We are human beings

[Valen]

(Pls I advise the reader that these ideas were truly came from another person. I have just the opportunity to post it.)


We are human beings. We have a greater capacity to know compared to any other living species. What make us different? Is it the composition of our DNA or perhaps something greater? Something that is incomprehensible by man. Man has looked for answers in an accumulated knowledge of science. Later, he realized that it is enough to explain. He sought the aid of religions seeking the ends of a Divine Providence. Yet we realized that faith alone cannot entirely save a man from reality. He said to himself, “What is the key meaning of life? Why do I live? Why do I exist?”
Don’t be troubled. Hear me dear brothers so that I can aid you in your quest. Use these writings and hope that it can help you gain the meaning of truth. From the time being, we will try to discern the truth using science. Science is the study of consequences, causes and effect, or phenomena that are compiled together as a single body of knowledge. It has been generated by many scientific contributors throughout the world. Scientists they are called. I will give you a hint of what they are doing. Imagine the whole world. You are a man that stands beside a beach looking from the sea currents from afar. You are holding a glass container. You picked up a handful of sand carefully selecting only one particle and put it in your container. You do this several times until your glass is full. Science is like that my friend. Science is incomplete. It has not covered the whole reality that is deserving of answer. If science will try to recreate reality, it will fall apart. It is foolish to trust so much in man that if he fails you failed also. Other people ask, “What are these things?” But they are not assured. Throughout history you will notice that man has flaws resembling weaknesses and it makes man impure. Man has a greater tendency towards evil. The fallibility of man has rendered him disgusting. Man is not perfect. He creates a lot of mistakes. In truth, man cannot be idolized. Idols are illusions.
What are wise and intelligent men anyway? They will all still DIE! YOU CANNOT ESCAPE DEATH! GET READY TO DIE! Another man can pick up a rifle and shot you on the face or assassinate you. He can do whatever he likes. In other words, YOU ARE DOOMED! YOU ARE ALL IN DARKNESS. What I say above are TRUTHS! NO ONE CAN DENY IT! NO ONE CAN ESCAPE THE TRUTH! It’s just like an enemy trying to get you. In the end you will get caught! I think this is enough! I don’t want to ruin you with my words friend. Words are like fire it somehow burns the mind.
I think it is time for you to know what is God. Who is the being that created all things? Do you know Him? You do not believe because God did not answer or help you personally? Those are petty requests for God! Is that your assumption about God? Are you correct about your assumptions? Do you think that God the most powerful being in the universe is going to help you? What are you anyway? God will not raise you from the dead! Who are you anyway? Do you think you are perfect? Do you think you are great? Do you think you are the wisest? The Bible has reasons to deny such assumptions.
If for some reasons, man realized that the Bible is not true. Then the Bible will be divided from lies and from the truth. Some books in the bible will be true because there are records and artifacts that will support it. Some books in the bible that are not true will be referred as metaphorical allusions.
If for some reasons, man realized that the Bible is true. Are the facts and events justifiable to the truth? Yes it is. No one can deny that all of these things happen and organize themselves with reality based on the words that are written within.
You cannot say that God is cruel or a tyrant because he is what he is. All must tremble in fear and bow down before Him. You must learn how to love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength!
I don’t have all the truths. I am not your mother that you can suck on my breast as a baby. Just like other men, I would rather fool you and get all your money. I would put illusions for you in a form of advertisements and get you money just like other men. I want you to know that there was a person that was named Jesus. Learn from his teachings and ways. There are many secrets of truth in there. All you have to do is understand it. Those who understand and believe Him are happy!


(That's enough I must attend to my own needs. I will help you know more if I have a chance. I am not a physicists! I am a researcher and inventor and I work hard on my field. I will also ask the doctor about deeper questions.)

 

[Eudaimonist]

The essay, boiled down, seems to go like this:

1) Scientists aren't omniscient, and science as a body of knowledge is therefore fallible and incomplete
2) Men in general are morally fallible and imperfect as well
3) All men die
4) God will not deign to convince you of his existence
5) You can't think God evil, just because you must not
6) I'm not omniscient, and I'm immoral, but believe me about god anyway

(If anyone thinks the above is unfair to the essay, reread it along with my guide. I think I've captured its essence. If you think it a straw man, let me know what I'm not including.)

Tell me, why do you think any of this will be convincing to nontheists?

I'll grant that scientists are fallible and don't know everything, but at least they present good arguments backed with evidence. They may not know everything, but they may know something with at least a reasonable degree of certainty.

You emphasize human limitations, and I'll agree that human beings have their limits (though I don't think there is much reason to doubt the sincerity of scientists, especially when science is successful in experiment and in producing working technologies), but you don't present any reason at all for us to believe that you are in a better position than scientists to deliver on truths of reality.

I realize this essay wasn't written by you, but you are presenting it as if it were your own. Don't you realize that you can't make a sound rational argument simply by painting your intellectual opponents in a bad light, and then expecting us to see your empty promises about god in a good light? Criticizing the opposition won't prop up an empty argument.

You'll need to do better. Nontheists are generally smart and are not going to fall for appeals to emotion. Make a rational argument.

 

[Valen]

The essay, boiled down, seems to go like this:
1) Scientists aren't omniscient, and science as a body of knowledge is therefore fallible and incomplete
2) Men in general are morally fallible and imperfect as well
3) All men die
4) God will not deign to convince you of his existence
5) You can't think God evil, just because you must not
6) I'm not omniscient, and I'm immoral, but believe me about god anyway
(If anyone thinks the above is unfair to the essay, reread it along with my guide. I think I've captured its essence. If you think it a straw man, let me know what I'm not including.)
Tell me, why do you think any of this will be convincing to nontheists?
I'll grant that scientists are fallible and don't know everything, but at least they present good arguments backed with evidence. They may not know everything, but they may know something with at least a reasonable degree of certainty.
You emphasize human limitations, and I'll agree that human beings have their limits (though I don't think there is much reason to doubt the sincerity of scientists, especially when science is successful in experiment and in producing working technologies), but you don't present any reason at all for us to believe that you are in a better position than scientists to deliver on truths of reality.
I realize this essay wasn't written by you, but you are presenting it as if it were your own. Don't you realize that you can't make a sound rational argument simply by painting your intellectual opponents in a bad light, and then expecting us to see your empty promises about god in a good light? Criticizing the opposition won't prop up an empty argument.
You'll need to do better. Nontheists are generally smart and are not going to fall for appeals to emotion. Make a rational argument.

My team will try our best...
Perhaps we need to redesign it with all evidences to support it but it is actually a big book compressed to become like those paragraphs that you see. It was actually deducted and became like it so that it will be easier to understand by others with a direct attack on the personality of the reader. But I presumed that some targets were missed.
We will tackle about concerning your demands...

But I want to ask you what is your main question or evidence about God that He don't exist? All atheist must have evidence against God based on our survey. What is yours?

 

[humanZ]

I actually typed out a fairly long post about the evidence for God's non-existence, but I finally remembered the forum rule prohibiting that debate.

My argument essentially boiled down to two points:

1 The Christian concept of God has characteristics that are indentifiable as fictitious in origin.

2 You can tell the biggest whopper lie if there is no chance of finding out the truth.

 

[OldBadfish]

I actually typed out a fairly long post about the evidence for God's non-existence, but I finally remembered the forum rule prohibiting that debate.

My argument essentially boiled down to two points:

1 The Christian concept of God has characteristics that are indentifiable as fictitious in origin.

Do you propose a better God?

2 You can tell the biggest whopper lie if there is no chance of finding out the truth.

Sure, but prophesy and fulfilled prophesy shows the truth.

 

[humanZ]

Do you propose a better God? .

Certainly not! Any God I might propose would be equally fictitious and would have its own flaws. Maybe my problem is coming up with my own personal concept of God that I can believe in!

Sure, but prophesy and fulfilled prophesy shows the truth.

I once predicted and made a bet with a religious friend that the stock market would not crash on january 1, 2000. Predictions or any other utterances by human beings are impossible to trace to a divine origin and that's just the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Jet Black]

the stock markets were shut on that day though weren't they?

 

[humanZ]

the stock markets were shut on that day though weren't they?

I'd never be that underhanded.

I should have said that the stock market would not crash because the computers wouldn't on that date. It was really the Y2K thing.

 

[Jet Black]

I guessed that much, but I had to be pedantic, sorry

 

[Valen]

I actually typed out a fairly long post about the evidence for God's non-existence, but I finally remembered the forum rule prohibiting that debate.
My argument essentially boiled down to two points:
1 The Christian concept of God has characteristics that are indentifiable as fictitious in origin.
2 You can tell the biggest whopper lie if there is no chance of finding out the truth.

Ok, let's do a little game...
we will try to rewrite history of the world by using words only...
evaluate it if it is sound or unjust. I also want you to create your very own rewritten history. Or just correct my own properly

(World With God)
The humans01 (first humans) have met God.
humans were dropped to Mesopotamia
The humans01 (first humans) received knowledge from God and told their encounter to their humans02 (descendants) based on their experience.
The humans02 (descendants) spread and their fathers died their knowledge developed to a new level. They also born humans03 (descendants). Humans02 told their father's experience but some were distorted by memory due to aging and others.
humans03 - humans04
Their experience were also shared to their descendants
Humans learn how to speak properly
-population increases-
knowledge realized
humans learn to write
-population increases-
-migrations-
-population increases-
-killings-
/Great Flood/
many land creatures died. Sea creatures still remains
-population increases-
-migrations-
knowledge realized
religion
-population increases-
-migrations-
knowledge realized
pottery
-population increases-
-new languages-
-killings-
-migrations-
mastery of writing
-population increases-
trade
-killings-
philosophy
increase of realization
-migrations-
-killings-
-population increases-
increase of realization
-killings-
new technologies
-wars-
science
etc.

The knowledge was passed to generation to the next but with influences from time
remains of humans are normally found in areas of conflict and burial
The population increase is enough or almost closer to recent population
It took thousands of years to this time
...
Now here we are. Now there you are asking me these things



(World Without God) --survival of the fittest--
primates - I and the scientists dont know exactly what kind of animal is but it is a relative of an ape they presume.

It all started from Africa
First there was a primate.
migration
(there was no knowledge yet only survival)
primates reproduce for millions of years
-population increases-
primates took thousands to millions of years to master hunting
-population increases-
/Ice Age/
primates took thousands to millions of years to master fire
-population increases-
Some primates were fighting with each other for tribal leaderships
-population decreases-
The humans01 (first humans) were evolution from a primate (a relative of an ape)
several millions of years have past
-population increases-
-killings for survival-
Other primates evolved to become monkeys
migration of humans
Other primates evolved to become apes
migration of humans
humans01 took millions of years to master agriculture
-population increases-
-migrations-
-killings for survival-
humans02 took thousands to millions of years to master domestication
-population increases-
-migrations-
-killings for survival-
humans03 took thousands to millions of years to master writing
-population increases-
-migrations-
-killings for survival-
new technologies
-population increases-
-migrations-
-killings for survival-
-population increases-
-population increases-
-killings for survival-
-population increases-
-migrations-
-population increases-
-killings for survival-
new technologies
trade
religion
philosophy
new technologies
science
etc.

let's say that knowledge about religion were just imaginations and lies of insane people
millions of migrations has occured
In order to compensate for the real population of today millions of catastrophes happened and many died.
There remains of humans are very abundant everywhere
Those were explained by the trillions of years by the scientists.
...
- Now here you are asking questions -


Pre-Conclusions:
I may have missed some points but I am trying to make this easier and fun.
It seems to me that the theories about trillions of years of the scientists doesnt seem fit and somehow has some absurdity. Sorry to tell you that. I want to see the results of your game work. The problem concerning C.Darwin's time are the sins of the people by ridiculing him so God exalted him.

 

[Jet Black]

what?

 

[foolsparade]

Valen; if you want to present an argument for 6 day creation, go over to the science section, i'm sure there will be someone who will debunk it. Like it hasn't been done a million times already.

 

[Valen]

Derived from my rewrite history game, I encountered problems about the 138,000,000 years ago beginnings of the primates:
1. If millions of years of primate's and human reproduction (the population should have boomed since no knowledge of reproductive controls at that time), the scientists should discover a million findings about remains of primates but we seem to have less evidences.
2. If millions of years of primate's and human migrations, there should millions of migrating evidences. So far we only have presumptions with less evidences.
3. In order to compensate about the recent population of today, there should be evidences of millions of catastrophes. Again so very little evidences and some are just presumed.
4. If religion is unreasonable or having unreasonable beliefs, how come our world has lots records or history concerning from various locations around the world about religion?

 

[ifriit]

Derived from my rewrite history game, I encountered problems about the 138,000,000 years ago beginnings of the primates:
1. If millions of years of primate's and human reproduction (the population should have boomed since no knowledge of reproductive controls at that time), the scientists should discover a million findings about remains of primates but we seem to have less evidences.

Just out of curiousity, is English not your first language? In response to this, what should we have discovered about primates that we haven't? We know a heck of a lot about them, yet you feel something is lacking, I assume. Why?

2. If millions of years of primate's and human migrations, there should millions of migrating evidences. So far we only have presumptions with less evidences.

There is a lot of evidence. Your ignorance of it does not make it nonexistant.

3. In order to compensate about the recent population of today, there should be evidences of millions of catastrophes. Again so very little evidences and some are just presumed.

How are you determining that? How do you know what the population should be today?

4. If religion is unreasonable or having unreasonable beliefs, how come our world has lots records or history concerning from various locations around the world about religion?

This is known as an argument from popularity, a known fallacy. The popularity of religion does not necessarily correlate with its truth value.

 

[Cantuar]

Is this really a creationism-evolution discussion or is it apologetics? I mean, are we arguing against evolution here or against atheism?

 

[Angel75]

My team will try our best...
Perhaps we need to redesign it with all evidences to support it but it is actually a big book compressed to become like those paragraphs that you see. It was actually deducted and became like it so that it will be easier to understand by others with a direct attack on the personality of the reader. But I presumed that some targets were missed.
We will tackle about concerning your demands...

But I want to ask you what is your main question or evidence about God that He don't exist? All atheist must have evidence against God based on our survey. What is yours?

wow. a whole team and that is all you can come up with? that fact free and emotional drivel of an essay will be laughed at at anyone who is told it will convince them of the "truth"

 

[Siliconaut]

@Valen: Your "history without god" is completely inaccurate - there have been no millions (or trillions) of years of inactivity in our cultural development. Before the circumstances that lead to a population bottleneck forced our ancestors to begin their worldwide diaspora, our development stagnated for hundreds of thousands of years - but that was when a sharpened stone was the highest developed tool in use. Since then, our development was exponential, the time between leaps and bounds of innovation growing shorter and shorter.

The agricultural revolution happened only a couple of thousands of years ago, and look what giant steps we have made since then!

Unless you don't care for fruitful discussion, please read up on some historical facts and try to get your time table right.

 

[Jet Black]

4. If religion is unreasonable or having unreasonable beliefs, how come our world has lots records or history concerning from various locations around the world about religion?

Human Nature.

 

[lucaspa]

I actually typed out a fairly long post about the evidence for God's non-existence, but I finally remembered the forum rule prohibiting that debate.

My argument essentially boiled down to two points:

1 The Christian concept of God has characteristics that are indentifiable as fictitious in origin.

2 You can tell the biggest whopper lie if there is no chance of finding out the truth.

You know, you wouldn't need such a long post if you could just post the scientific paper that showed God didn't exist!

Basically, the problem is that there is no objective, intersubjective evidence that would falsify the existence of God.

1. Yes. SOME of the concepts within Christianity have origins that are fictitious. However, that doesn't relate to the WHOLE claim that Yahweh exists. You have found falsification for THOSE characteristics (possibly), not for the deity.

2. This drops all evidence for God simply because it is evidence for God, and launches an ad hominen attack on anyone claiming to have personal experiences of God.

"But why should anyone think such a combination of faiths might be necessary, or indispensable on a quest for fundamental truth? There are two reasons for thinking it might be. One would be to have first-hand, experiential evidence of God which was personally convincing. The second is because to dismiss belief in God summarily is to pass premature and unwarranted judgement on the sanity, honesty, and intelligence of a vast number of our fellow human beings who claim to have such experiential evidence, many of them the same persons we do trust implicitly when it comes to other matters. It ill becomes any of us to take the attitude that all evidence for God is false evidence, beneath consideration, simply by virtue of its being evidence for God, or even by virtue of its being outside the purview of science. Such attitudes are taken, sometimes in the name of science, but in truth this sort of attitude is intellectual dishonesty." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pp. 281-282.

 

[lucaspa]

Is this really a creationism-evolution discussion or is it apologetics? I mean, are we arguing against evolution here or against atheism?

Theism vs Atheism. This started out as an Apologetics argument. The OP was a proselytizing one; only superficially involving science.

I suggest the thread either be closed or moved to Apologetics where it belongs.