God without The Bible – Challenge to Theists

Bill Thompson said:
There have been too many. Also the idea that the universe [could be] is part of an infinate multiverse is taught in college physics.
Click to expand...
FTFY.

Many theists don't like the mutiverse theory. I'm fine with it and personally think it likely. However, multiverse theory has very, very little to do with:

Bill Thompson said:
It makes sense that hour universe is just like a single idea in the mind of a multiverse.
Click to expand...
No theory in physics posits "the mind" of a multiverse.

See, it's not okay to insert your wishes into theoretical physics. If you've no basis for the idea then thats fine but no one has any reason to agree. So, do us a favor and don't appeal to science programs in general to justify your fantasies. If you have evidence or a specific show in mind then just present it. There is no need for tap dancing and playing games. Fair enough? And BTW, some of us take science very seriously and take a dim view of those who would use it in such a duplicitous manner. Some of us know something about that which you speak. Please don't insult us.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
FTFY.

Many theists don't like the mutiverse theory. I'm fine with it and personally think it likely.
Click to expand...

And I like to add that if there is a multi-verse than God (most likely) doesn't exist any of the other universes either. Why? Without a solid set of laws of physics a universe would quickly fall apart and cease to exist. Those laws would either be the same as ours or close. The same laws that would prohibit a God from existing in the first place.
 
The books of the Torah (Old Testament) started out an oral tradition. People would have had to spend hundreds of hours reciting and memorizing them, which would make the Oral tradition just as much an authority as the written books. (That is to say, no authority at all, except in the minds of the believers.)

Even without a written Bible, wouldn't those believers be able to reference the oral tradition in the same way believers reference the written texts today?

Monkian1234 said:
I always have a problem with this...how does time and (I assume) experience have any real value from an atheistic point of view?
Click to expand...
Limited resources have high value. Atheists know they only have a limited period of existence, which makes this time more valuable. Wasting time costs an Atheist something they can never recover.

Unlimited resources have little value. If Christians believe they have eternal life, why would they care if they waste some of that time on irrelevant things? After all, they have an infinite supply.

Logically, time should have very high value for Atheists and little value for Christians.

Bill Thompson said:
God is that which no greater can be thought.
Click to expand...
I can imagine an entity that can imagine an entity far greater than any lesser entity could imagine. Naturally, if I can imagine an entity having this quality, it could also imagine that the greatest entity that it could imagine would also have this quality. Of course if it can imagine an entity having that quality, then that entity...

Just because you can imagine an entity doesn't necessarily make it real. An entity for which no greater entity can be imagined cannot be real. Are you claiming that your God is imaginary? If not, what exactly does that statement mean?

bikerdruid said:
i believe that there is a all pervasive, sentient, creative force in the universe.
i do not claim any knowledge of what or who that force is.
but, i have some ideas.:)
i believe that to claim that knowledge, is pompous beyond belief.
i'm not sure if that makes me a 'theist', but i know it disqualifies me as an atheist.
Click to expand...
Since you're claiming belief without knowledge, that would make you an Agnostic. As opposed to Gnostics, who believe they know the answers with absolute certainty.

In general, atheists tend to take an agnostic position while theists tend to take a gnostic position. But there are always those who take a different approach. I'd classify you as an Agnostic Theist (or possibly Ietsist as Bram suggests).

But specific categorization of beliefs isn't really that important.
_________________________________________

dynasty said:
You all seem to be pretty learned, so i will just rapid fire the science stuff.
Click to expand...

Why are you asking general science questions on the Religion and Philosophy forum in a thread discussing pre-Biblical faith? If you really want answers, start up a thread in the Science and Mathematics forum.

dynasty said:
Possibly just ignorance on my behalf, but I've tried to find answers via research, and haven't found anything that popped out. I don't understand the jump from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't try very hard finding. Just typing "evolution of sex" into Google would have done the trick. For example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706171542.htm
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/19.Evol.of.Sex.HTML

dynasty said:
Choice is another evolutionary step backwards. Millions of people decide not to reproduce. if were all steps on the evolutionary ladder, why did we develop a mind beyond instinct. Why are we self aware, why a conscious.
Click to expand...

Many species specialize in a particular ability in order to gain a survival advantage. Intelligence is our specialty. Evolution doesn't care much about individual survival/reproduction, it works on a mostly statistical level.

If human intelligence was to suddenly drop to a level that precluded understanding of sex and contraception, we would be too stupid to maintain civilization. Lacking the ability to understand and innovate, we wouldn't survive very well. Most of the human race would die out in short order.

Our intelligence and ability to make rational choices gives us an evolutionary advantage that far outweighs the disadvantage of most people choosing to have fewer children and a small number choosing to have none at al.

For more information, start a new thread in the right forum.
 
According to you we can't win for losin'.

With the believers it's their way or no way and now with the nonbelievers it's the same way.

This thread is a call out to believers so the nonbelievers can gang up on them and tell them how stupid they are while basking in their own superior intellect.
Once again I can understand a believer posting a thread to convert the masses. That is what they do.
Why would it matter to any of you why a believer believes?
Click to expand...
It makes the baby Voltaire cry. ;)
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
No true Druid would be an agnostic.
Click to expand...

That's actually true.

Druids actually really want to know, and actually really think there is a way to tap into the "great repository of universal knowledge" (at least that's what I'd call it).

Then again, "druid" is a term scavenged from history, since there is no uninterrupted line of druids present.

Kind of like witches.

Or am I too grim on the subject of druids?
 
tsig said:
bikerdruid said:
the primary goal of a druid is to seek the truth.
anyone who claims to 'know' the nature of god is a charlatan.
Click to expand...

You seek the truth but say it can never be known?
Click to expand...

To be fair, isn't cosmology in the same position? Seeking the truth of the origin of the universe with the understanding that exactly what happened before the Big Bang can probably never be known with any certainty?
 
Brian-M said:
To be fair, isn't cosmology in the same position? Seeking the truth of the origin of the universe with the understanding that exactly what happened before the Big Bang can probably never be known with any certainty?
Click to expand...

The differnce is that druids are looking for something which isn't even well defined, and which they don't seek to define.

Cue comparison with science.
 
tsig said:
You seek the truth but say it can never be known?
Click to expand...
knowledge is gained in the search for truth.
and yes, i believe that the nature of whatever we might call god or gods is unknowable.
happily, the search for 'god' doesn't take up a lot of my time.
since retirement, i have started an apprenticeship in motorcycle mechanics.
among other pursuits, it is my major focus lately.
whether or not i have the great answer to the ultimate question of 'god', life, the universe and everything,
no doubt the universe will keep unfolding as it should.
(apologies for mixed allusions.) :)
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
knowledge is gained in the search for truth.
and yes, i believe that the nature of whatever we might call god or gods is unknowable.
happily, the search for 'god' doesn't take up a lot of my time.
since retirement, i have started an apprenticeship in motorcycle mechanics.
among other pursuits, it is my major focus lately.
whether or not i have the great answer to the ultimate question of 'god', life, the universe and everything,
no doubt the universe will keep unfolding as it should.
(apologies for mixed allusions.) :)
Click to expand...

Ah, but how do you know there is a "should" in the universe?

Sorry for nitpicking, but it seemed interesting to know.
 
bikerdruid said:
i try to not 'should' on people.
i don't think there is a code of 'should' in the universe.
i think the universe is more anarchic than 'should'......i prefer to view it as 'want to'.:)
Click to expand...

Want to? How can a collection of matter "want" something, when it has no will?

I mean, there are living creatures in the universe, but they hardly make up any significant part of it to account for any willpower.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Want to? How can a collection of matter "want" something, when it has no will?

I mean, there are living creatures in the universe, but they hardly make up any significant part of it to account for any willpower.
Click to expand...

i think you and i are not tuned to the same metaphor here.:boggled:

but that's fine.
in a thread discussing the nature of 'god', we might as well have some fun, because getting all serious about it will never get us closer to the knowledge of the nature of 'god'.:)
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
The differnce is that druids are looking for something which isn't even well defined, and which they don't seek to define.

Cue comparison with science.
Click to expand...

The druids are a modern invention. The Celts kept no written records,we have very little idea of what the real druids got up to. The Gorsedd is a joke.
 
just as an afterthought.....
i think that physicists and astronomers, chemists and biologists, are more likely to actually learn about the nature of 'god' than most theologians.
you sure as heck are not going to find anything real by arguing about books.
the nature of 'god' will never be discovered by in scripture.
it ain't in books.
it's in the very essence of matter and the universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom