Atheism
Atheism
4
4
0
"The god of the Bible displays all the traits of folklore, legend, and mythology. Why assume he's anything else?"
Truth-Saves | 2:2 God
Posted from truth-saves.com
Atheism
Religion
Christianity
Mythology
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
2
2
0
"God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ."
This is what I think explains why we should believe in G-d. But I support your right to reject G-d's existence.
This is what I think explains why we should believe in G-d. But I support your right to reject G-d's existence.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
Capt Gregory Prickett - I never stated I know what was on the video. The following is an example of my point.
Considering the previous diagram, it’s easy to see how we can add a third axis. Thus with an x, y and z axis, we can describe the surface of a sphere – as in the skin of a beach ball. Here the equation (for a sphere with a radius of 1 ) becomes: x2 + y2 + z2 = 1
With three axes, we can describe forms in three-dimensional space. And again, every point is uniquely identified by three coordinates: it’s the necessary condition of three-ness that makes the space three-dimensional.
But why stop there? What if I add a fourth dimension? Let’s call it ‘p’. Now I can write an equation for something I claim is a sphere sitting in four-dimensional space: x2 + y2 + z2 + p2 = 1. I can’t draw this object for you, yet mathematically the addition of another dimension is a legitimate move. ‘Legitimate’ meaning there’s nothing logically inconsistent about doing so – there’s no reason I can’t.
A ‘dimension’ becomes a purely symbolic concept not necessarily linked to the material world at all
And I can keep on going, adding more dimensions. So I define a sphere in five-dimensional space with five coordinate axes (x, y, z, p, q) giving us the equation: x2 + y2 + z2+ p2 + q2 = 1. And one in six-dimensions: x2 + y2 + z2 + p2 + q2 + r2 = 1, and so on.
Although I might not be able to visualise higher-dimensional spheres, I can describe them symbolically, and one way of understanding the history of mathematics is as an unfolding realisation about what seemingly sensible things we can transcend. This is what Charles Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll, was getting at when, in Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871), he had the White Queen assert her ability to believe ‘six impossible things before breakfast’.
Considering the previous diagram, it’s easy to see how we can add a third axis. Thus with an x, y and z axis, we can describe the surface of a sphere – as in the skin of a beach ball. Here the equation (for a sphere with a radius of 1 ) becomes: x2 + y2 + z2 = 1
With three axes, we can describe forms in three-dimensional space. And again, every point is uniquely identified by three coordinates: it’s the necessary condition of three-ness that makes the space three-dimensional.
But why stop there? What if I add a fourth dimension? Let’s call it ‘p’. Now I can write an equation for something I claim is a sphere sitting in four-dimensional space: x2 + y2 + z2 + p2 = 1. I can’t draw this object for you, yet mathematically the addition of another dimension is a legitimate move. ‘Legitimate’ meaning there’s nothing logically inconsistent about doing so – there’s no reason I can’t.
A ‘dimension’ becomes a purely symbolic concept not necessarily linked to the material world at all
And I can keep on going, adding more dimensions. So I define a sphere in five-dimensional space with five coordinate axes (x, y, z, p, q) giving us the equation: x2 + y2 + z2+ p2 + q2 = 1. And one in six-dimensions: x2 + y2 + z2 + p2 + q2 + r2 = 1, and so on.
Although I might not be able to visualise higher-dimensional spheres, I can describe them symbolically, and one way of understanding the history of mathematics is as an unfolding realisation about what seemingly sensible things we can transcend. This is what Charles Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll, was getting at when, in Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871), he had the White Queen assert her ability to believe ‘six impossible things before breakfast’.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Mark A. Morris - OK, and? It doesn't matter what you can visualize, it matters what you can provide evidence for or against. And there is no evidence for a 4th, 5th, or Nth dimension.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
Capt Gregory Prickett - Our science is moving forward. Who knew we could create an AI program that is self aware? 120yrs ago, no one would believe we could go to the moon or fly. Yet here we are.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Mark A. Morris - correct, but the correct time to believe in something is when evidence has been presented...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
There's an old saying, "Where there's smoke... there's fire". Granted, smelling smoke doesn't tell you where the fire is... how hot it is... or what's causing it. A dusty air duct resulting from too little cleaning has been mistaken for a four-alarm fire many times before. However, I smell the "smoke" of God's presence all the time. I know flowers grow because of complex cellular processes resulting from how various elements react the better to synthesize... this doesn't explain why daffodils have the power to make my wife happy. Mythology and folklore generally originate from a need to provide a social or cultural context to something. The Greeks viewed their gods as merely more powerful (and often more devious) versions of themselves-It's small wonder to me then that they gave birth to some of our most long-standing philosophies centered on humanism. Many far-eastern beliefs contain more esoteric views of "divinity"-It's easy then to see how these "mystic" religions have been embraced for millennia by those seeking transcendentalism. Other still see "god in man", and attempt to make spiritual aspects of the mortal, immortal-Doesn't this appear a clear attempt to reconcile both? For my own part, I see God as a superior being... THE superior being actually. We probably cannot fully comprehend either His existence, or His purposes. What we call "tragic" may, from an immortal perspective be "transformative"... even creative. If He doesn't exist... none of that matters. However, if there's even the slightest chance He does... nothing matters more. Put another way, I don't know if "Bigfoot" exists. Frankly... there's a lot to suggest it does not. There is no concrete "evidence" that a primate standing eight to ten feet tall is roaming the Pacific Northwest. All the alleged "evidence" has been scrutinized... and either definitively, or suggestively been de-bunked. However, if I'm heading into those woods, by myself... I'm taking something along powerful enough to defend myself in case the "irrational" proves to be merely "unproven".
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - Tacitus is also not a contemporary account, but is some 80 years later, and it appears that Tacitus got his information from Christians. It's not as strong as you would think. When I spoke of contemporaneous accounts, well, there are none. Josephus and Tacitus both were written well after the alleged crucifixion (by 60 and 80 years) and the likelihood of either speaking to an eyewitness is extremely remote.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie also profound is how you disprove the gods that predate christianity.
(1)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Capt Gregory Prickett - All true. However, historically speaking, an eighty year old account... even one obtained second or third hand...is often taken rather seriously (the History Channel has made a fortune off this on everything from the Titanic, to who shot JFK, and whether or not Hitler went to South America). We're not discussing a court of law where certain types of "evidence" are inadmissible or deemed circumstantial. History doesn't need to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" to suggest it as possible truth. Somewhat the reverse, historians are trying to prove (or disprove) reasonable certainty. If we had an eighty year old account that described the opposite of a much later accepted version... that would be compelling. In the case of Biblical archeology, we have numerous oral traditions that have been endured in documented form for millennia. We have found references to people, events, and places corroborated by separate sources separated by centuries. We're never going to find a signed copy of the Ten Commandments, or video tape of the Sermon on the Mount. How often do guilty people walk out of courtrooms simply because there's not enough evidence to convict? In the end, if someone needs that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"; it's probably impossible to provide. Beyond that, I can respect the difficulty involved in accepting something on faith.. truly, I can. For me, as I've often stated before, there's "enough" to support my faith. Thanks for another great debate.
(1)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
1SG (Join to see) - I can't "disprove" for the same reasons I cannot "prove". As I stated in my latest reply to Mr. Prickett, I'm not trying to establish anything "beyond a reasonable doubt"... there's many ways to support doubt from all sides, if that's what one is looking for. My suggestion is that Christianity didn't originate heterogeneously from Judaism... and that Judaism's roots can be found in much earlier forms of belief. To my mind at least, that casts some doubt on the suggestion that Judeo-Christianity can be dismissed merely by chronology.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google