Religous question.honest discussion,no flaming please.

Jangle said:
- Some things exist which do not contain within them the reason for their own existence

- The universe consists of the totality of such objects

- So the explanation for the existence of everything in the universe must lie outside it.

- Therefore, the explanation must be a self-explanatory being that contains the reason for its own existence.


However, as with any argument, there are still loads of problems with this.
Click to expand...

Huge problems in fact. Such as the massive assumptions it makes based on no data whatsoever.
 
Originally posted by Jangle:
- Therefore, the explanation must be a self-explanatory being that contains the reason for its own existence.
Click to expand...

But why can't the universe be self-explanatory? I know we don't know the actual explanation, but we don't know the explanation for God's existance either, so it's no worse an explanation than God. Adding God would just add an unnecessary link to the chain, so we do away with it due to Occam's Razor.

Even if you accept that an external cause for the universe is necessary, there's no reason to assume it has anything to do with the God in the Bible. It doesn't even have to be intelligent, and if it were, there's no reason to assume it would care about its creation enough to intervene with it. So it's still not a good argument for God's existance.
 
Eejit said:
Occam's Razor doesn't trump other logical arguments. Such as that bloody infinite regress of causes. I wonder if I'll ever make my mind up about that one, I can't figure out a solution.
But from my viewpoint either side which claims to have solved this apparently unsolvable conundrum which I believe lies at the heart of the existence of a Creator God, either theists or atheists, are both on logically unsound ground (unless they can convince me otherwise. The only difference is that atheists have the slight advantage of Occam's Razor to their 'logical' position while theists don't.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point - I wasn't arguing that zee Razor could provide a solution. I was saying that God isn't a solution to the problem of infinite regress, because he's infinitely complex and thus very improbable.
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
Its quite simple. FoB_Ed argued that the bible can be taken metaphorically (at least the old testament). I disagreed with this, and said some examples that cannot be taken in any other way (that I could think of).

.
Click to expand...


I did not say that the whole of the bible could be taken completely metaphorically or literally. I was speaking of the creation narrative in Genesis 1. I hope you can back up the claim that Genesis 1 is meant to be read entirely literally, because nearly every respected biblical scholar will disagree.
 
FoB_Ed said:
I did not say that the whole of the bible could be taken completely metaphorically or literally. I was speaking of the creation narrative in Genesis 1. I hope you can back up the claim that Genesis 1 is meant to be read entirely literally, because nearly every respected biblical scholar will disagree.
Click to expand...
I think the onus is on you to prove that it is a metaphor as it is written as fact.
 
Godron said:
But why can't the universe be self-explanatory? I know we don't know the actual explanation, but we don't know the explanation for God's existance either, so it's no worse an explanation than God. Adding God would just add an unnecessary link to the chain, so we do away with it due to Occam's Razor.

Even if you accept that an external cause for the universe is necessary, there's no reason to assume it has anything to do with the God in the Bible. It doesn't even have to be intelligent, and if it were, there's no reason to assume it would care about its creation enough to intervene with it. So it's still not a good argument for God's existance.
Click to expand...

Come on, guys! I said there were problems with it. :D

I could have told you all that myself but I didn't think you'd want to read a whole essay. The argument isn't claiming that God created the universe, that's why I said self-explanatory being.
 
Eejit said:
Glirk: fair enough. But why won't any atheists debate with agnostics? That's no fun :(
Click to expand...

Because the arguments against agnosticism aren't very good as your trying to disporve a one in infinity chance that god exists. Anyways...I guess the only arguments I can come up with is why believe in god? Why not appolo, zeus, thor or any other gods? Theres an infinite number of gods you could believe in, so it's up to you agnostics to give us a reason why your god is more probable than any other otherwise you are stuck having to worship all infinite number of gods as they are all equally possible.

Second...you need to give a reason to believe in a god at all. What evidence is there that our world didn't come about naturally? What evidence is there that we need to believe in a higher power of any kind for any reason?
 
a moderate christian =/= true christian ...have you guys read the bible ..that shit is pretty extreme ..no a moderate christian is someone who ignores all the stupid/illogical things in the bible ..which is pretty much from cover to back page
 
If you haven't stoned your kids for disobeying your not a true christian. Also...drinking too much, working on sunday, thinking of another mans wife and the list goes on.
 
I come snooping around this thread and I find this:

CaptureJPG2copy.jpg


D:

Heathen!
 
Glirk Dient said:
If you haven't stoned your kids for disobeying your not a true christian. Also...drinking too much, working on sunday, thinking of another mans wife and the list goes on.
Click to expand...

dont forget not eating animals that crawl on the bottom of the sea (crustaceans)

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:" - Leviticus 11:10


actually there's awhole shitload of stuff you cant eat cuz they're ungodly ...which is ironic because he created them to be ungoldy ..god =/= perfect

11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/11.html
 
Solaris said:
I think the onus is on you to prove that it is a metaphor as it is written as fact.
Click to expand...

Very well.

The word used in the Genesis Narrative, the Hebrew "yom" can denote:
1. a period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
2. a period of twenty-four hours,
3. a general vague "time"
4. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

In 64 verses of the Old Testament, the word "yom" is used as a general length of time. See Genesis 4:3: "And in process of time(yom) it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord."

Another Example:
Kings 11:42, it says: "And the time(yom) that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years."


Genesis, the Creation account uses figurative language to make a point. Does it mean that God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour days? Probably not. Genesis is so packed with imagery and symbolism that you could spend a year studying the first few chapters of it.

That being said, the first chapter of Genesis borrows many themes from the Babylonian Creation myth (the Enuma Elish). In the ancient Near East, most of the peoples had myths relating how the world came to be. Prevalent in those myths were accounts of how one of the gods (Marduk) triumphed over a fierce and powerful beast that represented disorder (Tiamat), and then fasioned the ordered world that humans knew, and was proclaimed by the other gods to be the divine king over the world he had created. Now, over all of these pagan myths, the author of genesis taught a different, new doctrine of creation: the one and only God who did not have to overcome some sort of mighty chaotic force, but could create the earth with a mere command.

Why the parallels? Because the author is trying to say something about the nature of God to an audience that was very, very familiar with the Enuma Elish. Scholars think that Genesis was written sometime during the Babylonian exile.

Does that make sense? I hope I didn't muddy that up..I studied Genesis for an entire semester last year, it was a great class.
 
CptStern said:
dont forget not eating animals that crawl on the bottom of the sea (crustaceans)

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:" - Leviticus 11:10


actually there's awhole shitload of stuff you cant eat cuz they're ungodly ...which is ironic because he created them to be ungoldy ..god =/= perfect

11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/11.html
Click to expand...

Not Swan! :(
 
FoB_Ed said:
I did not say that the whole of the bible could be taken completely metaphorically or literally. I was speaking of the creation narrative in Genesis 1. I hope you can back up the claim that Genesis 1 is meant to be read entirely literally, because nearly every respected biblical scholar will disagree.
Click to expand...

Aaah, you misunderstood me. I didn't say that the creation story was meant to be literal, but how exactly do you take the flood metaphorically/symbolically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lord_raken
We all know one
Replies
24
Views
2K
Bad^Hat
Bad^Hat
Gormanmod
LOL, Epic verbal battle with a supremacist
Replies
20
Views
1K
Druckles
Druckles
Back
Top