Why I DON'T choose biblical scripture over others...

[Thumpalumpacus]

He is god, and he possesses one attribute yours doesn't: he actually existed.

Hmmm. I once heard someone claim Jerry Garcia is God.

I totally forgot about the Jimi Hendrix church (sort of a church) in San Francisco. So you may have something there.

"Swing and a miss," said Vin Scully.

[Gwaithmir]

Some people seem to think Jimi Hendrix was/is a god.

He is god, and he possesses one attribute yours doesn't: he actually existed.

I'll drink to that! 

[Bucky Ball]

[no one]

Funny thing about the creator, most of its fans, couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag.

You'd think the closeted magic sky pixie would stack the odds in its favor.


Is almost as if the big boo boo fixer doesn't real, and its followers are not really the big smartz.

[Bucky Ball]

The thing is, a "creator" is a meaningless and incoherent concept.
Creating is an "action". An act which at least "begins" and may have an end.
In Theology, the word *eternal* ... which is one of the attributes of *god* means "timeless", (not endless time).
A creative *act* would put an end to a timeless environment, and refute "eternal". No eternal god can *do* anything and retain it's eternal property.
A god that *exists* (at least the ones we hear about) have various god-like properties, and not other properties.
As long at your particular god has existed, it has been a sub-set of Reality, (ie not evil, omnipotent) etc.
Reality therefore has always been larger than your god, and has been so, for as long (even if described as eternal) as it existed.
Who created the rest of the Reality your god found itself in, which included apparently ... "causation", if it's not the totality of Reality ?
In other words, who caused causation if it (causation) were not already in place in Reality ? The unspoken assumptions get you every time.

"Implied Premises
An implied premise is an unstated assumption that is assumed by a conclusion but not stated in the reasoning. For, example, a logical syllogism takes the form of:
All A are B
All B are C
Therefore, all A are C

The first two statements are premises and the third statement is a conclusion. As we can see, the content of the premises can be found in the conclusion; this means that, like in math, we can reconstruct an unstated premise if we know the conclusion and one other premise. If someone argues that all dogs are hairy because dogs are mammals, we can reconstruct the syllogism:

Premise: All dogs (A) are mammals (B)
Premise: All (B) are ©
Conclusion: All dogs (A) are hairy ©"

[Minimalist]

Creating is an "action". An act which at least "begins" and may have an end.

In Theology, the word *eternal* ... which is one of the attributes of *god* means "timeless", (not endless time).

Way too deep a thought for most of the assholes, Buck.  Most of them are only too happy to believe whatever the guy in the funny hat says!

[Joods]

I don't believe biblical scripture (it's not a matter of choice with me, it's my compulsion to ask questions and seek rational answers) is because the Bible is clearly chockablock full of bullshit, to which I'm allergic.

This right here.

[Bucky Ball]

Sorry. I get that. I'm a bad writer.  

You aren't a bad writer.  Its the system of quoting posts forward that tangles things up.  That's why I try to reply with direct quotes...

I finally got that.
I misinterpreted what you meant about "embedded quotes".
I myself do that WAY too often in my own posts.

[Cavebear]

Take this with a smile and some admiration...

Your detailed biblical arguments are beyond me.  But I admired your detailed mention of tenses in language:  "A perfect tense is a completed action and an imperfect tense is an action that is not completed".  College was 50 years ago, so I did not remember that.  So, of course, I looked it up.  What I found was a bit of humor I remembered from Advanced English (long underused).

"A guy goes to Boston on a business trip. Since he has never been there before he wants to try the local cuisine and, after some research decides the quintessential dish (after baked beans) is a seafood dish made from a young cod fish.

As he gets into the taxi at the airport he asks the driver "where can I get scrod?"
The driver turns to look at him and replies "You know, I have been asked that question many times and in many ways. But never before in the Past Pluperfect Subjunctive."

LOL!

When I first read this in your post, what immediately came across as hilarious was the taxi driver using that type of language. And then I figured scrod had to be related to screwed. I had to google it up to confirm it.

As a Californian (might not be a good excuse), I never heard of scrod. I'll have to visit Fisherman's Wharf and see if I can find it. It sounds like it may have the same attributes as oysters.

I enjoy complicated and convoluted jokes. And I enjoy language. And I was raised in New England and know about scrod.

"noun A small cod or similar fish, such as haddock or hake, especially one split and boned for cooking. Scrodded fish, or a dish prepared by scrodding fish. A young codfish, especially one that is split and fried or boiled." And I hate the taste of fish, so I have never eaten one either. I just know of their existence.

[Cavebear]

I loved "Quote:  But if God identified himself as Yahweh to you, ...

I would say to him “oh hello you're the god of the Jews?” He would say “Yes” and I would say “pleased to meet you but I'm not Jewish perhaps you'd like to go and visit that synagogue over there where your people are?”"

Still, if any advanced being claimed to be a deity, how would I know?  An advanced technology could cause one to appear to be a deity.

It's possible that what we would call religious experiences originate from alien technology. Some people think the crucifixion was some sort of alien simulation.

But I'd have to ask why would an advanced alien race bother with this, or any kind of deception?

It may be an issue of probability over possibility (e.g., our physical existence over a dream state).

I will be kind and say "anything is possible"

But most unevidenced things are not "likely".

[no one]

It's not possible for trumpardian magats to think.

It's not possible for anyone to be better than Hendrix

It's not possible for me to be worth anything.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not possible for trumpardian magats to think.

It's not possible for anyone to be better than Hendrix

It's not possible for me to be worth anything.

Two outta three ain't bad.

[Bucky Ball]

It's not possible for trumpardian magats to think.

It's not possible for anyone to be better than Hendrix

It's not possible for me to be worth anything.

I would dispute that last one, ... as a fellow "32er".

[Camaro Dude]

It's possible that what we would call religious experiences originate from alien technology. Some people think the crucifixion was some sort of alien simulation.

But I'd have to ask why would an advanced alien race bother with this, or any kind of deception?

It may be an issue of probability over possibility (e.g., our physical existence over a dream state).

I will be kind and say "anything is possible"

But most unevidenced things are not "likely".

I don't mean to ask this to be aggravating. I'm asking because I'm sincerely not sure myself.

A hypothetical. If our universe was created by extra-terrestrial biological entities, who fell within the confines of what we consider products of natural science, would we be staring at evidence (or proof) of extra-terrestrial intelligent life?

[Bucky Ball]

Not necessarily. We don't know yet. We don't know now. Science is only a few hundred years old. We are at the very early beginning.
It's not *even* an issue.
We have to go with what we know now.
That's all we get.
We have to operate now with what we know now.
We may or may not be on the verge of knowing about other universes.
Every time humans think they know the smallest things, and largest things, they are proven wrong.

The Big Bang Theory talks about a highly dense and very hot expanding "something". What that was is unknown.
The *expansion* is the Big Bang.
We don't know what was *at* a very high temperature and density.
"Nothing" is *not* at very high density and temperature, therefore the Big Bang is not about a "creation event".
There is no reason NOW, to think that the universe arose from anything other than the "laws of physics".
We don't like not having all the answers. But we don't.

As Voltaire has Pangloss say at the end of Candide, "We must cultivate our gardens".
"Pangloss, who was as inquisitive as he was argumentative, asked the old man what the name of the strangled Mufti was. ‘I don’t know,’ answered the worthy man, ‘and I have never known the name of any Mufti, nor of any Vizier. I have no idea what you’re talking about; my general view is that people who meddle with politics usually meet a miserable end, and indeed they deserve to. I never bother with what is going on in Constantinople; I only worry about sending the fruits of the garden which I cultivate off to be sold there.’ Having said these words, he invited the strangers into his house; his two sons and two daughters presented them with several sorts of sherbet, which they had made themselves, with kaimak enriched with the candied-peel of citrons, with oranges, lemons, pine-apples, pistachio-nuts, and Mocha coffee… – after which the two daughters of the honest Muslim perfumed the strangers’ beards. ‘You must have a vast and magnificent estate,’ said Candide to the turk. ‘I have only twenty acres,’ replied the old man; ‘I and my children cultivate them; and our labour preserves us from three great evils: weariness, vice, and want.’ Candide, on his way home, reflected deeply on what the old man had said. ‘This honest Turk,’ he said to Pangloss and Martin, ‘seems to be in a far better place than kings…. I also know,” said Candide, “that we must cultivate our garden.’'
https://www.theschooloflife.com/article/...-voltaire/

[Thumpalumpacus]

If our universe was created by extra-terrestrial biological entities, who fell within the confines of what we consider products of natural science, would we be staring at evidence (or proof) of extra-terrestrial intelligent life?

Your premise both answers and assumes your question. How would you know ET entities created any Universe without having evidence ET entities exist at all? And if we have evidence that the Universe was created by ETs, we would presumably have evidence that those ETs actually exist.

The existence of turtles is a scientific fact. That the Universe sits on top of a stack of turtles, not so much. It's the difference between science and philosophy, or fact and opinion. If we found a stack of turtles under the Universe, we could reasonably conclude that turtles exist. If we found that turtles exist, is it reasonable to conclude that the Universe rests upon a stack of 'em?

There's some question-begging in your post here. You'd need to show ETs exist before arguing they created the Universe. You'd then need to show that ETs in question could create said Universe, presumably from their own, and you'd need to show how they might do so.

There are no shortcuts.

[Camaro Dude]

If our universe was created by extra-terrestrial biological entities, who fell within the confines of what we consider products of natural science, would we be staring at evidence (or proof) of extra-terrestrial intelligent life?

Your premise both answers and assumes your question. How would you know ET entities created any Universe without having evidence ET entities exist at all? And if we have evidence that the Universe was created by ETs, we would presumably have evidence that those ETs actually exist.

The existence of turtles is a scientific fact. That the Universe sits on top of a stack of turtles, not so much. It's the difference between science and philosophy, or fact and opinion. If we found a stack of turtles under the Universe, we could reasonably conclude that turtles exist. If we found that turtles exist, is it reasonable to conclude that the Universe rests upon a stack of 'em?

There's some question-begging in your post here. You'd need to show ETs exist before arguing they created the Universe. You'd then need to show that ETs in question could create said Universe, presumably from their own, and you'd need to show how they might do so.

There are no shortcuts.

The question didn't really have anything to do with ETs creating the Universe. The question is simply; if ETs created our universe, are we staring at evidence, or proof of their existence?

The question doesn't even require we have a concept of ETs. Would our pet dogs for instance, be staring at evidence of ETs? Or another way to pose it, can we look at evidence of something without knowing or having any clue that it's evidence we're looking at?

The question might even be  even a yes or no question. I won't push that to avoid the idea of this being a trap or trick question. Although I'm not sure myself, I do think what's considered evidence can be subjective. Some people seem to think that intelligent life on Earth is evidence of intelligent life on other planets. Since the number of planets are countless, statistically speaking there would most likely, or is, intelligent life on other planets because there's intelligent life on this planet. This, even though there's no visible evidence outside of speculation of intelligent life on other planets.

[Bucky Ball]

Your premise both answers and assumes your question. How would you know ET entities created any Universe without having evidence ET entities exist at all? And if we have evidence that the Universe was created by ETs, we would presumably have evidence that those ETs actually exist.

The existence of turtles is a scientific fact. That the Universe sits on top of a stack of turtles, not so much. It's the difference between science and philosophy, or fact and opinion. If we found a stack of turtles under the Universe, we could reasonably conclude that turtles exist. If we found that turtles exist, is it reasonable to conclude that the Universe rests upon a stack of 'em?

There's some question-begging in your post here. You'd need to show ETs exist before arguing they created the Universe. You'd then need to show that ETs in question could create said Universe, presumably from their own, and you'd need to show how they might do so.

There are no shortcuts.

The question didn't really have anything to do with ETs creating the Universe. The question is simply; if ETs created our universe, are we staring at evidence, or proof of their existence?

The question doesn't even require we have a concept of ETs. Would our pet dogs for instance, be staring at evidence of ETs? Or another way to pose it, can we look at evidence of something without knowing or having any clue that it's evidence we're looking at?

The question might even be  even a yes or no question. I won't push that to avoid the idea of this being a trap or trick question. Although I'm not sure myself, I do think what's considered evidence can be subjective. Some people seem to think that intelligent life on Earth is evidence of intelligent life on other planets. Since the number of planets are countless, statistically speaking there would most likely, or is, intelligent life on other planets because there's intelligent life on this planet. This, even though there's no visible evidence outside of speculation of intelligent life on other planets.

So ... you agree then the "first cause" argument is bogus.
The Nobel Prize winners who have worked on abiogenesis (Szostak among them) would disagree with you.
You have no Nobel Prize, or even Biochem 101.
You jump from a god to aliens.
Are you on drugs ?

[Free]

A hypothetical. If our universe was created by extra-terrestrial biological entities, who fell within the confines of what we consider products of natural science, would we be staring at evidence (or proof) of extra-terrestrial intelligent life?

Of course we would. How could we not be? 

But the reality is we don't know a damn thing, so your hypothetical is meaningless.

What we can determine to be the best theory is that our universe was most likely at a T-0 point in which all matter, space, and energy was condensed in a single point. Then slowly came expansion some 14 billion years ago. What we don't know is if there was any kind of existence before that point. We don't know of any other universes. 

Personally I look at this universe and wonder if somewhere well past all that is observable whether another universe exists, and whether it also had a Big Bang, is expanding etc.. Or, if this observable universe only details what is observable, and barely represents even a tiny percentage of a singular universe, and that our Big Bang is just one of an endless series of Big Bangs throughout the universe.

Is the universe much bigger than what we can observe? Is it infinite and eternal?

How little we really know.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The question didn't really have anything to do with ETs creating the Universe. The question is simply; if ETs created our universe, are we staring at evidence, or proof of their existence?

No, your problem is that you're assuming that what you see is evidence of what you believe, rather than letting what you see guide where your belief goes.

You want to believe in a good God? That's nice. Now explain cancer or tsunamis or earthquakes. Is your little god powerless against diabetes? Maybe he likes his little minions to feel a little pain? You're the one claiming that the god you worship is all-powerful and all-good. The evidence in front of your incomprehending face is that this world is not perfect. Now, before you go blaming humanity for this world's imperfections, stop and ask yourself who made humans?

That's right, your all-knowing and omnibeneficent god.

The question doesn't even require we have a concept of ETs. Would our pet dogs for instance, be staring at evidence of ETs? Or another way to pose it, can we look at evidence of something without knowing or having any clue that it's evidence we're looking at?

Everything we see is evidence of something, duh. The question is, what precepts do we overlay onto that evidence such that we might misinterpret it? No-bullshit story here, on the way back from the store yesterday, close to noon, I saw a bright orange spot appear in the sky, fall, and fizzle in the matter of a second or so. Started at about 40° azimuth, dropped maybe 5°, and faded out. Was it evidence of Marduk shooting thunderbolts? Maybe evidence of ETs pissing fire? Or perhaps, just maybe, evidence that another piece of space-rock or space-junk came through the atmosphere?

Everything is evidence of something. The point is how are you interpreting it?

The question might even be  even a yes or no question. I won't push that to avoid the idea of this being a trap or trick question. Although I'm not sure myself, I do think what's considered evidence can be subjective. Some people seem to think that intelligent life on Earth is evidence of intelligent life on other planets. Since the number of planets are countless, statistically speaking there would most likely, or is, intelligent life on other planets because there's intelligent life on this planet. This, even though there's no visible evidence outside of speculation of intelligent life on other planets.

Evidence of intelligent life on Earth is only evidence that there's intelligent life on Earth. All the rest, the math and such, is not "evidence", it's conjecture. Evidence is a body of facts. A hypothesis strives to explain that body of facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has made numerous successful predictions based on a given hypothesis and is thus accepted as a guide.

Evidence is subjective insofar as human perceptions and interpretations are subjective. You wanna see the world as evidence for your god? Great. But your little bible and the way the world is do not comport, and me, I go with reality. If you prefer your just-so story, fine, just keep it off my wave.

[Camaro Dude]

A hypothetical. If our universe was created by extra-terrestrial biological entities, who fell within the confines of what we consider products of natural science, would we be staring at evidence (or proof) of extra-terrestrial intelligent life?

Of course we would. How could we not be? 

But the reality is we don't know a damn thing, so your hypothetical is meaningless.

What we can determine to be the best theory is that our universe was most likely at a T-0 point in which all matter, space, and energy was condensed in a single point. Then slowly came expansion some 14 billion years ago. What we don't know is if there was any kind of existence before that point. We don't know of any other universes. 

Personally I look at this universe and wonder if somewhere well past all that is observable whether another universe exists, and whether it also had a Big Bang, is expanding etc.. Or, if this observable universe only details what is observable, and barely represents even a tiny percentage of a singular universe, and that our Big Bang is just one of an endless series of Big Bangs throughout the universe.

Is the universe much bigger than what we can observe? Is it infinite and eternal?

How little we really know.

so your hypothetical is meaningless

Keep in mind, it was just a question being posed. Not an attempt to prove the existence of God.

But interesting post. Thank you.

[Deesse23]

A hypothetical. If our universe was created by extra-terrestrial biological entities, who fell within the confines of what we consider products of natural science, would we be staring at evidence (or proof) of extra-terrestrial intelligent life?

Yes, but we wouldnt know.

An ideal world, where we already know (part of what we try to prove)
Extraterrestrials create a universe: We gather evidence of a universe created. Thus we just found the extraterrestrials.

Unfortunately, this is only valid, if we already know the first premise to be true: Extraterrestrials exist and created universes. Unless you have other evidence to prove the existence (and ability to create universes) of ETs, you are doing whats called circular reasoning.
ETs, therefore universes created --> universes created, therefore ETs


This is the world we actually live in: We start with not knowing in advance.
We may gather evidence of a universe being created (which already is loaded wording. Lets say "evidence of a universe coming into existence").
That may be evidence of all kinda potential "creator(s)", but unless you gather independent evidence about existence of creators, all you have is evidence of a universe created and following that a hypothesis, or theory, at best.

Unfortunately, we dont even have conclusive evidence that a (our local representation of the) universe ever was created or started to exist.

[Camaro Dude]

No, your problem is that you're assuming that what you see is evidence of what you believe, rather than letting what you see guide where your belief goes.

You answered a question not aimed at you. Which is fine, you're more than welcome to do so. But I'm not sure where these other ideas like this have to do with the question. But if I did always let what I see guide where my belief goes, I'd be chasing that pool of water up ahead on the freeway while driving on a desert road when I'm dying of thirst.

You want to believe in a good God? That's nice. Now explain cancer or tsunamis or earthquakes. Is your little god powerless against diabetes? Maybe he likes his little minions to feel a little pain? You're the one claiming that the god you worship is all-powerful and all-good. The evidence in front of your incomprehending face is that this world is not perfect. Now, before you go blaming humanity for this world's imperfections, stop and ask yourself who made humans?

That's right, your all-knowing and omnibeneficent god.

The irony is I honestly don't recall ever mentioning God being good in this forum. I may have asked a question or 2 in relation to God's goodness. But that's about it.

Everything we see is evidence of something, duh. The question is, what precepts do we overlay onto that evidence such that we might misinterpret it? No-bullshit story here, on the way back from the store yesterday, close to noon, I saw a bright orange spot appear in the sky, fall, and fizzle in the matter of a second or so. Started at about 40° azimuth, dropped maybe 5°, and faded out. Was it evidence of Marduk shooting thunderbolts? Maybe evidence of ETs pissing fire? Or perhaps, just maybe, evidence that another piece of space-rock or space-junk came through the atmosphere?

Everything is evidence of something. The point is how are you interpreting it?

Out of curiosity, if you saw a flying saucer spit this orange spot out from it's cockpit, how would you interpret it?

Evidence of intelligent life on Earth is only evidence that there's intelligent life on Earth. All the rest, the math and such, is not "evidence", it's conjecture. Evidence is a body of facts. A hypothesis strives to explain that body of facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has made numerous successful predictions based on a given hypothesis and is thus accepted as a guide.

Evidence is subjective insofar as human perceptions and interpretations are subjective. You wanna see the world as evidence for your god? Great. But your little bible and the way the world is do not comport, and me, I go with reality. If you prefer your just-so story, fine, just keep it off my wave.

I don't think there's too many Christians wanting to invade your wave. I don't live in the Bible belt, but where I'm from, you have to chase a Christian down, or knock on their door to get them to preach to you.

Other than that, you have to tune in to the one or two Christian television networks on your cable provider. But that's where the remote comes in handy.

Or, you can focus on the political watch media format, which quite frankly is another fantasy realm.

Does the concept of a Christian posting in this forum because they find the topic(s) interesting seem too much of a stretch? Or do we all just come over here with the purpose to convert you?

[Minimalist]

How little we really know.

That never even slows humans down, Free.  You know that!

 


The problem with religitards is that they think they know EVERYTHING because of their ancient books of bullshit.

[Deesse23]

The irony is I honestly don't recall ever mentioning God being good in this forum. I may have asked a question or 2 in relation to God's goodness. But that's about it.

Do you consider the god you believe in to be good?
Yes, or no?