Creationists

[newpolitics]

You show your lack of understanding in the argument I was making and have incorrectly attempted to dismiss it with the wrong fallacy. I wasn't arguing on the credibility of Einstein. My point was that Einstein, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time, missed the "scientific" evidence that would allowed him to discover the big bang. Your assertion that he lacked evidence is a lie or gross misrepresentation. All of his measurements pointed to the Universe having a beginning, but since he did not believe in God, his prejudice would not allow him to accept the fact the universe had a beginning. You see if the universe had a beginning, then it would have to have a cause. If it has always existed, there is no necessity for the causal relationship. Therefore, your logic has again suffered an epic fail. The causal necessity is not applicable if the result in question is not a result, since it has always been.

You are asserting the universe has always existed. You have zero evidence. There is evidence of the big bang, such as backround microwave radiation from the big bang itself. this is where everything you say falls apart- the fact that the big bang is supported by evidence, and predictions from the model are accurate to what we see today- the universe is continually expanding. Everything we see in the universe follows logically from a model put forth from the big bang happening. You have zero evidence for any of your claims, and they rest purely on an attempt to prove your presupposition that the bible is accurate and true, which can not ever be demonstrated and is not supported by evidence.

Are you actually reading my posts????? I never asserted the universe has always existed. I am asserting if it was as Einstein believed, an eternal universe that has always existed, there is no requirement for a cause. The same logic can be applied to God who has always existed. The causal argument can not be applied. But since we know the universe had a beginning and has not always existed, a cause necessarily follows as a requirement. This gives Hawkins fits. Because any argument he presents for a cause of the universe is technically supernatural, and would have the same merit as "God did it".

By the way, regarding your statement at the end, just because you lay down what you think is truth in a childish tantrum, does not require it to be so.

Who cares that Einstein missed 'the big bang?' It's not like he didn't have enough on his mind. it seems like you are criticizing him for not being smart enough to see a big bang, and then attributing that to his supposed pre-supposition that a god doesn't exist, both of which are incredibly arrogant to do. You're really not making any sense anyway, and the point you are trying to make is very unclear. Are you essentially trying to push through a cosmological argument? This has been centuries in the making and you are trying to sound like you are the first one. Yes, I know about the cosmological argument. It doesn't prove a supernatural being. You can not say that the first cause was necessarily supernatural. Moreover, it is logically fallacious to assert our knowledge of logic onto something outside of time and space. Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe. Therefore, you can not even assert that the universe had to have a cause. You do not know that. As I said, even if you want to take the cosmological argument, you can not assert that the first cause was God, because then you immediately fall into an infinite regress. What caused God? What caused that? What caused that? and so on... it gets you nowhere. If you're arbitrary definition of god is that he always existed, then that 'logically' falls apart as well by the proof I already put down.

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God has no cause
3. God does not exist

Would you mind being a little less arrogant, please? It's pretty godamn annoying.

 

[UltimateReality]

Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...

Depravity of Man - The Truth Project

 

[newpolitics]

So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?

Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.

Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.




On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project

your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings. I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)

You fail again to understand Christianity. The Old Testament, while inspired scripture, makes a great many assertions about God from man's viewpoint. It wasn't until God became flesh and dwelt among us did we have the complete revelation and understanding of God's nature, as outline in the New Testament from the words of God himself. This argument from ignorance of the Christian religion is tiresome and has been repeated ad nauseum. Please get some new material.

Do you understand how stupid this makes your god?

"God didn't who god was until he made himself human." Wow. That is a far cry from an all knowing god. You believe in some stupid shit. I am not arguing from ignorance. I am assessing the claims of christians about their own religion, and finding them ridiculous and absurd. You probably think I made an argument from ignorance because you presuppose christianity is true and accurate, which it isn't. It is you who are incorrect in labeling this a fallacy. Do you even know what an argument from ignorance is? It sounds like you are just trying to call me ignorant because you think you know the bible better than me. Haha. They are two different things. nice try though.

 

[newpolitics]

Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...

Depravity of Man - The Truth Project

You're need to place our existence into a neatly folded dichotomy of good and evil is pathologically immature. Worse is your then attempt to use your assessment of whether we are good or evil as evidence that a god must necessarily exist. Again, an argument from ignorance. You are terrible.

 

[UltimateReality]

Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe.

This doesn't stop science from proposing the multi-universe theory or from Hawkins doing Nat Geo specials on what caused the big bang.

 

[UltimateReality]

Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...

Depravity of Man - The Truth Project

You're need to place our existence into a neatly folded dichotomy of good and evil is pathologically immature. Worse is your then attempt to use your assessment of whether we are good or evil as evidence that a god must necessarily exist. Again, an argument from ignorance. You are terrible.

And you are terribly dodging the questions put to you.

 

[newpolitics]

Are you actually reading my posts????? I never asserted the universe has always existed. I am asserting if it was as Einstein believed, an eternal universe that has always existed, there is no requirement for a cause. The same logic can be applied to God who has always existed. The causal argument can not be applied. But since we know the universe had a beginning and has not always existed, a cause necessarily follows as a requirement. This gives Hawkins fits. Because any argument he presents for a cause of the universe is technically supernatural, and would have the same merit as "God did it".

By the way, regarding your statement at the end, just because you lay down what you think is truth in a childish tantrum, does not require it to be so.

Who cares that Einstein missed 'the big bang?' It's not like he didn't have enough on his mind. it seems like you are criticizing him for not being smart enough to see a big bang, and then attributing that to his supposed pre-supposition that a god doesn't exist, both of which are incredibly arrogant to do. You're really not making any sense anyway, and the point you are trying to make is very unclear. Are you essentially trying to push through a cosmological argument? This has been centuries in the making and you are trying to sound like you are the first one. Yes, I know about the cosmological argument. It doesn't prove a supernatural being. You can not say that the first cause was necessarily supernatural. Moreover, it is logically fallacious to assert our knowledge of logic onto something outside of time and space. Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe. Therefore, you can not even assert that the universe had to have a cause. You do not know that. As I said, even if you want to take the cosmological argument, you can not assert that the first cause was God, because then you immediately fall into an infinite regress. What caused God? What caused that? What caused that? and so on... it gets you nowhere. If you're arbitrary definition of god is that he always existed, then that 'logically' falls apart as well by the proof I already put down.

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God has no cause
3. God does not exist

Would you mind being a little less arrogant, please? It's pretty godamn annoying.

Is it my arrogance? Or you inability to carry on a logical discussion. First, your 1, 2, 3 argument is flawed because point 1. is not true. I proved that above. Second, without going into the details again, my assertion is Einsteins personal bias prevented him from discovering the big bang, because he refused to believe the scientific evidence that was contrary to his belief system, that of a universe that had always existed. Lastly, I used Einsteins assertion for an always existing universe not needing a cause to bolster my argument against point 1. of your fallacious argument above.

You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths. Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant. Anyway, You are using an appeal to Authority to bolster your argument in using Einstein, as you have just admitted by saying so. It doesn't matter what Einstein said about the Universe if it was not demonstrable.

It is apparent you know nothing of Einstein anyway, as he did believe in a god (Spinoza's god), just not your god.

 

[UltimateReality]

"God didn't who god was until he made himself human."

I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... Man did not have an full understanding of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.

 

[UltimateReality]

Who cares that Einstein missed 'the big bang?' It's not like he didn't have enough on his mind. it seems like you are criticizing him for not being smart enough to see a big bang, and then attributing that to his supposed pre-supposition that a god doesn't exist, both of which are incredibly arrogant to do. You're really not making any sense anyway, and the point you are trying to make is very unclear. Are you essentially trying to push through a cosmological argument? This has been centuries in the making and you are trying to sound like you are the first one. Yes, I know about the cosmological argument. It doesn't prove a supernatural being. You can not say that the first cause was necessarily supernatural. Moreover, it is logically fallacious to assert our knowledge of logic onto something outside of time and space. Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe. Therefore, you can not even assert that the universe had to have a cause. You do not know that. As I said, even if you want to take the cosmological argument, you can not assert that the first cause was God, because then you immediately fall into an infinite regress. What caused God? What caused that? What caused that? and so on... it gets you nowhere. If you're arbitrary definition of god is that he always existed, then that 'logically' falls apart as well by the proof I already put down.

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God has no cause
3. God does not exist

Would you mind being a little less arrogant, please? It's pretty godamn annoying.

Is it my arrogance? Or you inability to carry on a logical discussion. First, your 1, 2, 3 argument is flawed because point 1. is not true. I proved that above. Second, without going into the details again, my assertion is Einsteins personal bias prevented him from discovering the big bang, because he refused to believe the scientific evidence that was contrary to his belief system, that of a universe that had always existed. Lastly, I used Einsteins assertion for an always existing universe not needing a cause to bolster my argument against point 1. of your fallacious argument above.

You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths. Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant. Anyway, You are using an appeal to Authority to bolster your argument in using Einstein, as you have just admitted by saying so. It doesn't matter what Einstein said about the Universe if it was not demonstrable.

It is apparent you know nothing of Einstein anyway, as he did believe in a god (Spinoza's god), just not your god.

Your thoughts on my questions for you?

 

[UltimateReality]

your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings. I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)

You fail again to understand Christianity. The Old Testament, while inspired scripture, makes a great many assertions about God from man's viewpoint. It wasn't until God became flesh and dwelt among us did we have the complete revelation and understanding of God's nature, as outline in the New Testament from the words of God himself. This argument from ignorance of the Christian religion is tiresome and has been repeated ad nauseum. Please get some new material.

Do you understand how stupid this makes your god?

"God didn't who god was until he made himself human." Wow. That is a far cry from an all knowing god. You believe in some stupid shit. I am not arguing from ignorance. I am assessing the claims of christians about their own religion, and finding them ridiculous and absurd. You probably think I made an argument from ignorance because you presuppose christianity is true and accurate, which it isn't. It is you who are incorrect in labeling this a fallacy. Do you even know what an argument from ignorance is? It sounds like you are just trying to call me ignorant because you think you know the bible better than me. Haha. They are two different things. nice try though.

And by the way, I didn't call you ignorant. I said you were ignorant of the teachings of Christianity.

 

[newpolitics]

You fail again to understand Christianity. The Old Testament, while inspired scripture, makes a great many assertions about God from man's viewpoint. It wasn't until God became flesh and dwelt among us did we have the complete revelation and understanding of God's nature, as outline in the New Testament from the words of God himself. This argument from ignorance of the Christian religion is tiresome and has been repeated ad nauseum. Please get some new material.

Do you understand how stupid this makes your god?

"God didn't who god was until he made himself human." Wow. That is a far cry from an all knowing god. You believe in some stupid shit. I am not arguing from ignorance. I am assessing the claims of christians about their own religion, and finding them ridiculous and absurd. You probably think I made an argument from ignorance because you presuppose christianity is true and accurate, which it isn't. It is you who are incorrect in labeling this a fallacy. Do you even know what an argument from ignorance is? It sounds like you are just trying to call me ignorant because you think you know the bible better than me. Haha. They are two different things. nice try though.

And by the way, I didn't call you ignorant. I said you were ignorant of the teaches of Christianity.

Sorry, that's what I meant

 

[newpolitics]

Is it my arrogance? Or you inability to carry on a logical discussion. First, your 1, 2, 3 argument is flawed because point 1. is not true. I proved that above. Second, without going into the details again, my assertion is Einsteins personal bias prevented him from discovering the big bang, because he refused to believe the scientific evidence that was contrary to his belief system, that of a universe that had always existed. Lastly, I used Einsteins assertion for an always existing universe not needing a cause to bolster my argument against point 1. of your fallacious argument above.

You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths. Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant. Anyway, You are using an appeal to Authority to bolster your argument in using Einstein, as you have just admitted by saying so. It doesn't matter what Einstein said about the Universe if it was not demonstrable.

It is apparent you know nothing of Einstein anyway, as he did believe in a god (Spinoza's god), just not your god.

Your thoughts on my questions for you?

I certainly won't concede that it is my inability to have a logical discussion. I could impress the same accusation upon you, and I would conclusively say that it is your inability to have a logical discussion, which stems from your presuppositions that the bible must be true, simply because you believe it.

I don't agree that point 1 is untrue. The only thing that could counter this, is god, but using god is invalid, because we have no proof of his existence. Here, I might be using an argument from ignorance, but I am simply asking if you know of anything that exists that does not have a cause to back up your claim that point 1 is untrue?

 

[newpolitics]

"God didn't who god was until he made himself human."

I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... Man did not have an full understanding of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.

I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are. I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?

 

[UltimateReality]

You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths. Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant.

I think it is you that is supremely ignorant to this topic. First, I don't just make stuff up... I read. Everything I've quoted about Einstein is generally accepted to be true. I am giving you paraphrased historical accounts about Einstein based on his own quotes from his journals. I'd say your anger and stubbornness is blinding you..

"Twelve years later, Hubble's discovery of other galaxies racing away from ours, their light waves stretched and reddened by the expansion of space-time, vanquished the static universe. It also eliminated any need for a cosmological constant to hold the galaxies steady. During his 1931 California visit, Einstein acknowledged as much. "The red shift of distant nebulae has smashed my old construction like a hammer blow," he declared. He reputedly told a colleague that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.

"With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's. But it was left to others to identify one revolutionary implication: a moment of cosmic creation. In 1931 the Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître put the fleeing galaxies into reverse and imagined them eons ago merged in a fireball of dazzling brilliance—a "primeval atom," as he put it. "The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red wisps, ashes and smoke," wrote Lemaître. From this poetic scenario arose today's big bang.

Many were appalled by this concept. "The notion of a beginning… is repugnant to me," said British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in 1931. But evidence in its favor slowly gathered, climaxing in 1964, when scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories discovered that the cosmos is awash in a sea of microwave radiation, the remnant glow of the universe's thunderous launch. Ever since then the image of the big bang has shaped and directed the work of cosmologists as strongly as Ptolemy's celestial spheres influenced astronomers in the Middle Ages."

General Relativity Article, Dark Matter Information, Cosmic Scaffolding Facts -- National Geographic

 

[UltimateReality]

"God didn't who god was until he made himself human."

I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... Man did not have an full understanding of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.

I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are. I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?

Based on your statements. The inference is that God wrote the Old Testament about himself. Any third party observer can see that glaring theme in your argument. God didn't write it. Man did. God inspired scripture. You are also claiming that man's understanding of God in the Old Testament is God's understanding of God.

 

[newpolitics]

You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths. Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant.

I think it is you that is supremely ignorant to this topic. First, I don't just make stuff up... I read. Everything I've quoted about Einstein is generally accepted to be true. I am giving you paraphrased historical accounts about Einstein based on his own quotes from his journals. I'd say your anger and stubbornness is blinding you..

Twelve years later, Hubble's discovery of other galaxies racing away from ours, their light waves stretched and reddened by the expansion of space-time, vanquished the static universe. It also eliminated any need for a cosmological constant to hold the galaxies steady. During his 1931 California visit, Einstein acknowledged as much. "The red shift of distant nebulae has smashed my old construction like a hammer blow," he declared. He reputedly told a colleague that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.

"With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's. But it was left to others to identify one revolutionary implication: a moment of cosmic creation. In 1931 the Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître put the fleeing galaxies into reverse and imagined them eons ago merged in a fireball of dazzling brilliance—a "primeval atom," as he put it. "The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red wisps, ashes and smoke," wrote Lemaître. From this poetic scenario arose today's big bang.

Many were appalled by this concept. "The notion of a beginning… is repugnant to me," said British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in 1931. But evidence in its favor slowly gathered, climaxing in 1964, when scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories discovered that the cosmos is awash in a sea of microwave radiation, the remnant glow of the universe's thunderous launch. Ever since then the image of the big bang has shaped and directed the work of cosmologists as strongly as Ptolemy's celestial spheres influenced astronomers in the Middle Ages."

General Relativity Article, Dark Matter Information, Cosmic Scaffolding Facts -- National Geographic

So, what is your point in all of this? I am failing to understand Einstein's disposition with the respect to the big bang as having any real bearing on this discussion.

Regardless, what you have written confirms what I said, that Einstein lived mostly before the theory of the big bang, and so his views of the cosmos necessarily were void of anything involving it. When confronted with the idea of a big bang, he admitted his 'cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.' He changed his views when confronted with the evidence, as should we all. WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS?

 

[newpolitics]

I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... Man did not have an full understanding of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.

I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are. I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?

Based on your statements. The inference is that God wrote the Old Testament about himself. Any third party observer can see that glaring theme in your argument. God didn't write it. Man did. God inspired scripture. You are also claiming that man's understanding of God in the Old Testament is God's understanding of God.

So you're saying the bible isn't indicative of God's moral code? That all of the slavery, rape and murder wasn't what god 'meant'? Then why do you take it as such? You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to be true, but that is what you have to do with a book as morally spotted as the bible. Then you claim that it was merely divinely inspired and not actually authored directly, but this doesn't get you away from whether the book is the inspired word of god, and therefore whether the moral code is that of God's. Either it is or it isn't. It doesn't matter who wrote it or how. The bible contains its own moral inconsistencies.

 

[UltimateReality]

You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths. Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant.

I think it is you that is supremely ignorant to this topic. First, I don't just make stuff up... I read. Everything I've quoted about Einstein is generally accepted to be true. I am giving you paraphrased historical accounts about Einstein based on his own quotes from his journals. I'd say your anger and stubbornness is blinding you..

Twelve years later, Hubble's discovery of other galaxies racing away from ours, their light waves stretched and reddened by the expansion of space-time, vanquished the static universe. It also eliminated any need for a cosmological constant to hold the galaxies steady. During his 1931 California visit, Einstein acknowledged as much. "The red shift of distant nebulae has smashed my old construction like a hammer blow," he declared. He reputedly told a colleague that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.

"With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's. But it was left to others to identify one revolutionary implication: a moment of cosmic creation. In 1931 the Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître put the fleeing galaxies into reverse and imagined them eons ago merged in a fireball of dazzling brilliance—a "primeval atom," as he put it. "The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red wisps, ashes and smoke," wrote Lemaître. From this poetic scenario arose today's big bang.

Many were appalled by this concept. "The notion of a beginning… is repugnant to me," said British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in 1931. But evidence in its favor slowly gathered, climaxing in 1964, when scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories discovered that the cosmos is awash in a sea of microwave radiation, the remnant glow of the universe's thunderous launch. Ever since then the image of the big bang has shaped and directed the work of cosmologists as strongly as Ptolemy's celestial spheres influenced astronomers in the Middle Ages."

General Relativity Article, Dark Matter Information, Cosmic Scaffolding Facts -- National Geographic

So, what is your point in all of this? I am failing to understand Einstein's disposition with the respect to the big bang as having any real bearing on this discussion.

Regardless, what you have written confirms what I said, that Einstein lived mostly before the theory of the big bang, and so his views of the cosmos necessarily were void of anything involving it. When confronted with the idea of a big bang, he admitted his 'cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.' He changed his views when confronted with the evidence, as should we all. WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS?

This...

Here, I might be using an argument from ignorance, but I am simply asking if you know of anything that exists that does not have a cause to back up your claim that point 1 is untrue?

But really, I don't need Einstein. The argument you are referring to has been around for ages and was originated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, although what you present is the bastardized evolutionistic version which is popularly misquoted by Darwinists. It was originally several logical arguments for the existence of God. Really, you and Hollie should pick up a history book every once in a while.

Thomas Aquinas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google "first cause argument" or "arguments for the existence of God" for more info.

 

[UltimateReality]

I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are. I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?

Based on your statements. The inference is that God wrote the Old Testament about himself. Any third party observer can see that glaring theme in your argument. God didn't write it. Man did. God inspired scripture. You are also claiming that man's understanding of God in the Old Testament is God's understanding of God.

So you're saying the bible isn't indicative of God's moral code? That all of the slavery, rape and murder wasn't what god 'meant'? Then why do you take it as such? You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to be true, but that is what you have to do with a book as morally spotted as the bible. Then you claim that it was merely divinely inspired and not actually authored directly, but this doesn't get you away from whether the book is the inspired word of god, and therefore whether the moral code is that of God's. Either it is or it isn't. It doesn't matter who wrote it or how. The bible contains its own moral inconsistencies.

Honestly, I have some problems reconciling some of the stories in the Old Testament. But this is not Christianity. It is pathetic how the angry atheists, the ones that once believed but now have a mission to destroy Christianity, always quote the Old Testament. How about the teachings of the New Testament: Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, take care of the poor, do not lie, do not engage in sexual immorality, love one another. What about the B attitudes? The Good Samaritan? Paul's conversion?

Last time I checked, I know of no Christians advocating Genocide so these arguments are just SO STUPID. In fact, Christians advocate just the opposite. They are active all over the world helping feed and minister to the poor. They are active here in our country defending the Genocide on the unborn. Atheists argue this same pathetic argument all the time, but the actions of Christians speak louder than atheist rhetoric. The statistics are there to show that Christians are more charitable than atheists. And why would that shock us? Atheists are about themselves. They are their own reality. My church just today raised $50,000 to feed Lepers in India through Harvest India. Yes, you heard me right, there are still Leper colonies in India.

Harvest India

http://cschandler.com/leprosyproject.html

Our church has also funded a dormitory for 150 orphans in Kenya on which construction was just completed. That country has been ravaged by AIDS and left millions of children without parents.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMLTjLh-rA&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMLTjLh-rA&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Our Videos

This doesn't even scratch the surface of the ministries our little Church in Arizona is involved in.

You come here all angry to set us straight and tell me how much bad Christianity has done in the world. But this is a skewed worldview, not at all an accurate portrayal of modern day Christians. It is seethed with anger and hate and discrimination against Christians. It is about a once strong society founded on Christian principles turning on the very pillars of that foundation and rejecting God. The national debt is spiraling out of control and government bankruptcy is inevitable. Jesus is removing the lampstand from America, and very hard times are coming.

What are you doing to help the hurting and the poor? What personal sacrifices are you making for another human or humans?

 

[Montrovant]

You didn't answer my questions:

Do YOU believe man is born good or born evil as the Bible teaches?

How do you account for evil in the world? Do lions kill anything they will not eat? Do animals use sexual acts for violence?

Actually, I think I've seen/read about lions killing things they don't eat. Maybe it's just a cat thing, as I've certainly seen housecats kill without eating what they've killed.