If computers, cars, etc. have designers why not the universe?

[Dr. Zaus]

Ever hear of tall tales? Stories with real information to make them seem plausible. Just because something contains real, verifiable information doesn't make everything contained within it true.

The Bible is just one holy book out of many, what makes you so sure it is the correct one?

interestingly, there isn't a contemporaneous history or major religious text that denies the life of Christ.

 

[Lonbjerg]

interestingly, there isn't a contemporaneous history or major religious text that denies the life of Christ.

Epic fail.
Reversal of the bruden of proof...typicall religious bullshite.

Show me sources from when "jesus" were supposed to live.
Not FUD written 30-40 years after his alleged death.

Ball in your court...what will your excuse be?

 

[pelov]

interestingly, there isn't a contemporaneous history or major religious text that denies the life of Christ.

There were also quite a few prophets who claimed to be the son of god as well.

Jesus had the nicest sandals, though, so ultimately he won out.

 

[sdifox]

interestingly, there isn't a contemporaneous history or major religious text that denies the life of Christ.

There was a movie about it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/

 

[Brigandier]

interestingly, there isn't a contemporaneous history or major religious text that denies the life of Christ.

There are a lot of things ancient texts and histories don't deny. They don't deny the guidance of a noodly appendage, for instance.

 

[Arkitech]

Ever hear of tall tales? Stories with real information to make them seem plausible. Just because something contains real, verifiable information doesn't make everything contained within it true.

The Bible is just one holy book out of many, what makes you so sure it is the correct one?

Couple of interesting facts, the bible predates all other holy books/writings. Also the bible has a running time of several thousand years worth of history that are collaborated through many historical accounts and texts from ancient civilizations and world powers. That's not the kind of track record that's typically associated with fictional accounts and fables.

 

[Arkitech]

Things that are designed, like computers and cars, look very different than living organisms and the universe.

So in other words man made designs look different from things occurring in nature? But interestingly enough many designs by men are based on what they observe in nature and to my knowledge are almost always inferior.

 

[Smoblikat]

Obviously any talk of God in this forum is subject to ridicule. However you have to admit that if houses, automobiles and computers all have designers which are less complex than say DNA, the human brain and molecules. Isn't there a slight possibility that there may be a designer behind those things as well?


Can universal laws come about from chaos?

Can order be birthed from disorder?

The universe is governed by very precise laws, is it possible that it all happened by pure coincidence or chance?

So you suggest that everything is subject to creation EXCEPT god? What created god? Oh let me guess, the logic and laws stop there, he creates himself.

 

[Arkitech]

It is possible to get complex software from simple instructions. Genetic algorithm

Interesting read

 

[Arkitech]

So you suggest that everything is subject to creation EXCEPT god? What created god? Oh let me guess, the logic and laws stop there, he creates himself.

Is there not a "remote" possibility that there could be in existence an entity that defies our concept of thought? Why does everything have to be measured in human terms of understanding? We live in a tiny, tiny portion of the galaxy in a tiny, tiny portion of the universe. We don't even have the means to effectively travel outside of the planet. We don't have the science or understanding (yet) to cure the common cold or how to slow down the aging process. Based on some of the posts on ATOT in general there's a lot of people who can't express a difference in opinion without resorting to insults. So in light of human limitations on so many areas (including on how our own bodies function) how can we say for sure about anything related to the area of God?

 

[sdifox]

Couple of interesting facts, the bible predates all other holy books/writings. Also the bible has a running time of several thousand years worth of history that are collaborated through many historical accounts and texts from ancient civilizations and world powers. That's not the kind of track record that's typically associated with fictional accounts and fables.

ahahahaha

Torah predates the Bible.

so do many religious text from Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Dead

 

[Lonbjerg]

ahahahaha

Torah predates the Bible.

so do many religious text from Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Dead

And they copy older sumerian and assyrain myth and gods...old age is no argument for anything...but old age.

 

[sdifox]

And they copy older sumerian and assyrain myth and gods...old age is no argument for anything...but old age.

I was refuting Arkitech's words

"Couple of interesting facts, the bible predates all other holy books/writings. "

didn't bother with the rest of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

 

[lxskllr]

And they copy older sumerian and assyrain myth and gods...old age is no argument for anything...but old age.

Furthermore, some historical accuracy in old books doesn't validate the whole book. I have no doubt there's been a lot of truth written in the bible, and other old religious books, but that doesn't make the supernatural nonsense true.

 

[Jeff7]

So in other words man made designs look different from things occurring in nature? But interestingly enough many designs by men are based on what they observe in nature and to my knowledge are almost always inferior.

Currently, stuff we make does tend to be inferior to nature's approaches. Nature's also had a few billion years, and a laboratory the size of a planet to get things working the way they are now. We've had a lot less time, and often our labs are quite a lot smaller than a planet. Nature's also not encumbered by productivity standards. If an insect lays 800 eggs and only 3 of them survive to adulthood, awesome job!!! We usually want our process failures to be measured in the low parts per million, or parts per billion, or better. Or if it requires the deaths of millions of lab specimens, even to the point of several species going extinct, just to come up with a life form that can survive in a different environment, again, awesome job!!!
Evolution can give that kind of success rate. (Though its rate of individual preservation is pretty bad. 99.999....% of all life forms that ever existed are dead now.)

Most lab techs would lose their jobs if they had nature's success/fail rates. They'd probably also face some criminal charges for gross and extreme animal cruelty. Nature's not known for being friendly to much of anything.


"Running time" of the Bible: Other historical factors could have easily been at work too, though I admittedly don't know the timeline well enough. It could have simply been coincidence, of having a sufficient number of literate people, coupled with the ability and drive to produce books that stood some chance of enduring at least a few years, long enough to travel, and be duplicated (word-for-word, I'm sure), and then spread further.

Viral videos and computer viruses can also do this, and yetI have no strong desire to worship Rebecca Black.

 

[reallyscrued]

I'll play.

Say you can choose between designing a robot that distributes food among the needy, or one that has a machinegun and goes around shooting random people based on software which allows it to 'decide' who to kill and who not. You design the second and send it into a shopping centre to kill as many people as possible.
Who do you say is responsible for the killing? The robot, which would have never killed anyone if you had not chosen to design it that way, or you for deciding to 'create' something to cause a massacre?

According to the Bible 'God' created everything. That includes evil. And as he's supposed to be omniscient he was fully aware of the implications of how he 'created' everything. That means your god fully knowing created pedophiles, rapists, murderers, torturers, and other scum. He created cancer, AIDS, Ebola and all other diseases and illnesses. He created all disasters, every attrocity, every genocide, every war.

And that's what you worship. You worship someone who could have left out rape from creation. Who could have not created pedophiles. Who could have prevented genocides from ever taking place. But who chose that it's apparently a fun way to pass eternity.
After all, he could create the perfect universe where whatever beings he wanted would not have any flaws. So, looking at what exists now you can safely say that either it was not created by the God of the Bible, or that you worship something infinitely worse than any of the other gods and demons ever thought up.

You have brought up 'The Problem of Evil' and it is the basis of one of the reasons I do not believe in a god or gods.

0. Evil exists.
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
3. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Epic fail.
Reversal of the bruden of proof...typicall religious bullshite.

Show me sources from when "jesus" were supposed to live.
Not FUD written 30-40 years after his alleged death.

Ball in your court...what will your excuse be?

Typical internet-assumption maker thinking that I was making an argument or providing a logical proof when I was pointing out an interesting occurrence.

Plenty of FUD presented by the catholic church 200 years after Jesus' death; but a good level of inter-observer agreement exists with the 4 books of the new-testament (written before 100ad). So it seems reasonable to me: also the actual text of the gospels offer nothing for me to object to.

If you don't believe it that's cool: But you are culturally illiterate if you don't read the gospels at-least once in your life.

There were also quite a few prophets who claimed to be the son of god as well.

Yep, and LOTS of other stories that fall in a line with the biblical messianic storyline but are about other "prophets"/God-Children.

Other points about sandals & noodley appendages were both funny and accurate.

0. Evil exists.
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
3. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

A solution (with many limitations):

God wanted you and me to exist just as we are. God is incapable of evil (evil is contrary to God and God can not contradict himself). you and me can not exist just as we are without evil. Therefore God allowed for evil so that you and me, just as we are, could exist.

In this scenario the answer is to be you, be just who you are, because that's what God wants of you right now. Though, I feel obliged to admit, I've seen a lot of good come to folks that were having a horrible time in their lives but came to a faith in Christ and it helped dramatically: this is something that doesn't exactly make sense given my solution to the problem.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Couple of interesting facts, the bible predates all other holy books/writings. Also the bible has a running time of several thousand years worth of history that are collaborated through many historical accounts and texts from ancient civilizations and world powers. That's not the kind of track record that's typically associated with fictional accounts and fables.

They are, though. The story of Jesus is the story of the sun as it passes through the signs of the zodiac. The Age of Pisces began in AD 1 (Neil Mann interpretation), the same time as Jesus was born. Strange, huh?

The two fish Jesus fed the masses with was symbolic of the two fish that represent the astrological sign of Pisces. The Bishop's Mitre (hat) is a fish head. The symbol of Christianity that everyone puts on their car is a fish.

Here's how the symbol of Pisces became the fish symbol of Christianity:

Jesus' cross is the cross of the zodiac. The twelve disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac (John the Baptist = Aquarius, the Water Bearer).

Jesus himself is just an anthropomorphism of the sun. The sun wears a crown of thorns or a halo, and can walk on water. Just look at the pictures of Jesus and you'll see his face is always painted over the sun.

The New Testament is pure Astro-theology. "The truth shall set you free."

 

[reallyscrued]

Dixy, your path of logic makes no sense. Let me re-arrange your post it so that it makes sense to me.

God is incapable of evil
you and me can not exist just as we are without evil.

Therefore, we should not exist.

Yet we do.

Meaning, God allows evil, which means he is not the God how you describe.

I've seen a lot of good come to folks that were having a horrible time in their lives but came to a faith in Christ and it helped dramatically:.

Yes, I'm sure 'faith in Christ' is what helped them, not getting their act together and becoming a person who's worth a shit.

If you need that sort of guidance to 'be a better person' then you're pretty much incapable of independent thought; I don't need a Shepard, I am not a sheep, and most people should be thought that exact same thing when they are born, maybe the world wouldn't be in the state it is today if everyone knew they had the capacity to be intelligent, forward thinking, logical beings.

 

[OverVolt]

Its more like, in order for us to exist there must be chaos/disorder/evil.

 

[SSSnail]

This thread is proof that god doesn't exist.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Its more like, in order for us to exist there must be chaos/disorder/evil.

Because an 'omnipotent god' could not change the nature of the universe which according to his followers he himself created?

So, being omniscient he well knew what he was creating and still did so. So either he doesn't care about the evil and the chaos, or he likes it, or he was unable to prevent it and therefor is not omnipotent.
Guess humanity could have just as well stuck with any of the thousands of religions that predate Christianity.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Typical internet-assumption maker thinking that I was making an argument or providing a logical proof when I was pointing out an interesting occurrence.

Plenty of FUD presented by the catholic church 200 years after Jesus' death; but a good level of inter-observer agreement exists with the 4 books of the new-testament (written before 100ad). So it seems reasonable to me: also the actual text of the gospels offer nothing for me to object to.

If you don't believe it that's cool: But you are culturally illiterate if you don't read the gospels at-least once in your life.


Yep, and LOTS of other stories that fall in a line with the biblical messianic storyline but are about other "prophets"/God-Children.

Other points about sandals & noodley appendages were both funny and accurate.

A solution (with many limitations):

God wanted you and me to exist just as we are. God is incapable of evil (evil is contrary to God and God can not contradict himself). you and me can not exist just as we are without evil. Therefore God allowed for evil so that you and me, just as we are, could exist.

In this scenario the answer is to be you, be just who you are, because that's what God wants of you right now. Though, I feel obliged to admit, I've seen a lot of good come to folks that were having a horrible time in their lives but came to a faith in Christ and it helped dramatically: this is something that doesn't exactly make sense given my solution to the problem.

So no sources from year zero to year 30ish...gotcha!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Yes, I'm sure 'faith in Christ' is what helped them, not getting their act together and becoming a person who's worth a shit.

Is it impossible to believe that the former caused the latter? You'll notice you drop into a defense of your identity after this point: you can believe what you believe without those that disagree with you being worthless half-wits.

Dixy, your path of logic makes no sense. Let me re-arrange your post it so that it makes sense to me.


Therefore, we should not exist.

How could a good God allow for evil? If we define God as is the maximum good that means that allowing for evil is a necessary condition as without it you and I don't exist, nor does the good we do. (This assumes that Good is >> Evil and, therefore, gaining a unit of good is >> an added unit of evil)

I don't need a Shepard,

Never said you did... actually I said you should be who you are unless you don't want to be any more (in which case faith in Christ is a solution)

maybe the world wouldn't be in the state it is today if everyone knew they had the capacity to be intelligent, forward thinking, logical beings.

Now who's got blind faith! (also: I agree with you)

Because an 'omnipotent god' could not change the nature of the universe which according to his followers he himself created?

Or he allowed for it so that the person you and I are today is possible.

God is not all-powerful, God can't contradict God (a reasonable solution, I hope you will agree, to the hot-pocket/big-rock paradox based on scripture);

With this limitation in mind, If God maximized good then God must allow for evil so that good can be created out of the situations/people that couldn't exist without evil.

Again, I'm making a number of assumptions here. But these assumptions are inline with the theological assumptions presented by christian/jewish scriptures... and thus God, as Christian/jewish scripturally defined, is logically possible despite the existence of evil.

So no sources from year zero to year 30ish

You said there was a lot of FUD going around 70AD when mark was written: but you didn't offer any support for your argumentation regarding why mark being written before this date would address your issues.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You said there was a lot of FUD going around 70AD when mark was written: but you didn't offer any support for your argumentation regarding why mark being written before this date would address your issues.

No scources...no validity.
No arms no coockie.

I knew you would bring on excuses, but not soruces....typical intellectual dishonesty in action.