Re: I found this interesting.
 

I already explained that whether or not abiogenesis is a possibility, it does not matter, hence I don't care to discuss it. Even if living matter came from non-living matter (which has never been observed. Ever), it only pushes the question back one step further.

Also, in response to RalphyS' claim that God then needs His own God, that is precisely the point. He doesn't. He is the necessary Being which has to exist. God does not have to follow our laws of science because He invented them. However, if there is no God, then the laws of science are paramount, and in that case, the causality problem completely destroys any rational view of matter, intelligence, life, motion, etc.

And Anarkist, err... Lunar Shadow, you keep talking about how we "already discussed" morality, but you never were able to answer any of the objections brought forth. You and Ralph both want there to be some type of morality somehow (Ralph posited honesty as a "good" trait), yet neither has any type of reasoning behind it.

So atheists can't explain matter, motion, intelligence, life, morality, etc. using logical principles, and yet supposedly (as we have been told countless times on this forum), Christians abandoned logic? From where I sit, believing in God is the only logical thing to do.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

That list of contradictions is completey untrue. Every one of them are taken out of context. You must read the entire sections, not just one verse or two to understand the meanings behind the statements. That being said, that page serves only those stupid enough to believe something they read on the internet just because someone else says it's true. Why not use real logic instead of trying to trick people? Isn't that what you athiests say?

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Same thing as I stated before, X-tians claim causality for everything accept god, god needs no cause, because he is the cause (ofcourse the causality issue would also need a cause for god, but let's abandon this for the moment). As I've stated before if everything needs a cause, except god and god is all-good, which x-tians claim he is, where did evil/satan come from? As the rest is per definition caused by god, either god created them/it or god is not the prime cause for everything and evil/satan is an therefore an equal to god/goodness, which ofcourse also undermines the theory of absolute morality stemming from god.


Untrue, I did have a reasoning behind "honesty" being a good trait, you just choose not to accept it, but it is not up to you to decide whether my reasoning is sound or not. Morality is not a thing that X-tians invented, people were moral, long before Christianity was invented and will be long after it is gone. Sure, there is no such thing as absolute morality, but objective morality reached out of consensus is all we humans need. If morality is derived only from god, why aren't religious people much more moral than non-believers. The jails are filled with people who believe in an absolute moral authority, just one proof that this authority is useless.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Sorry, not my argument, but I could not resist. Morality reached by consensus is the very definition of SUBJECTIVE morality, not OBJECTIVE morality.

If morality is chosen it is not an objective morality, it is simply a moral preference. If morality is subject to preference, why couldn't Hitler, for instance, choose his morality?

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Each and everyone of us, even Hitler, has its own subjective morality, all these subjective moralities thrown together in a society become an objective morality, which are made into laws and regulations. Such an observable objective morality is for example the consensus on a speed limit, subjective morality does cause us to cross the speed limit. Ofcourse all of our subjective moralities change and therefore also alter the objective morality of a society, as for example the abandoning of slavery shows.

Sure, there are people who only consider their own subjective morality, we generally consider them criminals. :D

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Unlimited means just that "no limits", you yourself stated that god as opposed to us cannot contradict himself and that god cannot do as opposed to us cannot do anything against his nature. The word 'cannot' in itself implies there are limits and besides that we do seem to have these powers that god doesn't have.


In other words you do not have an explanation that is sufficient to anyone besides him.



Well we atheists are always accused for our so-called arrogance, but I think this tops it all. Basically you state, there is no such thing as a non-believer, there are only those who choose to ignore the obvious presence of the Lord and you claim this based on a book that's supposedly written by this Lord. You have neither proven the existence of any god, nor proven that he wrote this book, nor why this book should be any better than any other 'holy' book out there of all the other faiths, who are ofcourse also misguided as your preferred holy book claims. How circular can your logic become and how arrogant can you be, to claim that you know how other people think.

Furthermore you keep thanking me for my arguements, but you choose to ignore some parts, whether they don't fit in your picture or you simply cannot answer them I don't know, but please answer my posts in their entirity if you do. At least we can book some progress than.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

We haven't yet proven that there is a god, if we do so, than we can make the next stop, to which god(s) exist. So the connection between a god and his word, has yet to be made.

If we look at the bible, it is full of irreconcilable contradictions, factual errors and demonstrable fictions.

Most people who have really read it will recognize this.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Post #47.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Please expand, why what is untrue and what is taken out of context, would my answer be, but I haven't looked at the list (yet) of which Lunar Shadow spoke, I could name some obvious irreconcilable contradictions.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Just click on the link provided http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Nobody has proven there is NO God:)

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Just one example of a more glaring, contradictory , factual claim about Jesus, which I submit cannot be reconciled.

The genealogies for Jesus given in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew gives the following:
(Mtt. 1:1-16)
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


Now let's look at Luke.

(Lk. 3:23-38)
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

First of all let's bear in mind that these are really geneologies for Joseph, not Jesus. If you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as both Matthew and Luke assert, then it must be admitted that Jesus himself has no connection to either geneology. That makes them rather a moot point since the whole point of these things is to show Jesus' descendancy from David. It's a contradiction in itself to say that Jesus was born of a virgin and then try to prove a Davidic lineage through Joseph.

Looking at the genealogies themselves we see that Matthew starts with Abraham and counts down to Joseph, while Luke starts with Joseph and counts clear back to Adam (also note that Luke calls Adam "the son of God.")

Matthew claims descendancy from David through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. They are completely different after that and claim different fathers for Joseph.

Typically, this disparity has been addressed by apologists by claiming that one of the genealogies goes through Mary. There is zero support for this in the texts, though, and a matrilineal connection to David would not have been sufficient to legitimize a claim to Davidic inheritance under Jewish law anyway. The genealogies clash and that's that.

There is also a huge disparity between Matthew and Luke as to the date of birth. Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. This is an irreconcilable gap, although many apologists have tried to contrive an earlier census there is no evidentiary support for such an event and some significant evidence against it.

Matthew's and Luke's Nativities are quite different and each mentions things not mentioned by the others. Not every difference is a necessary contradiction but some of the differences are and it might be useful to examine them side by side.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

We've already established that it is impossible to proof that something does not exist, therefore the burden of proof lies with those who assert the positive claim.

It's just like the law, you do not have to proof that you're not guilty, the prosecutor has to proof your guilt.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

ok Chris how about this one This verse is found in Matthew Luke and in Mark I use Mark because it was the first book written and it is probable that the otheres used Mark as a template to write the other 3 books of the gospels



9:1 And he said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."


No it appears that Jesus was eithr lying or wrong. This being the case is he really the son of god? because if he lied that goes agianst "the known nature of god" but if he was wrong than he was a false prophet and should have been stonned to death per the law. either way this does not look good.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

failed Prophecies and Promises from the bible


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html