Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[AV1611VET]

Mixing up Hinduism and Buddhism there, AV.

Does your ignorance extend beyond your lack of understanding of science?

Buddhism was founded as a breakaway religion from the Hindu, since the Hindu's caste system was so oppressive to the common people.

To bring the Buddhists back into the "fold", the Hindus wrote the Bhagavad Gita.

It's a long story, but the ploy worked.

 

[MoonLancer]

Call it what you like, there is still faith involved.

Have you ever been to a Christian church? You must try it some time. There's lots of knowledge there, and faith.

what did i just say? yes lots of faith. no knowledge or facts or evidence of any kind. Wisdom? perhaps some, but its more like a seasoning.

I think that’s the reason Jesus died and rose again. Have you ever seen that before?

This is exactly what i'm talking about. Jesus rising from the dead is the extraordinary claim, NOT the extraordinary evidence. That line means your evidence must be even more convincing as evidence then normal evidence.

for example, you say you are wearing red socks. I may just take your word as the evidence itself. You say your the sun of god and that you rose from the dead... well i'm going to need a bit more then a 2000 year old book.

Do you consider imprisoning a man or woman for life for a crime they committed to be an act of love on the part of the judge and jury?
What about the death penalty, is that love? If not, what is it?

No. however i do not consider it an act of hate ether. Love is where your best friend kills your brother, and you love your friend so much that you forgive them. Pure unconditional love comes with no strings attached.

Do you vote contrary to your Buddhist beliefs? Aren’t you influenced by your Buddhist beliefs when you vote?

No. However Christians commonly are told by the church they attend how they should vote in order to be christian. There is nothing like this that i know of Buddhism.

A loving God would be sad if you didn’t. Would your mother or father care if you believed they didn’t exist? Or would anyone care if their children believed they didn't exist? Now you know how God feel.

sad =/= punishment. a god with pure love would love someone even if they don't accept them or love them back. You describe god as very human and fallible.

Or a religion who recognizes God as a loving Father and respects Him as such.

Loving Fathers don't torture their suns. If a father foresaw that their sun would fall, they would do everything in their power to stop it. So ether god is not all loving, or he doesn't have the power, or he doesn't have the knowledge.

The god of the bible does not add up to a good who is all knowing, loving, and powerful, even if it says he does. His actions show this.

 

[Doveaman]

Nope. Have you? Can you show me Jesus dying and rising for me?

Since it happened about 2,000 years ago we would have to time travel, but I don't think Einstein's spacetime is that warped or bent, even though it is twisted.

And just like a loving mother or father, if you don't love them, they send you to an eternity of pain and torment. Yep. Sounds about right.

Nope. Sounds about wrong. God doesn't do that.

He was justified in doing because he's God and whatever he does is righteous.

Killing babies? Righteous.
Killing people for touching a box? Righteous.
Telling a man to kill his own son just to see if he would? Righteous.
Turning a woman into a pile of sand for looking back as her home was being destroyed? Righteous.
Telling you that it's OK to hit your slaves as long as they can still walk and see? Righteous
Blaming all of humanity for the mistake of a couple and damning them to eternal torment unless they worship him? Righteous
Et cetera et cetera et cetera. It's all righteous.

If God did it, then it's all righteous.

But you are so wrong here: "Turning a woman into a pile of sand for looking back as her home was being destroyed? Righteous."

It was a pile of salt. Righteous.

I'm not sure about this part either: "Telling you that it's OK to hit your slaves as long as they can still walk and see? Righteous".

I'll have to check that out. I'm not familiar with the verse.

This is the same religion that praises a God that allegedly slaughtered every single baby, toddler and child on the face of the Earth then later slaughtered more and commanded its followers to do the same.

Nope.

 

[sandwiches]

Since it happened about 2,000 years ago we would have to time travel, but I don't think Einstein's spacetime is that warped or bent, even though it is twisted.

So, this evidence is not really... evident or verifiable, then. Gotcha.

Nope. Sounds about wrong. God doesn't do that.

God doesn't send you to hell if you don't love him and accept him as your lord and whatnot?

If God did it, then it's all righteous.

Case in point. Reminds me of Nixon and his infamous "If the president does it, it's not illegal.

But you are so wrong here: "Turning a woman into a pile of sand for looking back as her home was being destroyed? Righteous."

It was a pile of salt. Righteous.

I'm not sure about this part either: "Telling you that it's OK to hit your slaves as long as they can still walk and see? Righteous".

I'll have to check that out. I'm not familiar with the verse.

I was a little off:
Exodus 21:20-21

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Exodus 21:26-27

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

 

[Tzaousios]

This is the same religion that praises a God that allegedly slaughtered every single baby, toddler and child on the face of the Earth then later slaughtered more and commanded its followers to do the same.

Wait a minute. I thought you went out of your way to exonerate yourself of the charge that you think Christians would carry out mass killings in their present contexts because they believe that the Old Testament is true?

Does God in the OT command Christians to kill every baby, toddler, infant, child, very young person, a person with an age less than sixteen, etc.?

Everyone, notice 3sigma's patent style at work here. He puts out a couple feeler posts and then drops his haymaker anachronism to top it all off. Predictable.

 

[3sigma]

Why such a joy and contentment when obeying God's Word? SO many things in my life have come about just like God said they would that the word "coincidence" is no longer in my vocabulary, and I doubt it should be a word at all. Then there are the COUNTLESS testimonies of all the others over the years that have experienced God as well. Some serving Him from five to twenty to thirty and forty plus years. If it was empty, if there was nothing. If it was meaningless, purposeless, hopless or useless then why is there power in the Word's written in the Bible? Power to transform lives. Happy lives, content lives, purposeful lives, peaceful and meaningful lives.

Religious beliefs are used as a shield against the harshness of reality. Are you afraid of dying? Your religion promises that you will never really die. Are you frightened by the unknown? Have faith that your God has a plan. Did someone’s cancer go into remission after surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy? It must have been your God answering prayers. Are you uncomfortable with not knowing the explanation for something in nature? Just assume that God did it. Are you concerned that your life is meaningless and purposeless? Your religion offers hope. Yes, the power of self-deception is truly remarkable.

I dont need to see God or detect Him to know He is there. Faith in Him is ALL I need, and it works. Just like His Word says it will.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith, in the religious context, is nothing more than gullibility misrepresented as a virtue.

 

[3sigma]

This is the same religion that praises a God that allegedly slaughtered every single baby, toddler and child on the face of the Earth then later slaughtered more and commanded its followers to do the same.

Nope.

This weak denial of the truth may have worked for you in the schoolyard, but it doesn’t cut it in the real world.

Your religion is based on what is written in the Bible.
The Bible praises your God.
The Bible claims that your God deliberately slaughtered every single baby, toddler and child on the face of the Earth.
The Bible claims that your God slaughtered more children later.
The Bible claims that your God commanded its followers to do the same.

Your religion praises a God that allegedly slaughtered every single baby, toddler and child on the face of the Earth then later slaughtered more and commanded its followers to do the same.

 

[3sigma]

Wait a minute. I thought you went out of your way to exonerate yourself of the charge that you think Christians would carry out mass killings in their present contexts because they believe that the Old Testament is true?

Again, I have not said that nor am I saying it now. I’m saying that Christianity is a religion that praises a God that allegedly slaughtered children and commanded its followers to do the same. Christians worship and respect this child-slaughtering God. It just goes to show what some people are willing to do in return for the promise of eternal life.

Does God in the OT command Christians to kill every baby, toddler, infant, child, very young person, a person with an age less than sixteen, etc.?

Yes. There are numerous passages in the Old Testament where your God commands its followers to slaughter every man, woman and child. It doesn’t need to be specific about their ages because it commands that they must all be killed, though it does mention “little ones” in Deuteronomy 2:34 and every “infant and suckling” in 1 Samuel 15:3. Here are some of the passages.

Deuteronomy 3:2-6 referring to Deuteronomy 2:32-34
Deuteronomy 7:2
Joshua 10:40 (referring to all the smiting with the edge of a sword that Joshua had done)
Joshua 11:11-15
1 Samuel 15:2-3

Have you read the Old Testament? It’s riddled with stories of slaughter.

 

[CoderHead]

<staff edit>

Thanks to people like Ghandi and Guatama, people starve to death while cows and chickens roam the streets.

So who do we thank for the starving people in America? Jesus?

I think that&#8217;s the reason Jesus died and rose again. Have you ever seen that before?

Nope. Neither have you, or anyone else.

That&#8217;s because the bible is based on reality, it's in the habit of keeping it real. It&#8217;s not for the faint hearted, but for the faith hearted. A faith that is based on correct knowledge.

Reality is a talking donkey, a burning bush, a global flood, people being resurrected, and fiery chariots hauling flesh and blood away to the clouds? It appears your version of reality is a bit skewed.

Do you consider imprisoning a man or woman for life for a crime they committed to be an act of love on the part of the judge and jury?

The judge and jury don't posit the punishment as an act of love. God does.

A loving God would be sad if you didn&#8217;t. Would your mother or father care if you believed they didn&#8217;t exist? Or would anyone care if their children believed they didn't exist? Now you know how God feel.

But then again, my mother and father didn't give birth to me and then hide from me indefinitely, expecting me to read a book about them and believe in them, all the while offering no assistance in my daily life and promising that I'll be punished for eternity if I don't believe in them despite the lack of evidence that they exist. So...why wouldn't I believe in my mother and father? At least they're doing their jobs.

Does God in the OT command Christians to kill every baby, toddler, infant, child, very young person, a person with an age less than sixteen, etc.?

Yes. With extreme prejudice. In fact, He promised a land to His people that He knew was already inhabited and then told His people to murder all of them in cold blood so they could live there.

He may not have a standing command to the Christians of today to do the same, but there's no denying He's done it in the past, by Biblical accounts. And what of people in the United States who justify a war in the Middle East because "God is on our side?" How is that any different?

 

[Doveaman]

The conclusion - and the differences in conclusion - are rather simple.

If there is something out there that has mass - and that could even be non-baryonic matter: neutrinos, for example - then it it will cause a certain effect: gravity.

But if it’s not mass, then gravity is only an assumption, and the dark matter explanation is meaningless and unnecessary.

This is a conclusion based on our knowledge of physics: mass causes gravity.

There is no knowledge of physics where dark matter has mass, and that dark matter mass causes gravity. Dark matter is imaginary matter that scientists are trying to determine if it could be real.

There is no problem. As I said, we are not yet looking for the correct explanation... just an explanation. All we have to postulate that there is something having mass out there which we cannot "see" (yet)... and that would bring the observed effect. It might be something completely different... the important part is "would bring the observed effect".

Why would we postulate mass in the first place? We haven’t even established that the observed effects is gravity. Have we ever observed gravity in the absence of mass? Then why are we still assuming gravity even though there is not enough mass?

The fact that not enough mass is detected to exert the amount of gravity that is said to be observed should falsify the idea of gravity, but it doesn’t. Instead, ad-hoc exotic matter is invoked to save the gravity theory.

Instead of looking for an alternative to ordinary matter we should be looking for an alternative to gravity since gravity has been falsified by the absence of mass.

No mass, no gravity, right?

Mass is know to bring that effect. Electromagnetic field are also known to bring that effect. Little girls in tu-tus shoving around stuff are also known to bring that effect.

God is NOT known to bring that effect.

If it was once known by mankind that God brings that effect but it was forgotten by man that He does, would that count?

If all mankind over time forgot that Einstein was a real person, would Einstein’s math equations still be relevant?

"God did it" can not, just as "hammer did it) is (without further, even unmentioned knowledge) not an explanation for the nail in the wall.

God is not an object, He is a person. Would “I did it” constitute an explanation, even without the hammer.

Non-baryonic matter is "atomless", by the simply fact that atoms themselves are made up from baryons. But baryons are not the only existing particles. I already mentioned Neutrinos, which are quite detectable non-baryonic particles.

Neutrinos are classified as ordinary matter, even as electrons are, both of which are said to be detected. Dark matter is classified as exotic matter, not ordinary, and is not detected. Big difference.

That is a false use of the term "hypothetical". Something hypothetical is proposed to exist. It may... or it may not. It is not up to you to dogmatically state that it does not, because it is only proposed.

I propose God did it.

God is atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable - thus hypothetical, and thus, based on your reasoning, does not exist. Perhaps you should refine your reasoning.

God is only hypothetical for the sake of the argument, but in reality He is very much real. I’ve met Him personally.

My point is that if the unknown hypothetical dark matter constitutes a valid explanation, then the unknown hypothetical God constitutes a valid explanation as well.

Not necessarily. I don´t have to "test" a cube to know that it has six sides. Six sides is what a cube IS. If it doesn´t have six sides, it isn´t a cube. Even if I had never seen a "real" (atomic, opaque, scientifically detectable) cube, I would know that it has six sides.

I don’t see how, unless it’s an imaginary object given the name “Cube”.

An object must first be observed or imagined before it is given a name. The name is given based on how the object looks or behaves. It looks to have six sides and we will call it “Cube”. Apart from the observation or the imagination the name “Cube” has no meaning since there is nothing to apply the name to.

Even hypothetical cubes have six sides.

A hypothetical cube can also have sixty sides if it’s imaginary.

This "puny" planet... a lot larger than our earth, was purely hypothetical for more than twenty years! It was only inferred, never observed. How do you think that was possible?

Planets are a valid hypothesis. They are known.

Dark matter has never been said to be "scientifically undetectable"... these are only your views. It might be scientifically undetected, but not undetectable.

It’s not known or ever been known to be a real substance, and it’s not known or ever been known to be detected. It’s imaginary. We cannot detect something imaginary.

I can imagine God as well. They are some beings that are superior to others. That’s a fact that is known. I imagine there is one that is superior to all the rest, a Supreme Being, and I call Him God.

I can imagine God and then try to determine if my imaginary idea is real by looking for the things I imagined should be present as verification of God. Until I find them He remains imaginary.

I have already pointed out that your usage of "scientifically undetectable" is only a strawman. Based on that alone, the two options are not comparable.

I think they are. Both dark matter and God are not scientifically 'known'.

But if you continue to insist they are... I would really like to have my last post answered: how do you get that squared with your professed belief?

I already answered.

It’s a hypothetical argument to show that "God did it" can be use in place of "dark matter did it" as an explanation since both dark matter and God are not scientifically ‘known’.

 

[Doveaman]

This weak denial of the truth may have worked for you in the schoolyard, but it doesn’t cut it in the real world.

Your religion is based on what is written in the Bible.
The Bible praises your God.
The Bible claims that your God deliberately slaughtered every single baby, toddler and child on the face of the Earth.
The Bible claims that your God slaughtered more children later.
The Bible claims that your God commanded its followers to do the same.

Your religion praises a God that allegedly slaughtered every single baby, toddler and child on the face of the Earth then later slaughtered more and commanded its followers to do the same.

I see you are keeping up with your bible studies. Very good.

But don't forget your Dictionary. It's good to have it nearby while studying.

Slaughter: the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately. - Dictionary.com.

Indiscriminately: not discriminate; haphazard; thoughtless: indiscriminate slaughter. - Dictionary.com.

 

[Doveaman]

Nope. Neither have you, or anyone else.

Speak for yourself. You cannot even begin to imagine what I've seen.

The judge and jury don't posit the punishment as an act of love. God does.

Which verse?

But then again, my mother and father didn't give birth to me and then hide from me indefinitely

If you study your history carefully you will see that it was the children that hid:

"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden" - Gen 3:8.

"They" represent all mankind in general, including you.

 

[Doveaman]

So, this evidence is not really... evident or verifiable, then. Gotcha.

Is that how science works, if it's 2,000 years old or more, never happened? Isn't that being a Very Young Earth Creationists (V-YEC)?

God doesn't send you to hell if you don't love him and accept him as your lord and whatnot?

Nope.

Case in point. Reminds me of Nixon and his infamous "If the president does it, it's not illegal.

That would depend on the law of the land.

According to the laws of heaven, if God does it, it's all righteous.

I was a little off:
Exodus 21:20-21
Exodus 21:26-2 7

You are way off. And you are giving the holy book a bad reputation after so many years of perfection.

 

[Doveaman]

Hi Wiccan,

It would appear your thread is derailed.

But as you can see from my long posts I tried to keep it on track.

 

[sandwiches]

Is that how science works, if it's 2,000 years old or more, never happened? Isn't that being a Very Young Earth Creationists (V-YEC)?

You're saying that something specific happened 2000 years ago and have no verifiable evidence to back up this assertion. So, your claim is unverifiable and thus unscientific. Now that's how science works.

Nope.

Good to know I don't have to believe in him, worship him, or love him and still go to heaven, then.

That would depend on the law of the land.

According to the laws of heaven, if God does it, it's all righteous.

So, the 'laws of heaven' say that if your deity does something that would be immoral or unethical, because he wrote the laws of morality, everything he does is moral? How very moral relativist of you. At least we agree now that moral laws are not absolute.

You are way off. And you are giving the holy book a bad reputation after so many years of perfection.

I see that you avoided the actual point that the Bible does, in fact, tell you how to treat your slave but doesn't simply tell you not to have slaves.

 

[Doveaman]

the knowledge I posses and my critical thinking shows me that in reality, at the very least, there's no reason to believe this is true.

Our human knowledge is limited and our critical thinking is completely unreliable when it comes to knowing God and trusting God. This is why we are told:

"Lean not on your own understanding...Do not be wise in your own eyes" - Prov 3:5-7.

In fact, I lost belief in my religion after years of crying, praying, begging for one shred of evidence DESPITE the fact that I did not want to lose my faith.

It would appear as though you had the "faith" before you had the "evidence". Such a faith will always lead to delusion. That's not how true faith works.

True faith it is based on evidence, and is itself evidence. We cannot have faith without evidence. The evidence leads to the faith, and the faith leads to God:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty " - Peter 1:16.

Also:

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" -Heb 11:1.

Atheists like myself (as I'm sure there are some or many who are atheists without having really thought things through) don't believe because we simply CANNOT.

That's because you are relying on your own limited knowledge and on your own unreliable critical thinking. That's because you are relying on your own deceitful human "heart". The human "heart" is unreliable:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" - Jer 17:9.

We should all seek a new "heart", including you:

"Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die...For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!" - Ezek 18:31-32.

 

[MoonLancer]

I see you are keeping up with your bible studies. Very good.

But don't forget your Dictionary. It's good to have it nearby while studying.

Slaughter: the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately. - Dictionary.com.

Indiscriminately: not discriminate; haphazard; thoughtless: indiscriminate slaughter. - Dictionary.com.

Come now. there are more then just that definition.

here is one as well and it fits

the savage and excessive killing of many people

or how about this

The killing of a large number of people; a massacre:

 

[3sigma]

Slaughter: the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately. - Dictionary.com.

Is clutching at semantic straws the best defence you can make? Did you notice that other meanings there at dictionary.com omit the distinction of the mass killings being indiscriminate? Call it whatever you like—slaughter, massacre or carnage—the facts remain that the Bible claims your God slaughtered every child on the planet; the Bible praises that God; and Christians worship and respect a child-slaughtering God. This God of yours is hardly the loving father you [post=53828493]seek to portray[/post].

True faith it is based on evidence, and is itself evidence.
…
We should all seek a new "heart", including you

In the religious context, “faith” is a euphemism for gullibility misrepresented as a virtue. When religious believers use expressions like “we should trust our heart” or “facts acquired in the heart” then “heart” is a euphemism for “emotion instead of reason”.

 

[AV1611VET]

Call it whatever you like&#8212;slaughter, massacre or carnage&#8212;the facts remain that the Bible claims your God slaughtered every child on the planet; the Bible praises that God; and Christians worship and respect a child-slaughtering God.

Are you talking about the Flood?

If so, are you saying the Flood was global?

If so, would you please say it using a fancy font, suitable for printing and framing?

 

[CoderHead]

Speak for yourself. You cannot even begin to imagine what I've seen.

I'm sure you're right. I wouldn't have a clue what you've imagined you've seen.

Which verse?

There is no verse, of course. Christians cannot even agree on whether there is a Hell, or if there is, what it is. But the fact remains that the Bible illustrates God as a loving father who has created an extra special punishment for those who don't believe in Him without question.

If you study your history carefully you will see that it was the children that hid:

"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden" - Gen 3:8.

"They" represent all mankind in general, including you.

"The man and his wife" represents all mankind? It must be wonderful to be able to twist the words of a book around to mean anything you want. How marvelous life must be for you!

God is an invisible God. How much more hidden than that could one possibly be? I'm clearly visible, in plain sight, and God knows where to find me if He wants me. You need to apply critical thinking here.

Our human knowledge is limited and our critical thinking is completely unreliable when it comes to knowing God and trusting God. This is why we are told:

"Lean not on your own understanding...Do not be wise in your own eyes" - Prov 3:5-7.

Oh, that's right...if it makes sense, then it's probably wrong. Of course, it's not surprising that a book intended to be a model for a religion would instruct its followers not to think on their own. Not surprising in the least.