Big Bang and creation of the universe

08/10/2006 06:00:26 PM · #701

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I didn't say they didn't speak aramaic. I said the bible is hardly written in it. The oldest manuscripts we have, I believe, are greek for the new testament.

Originally posted by scalvert:

...the native language of Jesus, his Apostles, and most or all the authors of the New Testament was Aramaic, not Koine Greek

Also from Wikipedia "Aramaic is believed to have been the native language of Jesus."

Thus, I repeat- if God wants to deliver a message, why start in Aramaic? At a minimum, Jesus' words had to be translated into Greek.

08/10/2006 06:05:02 PM · #702

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point for partaking is to let the average atheist know that it isn't safe to assume there is nothing between the ears of Joe Christian whom you meet on the street. Men and women far smarter than us have embraced Christianity and held a firm and steadfast belief that they have found The Truth.

If it's any consolation, I've not thought anything of the sort about you and I've thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.

Well, someone above seemed to equate my belief in God with their past belief in Santa Clause. I'd assume the means I am stuck in a philosophical infancy...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/10/2006 06:05:05 PM · #703

[

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I didn't say they didn't speak aramaic. I said the bible is hardly written in it. The oldest manuscripts we have, I believe, are greek for the new testament.

So, the oldest written evidence for the existence of God was written down at least second-hand by a writer writing in a different language than that of the person narrating the story, who is perhaps several generations removed from the originator (I think the oldest New Testament writings date from about the Third Century).

Have you ever played the game "telephone?"

We're skipping the Old Testament for now, which I think is largely in Aramaic.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 18:06:18.

08/10/2006 06:07:06 PM · #704

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My point for partaking is to let the average atheist know that it isn't safe to assume there is nothing between the ears of Joe Christian whom you meet on the street.

I don't think anyone assumes that. I just enjoy conversations where the faithful demand absolute proof of any scientific premise, yet base their own beliefs on the subjective interpretation of multiply-translated written words whose only proof is other written words.

08/10/2006 06:13:28 PM · #705

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

someone above seemed to equate my belief in God with their past belief in Santa Clause.

LOL- that was me, equating MY OWN past belief in God with Santa Claus and suggesting that the standards of proof are about equal, with similar rationalizations used to explain away conflicting models of truth. That's not intended to be an attack on anyone's intelligence, and you in particular have at least tried to apply some logic and consistency.

Originally posted by Scalvert:

Me too, and my parents/grandparents are about as devout as you can get. I also once had an unshakable belief in Santa Claus, and probably dismissed or explained away any so-called facts that contradicted my faith in seasonal flying ruminants.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 18:17:34.

08/10/2006 06:14:00 PM · #706

Originally posted by GeneralE:

So the only evidence for the existence of God is that there are things for which we've not yet figured out a "natural" explanation. As much as it sickens me, I gotta agree with the Rumsfeld/Cheney cabal on this one -- a lack of evidence is not, in itself, evidence of anything.

You need to go back and read the last 50-100 posts. My evience for God falls more along the lines of my conviction of my own Free Will, my instinct for Right and Wrong and philosophical arguments as such. I repeat that I am not looking for a Natural explanation for God. One does not and should not exist. That's like trying to prove Van Gogh exists by looking at the properties of light and color. (OK, these analogies are coming on the fly, some are better than others).

08/10/2006 06:15:34 PM · #707

Originally posted by GeneralE:

[
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't say they didn't speak aramaic. I said the bible is hardly written in it. The oldest manuscripts we have, I believe, are greek for the new testament.

So, the oldest written evidence for the existence of God was written down at least second-hand by a writer writing in a different language than that of the person narrating the story, who is perhaps several generations removed from the originator (I think the oldest New Testament writings date from about the Third Century).

Have you ever played the game "telephone?"

We're skipping the Old Testament for now, which I think is largely in Aramaic.

The OT is Hebrew, not aramaic.

The oldest manuscripts for the NT we have are early second century when the majority was written in the middle to late first century. As far as historical texts go, that's no time at all...

08/10/2006 06:21:46 PM · #708

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The oldest manuscripts for the NT we have are early second century when the majority was written in the middle to late first century.

You haven't addressed the issue that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Whatever the text is written in, the original message was delivered in Aramaic.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/10/2006 06:23:01 PM · #709

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You need to go back and read the last 50-100 posts.

I'm not not reading them -- I'm just finding them less-than-satisfactory evidence for the existence of an entity on a different plane, and intelligent and all-powerful at that.

If God doesn't exist in or act or the natural world, how does He communicate with us? If He does interact with the natural world, then there has to be physical evidence -- that's the meaning of "action" in the natural world.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 18:24:47.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/10/2006 06:24:35 PM · #710

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My evience for God falls more along the lines of my conviction of my own Free Will, my instinct for Right and Wrong

Interesting that free will (human, higher) and instinct (animalistic, base) should combine in this manner.

I would also add my thanks to all for a very interesting conversation.

08/10/2006 06:25:58 PM · #711

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The oldest manuscripts for the NT we have are early second century when the majority was written in the middle to late first century.

You haven't addressed the issue that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Whatever the text is written in, the original message was delivered in Aramaic.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. What evidence would you suppose WOULD support the evidence of God here? This smells like the argument that the universe is too big. "Why would God create all that empty space?" but I'm sure that if the universe were small people would just as quickly ask "Why is the universe so small? Isn't God powerful?" So I don't think you are going to score any points with me in this line of argument.

08/10/2006 06:27:01 PM · #712

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My evience for God falls more along the lines of my conviction of my own Free Will, my instinct for Right and Wrong

Interesting that free will (human, higher) and instinct (animalistic, base) should combine in this manner.

I was just following my 3rd grade teacher's instruction not to use the same word (conviction) twice in the same sentence...

08/10/2006 06:30:11 PM · #713

Originally posted by GeneralE:

If God doesn't exist in or act or the natural world, how does He communicate with us? If He does interact with the natural world, then there has to be physical evidence -- that's the meaning of "action" in the natural world.

I see plenty of evidence. You see the same stuff and do not.

I've tried to keep from quoting biblical passages in the argument, but this one just says what I feel too well...

"20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ��his eternal power and divine natureâ��have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

That's Romans 1

08/10/2006 06:32:41 PM · #714

Originally posted by scalvert:

Aramaic. Whatever the text is written in, the original message was delivered in Aramaic.

Perhaps I can ask it another way. How is it that one man speaking a backwater language in a corner of the known world has given a message embraced by 3 billion people in countless languages two thousand years later. Could you have seen that coming?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/10/2006 06:45:05 PM · #715

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Aramaic. Whatever the text is written in, the original message was delivered in Aramaic.

Perhaps I can ask it another way. How is it that one man speaking a backwater language in a corner of the known world has given a message embraced by 3 billion people in countless languages two thousand years later. Could you have seen that coming?

Well, wasn't he largely preaching closer adherence to the tenets of Orthodox Judaism (the Old Testament), the practice of which had grown (in his eyes) lax? Kind of like Pat Robertson?

It was only the "ressurection" (i.e. the body was gone and the night watchman swears he saw no one take it) which established Christ's divinity -- before that he was basically a radical, itinerant charismatic preacher with a cult following, not unlike Jim Jones.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

08/10/2006 06:46:23 PM · #716

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I must chime in (I will slink back to my corner after this).

I read a most interesting article about the 'evolution of religion.' The basic premise was that religions that (somehow) helped the humans survive, were the ones that survive. Survival of the fittest religion, if you will. Christianity allowed the masses who believe in it enough to continue to procreate and pass on their religion to the next.

I can't remember all the points made, but it was very interesting. Anyways, you may now resume your normal discussion (which I have been enjoying as others have stated)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/10/2006 06:48:08 PM · #717

Originally posted by pidge:

Anyways, you may now resume your normal discussion (which I have been enjoying as others have stated)

Hey, did anybody remember to charge admission?

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/10/2006 06:48:22 PM · #718

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've tried to keep from quoting biblical passages in the argument, but this one just says what I feel too well...

Your quote suggests that the answer is that "it is obvious" that there is a God. Its provenance is not and should not be persuasive. However, in the face of evidence to the contrary, there does appear to be less obvious-ness.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/10/2006 06:51:06 PM · #719

Originally posted by pidge:

I read a most interesting article about the 'evolution of religion.' The basic premise was that religions that (somehow) helped the humans survive, were the ones that survive. Survival of the fittest religion, if you will. Christianity allowed the masses who believe in it enough to continue to procreate and pass on their religion to the next.

Interesting.

This accords with my biggest question about any specific religion: how do you know that yours is the right one? Surely Bacchus would be a better god to believe in?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/10/2006 06:52:09 PM · #720

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Surely Bacchus would be a better god to believe in?

Hell Yeah! LOL

ETA: Sorry could not help myself

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 18:52:31.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/10/2006 06:58:11 PM · #721

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've tried to keep from quoting biblical passages in the argument, but this one just says what I feel too well...

"20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ��his eternal power and divine natureâ��have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. That's Romans 1

So God must exist because the world exists, and the world could not have been made without God. A perfect circle -- congratulations.

I'll riposte that the existence of evil is proof that (the Judeo-Christian) God doesn't exist, since evil is by definition an imperfection, and an imperfection cannot comprise a part of a perfect being -- but if God is indeed everywhere at once, then God must imbue and embody the evil as well as the pious, which can't be since God is perfect and evil is by definition an imperfection, and an imperfection cannot comprise a part of a perfect being -- but ...

08/10/2006 07:11:56 PM · #722

General, truthfully you really sound like you are just regurgitating arguments you have heard from other places. They are mostly there, but the awkwardness makes me think they are not your own thoughts. That's just an honest assessment.

Take for example your view on Jesus. He was far from preaching strict adherence to The Law. I doubt that message would have really gotten him in trouble with those that plotted to kill him (The Pharisees who were, indeed, preaching that very message).

The nightwatchman idea also seems sorta silly. The Pharisees knew Jesus had made some claims and had posted guards just for this reason. Unless that ragtag band of disciples got all A-Team on people, all that would have needed to happen for the Pharisees to squash the infant religion was to produce a body.

I find it more interesting that 10 of the 12 original disciples were martyred for their belief. You would have thought if it was made up (psst. Peter ditched the corpse in the river) someone would have squealed uncle to save his life.

08/10/2006 10:01:24 PM · #723

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
You haven't addressed the issue that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Whatever the text is written in, the original message was delivered in Aramaic.

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Simple: why would the messenger of God not at least speak a language that would last? I mean, Greek was fairly well established in those days, so if an omniscient being wants to send a literal message to the masses, why not do it right in Greek to begin with? It would have eliminated the potential for mistranslation and subjective interpretation.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How is it that one man speaking a backwater language in a corner of the known world has given a message embraced by 3 billion people in countless languages two thousand years later.

Confucious? Mohammed? Plato? Seneca? Plutarch? All have given messages later translated for billions of people, but none of their words are assumed to be the literal words of God. To return your volley, how is it that in over two thousand years God still hasn't managed to convince more than a third of the earth's population that the bible is required reading? That's a pretty lame score for an omniscient being.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 22:03:53.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/10/2006 10:07:46 PM · #724

Originally posted by scalvert:

To return your volley, how is it that in over two thousand years God still hasn't managed to convince more than a third of the earth's population that the bible is required reading? That's a pretty lame score for an omniscient being.

Isn't that the only score though? So he'd ribbon then. :P