Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BornAgain9
Registered user
Registered: 07-2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 691
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
You may, like Mather, claim that God and the Devil use lightning strikes to effect their plans, but unlike Mather you will not likely claim that you can prove it. At least Mather was in the very real position of being in awe and ignorance of such forces. Believers today, because of science, can't be sure that a destructive strike is anything other than bad luck.
I am reminded of some of the claims swirling around Hurricane Katrina. There were those who saw the storm as a judgment by God, in the same way that Mather saw lightning strikes (though he believed both God and the Devil manipulated natural events to their own ends). Mather thought he could prove the point. I doubt there are many today who would be so bold and part of the reason, I think, is that we understand the physical causes of natural events on Earth. An earthquake, for instance, doesn't carry the same mystery as it once did and eclipses are predicted centuries in advance. The darkening of the Sun or Moon can hardly now be seen as a sign from God, though I suppose hardcore believers might argue that God plans eclipses to coincide with his grander interventions on Earth. What do you think?
|
|
9/3/2010, 6:57 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to BornAgain9
Send PM to BornAgain9
ICQ
Blog
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
I don't need to tell you that God's activity was once imagined in all forces of nature. Now we have solid scientific understanding where formerly there was ignorance.
So are you saying that our scientific understandings tell us that God is NOT involved in the forces of nature? How does our scientific knowledge tell us that? We know, for example, that rain comes from clouds and that clouds are formed in certain atmospheric conditions. We can observe those things scientifically. We can also know that the sun's warmth can create certain atmospheric conditions. This knowledge does not rule out the fact that God could be in control of the sun's warmth which sets in motion everything else. Our scientific observations do not rule out God's activity. God can certainly control the formation of clouds and the formation of rain and lightning within those clouds. The fact that we can understand the physical processes of rain and lightning formation does not rule out God's control of those processes.
|
|
9/5/2010, 9:27 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
Free04
Registered user
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 400
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Shakespearean plays contain many true facts Free, but the plays are still fiction. You would prove nothing by listing true facts from the Bible.
I commented your following statement, "If the Bible doesn't prove God's existence, or provide reliable information, then what other reasons are there for believing?
What changed your mind? You said earlier in the above statement that the Bible doesn't provide reliable information, now you say the Bible contains facts just as a Shakespearean play. 
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Many modern Biblical scholars believe the Bible is historically unreliable, and I stand by that view.
What about the Biblical scholars that believe the Bible is reliable?
Last edited by Free04, 9/6/2010, 4:30 am
---
John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. |
|
9/6/2010, 4:28 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Free04
Send PM to Free04
|
Free04
Registered user
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 400
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Eye colour is controlled by genetics. Even the manner in which we perceive colour is controlled by genetics. My son, for example, is colour blind and has difficulty distinguishing shades of green and blue. It's a good bet he doesn't see colour as I do.
Our perception does not change the fact of "what is. A blind man can not see, nor touch the sun. Does that mean the sun doesn't exist?
---
John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. |
|
9/6/2010, 4:59 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Free04
Send PM to Free04
|
Free04
Registered user
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 400
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
I don't know how the universe began, but I assume it was a natural occurrence. I don't see a supernatural beginning as a default position and I don't see how a legitimate supernatural claim arises from ignorance of understanding.
Assumption is good. 
What exactly do you mean by natural occurrence?
---
John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. |
|
9/6/2010, 12:00 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Free04
Send PM to Free04
|
BornAgain9
Registered user
Registered: 07-2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 691
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
Free04 ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Shakespearean plays contain many true facts Free, but the plays are still fiction. You would prove nothing by listing true facts from the Bible.
I commented your following statement, "If the Bible doesn't prove God's existence, or provide reliable information, then what other reasons are there for believing?
What changed your mind? You said earlier in the above statement that the Bible doesn't provide reliable information, now you say the Bible contains facts just as a Shakespearean play.
I never changed my mind. The New Testament mentions Herod. There was a King Herod. It mentions John the Baptist and it makes one reference to the Zealots. These are historical figures and movements. When I said it doesn't provide reliable information what I mean is that the details of events given can't be trusted. Shakespeare also names historical figures but the biographies and events in his plays are fictions. Jesus quite likely was an historical figure but I see his biography as distorted. When the historical Jesus was arrested there may actually have been some sword play when his followers tried to defend him. Perhaps all his disciples carried swords, but Jesus did not reattach a severed ear by magic. This is what I meant when I said the Bible does not provide reliable information. It does name historical figures and place names but events, and other details need to be examined closely to determine what's plausible and what's legend or plain exaggeration.
I see little reason to claim that biblical authors deliberately distorted the truth. I thought I better mention this up front before someone accuses me of calling the gospel writers liars. I have other explanations for the distortions arising.
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Many modern Biblical scholars believe the Bible is historically unreliable, and I stand by that view.
quoting
Free04 ...
What about the Biblical scholars that believe the Bible is reliable?
I think liberal scholars and historians have thoroughly undermined that position.
I have one book by a specialist in Egyptian history and he has a chapter on Egypt as described in the Old Testament. He lists detail after detail that the Bible gets wrong and makes it clear that from statements made in the Old Testament the author/authors clearly understood little of what they were writing about.
Richard Friedman, author of Who Wrote the Bible?, doesn't argue against God, but does argue against conservative interpretations that state Moses authored some of the Old Testament. The arguments are good, really good, and anyone who takes the opposite view, I think, needs to answer Friedman's objections.
I could go on, but it's late. Read Friedman. 
|
|
9/14/2010, 10:05 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to BornAgain9
Send PM to BornAgain9
ICQ
Blog
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
but Jesus did not reattach a severed ear by magic.
Of course he didn't do it by magic. He did it by his own inherent power.
quoting
I see little reason to claim that biblical authors deliberately distorted the truth. I thought I better mention this up front before someone accuses me of calling the gospel writers liars.
Ooooh, now you're getting too quick for me. 
|
|
9/16/2010, 9:57 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
BornAgain9
Registered user
Registered: 07-2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 691
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
but Jesus did not reattach a severed ear by magic.
Of course he didn't do it by magic. He did it by his own inherent power.
Well, you might call that magic. Would you use the word magic to describe the actions of the Egyptian priests in turning their staffs into snakes?
If an action is not natural, then it is supernatural. If I turned water into wine wouldn't that be called magic?
quoting
BornAgain9 ...I see little reason to claim that biblical authors deliberately distorted the truth. I thought I better mention this up front before someone accuses me of calling the gospel writers liars.
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
Ooooh, now you're getting too quick for me.
Just trying to head it off at the pass. 
Last edited by BornAgain9, 9/19/2010, 7:53 pm
|
|
9/19/2010, 7:51 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to BornAgain9
Send PM to BornAgain9
ICQ
Blog
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Well, you might call that magic. Would you use the word magic to describe the actions of the Egyptian priests in turning their staffs into snakes?
If an action is not natural, then it is supernatural. If I turned water into wine wouldn't that be called magic?
I rather like the description of magic given in the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces. It constitutes the core of many religious systems and plays a central social role in many nonliterate cultures. Magic is often distinguished from religion as being more impersonal and mechanical and emphasizing technique. Its techniques are usually regarded as means to specific ends (an enemy’s defeat, rainfall, etc.), although another view ascribes a more symbolic, expressive character to such activity. Thus, a rainmaking ritual may both elicit rainfall and stress the symbolic importance of rain and the agricultural activities associated with it. Both the magician and the magical rite are typically surrounded by taboos, purification procedures, and other activities that draw the participants into the magical sphere. Strains of magic in Western tradition, formerly associated with heretics, alchemists, witches, and sorcerers, persist in modern times in the activities of satanists and others. The art of entertaining by performing apparently magical feats (sometimes called conjuring) relies on the use of sleight of hand and other means. See also shaman, vodun, witchcraft and sorcery.
As it says, magic is distinguished from religion. God doesn't use any charms or spells, but those things were being used by the Egyptians, so the Egyptians were practicing magic. God doesn't, though.
|
|
9/19/2010, 9:58 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
BornAgain9
Registered user
Registered: 07-2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 691
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Origins, of matter and of life
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Well, you might call that magic. Would you use the word magic to describe the actions of the Egyptian priests in turning their staffs into snakes?
If an action is not natural, then it is supernatural. If I turned water into wine wouldn't that be called magic?
I rather like the description of magic given in the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces. It constitutes the core of many religious systems and plays a central social role in many nonliterate cultures. Magic is often distinguished from religion as being more impersonal and mechanical and emphasizing technique. Its techniques are usually regarded as means to specific ends (an enemy’s defeat, rainfall, etc.), although another view ascribes a more symbolic, expressive character to such activity. Thus, a rainmaking ritual may both elicit rainfall and stress the symbolic importance of rain and the agricultural activities associated with it. Both the magician and the magical rite are typically surrounded by taboos, purification procedures, and other activities that draw the participants into the magical sphere. Strains of magic in Western tradition, formerly associated with heretics, alchemists, witches, and sorcerers, persist in modern times in the activities of satanists and others. The art of entertaining by performing apparently magical feats (sometimes called conjuring) relies on the use of sleight of hand and other means. See also shaman, vodun, witchcraft and sorcery.
As it says, magic is distinguished from religion. God doesn't use any charms or spells, but those things were being used by the Egyptians, so the Egyptians were practicing magic. God doesn't, though.
Okay, the Egyptian's used magic to turn their staffs into serpents. Why can't we do that now? Have we just lost the spells? I don't think the Egyptians ever could perform such tricks. The truth be told, I don't believe the story is anything more than a legend, but the point stands. If the Egyptians employed magic then did Moses not also use magic when he performed the same trick? The only difference on his part was that his snake ate the Egyptian snakes, thus demonstrating the greater power of his god over that of the Egyptian gods. Isn't that the point of the story?
|
|
9/26/2010, 7:58 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to BornAgain9
Send PM to BornAgain9
ICQ
Blog
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are not logged in ( login)
|
