Religion question?

[HeX]

~4 billion years

Devils advocate here.

But if there was a God and that God was all powerful. Why couldn't He then just create a Universe in a state that would appear as right now and where everyone believes they've existed up until this point and that the freshly created Universe has been around for 13.75 odd Billion years...


Existing within the Universe means that you'll never be able to prove what could possibly exist beyond.


It's the whole 'The Universe is like the Matrix' argument. To everyone in the Universe it's real, its been like this forever, but to the creator the entire Universe could be brand new but made to appear in a certain way. Like loading a save game, it's already part way through.


Then of course, you have the whole problem with the 'Big Bang'. But that's another kettle of fish.

 

[ringo747]

Perhaps the resurrection was slightly less dramatic than the Biblical story but it was not unknown even in the 20th century for people to be pronounced dead and on the way to the morgue before "waking up" and living for many more years. Is that not an explanation that fits within known parameters of possible?

Regardless of the viewpoint around whether it is possible or not the other points to discuss are equally important. If you go along with the view that it is impossible then you still have to explain away the historical accounts of the resurrection, the post-resurrection appearances and the empty tomb.

I don't believe the theories that suggests that Jesus wasn't actually dead. The chances of anyone surviving death by crucifixion were pretty slim at the best of times. Even if survival was possible it is even more unlikely that a man who was near death would attract a following. Even less likely again that he would be seen by various people while walking about!

It's a matter of faith, you don't have it and that is perfectly fine but that doesn't necessarily mean that those who do are wrong - if they respect your right to believe (or not) then it seems only fair that you do the same in return.

Agree totally. It seems that when an atheist doesn't have much to add to a given topic that they have to resort to name calling, insults and personal attacks.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I don't know how to make this any simpler but an immaterial, timeless, agent outside of the universe is not in any way subject to the laws of physics. How can you possible think the laws of physics extend outside of the universe?

The universe is everything and nothing can possibly exist outside it other then other universes. How can you possibly think that anything exists outside it?

I am religious but I have no idea on the age of the earth. Do I care? No it makes absolutely no difference to my core beliefs.

Your point about DNA is interesting though. I take it you believe in information injection out of nothing then?

The age of the earth is important if you want to be correct when you speak.

Information in our DNA has evolved over the lifetime of the earth in the same way as, for example, bacteria will grow from 1 speck to a million over some period of time.

 

[RDM]

Regardless of the viewpoint around whether it is possible or not the other points to discuss are equally important. If you go along with the view that it is impossible then you still have to explain away the historical accounts of the resurrection, the post-resurrection appearances and the empty tomb.

Myths that developed after the death of a loved preacher?

 

[Castiel]

Everything is governed by the laws of physics, whether you can discuss the two things in parallel or not. It is impossible to resurrect a person! Are you joking?

And are you trying to say that a sperm flew through Mary's womb to impregnate her? Equally impossible.

The problem I have with this statement is the word impossible, it automatically closes any line of further investigation or thought. Whether the virgin birth was literal or symbolism is not really important, but the statement that something is impossible always irks me. For example, lifted from wiki:

On June 26, 2007, International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCC), a California-based stem cell research company, announced that their lead scientist, Dr. Elena Revazova, and her research team were the first to intentionally create human stem cells from unfertilized human eggs using parthenogenesis. The process may offer a way for creating stem cells that are genetically matched to a particular woman for the treatment of degenerative diseases that might affect her. In December 2007, Dr. Revazova and ISCC published an article[63] illustrating a breakthrough in the use of parthenogenesis to produce human stem cells that are homozygous in the HLA region of DNA. These stem cells are called HLA homozygous parthenogenetic human stem cells (hpSC-Hhom) and have unique characteristics that would allow derivatives of these cells to be implanted into millions of people without immune rejection.[64] With proper selection of oocyte donors according to HLA haplotype, it is possible to generate a bank of cell lines whose tissue derivatives, collectively, could be MHC-matched with a significant number of individuals within the human population.

On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that discredited South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk unknowingly produced the first human embryos resulting from parthenogenesis. Initially, Hwang claimed he and his team had extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos, a result later found to be fabricated. Further examination of the chromosomes of these cells show indicators of parthenogenesis in those extracted stem cells, similar to those found in the mice created by Tokyo scientists in 2004. Although Hwang deceived the world about being the first to create artificially cloned human embryos, he did contribute a major breakthrough to stem cell research by creating human embryos using parthenogenesis.[65] The truth was discovered in 2007, long after the embryos were created by him and his team in February 2004. This made Hwang the first, unknowingly, to successfully perform the process of parthenogenesis to create a human embryo and, ultimately, a human parthenogenetic stem cell line.

Does a virgin birth now seem so impossible, or is is simply improbable?

also;

A team of astrophysicists based in Australia and England has uncovered evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe.

Source

So should we assume that everything is govern by the Laws of Physics as we know them or simply realise that our knowledge is limited and what we consider possible today, was probably considered impossible yesterday.

Scepticism is important, but like all things, it must be moderated or it closes the mind, which is counter to what it is intended to do.

 

[Soundood]

The debate concerning the existence of God is one of the oldest and most discussed debates in human history. Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others for thousands of years. In philosophical terms, such arguments involve primarily the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and also the theory of value, since concepts of perfection are connected to notions of God. A wide variety of arguments exist which can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. The existence of God is subject to lively debate in philosophy, the philosophy of religion, and popular culture.

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Later, Epicurus formulated the problem of evil: if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, why does evil exist? The field of theodicy arose from attempts to answer this question. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God was logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful; and Immanuel Kant, who argued that the existence of God can be deduced from the existence of good. Thinkers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Kant, Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell. In modern culture, the question of God's existence has been discussed by philosophers and scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga.

Atheists maintain that arguments for the existence of God provide insufficient reason to believe. Fideists acknowledge that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone. The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is available in the "natural light of human reason" alone. Other religions, such as Buddhism, do not concern themselves with the existence of gods at all.

phew

 

[Sgt_Pepper]

Nevermind, I'm keeping out of it. :-/

 

[UncleRuckus]

All I am getting at is Darwin's ideas on superior races and other ideas attributed to Naziism.

If you want to do some interesting reading on racial superiority, pick up the Talmud.

 

[ringo747]

The universe is everything and nothing can possibly exist outside it other then other universes. How can you possibly think that anything exists outside it?

Why do you think it is impossible for anything to exist outside of the universe? You must have some reasons to base that on surely. I can see no reason why a non-physical agent can possibly exist outside the universe.

The age of the earth is important if you want to be correct when you speak.

I speak loads and whether I am correct or not doesn't depend on the age of the earth... I think you could have stated what you mean clearer!

Information in our DNA has evolved over the lifetime of the earth in the same way as, for example, bacteria will grow from 1 speck to a million over some period of time.

Yes but my question isn't about how DNA changed - how does it get there in the first place? Information injection out of nothing doesn't happen. If it did then I'd need good source control on the software I'm currently writing.

Myths that developed after the death of a loved preacher?

How long do you reckon it takes for myths to develop? Additionally, how would you explain away the fact of the empty tomb then?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Does a virgin birth now seem so impossible, or is is simply improbable?

also;

Source

So should we assume that everything is govern by the Laws of Physics as we know them or simply realise that our knowledge is limited and what we consider possible today, was probably considered impossible yesterday.

Scepticism is important, but like all things, it must be moderated or it closes the mind, which is counter to what it is intended to do.

With regards to the virgin birth, fair enough, that's fantastic that they've managed to do that!! 2000+ years ago would that have been possible?

I can accept that the laws of physics differ in different parts of the universe; that's not entirely unexpected, but on Earth the laws of physics are constant.

 

[hurfdurf]

 

[Monkey00]

How long do you reckon it takes for myths to develop? Additionally, how would you explain away the fact of the empty tomb then?

I may have missed something, but maybe not, how does an empty tomb prove anything?

I think the bible stories are just real ones, Noah's Arc - Tsunami, etc, now look at the Cowboy era in America, that was the 1850s onwards? Or thereabouts, I can't be bothered googling, but we know about characters like Jesse James etc, who were real, but the stories might be elaborated, probably just older stories being more elaborated?

Christianity is retarded, the story is repeated so often, the Egyptian god Osiris' son is called Horus, google his story... Check the date though.

 

[RDM]

How long do you reckon it takes for myths to develop? Additionally, how would you explain away the fact of the empty tomb then?

Not very long at all, even in today's ever connected world myths can develop pretty quickly, in a time where the written and spoken word are all you have then the 30 or so years before the writing of the first gospel is plenty of time for myths to develop. As to the empty tomb? Surely that is just another of the myths?

 

[starfighter]

I think religion teaches people how to be good so they will be happier, the problem with it is that some of the rules haven't been updated for a long time.

 

[Castiel]

With regards to the virgin birth, fair enough, that's fantastic that they've managed to do that!! 2000+ years ago would that have been possible?

I can accept that the laws of physics differ in different parts of the universe; that's not entirely unexpected, but on Earth the laws of physics are constant.

You miss the point, I wasn't referring to the validity of specific examples, people will make up their own minds on the immutablility of reality etc themselves. I was trying to illustrate that you need to be very careful when using the word impossible to defend or attack an argument.

 

[ringo747]

I may have missed something, but maybe not, how does an empty tomb prove anything?

It is historical evidence that supports the resurrection event. Also, the fact that the soldiers had to make up a story to explain away the events adds further support.

I think the bible stories are just real ones, Noah's Arc - Tsunami, etc, now look at the Cowboy era in America, that was the 1850s onwards? Or thereabouts, I can't be bothered googling, but we know about characters like Jesse James etc, who were real, but the stories might be elaborated, probably just older stories being more elaborated?

You do realise that some historical writings date to the time when some of the witnesses of the resurrection were still alive? If it was all false then you would think that there would at least be some records from the same time period to suggest it was all fabricated.

Christianity is retarded, the story is repeated so often, the Egyptian god Osiris' son is called Horus, google his story... Check the date though.

What is retarded about it? I'd be interesting in your rationale that brought you to that conclusion.

Not very long at all, even in today's ever connected world myths can develop pretty quickly, in a time where the written and spoken word are all you have then the 30 or so years before the writing of the first gospel is plenty of time for myths to develop. As to the empty tomb? Surely that is just another of the myths?

So what reason have you to suppose it is all a myth? There are no writings from that time that support your view. I think you need to take a look at the 1 Cor 15 account which the vast majority of biblical scholars (atheists and agnostics included) will accept as trustworthy. Various historians also mention the fact of the empty tomb. On what grounds do you discount historical reliability?

I think religion teaches people how to be good so they will be happier, the problem with it is that some of the rules haven't been updated for a long time.

So being happier is now the product of being a good person? Dear goodness.

 

[RDM]

So what reason have you to suppose it is all a myth?

What makes you suppose that the greek myths are all a myth? What makes you suppose the Norse myths are all a myth? What makes you suppose the Egyptian myths are all a myth? To paraphrase, I just happen to believe one more religion is a myth than you do.

There are no writings from that time that support your view.

Why would there be? There are precious few writings from that time full stop.

I think you need to take a look at the 1 Cor 15 account which the vast majority of biblical scholars (atheists and agnostics included) will accept as trustworthy.

What do you mean by trustworthy? The fact that it talks of the resurrection would suggest that atheist biblical scholars would at least find it a little bit suspect...

Various historians also mention the fact of the empty tomb. On what grounds do you discount historical reliability?

Ah excellent, could you let me know what documents contemporary with the time mention an empty tomb?

 

[ringo747]

What makes you suppose that the greek myths are all a myth? What makes you suppose the Norse myths are all a myth? What makes you suppose the Egyptian myths are all a myth? To paraphrase, I just happen to believe one more religion is a myth than you do.

I don't recall talking about any other myths. I am talking about probably the most widely attested event which is core of the Christian faith. I suggest you do some research into it as your responses would suggest you haven't done so.

Why would there be? There are precious few writings from that time full stop.

You think that if hundreds of people were being put to death for their faith that nobody would maybe write about how crazy they are for believing something that didn't happen?

What do you mean by trustworthy? The fact that it talks of the resurrection would suggest that atheist biblical scholars would at least find it a little bit suspect...

Why? Biblical scholars study a text. A feasibility study of whether resurrection is possible or not is not what they do.

Ah excellent, could you let me know what documents contemporary with the time mention an empty tomb?

Go have a look at Josephas, Tacitus, Thallus for a start.

 

[Morbius]

I think religion teaches people how to be good so they will be happier, the problem with it is that some of the rules haven't been updated for a long time.

That and some people are very selective about which rules they abide by.

 

[Castiel]

Why? Biblical scholars study a text. A feasibility study of whether resurrection is possible or not is not what they do.
Go have a look at Josephas, Tacitus, Thallus for a start.

I hate to interject here and I havent followed the entire conversation, but would you specify which biblical scholars and exactly what they are saying regarding the resurrection and the verified historical proof that you seem to be referring to? (and not the debated integrity of Corinthians)

Also the people you mentioned were either not contemporary to Christ or the writings (particularly Thallus) are heavily disputed.