does not provide for a reasonable assumption. Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence for one. There are evidences in that Book written 2000 years ago that would would require extreme amounts of neglect to ignore. (i.e. the prophecies foretelling the coming of a messiah, and then the life of Christ fulfilling all of them.)[/
Sigh. This forum is too limited to do that topic justice. Suffice to say that no-one with a neutral outlook would ever look at those prophecies as in the least convincing, or indeed even slightly credible. They collaspe under the merest scrutiny as the utter post-fact fabrications and out of context nonsence that they are. I often wonder whether die hard christians (or any die-hard faithful) have ever bothered to apply even the slightest neutral or critical thought to their texts and beliefs. I can only assume many don't. [quote] "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said:[quote]seekingtruth said:[quote]
There are evidences in that Book written 2000 years ago that would would require extreme amounts of neglect to ignore. (i.e. the prophecies foretelling the coming of a messiah, and then the life of Christ fulfilling all of them.)[/
Sigh. This forum is too limited to do that topic justice. Suffice to say that no-one with a neutral outlook would ever look at those prophecies as in the least convincing, or indeed even slightly credible. They collaspe under the merest scrutiny as the utter post-fact fabrications and out of context nonsence that they are. I often wonder whether die hard christians (or any die-hard faithful) have ever bothered to apply even the slightest neutral or critical thought to their texts and beliefs. I can only assume many don't. That remains to be seen. Either way, whether they will or won't doesn't affect this debate at this point in time so
No, it can't be seen according to the rules of scientific evidence. Our origins can never be observed or measured. The best we could ever hope for would be to copy what was already done, but that doesn't really prove anything. Or disprove for that matter. But you are happy that a creator can be randonmly stumbled upon/created by nothingness/somethingness? The creator, by definition, must be more complex than the creation. As such, again, adding the creator just adds to the complexity of the problem and so does not provide for a reasonable assumption. Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence for one.
I don't believe a Creator was randomly stumbled upon....that doesn't even make sense; how could a Creator be stumbled upon by a creation? Sigh. This forum is too limited to do that topic justice. Suffice to say that no-one with a neutral outlook would ever look at those prophecies as in the least convincing, or indeed even slightly credible. They collaspe under the merest scrutiny as the utter post-fact fabrications and out of context nonsence that they are. I often wonder whether die hard christians (or any die-hard faithful) have ever bothered to apply even the slightest neutral or critical thought to their texts and beliefs. I can only assume many don't.
Which prophesy, in specific, are you referring to when you say they collapse under the merest scrutiny? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RodeoSchro said: seekingtruth said: Our Origin can never be proved...Period. I believe we were created because i find it laughably unlikely that this world and it's operation was randomly stumbled upon by nothingness/somethingness. There are evidences in that Book written 2000 years ago that would would require extreme amounts of neglect to ignore. (i.e. the prophecies foretelling the coming of a messiah, and then the life of Christ fulfilling all of them.) Not to mention that there were so many direct witnesses to Jesus' life. I'm not aware of any writings from those times that say, "Hey, don't believe all this stuff you're hearing about this Jesus guy. It's all poppycock". The Jews do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. Does anyone know what they were writing about Jesus during his life and the 50 or so years thereafter? Name one bible writer who was a direct eyewitness? You're aware of course that these stries only spread by the oral tradition. By the time they came to be written down it was decades after Jesus existed (if he did indeed exist, (I think its likely he did, but we certainly can't be certain)). In a population where barely a fraction read or wrote, and decades after the fact where no living peers of jesus survived, who is going to write a critical thesis regarding the mystical stories of one cult amongst hundreds that existed at the time, all with similar themes and tales? Jesus, the son of god no less; he with 5, count'em, 5 independly recorded mentions of his existence outside of the bible, all of them embarrasingly brief. [Edited 11/3/09 8:48am] "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said:[quote] razor said: I don't believe a Creator was randomly stumbled upon....that doesn't even make sense; how could a Creator be stumbled upon by a creation?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. You believe in god because you believe something as complex as the universe can not have come into existence by accident i.e. it had to have a creator. Yet, by defintion, that creator has to be more complex than his creation. But you do not apply the same standard to "him" i.e. he can come into being by accident and needs no creator himself? Which prophesy, in specific, are you referring to when you say they collapse under the merest scrutiny?
Any and all linking the old testament to the new. "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: RodeoSchro said: Not to mention that there were so many direct witnesses to Jesus' life. I'm not aware of any writings from those times that say, "Hey, don't believe all this stuff you're hearing about this Jesus guy. It's all poppycock". The Jews do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. Does anyone know what they were writing about Jesus during his life and the 50 or so years thereafter? Name one bible writer who was a direct eyewitness? You're aware of course that these stries only spread by the oral tradition. By the time they came to be written down it was decades after Jesus existed (if he did indeed exist, (I think its likely he did, but we certainly can't be certain)). In a population where barely a fraction read or wrote, and decades after the fact where no living peers of jesus survived, who is going to write a critical thesis regarding the mystical stories of one cult amongst hundreds that existed at the time, all with similar themes and tales? Jesus, the son of god no less; he with 5, count'em, 5 independly recorded mentions of his existence outside of the bible, all of them embarrasingly brief. [Edited 11/3/09 8:48am] Luke | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: seekingtruth said: Any and all linking the old testament to the new. Your argument is fundamentally wrong. You are basing your laws (can and cannot) on physics. God is not bound by physical law, so those laws do not apply. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: razor said: Name one bible writer who was a direct eyewitness? You're aware of course that these stries only spread by the oral tradition. By the time they came to be written down it was decades after Jesus existed (if he did indeed exist, (I think its likely he did, but we certainly can't be certain)). In a population where barely a fraction read or wrote, and decades after the fact where no living peers of jesus survived, who is going to write a critical thesis regarding the mystical stories of one cult amongst hundreds that existed at the time, all with similar themes and tales? Jesus, the son of god no less; he with 5, count'em, 5 independly recorded mentions of his existence outside of the bible, all of them embarrasingly brief. [Edited 11/3/09 8:48am] Luke Just to clarify, the gospel accounts were written starting about 15-30 years after the proposed ascension. The interesting thing there is that the faith was gaining momentum with eye witnesses. There was a gathering of 500 that witnessed Jesus after his death; Luke writes that to a group of people who would either have been there, or know somebody who was....a lie of that magnitude could easily have been dispelled. It was not until centuries later when people wanted to relieve themselves from the smothering relationship that church taught people they had to live to be in relationship with God. So, we could probably agree on one thing; the church and it's unfounded legalism created much of this problem. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: RodeoSchro said: Not to mention that there were so many direct witnesses to Jesus' life. I'm not aware of any writings from those times that say, "Hey, don't believe all this stuff you're hearing about this Jesus guy. It's all poppycock". The Jews do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. Does anyone know what they were writing about Jesus during his life and the 50 or so years thereafter? Name one bible writer who was a direct eyewitness? You're aware of course that these stries only spread by the oral tradition. By the time they came to be written down it was decades after Jesus existed (if he did indeed exist, (I think its likely he did, but we certainly can't be certain)). In a population where barely a fraction read or wrote, and decades after the fact where no living peers of jesus survived, who is going to write a critical thesis regarding the mystical stories of one cult amongst hundreds that existed at the time, all with similar themes and tales? Jesus, the son of god no less; he with 5, count'em, 5 independly recorded mentions of his existence outside of the bible, all of them embarrasingly brief. [Edited 11/3/09 8:48am] Matthew | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: razor said: Name one bible writer who was a direct eyewitness? You're aware of course that these stries only spread by the oral tradition. By the time they came to be written down it was decades after Jesus existed (if he did indeed exist, (I think its likely he did, but we certainly can't be certain)). In a population where barely a fraction read or wrote, and decades after the fact where no living peers of jesus survived, who is going to write a critical thesis regarding the mystical stories of one cult amongst hundreds that existed at the time, all with similar themes and tales? Jesus, the son of god no less; he with 5, count'em, 5 independly recorded mentions of his existence outside of the bible, all of them embarrasingly brief. [Edited 11/3/09 8:48am] Matthew Paul | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"   LOVE YOU 4EVA GRANDMA LOLA, WATCH OVER US TILL WE MEET AGAIN.  PRINCE: WH3N U L3T TH3 RAIN FALL DOWN, TH3Y ALL GONNA G3T W3T! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: seekingtruth said: Luke Just to clarify, the gospel accounts were written starting about 15-30 years after the proposed ascension. The interesting thing there is that the faith was gaining momentum with eye witnesses. There was a gathering of 500 that witnessed Jesus after his death; Luke writes that to a group of people who would either have been there, or know somebody who was....a lie of that magnitude could easily have been dispelled. It was not until centuries later when people wanted to relieve themselves from the smothering relationship that church taught people they had to live to be in relationship with God. So, we could probably agree on one thing; the church and it's unfounded legalism created much of this problem.  | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: razor said: Your argument is fundamentally wrong. You are basing your laws (can and cannot) on physics. God is not bound by physical law, so those laws do not apply. and you know that because....? any proof, mabye? or is it pure specualtion without even the slightest backup? cause you know, the same claim as yours can be made about the Pink Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it has the same value as yours. none. now I claim that God is in fact bound by physical laws. sure I have no proof. just like you. usless specualtion from both of us. so your argument is fundamentally wrong. cause specualtion is not an argument. try again. and this time use logic | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: razor said: Your argument is fundamentally wrong. You are basing your laws (can and cannot) on physics. God is not bound by physical law, so those laws do not apply. I assume you resonding to the unquoted part of my reply rather than the quoted part regarding biblical prophesy. As Smoketoomuch says, purely circular rationale so nothing to respond to here. "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: seekingtruth said: Luke Matthew Paul I'm genuinely wondering if you are being serious with this or just trying to have a bit of a laugh. The question was "Name one bible writer who was a direct eyewitness" I've never met a christain who actually beleives the gospels were really written by their namesakes or indeed any one individual. They were clearly written by unknown authors using unnamed and unknown sources (if any at all) 30-90 years after the alleged crucifixion in a language different from the one in which Jesus and his followers apparently spoke. Rather than journalistic or historical accounts, they are best regarded as collections of rumors, speculations, fabrications, embellishments, misunderstandings, mistranslations, and religious advertisements. There is nothing there directly from anyone who met Jesus. Nothing. The closest we have is Paul, who never met the man. "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: seekingtruth said: Paul I'm genuinely wondering if you are being serious with this or just trying to have a bit of a laugh. The question was "Name one bible writer who was a direct eyewitness" I've never met a christain who actually beleives the gospels were really written by their namesakes or indeed any one individual. They were clearly written by unknown authors using unnamed and unknown sources (if any at all) 30-90 years after the alleged crucifixion in a language different from the one in which Jesus and his followers apparently spoke. Rather than journalistic or historical accounts, they are best regarded as collections of rumors, speculations, fabrications, embellishments, misunderstandings, mistranslations, and religious advertisements. There is nothing there directly from anyone who met Jesus. Nothing. The closest we have is Paul, who never met the man. well, in order to hold on to a literal interpretation of Genesis - something which educated Christians or Jews who are aware of the Bible and church history would never do - some others easily manage to completely ignore and neglect all sorts of hard facts and science: biology, genetics, geology, astronomy and countless others so to add "history" to their ignore-list is just a tiny step. but a necessary one, in order to keep the tales from being totally debunked within their fantasy world [Edited 11/4/09 2:02am] | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: seekingtruth said: Luke Just to clarify, the gospel accounts were written starting about 15-30 years after the proposed ascension. The interesting thing there is that the faith was gaining momentum with eye witnesses. There was a gathering of 500 that witnessed Jesus after his death; Luke writes that to a group of people who would either have been there, or know somebody who was....a lie of that magnitude could easily have been dispelled. It was not until centuries later when people wanted to relieve themselves from the smothering relationship that church taught people they had to live to be in relationship with God. So, we could probably agree on one thing; the church and it's unfounded legalism created much of this problem. Says who? You or I have no idea if any such gathering ever took place. All we have is someone writing some 30-80 years after the event, that such a thing happenned. Someone who was not there. Someone with no named eyewitness sources. Yet you just blindly accept it to be true? I wonder why you do not also just accept Zeus as your lord if your standards of evidence are so low? [Edited 11/4/09 2:03am] [Edited 11/4/09 2:04am] "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: seekingtruth said: There was a gathering of 500 that witnessed Jesus after his death
Says who? seekingspeculations  | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MrSmoketoomuch said: razor said: I'm genuinely wondering if you are being serious with this or just trying to have a bit of a laugh. The question was "Name one bible writer who was a direct eyewitness" I've never met a christain who actually beleives the gospels were really written by their namesakes or indeed any one individual. They were clearly written by unknown authors using unnamed and unknown sources (if any at all) 30-90 years after the alleged crucifixion in a language different from the one in which Jesus and his followers apparently spoke. Rather than journalistic or historical accounts, they are best regarded as collections of rumors, speculations, fabrications, embellishments, misunderstandings, mistranslations, and religious advertisements. There is nothing there directly from anyone who met Jesus. Nothing. The closest we have is Paul, who never met the man. well, in order to hold on to a literal interpretation of Genesis - something which educated Christians or Jews who are aware of the Bible and church history would never do - some others easily manage to completely ignore and neglect all sorts of hard facts and science: biology, genetics, geology, astronomy and countless others so to add "history" to their ignore-list is just a tiny step. but a necessary one, in order to keep the tales from being totally debunked within their fantasy world [Edited 11/4/09 2:02am] Seek that truth. Its still flummoxes me though. I know some people of faith think atheists just say these things to be nasty. But the fact of the matter is we say these things becuase they are self-evident. There is a reason we became athesits, and that is a result of actually studying the faiths and how they compare, and stand up to, reality. Deism I can just about understand (although I reject that too as pure speculation). But theism, especially literal theism, is utterly baffling. How on earth are we still stuck on this stuff? "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Bring back | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Add a reply to this topic
Create new topic
Printable version
