The morality and foolishness of the Christian God

Thanks for the link. I'll look at it later. I would note however that I don't see any point in saying mathematical, geographical, scientific and medicinal 'marvels' of the bible are evidence, because there are similar things in the Qur'an, which is a tipping point for many to become Muslims.

One quick thing, we didn't come from monkeys, I didn't necessarily say this was a random universe, nor hope there is nothing after I'm dead.

The site gives no actual evidence. It states there is evidence but gives none. It states it is almost statistically impossible for the prophecies to come true on their own, but doesn't tell me anything else.
You have to keep in mind that many miracles and characteristics of Jesus that have been attributed to him that are apparently told in prophecies were in fact also attributed to other people who were believed to be Gods, before the time of the old testament. Even if these prophecies spoke of his miracles and characteristics, they were still spoke of before, but attributed to different people.
This page was not convinving in the slightest. It states a lot of things but I was not given what I asked for - evidence!

You can bash the morality all you want of the foundations of Muslim faith, but it doesn't sway people from believing the Qur'an has scientific miracles. The same can be said of me bashing the morality of the Christian faith here, but you still believe the prophecies of the old testament were miraculous and of divine origin. What a funny little bit of irony.

Anyway, if becoming a historian and devoting my life to examining the accuracy of the Bible's claims is what it takes for me to finally believe in the Christian God, then I would invite you to look at my first post in this page, where I ask why God could not just reveal himself, or his supernatural nature.

@docpotter Where and when?

@psfiblog Where did you write this?

@Joshua Allegra

Thank you for taking the time to provide your opinions.

Okay, the first part of your response to my 'questions' is all really subjective opinion and already assumes the existence of God, so I will skip straight to the interesting part of your blog.

Law of Cause and Effect
This is only proveable within the observable universe. This law may or may not exist outwith our existence. You would need time for a cause to take effect, and for all we know, the birth of time came to be when everything else did. There is no plausible theory to accuratly suggest what was before the big bang.

First Law of Thermodynamics
I'm not really sure what you mean by this one. But the formation of the universe from 'nothing' does not violate the conservation of energy. The Gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is negative, and when added to all the other universal energy, could very well equate to nothing (zero).

Second Law of Thermodynamics
This only works in a closed system, which the Earth is not. It receives heat and light from the sun, fuelling simple organisms into complexity by giving it other forms of life and non-living materials to feed off of.

The Law of Biogenesis
You misunderstand this law. Yes, Things such as Tigers, Whales and humans cannot appear fully formed. But very primitive and simple life deriving from increasingly complex molecules is not disputed by this law.

The Law of Probability
I'm assuming this is Borel's law. Borel himself states that this law is NOT universal, nor is there a universal minimum probability law. He specifically uses this law in SPECIFIC physical systems. Not universal system(s).

The Law of Mass Action
This is a misrepresentation of the law. It says nothing about what the actual concentrations of anything actually has to be for the law to take effect. Also, Using your knowledge of this law, fish could not exist. A fish is a tiny concentration in the ocean, so why does the fish not get 'torn down'?

The Law of Inertia
You assume there was nothing. This is unproveable. You also assume the conditions for this law to be accurate are met outwith the universe. This is also unproveable.

Law of Angular Momentum
You are right, without an outside force this could not have happened. But the force does not have to be supernatural. It could have been failed time keeping or a collapse of a prior universe (parent universe), or higher dimensions branes colliding. You must also realise that the Big Bang does not account for things like a planet's motion. Gravity does.

The Fossil Record
I cannot post links yet here, so I would urge you to look up "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent".
You can also look up transitional fossils on wikipedia.

Evolution Requres Billions of Years
There is more convincing evidence for an old earth than a young earth. By my research, no scientist has ever been persuaded (through science) that a young earth is more likely than an old one.

I will not be replying to the rest of your attacks on evolution, because you are simply stating there is no empirical proof of evolution, which there is if you would just look it up. It is observale and proveable. A young earth is not. I don't care what the likes Sir Isaac Newton says on these matters. He was an alchemist and believed metals had magical powers. Was this proven true? No.


I hope this helps clear some things up.

docpotter said:

Jerusalem

Ad - 30 - 33 ( roughly )

Click to expand...

Fantastic. He showed himself at a time of scripture by unnamed authors which would fade and become too increasingly complex to accurately decipher thousands of years down the line to depict whether or not the events we think they are documenting are true or not, resulting in 30,000 denominations of one religion with it's teachings already based on religions before it, and hundreds of other religions, nonreligions and scientific evidence directly opposing it's main claim. An unusual time to make his only appearance, no? Why not further down the line where we can video record his appearance and his miracles and store them on computers to view indefinately?
Would you not agree this is unusual of a being which you desribe as all knowing and all powerful? Although our methods of data collection today is no where near 'all powerful', it is certainly trillions of times better than back then, as it can be stored, backed up, repeatedly viewed and will never fade or become too complex to decipher the true meanings and intentions.

docpotter said:

You have a lot to learn

Click to expand...

Do enlighten me instead of making baseless assertions.

docpotter said:

It is not baseless, I know for a fact God , Jesus , And Satan are all alive and well. I hope you realize that someday .

Click to expand...

That is a baseless assertion. Saying something does not make it to be true. I know for a fact fairies exist and are alive and well. I hope you realise that someday.

psfiblog said:

Thank you for writting back on my views.

1. Can you then tell this humble court (as if in the law court) the cause of the supposed "failed time keeping", the origin of the prior universe (parent universe) and also the origin of the supposed higher dimensions branes and the cause of the colliding?

2. Concerning the Fossil record, there is no fossil ever recorded that contains an actual transmutation or transitional form from lizard to bird. If you have have a fossil that shows a lizzard with wing or bacteria with lizard head then I would like to take a look.

3. Science cannot prove or disprove God. God is Personal, Animate, not inanimate, matter or atom.

4. I wonder why evolutionist refuse to accept the fact that their philosophy is a godless religion, because it is a philosophy that falls 'only' in the category of metaphysical system.

5. Atheist don't believe in Divine ethics, spiritual influence and Freewill, rather they believe that everything is by chance, why then do you put people prison for crimes committed if you know that it is by chance and not by purpose.

6. Sir Isaac Newton might be alchemist but posterity will not laugh at him like it will Macro-evolutionist.

Click to expand...

1. Are you seriously going to argue "God did it"? No, I cannot tell you which would cause or birth any of these scenarios, because I don't even know if any of them are actually true. But that doesn't mean to say that just because you can provide an answer (A supernatural entity that can do anything), you have the better argument. What was before or outwith the universe is an unknown. Due to it's very nature, it may even stay unknown until our species dies out. It is a question without a logical conclusion. You can assert that a being capable of doing anything it wants did it because it can do anything it wants, but it is not a conclusion based on any evidence, it is just an assertion. That does not fall under
Axiomatic Truth, Logical Proof, Mathematical Proof, Empirical Proof, Historical-Legal Proof or Relational Proof. It is just a baseless assertion. It could be true, but there is no point in believing it to be true since we cannot observe or measure it.

2. It is clear you have a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. I highly recommend wiping the slate clean with regards to your knowledge of it, and start at the beginning again.
First of all, you must understand what a 'transitional species' is. This would be an intermediary between a line of 'organisms' with distinctively similar features of the before and after organisms, or linking two potentially related groups together through observable evidence. I suggest you look at the Archaeopteryx which provides the transitional 'link' between mesozoic dinosaurs and modern birds.
Now, I can do you one better. Clearly you don't really care about the evolution of birds, it's our evolutionary line you have the biggest problems with. Due to your understanding of evolution I can gather from your post, you are clearly one of the creationists who like to use "There is no missing link" as an argument against evolution. By missing link, I must assume you mean the EXACT halfway point between humans and other species of apes in the evolutionary chains. Now, it's rather improbable to actually accurately tell which species on the evolutionary chain was the exact halfway point, because this is not how evolution works. It is not three stages: species A - species AB - Species B. Speciation is the result of a large quantity of SMALL changes over a monstrously long period of time. Only then when you look at your beginning and end points, will you see a distinct difference in it's form due to the accumalated small changes. This is also why you don't see 'bacteria with lizard heads'.

Australopithecus sediba is touted as being the much desired 'halfway point' you desire. Dated to be 1.9 million years old (est), it is attributed with being a transitional species between Australopithecus Africanus, and Homo Habilis or even Homo Erectus itself. Some criticised it and said it could be an extremity of Australopithecus Africanus, but later peer reviews accepted it was an independant species.
Australopithecus afarensis, the hominid which lived between 2.9 and 3.9 million years ago (Lucy), is also a major part of the evolutionary chain due it being the most closely related primate from the same period than any other. It's skull, teeth, hands, pelvis, feet, even things like it's tibia and many other features are distinctly human.

3. Exactly, these claims you make about God are the very reasons why I don't waste my time believing it exists. By very definition God is an unanswerable question. He is not confined to our reality constraints. But our knowledge, logic and reason are, and this is the reason you cannot prove your God, because the only ways we can perceive something to be true is by observing it and measuring it within the constraints of reality, because we ourselves are confined to it. As soon as you begin claiming there is a being not confined to reality, the assertion instantly becomes unproveable.

4. Many denominations of Buddhism are godless religions. Atheism is a godless reality.

5. I do not know of any Atheist that said everything happens by chance. The very definition of natural selection is the exact opposite.

Free Will? Lets examine this concept in relation to the bible. The God of the bible is considered as omnipotent (more than once he is attributed with the characteristic "Nothing is too hard for him"). This would naturally assume that The God of the Bible could do anything it wanted, include making himself omniscient. This would mean that God has the power to know the future. This would mean God could have known IN ADVANCE that Eve would pick the forbidden fruit, he could have known IN ADVANCE that she would disobey him, and he could have known all along he was going to cast us into a life of sin redeemed only by repentance, or make us suffer in hell for all of eternity, all because of something he could have known was going to happen even before he made us. But he made us anyway. And got angry. And threw us into a life of misery without him until possible eternal torture, all for something he knew all along would happen.
Could you explain to me how any of this even remotely suggests free will?

6. Again, you show a severe lack of understanding of evolution. The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is timescale and environmental opportunities. Like I explained above, Speciation is not a three stage process where one species under goes insane mutations, and then turns into a completely new species. A new species is a result of millions of accumulated small changes over a massive timeframe until the starting species is unrecognisable to the current finished product, and in the macro-evolution scenario, the transition is much longer, but much bigger mainly due to rare competition and a great diversity of ecological niches.