Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Allah God? Well, is he?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Allah God? Well, is he?

Originally posted by heusdens
We are dealing here with a time concept or duration, which either has a begin and an end, or as is meant with eternity, has no begin or end.

You can not give eternity a half-sided character.

I don't think we continue for eternity in the future, what makes you think that?

According to the Bible, man's spirit has a beginning, but lives forever. That does not mean a man's spirit has always existed. Angels are also created beings that will always exist.

Time itself could be seen as having no begin or end.

I agree.

God is not on the timeline, since if time exist, how could God have created time? And if time has no begin or end, why would God create time, and when would he have done that?

God, as is told, is an actor outside of time and space, and outside of the material world, since the material world, change and motion, time and space, were his creation.

Where do you get the idea that God created time? it's a popular idea, but you certainly didn't get it from the Bible. If God supposedly created time, wouldn't it have been mentioned in Genesis 1? Instead Genesis 1 describes God working in time, creating over the course of six days and resting on the seventh. If God is supposed to operate out of time, how could he create and not create at once.

Time doesn't exist the way matter does. It's just a concept that helps us put events in order.

Since matter can not be created or destroyed, and time did not have a beginning, therefore there is no God, since how can one create something that already was there?

False assumptions lead to false conclusions.

 

[heusdens]

Turbo:

For a more indept perspective on this, I could advise you to read some of these long posts on dialectical-materialism.
Maybe much to read, but worth reading nevertheless.

For the rest, I could merely say that the Bible to me is mere mythology, and not accurate description of what went on in history. So, I hope you don't reflect on it as if Genesis is an accurate description of the history of earth, evolution and mankind, and therefore not to be taken literally.

 

[Turbo]

Have you thoroghly examined the evidence that Christ rose from the dead? In what way is the evidence not persuasive?

 

[heusdens]

In sofar I don't hold is as an actual account of an event that can happen in more or less the same way as the Genesis account can not be taken literally as what happened factually.
The persuasiviness of the Biblical account is to be regared, I think, as that even though such an event as described in the Bible, could have meaning in the collective consciousness.
This however makes it into a factor of pure belief or faith. If you want to place your destiny into the hand of pure faith or belief, that is up to you.

 

[Turbo]

Ugh! Do you proofread your posts at all?

I think you said my faith is blind. That's odd, because I just implied that my faith is based on evidence.

I asked you to demonstrate that you are familiar with the evidence that Christ rose from the dead, and to refute it, and (I think) you replied that there is no evidence to refute. Is that right?

Whose belief is based on ignorance?

 

[heusdens]

I am not very familiar with the Bible, but the story of Jesus rising from the dead is quite familiar.

As this story is part of a Bible, and this book contains other stories, which I can not take on it's own merit or literal, since it conflicts with many other known facts, what do you excpect me to?

So, my response was, that in sofar I know the Bible, we should regard the Biblic stories as metaphorical. It tells a moral, based on real facts but mixed with myths and beliefs also.

 

[Turbo]

You didn't answer my question. Are you at least familiar with the evidence that Christ rose from the dead? If so, could you please give an example of a couple of the strongest pieces of evidence?

Originally posted by heusdens
As this story is part of a Bible, and this book contains other stories, which I can not take on it's own merit or literal, since it conflicts with many other known facts, what do you excpect me to?

Do you have a concrete example?

 

[heusdens]

Where you there when Jesus rose from the dead? So, what is the evidence for it? That witnesses have told their story, and that this story (later on) became part of the Bible?

It is quite difficult to tell what actually did happen or not happen, the only thing that is left is the story itself. To me, what I think is essential, is that it tells the story that people live on (in a spiritual way), even after they are gone. In a more metaphorical sense, this means that it matters, the way one lives.

That is supposedly the moral of the story. Since it is passed on, from generation to generation, this story succeeded in spreading it's message, still today.

I don't want to disqualify your reasons for believing that what is stated in the Bible actually happened, I just state that I don't take it literally. In the same way that I don't take it literally the way in which the "creation" took place in six days.

That qualifies me as a disbeliever in the Bible.

 

[heusdens]

Turbo:

According to the story there were witnesses, who saw Jesus couple of days after he died, and it was testified by other witnesses that he indeed was dead.

I don't remember the names of the witnesses.

And to complete my factual knowledge. When was this Biblic story written. How soon or late after the event?

 

[Turbo]

heusdens,

The New Testament accounts were written by eyewitnesses, so of course it was recorded and distributed during a time when any "witnesses that he indeed was dead" could have exposed the hoax.

Convenient that you don't know who these witnesses are.

How about the Roman authorities? It would have been in their best interest to expose this hoax by producing and displaying Christ's dead corpse. Ah, but the corpse was gone. And the guards claimed that the disciples managed to move the giant stone and stole the body (at the risk of their lives) while they were supposedly asleep. (Sleeping on the job would have put the guards' lives at risk).

So you've got thousands of eye witnesses who claim He is risen, versus a couple who testify about what happened while they were allegedly sleeping.


Are you familiar with any other pro-resurrection evidence?

 

[heusdens]

No, have you?

But what do you believe as what factual happened. Some super natural phenomena, or are there more natural phenomena that can explain what happened?

Let us look at it this way. Anyone is also familiar with illusionists, and their performances. In this case, you know it is a trick, but you don't know how it is done. It can be fascinating to see things appearing for your eyes, that you rationally know, can't be true, but nevertheless happen. So, we are at least familiar with events that happen, in which we "cannot believe our eyes". But as you see the illusionist to cut right through the body of a human person (or whatever illusion is created), do you believe what you see? We can in some way, not escape from believing what we see is true, but sometimes what we see is not factual. Even though it can be we never discover the truth.

So, as in the case of the Biblic story about the resurrection of Jesus, even when I do not have anything that I can proof, my gut feeling would tell that no out of the ordinary (supernatural) things in fact occured. I have not been digging into the story of Jesus well enough, so I can not realy tell much about it.

What are your thoughts on it?

 

[tenkeeper]

heusdens,

i've seen the sunny
i've seen the dark
may you embark
on the
journey of Light

 

[PureX]

One man's "evidence" is another man's hearsay and wishful thinking. The fact is that people believe what they want to believe and then "see" only the evidence that supports that belief. This is so pervasive among we humans that to find out the truth about almost anything, we have to impose special methods and restrictions on what we choose to accept as evidence. When we do so regarding the resurrection story, there is no evidence left at all. This doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it simply means that we have no bonafide evidence that it did.

 

[ZroKewl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by Knight
Glad to see we are on the same page! :thumb:

yeah... here's the speck... i got it myself since i'm sure that plank is obstructing your vision.

--zk

 

[Neophyte]

Heusdens,
Thanks for clarifying your position - I think I understand what you are saying. (I disagree...but I do understand).
Cheers,
Neo

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by PureX
...The fact is that people believe what they want to believe and then "see" only the evidence that supports that belief...

For anyone interested in researching your point, the name for your first "fact", believing what one wants to believe, is the Forer Effect. It is also known as "the Barnum Effect" after the circus promoter. In this effect people take vague statements (horoscopes, prophecies, verses of scripture, etc.) and assume that they are uniquely applicable to themselves or their situation.

The second, seeing only the evidence that fits one's preconceptions, is called "confirmation bias."

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by heusdens
Turbo:

For a more indept perspective on this, I could advise you to read some of these long posts on dialectical-materialism.
Maybe much to read, but worth reading nevertheless.

For the rest, I could merely say that the Bible to me is mere mythology, and not accurate description of what went on in history. So, I hope you don't reflect on it as if Genesis is an accurate description of the history of earth, evolution and mankind, and therefore not to be taken literally.

Your opinion on what is and is not worth reading is :kookoo:

 

[RogerB]

The second, seeing only the evidence that fits one's preconceptions, is called "confirmation bias."

Hey....maybe heusdens should change his name to "confirmation bias"!

 

[August]

Heusdens wrote:
<
TheologyOnLine Journeyman





Online status:
Posts: 109
(10.76 posts per day)
Registered: Jun 2003
Location:
Interests:

Post #1471 of 1506


quote:

Originally posted by August
< A valid explanation for something HAS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL OBSERVED
VARIABLES. Saying a spirit did it may be simple, but it doesn't explain ANY of
the variables we observe.>

Sure it does. We see the leaves moving on the trees. That is an observation. A
spirit moving them is an explanation. At the time this explanation was accepted,
it explained all of the observations. Which is the simplest explanation for the
"big bang"- string theory, brane theory and imaginary time, or "God did it"?
"God did it" is simple, and it can explain all of the observed physical
phenomena. But it doesn't explain much that is non-physical. Why would He do
such a thing? He had spiritual children, so why make matter and physical
bodies, with all of their defects?




I don't agree. When you adapt the explenation of "a spirit does it", what is the actual increase
in knowledge? If you replace that "explenation" with "an unknown something does it", this
explenation would say the same, only in other words, but would be more truthfull stated as
that there is missing knowledge.
We can not leave the situation with that, but need to actually fill that knowledge gap at any
later time.

The method you use for delivering "explenations", remembers me about program design.> (& a lot of other stuff)

(1)There is missing knowledge all right. We don't know how or why the "big bang" occurred. Science has no explanation. A true scientist recognizes that when the present paradigm runs up against a brick wall, it is time to move outside of that paradigm (not "shift the paradigm") and approach the problem from an entirely different angle. The reason that you see the statement "God did it" as empty and providing no information is because that alternative lies outside your paradigm. It is apparent that materialists look on those who accept the existence of a spiritual world as insane, but if you really had the capacity to step outside your paradigm, you could recognize the possibility that from a spiritual view, the physical world is what is insane.

(2) You are arguing against "Occam's Razor". I didn't say "God did it", but that that explanation satisfied "Occam's Razor". Personally, I don't think God created the physical world, but I do believe that the explanation lies outside of the physical world.

(3) In answering this post, I broke a resolution that I would never debate you, and this is absolutely my last reply to you until you learn how to express yourself in English. Your posts are all but undecipherable.
IMHO, your time would be better spent studying spelling, grammar, and logic than copying long passages from a book that you have allowed to dominate your thinking. I hope that the moderators will not permit that practice to become a precedent on this forum.

 

[RogerB]

The clown has posted.

The bulk of his post is, once again, wasted in inaccurate summaries of Bob's previous posts.

Save yourself some time. Here's my summary of Zak's post:

"I can see the sky...I just don't think it's blue."