Son of GOD EXISTS

smr wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbiS6fWr1Kg

An Atheist scientist verses a Cambridge Professor. (1st 6 minutes but I watched the entire video!)

What a complete waste of six minutes... all he does is stand up there saying "well some smart people think things I agree with so I must be right". Then declares that if you don't believe in God you can't make truth claims because... reasons.

gcomeau wrote: Except one problem with that... saying neither one has all the answers implies they both have some portion of the answers split between them.

I rather doubt that Man has discovered all there is to discover, but even so - how is it a problem? Why can't Religion and Science have some portion of the answers between them?

gcomeau wrote: I have not once, in my entire life, seen religion answer a question. Respond to questions with unsupported assertions, yes... but not answer a question.

Beyond the point of view that even an unsupported assertion offered in response to a question is indeed an answer... I rather think that depends upon the question, don't you?

Religion (as a whole) is often defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." I'm satisfied with that as a definition. But that doesn't mean that I consider Religion to be the source of knowledge on the nuts and bolts of how the universe works - regardless that other individiuals are satisfied with "God created Everything".

To me, Religion can only honestly answer questions relating to God. And even then, Religion does not have all the answers. For example, "Why did God create the universe?" can (in my mind) only be answered, "Because S/He chose to." Motives for that choice can only be asked of the Creator... and even then, there's no guarantee of an answer.

Science, on the other hand, is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Again, I'm satisfied with that definition. Science is where I turn to for answers on the nuts and bolts of the universe.

God Created the Rainbow. Beautiful. Science looked into what a rainbow is - a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky.

I don't think knowing what causes the rainbow takes away from it's beauty.

I think too many take Paul's remark in 1 Corinthians, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" to mean that Mankind is not meant to know the things that Science discovers. And once they set that attitude in mind, it's not an easy task to budge it - and then they see Science as nothing but an assault on God.

In the end, I don't see Science as a nemesis of Religion, but rather a complement to it. And vise-versa. Likely because I look at Science as a tool of God to help humans understand the material nature of the universe, and Religion as a tool of God to help humans understand the spiritual nature of the Creator.

Sadly, though, though each tool (to my view) designed for the betterment of Mankind, history shows that both are subject to misuse.

As always, the mileage of others may vary. I'm not here to convert you - if you are happy with your belief(s), then I'm happy for you. If you're not satisfied with my answer... I'm sorry, but it's the way I look at it.

I've rather liked the song by Echo's Children, "The Word of God" since I was introduced to it - mostly for the one line, "The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand."

If you've not heard it (and would like to), you can do so at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTOX4VeK4Is

Imaginos1892 wrote:To me, that seems a simple and inescapable truth. Why can The Faithful not understand it?

Careful with that term.

Part of it may be their worldview, I think. It could be that some don't that anything covered by the Ten Commandments was ever codified in a non-religious setting - and pointing them to the Code of Hammurabi (roughly 1754 BC, compared to Moses receiving the tables in roughly 1446 BC) doesn't really do any good. It could be even simpler than that - but frankly, I have a hard time following the reasoning.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Something else I’ve been wondering: Where in The Bible does it say that rape is wrong? Which Commandment is that?

'tain't there, true. But, there again, there are lots of "this is wrong" that isn't (wasn't?) specifically addressed by the Ten Commandments.

Generally speaking, the Ten Commandments regarded matters that were of "greatest" importance to the time, rather that addressing all wrongs. Recall, a number of verses in the OT describe a woman as property of her father (or husband) - in that light, what was rape other than property damage, diminishing the value thereof?

Imaginos1892 wrote:Definitely before ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ because rape is worse than adultery, isn’t it? Isn’t it?

To us, in this time - yes. Then... not so much, I'm afraid.

Exidor wrote:I rather doubt that Man has discovered all there is to discover, but even so - how is it a problem? Why can't Religion and Science have some portion of the answers between them?

Because Religion has yet to demonstrate that it has any answers, or that any of its premises are true.

Exidor wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:To me, that seems a simple and inescapable truth. Why can The Faithful not understand it?

Careful with that term.

I am much more careful with it than ‘The Faithful’ have ever been. I ascribe truth to things that can be logically proven to be true. The sun is a ball of immensely hot plasma almost a million miles in diameter, powered by hydrogen fusion in its core. The Earth is a nearly perfect sphere of rock, water and metal kept in its orbit by the sun’s gravity. A changing magnetic field can cause electrical current to flow in a metal wire. If people choose to live in cooperative communities, they can’t go around casually murdering each other. Provable truths.

Exidor wrote:Part of it may be their worldview, I think.

I’m not particularly interested in their worldview, unless they can provide evidence that it’s valid. So far, they have not. And yet they continually insist that we do not have the right to decide what is wrong without having it dictated to us by a figment of their imaginations. They insist that their god is real, but after 3,000 years they still have not provided any evidence.

Exidor wrote:Generally speaking, the Ten Commandments regarded matters that were of "greatest" importance to the time, rather that addressing all wrongs.

So, things like not creating idols, working on Sunday or ’taking a name in vain’ were more important than telling people to refrain from torture, rape, assault, arson, extortion, fraud, vandalism, quackery and a host of other antisocial acts that do real, quantifiable harm to real, identifiable people.

The purpose of those commandments was to give power to the priests.
———————————
If you 'just can’t believe' that life could exist without your god, the failure is in your understanding, not in the universe.

I just noted I've gone from Midshipman to Ensign. Rank is a matter of chattiness, then? 'cause I've posted more messages this month than in the prior 4 years...

Imaginos1892 wrote:Because Religion has yet to demonstrate that it has any answers, or that any of its premises are true.

(very large grin) I've already granted I can't prove that what I believe is true.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I am much more careful with it than ‘The Faithful’ have ever been.

Alas, the humor of the remark missed its mark.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I ascribe truth to things that can be logically proven to be true.

And have no use for such things such as beliefs and emotions?

Imaginos1892 wrote:If people choose to live in cooperative communities, they can’t go around casually murdering each other.

Actually... they can. They just have to accept the consequences of their actions. Most choose not to go 'round killing others. Far as that goes, I reckon that most likely don't see any need to even think about murder as an action of their own.

And then there are those few such as Dahlmer or The Golden State Killer (as examples) that think they are above the law, and did "casually" go around murdering others of their community until they were caught.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I’m not particularly interested in their worldview, unless they can provide evidence that it’s valid.

Ah. I feel otherwise - getting an idea of their worldview helps put their actions, feelings and beliefs into some context. Wasn't it the character Spock that said something like, "I said I understood. I did not say I approve." If you want to know why someone does as they do, then refusing to try to see how their worldview operates seems to me to be throwing away one of the best tools to figure that out.

But, it's your right to do just that.

Imaginos1892 wrote:And yet they continually insist that we do not have the right to decide what is wrong without having it dictated to us by a figment of their imaginations.

>shrug< So? What bothers you more - that they believe it, or that they won't let you change their minds about it? Simply the existance of laws prior to the issuance of the Ten Commandments tells me otherwise.

Imaginos1892 wrote:So, things like not creating idols, working on Sunday or ’taking a name in vain’ were more important than telling people to refrain from torture, rape, assault, arson, extortion, fraud, vandalism, quackery and a host of other antisocial acts that do real, quantifiable harm to real, identifiable people.

I supposed that's one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it that the Ten Commandments were put forth to the followers of Moses was that the greatest obligation they had was to worship only that God which freed them from Egypt (and it was viewed important enough for there to be more than one commandment to cover it). That the greatest injury to a person was killing / murdering them. That the greatest injury to family bonds was adultery. That the greatest injury to commerce and law was bearing false witness. That the greatest inter-generational obligation was to honour their parents. That their greatest obligation to community was truthfulness. And that the greatest injury to moveable property was theft.

I feel that these are viewed by many to be the "greatest" of laws because they were written in stone with the finger of God (or by the power of God, as some look at it). I don't believe that the Ten Commandments were ever intended as being the sole law for the People of Moses, for all that some others seem to believe that they were.

Imaginos1892 wrote:The purpose of those commandments was to give power to the priests.

Ja - heard that, many times. And, in ways, that's a valid observation - if these were intended solely to be religious law, then who "better" to oversee the matter of a broken law that those religious authorities?

Imaginos1892 wrote:If you 'just can’t believe' that life could exist without your god, the failure is in your understanding, not in the universe.

And how many times has another tried turning that on it's head back at you?

Be that as it may, I think (sadly) that a basic answer to the original question is that there are those that cannot grasp secularity, and cannot cope with life without their religious basis; that any belief contricting their own is a direct attack on their belief that requires defending.

Or, any number of other reasons may be possible.

Now must wander - have a pleasant night.

Exidor wrote:

gcomeau wrote: Except one problem with that... saying neither one has all the answers implies they both have some portion of the answers split between them.

I rather doubt that Man has discovered all there is to discover,

I'm quite certain we have not...

but even so - how is it a problem? Why can't Religion and Science have some portion of the answers between them?

It is not a matter of "why can't they". It is a matter of "they do not".

Science has an incomplete but incredibly large and growing number of answers about the universe we live in.

Religion, after thousands of years, has none. Just unsupported stories it tells itself over and over again.

gcomeau wrote: I have not once, in my entire life, seen religion answer a question. Respond to questions with unsupported assertions, yes... but not answer a question.

Beyond the point of view that even an unsupported assertion offered in response to a question is indeed an answer... I rather think that depends upon the question, don't you?

I would consider an answer about something (as opposed to simply a response TO something) to have as a requirement the imparting of at least some knowledge that the question sought.

Religion does not do this. Ever. After any response religion has ever provided to any question about the universe we live in the person asking the question has gained no knowledge about the topic they did not already possess.

No *answer* has been provided.

Religion (as a whole) is often defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." I'm satisfied with that as a definition. But that doesn't mean that I consider Religion to be the source of knowledge on the nuts and bolts of how the universe works - regardless that other individiuals are satisfied with "God created Everything".

And we agree religion has no answers on the nut and bolts.

My point however, is that it has no answers about anything else either.

To me, Religion can only honestly answer questions relating to God. And even then, Religion does not have all the answers. For example, "Why did God create the universe?" can (in my mind) only be answered, "Because S/He chose to."

A perfect example of my point. That response tells us literally nothing. It is the functional equivalent to simply throwing your hands in their air and saying "I dunno"... but without the virtue of the honesty of the latter response. At least when someone responds with a declaration they do not know the answer they are identifying a gap in their knowledge which can then be striven to be addressed.

Motives for that choice can only be asked of the Creator... and even then, there's no guarantee of an answer.

I would say the entirety of human history being devoid of such an answer makes the statement of there being "no guarantee" of one a severe understatement.

Science, on the other hand, is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Again, I'm satisfied with that definition. Science is where I turn to for answers on the nuts and bolts of the universe.

God Created the Rainbow. Beautiful.

Again, an unsupported claim imparting literally no knowledge or understanding of any kind.

Science looked into what a rainbow is - a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky.

I don't think knowing what causes the rainbow takes away from it's beauty.

Nor do I. But I do think pretending to know things that are unknown causes many a problem. And all religion does is pretend to know things it doesn't know.

In the end, I don't see Science as a nemesis of Religion, but rather a complement to it. And vise-versa. Likely because I look at Science as a tool of God to help humans understand the material nature of the universe, and Religion as a tool of God to help humans understand the spiritual nature of the Creator.

That strikes me as a rather problematic view considering the very foundation of scientific inquiry rests on the principle that valid hypotheses must be falsifiable, and that unfalsifiable hypotheses are without utility and effectively useless.

The hypothesis that God exists is inherently unfalsifiable. And thus...

Exidor wrote:I just noted I've gone from Midshipman to Ensign. Rank is a matter of chattiness, then?

Yep, it's based on your number of posts. I think there's a list somewhere in the forums. I think Fleet Admiral takes 10,000 posts.

Exidor wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:If people choose to live in cooperative communities, they can’t go around casually murdering each other.

Actually... they can. They just have to accept the consequences of their actions.

If more than a very, very few of them do, the community is destroyed. If people value their community, and their lives, the murderers must be stopped. Not because 'God says so' but because life has value.

I consider that a proven truth. Every living thing we have ever observed tries to stay alive. Every piece of evidence we have ever seen points to one conclusion: that the purpose of life is to live. If we deny that life has value, there is no point to living. There is no point to anything.

Exidor wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:And yet they continually insist that we do not have the right to decide what is wrong without having it dictated to us by a figment of their imaginations.

So? What bothers you more - that they believe it, or that they won't let you change their minds about it?

That they arrogantly claim a monopoly on morality. That they want to deny me the dignity of knowing right from wrong because I don't believe in their fairy tales. That they claim a higher priority for rules that apply only to their chosen fantasies than the ones prohibiting murder, rape and robbery. And that they seek to impose all of their rules, even the irrational ones, on everybody, including me.

Exidor wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:I’m not particularly interested in their worldview, unless they can provide evidence that it’s valid.

Ah. I feel otherwise - getting an idea of their worldview helps put their actions, feelings and beliefs into some context.

If their worldview is not valid, it's a delusion. Life is too short for me to pander to delusions.

Look at it this way: there is one valid worldview, the one that accurately reflects reality. There are a near-infinite number of possible delusions. I choose not to waste my time on any of them.

Exidor wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:So, things like not creating idols, working on Sunday or ’taking a name in vain’ were more important than telling people to refrain from torture, rape, assault, arson, extortion, fraud, vandalism, quackery and a host of other antisocial acts that do real, quantifiable harm to real, identifiable people.

I supposed that's one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it that the Ten Commandments were put forth to the followers of Moses was that the greatest obligation they had was to worship only that God which freed them from Egypt (and it was viewed important enough for there to be more than one commandment to cover it).

If you believe those stories. What evidence exists that they are true? We have only found evidence that they're not.

Exidor wrote:I feel that these are viewed by many to be the "greatest" of laws because they were written in stone with the finger of God (or by the power of God, as some look at it). I don't believe that the Ten Commandments were ever intended as being the sole law for the People of Moses, for all that some others seem to believe that they were.

They explicitly weren't the entirety of the Law, as the Torah contains extensive sections of law (and that's leaving to Oral Law aside).

When Jesus was asked, what is the most important law, he didn't say "the 10 commandments." Rather,

Matt 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Firstly, you must separate the Old Testament from the New. Many laws were changed, as well as practices. Sacrifices were no longer accepted because man had gotten so rotten that the only sacrifice worthy was God's own Son.

Also, many laws were changed because after the Son of God, man was no longer descended from flesh. Man no longer enjoyed the excuse of frailty of the flesh. Jesus was the example to man that walking the earth and resisting sin could be done.

The 10 Commandments represented God's writing the laws directly onto man's heart by placing in him a new spirit, the Holy Spirit, and removing his heart of stone.

With the Son came the third part of the Prophecy, the Holy Spirit. Represented by the Trinity.

You really should read the Bible if you want to understand it.

.

The 10 Commandments themselves divide neatly into two categories:

the first 4 (in Protestant numbering) are about how you love God (No other Gods, idols, No Blasphemy, Sabbath)

the other 6 are about how you love others (Don't steal, lie, kill, cheat on your spouse, covet)

What Jesus did was to emphasize the fact that love undergirds all of this.