Theism

[afro-elf]

i singled out emplynx and nibs

but as FF said


also want to say thanks! to everyone who's keeping this thread calm and non-flamed

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Twilight
I know about calibration for when you have a sample that is confirmed to be of the same age. A problem with that is how do you figure out the date of the core samples without the problem leading into circles?

The core sampling is merely used as an establishment of the pollen, flora, etc that is associated with the time period that you are studying. Once you have established the ratios of carbon, etc, in the flora, then you can callibrate the ratios between the then, and the now, puttting it simplistically.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by afro-elf


WAYFARER

you are using language that will get this thread closed.

for calling him a fool your erudite( priggish meaning) behavior makes YOU look like a fool because it shows your own faulty knowledge

Thanks for your gallant response. I am female, however. Wayfarer, as much as I have enjoyed reading your responses... nothing better than an argument to enjoy the day with I REALLY object to being called a fool. Please note the factual arguments I gave refuting your suggestions, therein the lack of name calling.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
An earth that is billions of years old is simply popular at the moment. That doesn't make it any more true than a flat earth. The old earth belief is based on Unaversalism, the belief that everything happens at a predictable rate. Which doesn't hold up.

As for your last argument-my dear fool, even the scientists which claim humans evolved from somehting else are unable to agree whether it was australopithicus or some other animal. So beginning your arguement with that assumption is patently false.

Shall I quote someone for you? Richard leaky, one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century, said:

"Either we throw out the fossil record or we forget about evolution."

Now, does that cast your position in a little more realistic light?

Well, as I said before, the geological record isn' nearly all it's cracked up to be. And archaeology? Pah! The oldest records, geological or otherwise, aren't even four thousand years old.

So, if the fossil record is against evolution, geology is dubious, and archaeology points towards a younger earth, where does that leave you?

How do we know that the earth is older than a few thousand years old? Dating methods, yes. Chronological dating yes. Archaeological record, and geological record, absolutely. My dear sir, the record goes back further than you think. Agricultural farming goes back 10,000 years. Where is the proof? Housing sites, faunal remains, garden sites, pottery, tools, etc. Mesolithic sites go back further still. What is our proof for that? Again, stone tools, lanterns, cave art, settlement patterns, faunal remains etc. Dating can be done of these artifactual residual evidence, via carbon (of the pollen, paint, faunal remains, etc). Mesolthic sites take you further back in time. Now, jump to 3 million years ago, austrolopithecus, and so forth. What evidence do we have? Faunal remains, settlement patterns, possible tool use, footprints, and so forth. How do we date this? Again, carbon dating of faunal remains, as well as other methods, such as spectrometry of possilble tools. Now, we can jump back even further in time, back to 4 million years ago, and look at ardipithecus ramidus. Again, same measures apply. Settlement patterns ('housing', remains, etc), on so forth. In terms of geological records, we can use stratigraphy, which uses the laws of superposition to state that the top layer is younger than the preceding layer. In this way, we can set up a kind of sequence of different strata in time and space. Within these segments, we can date both organic, and inorganic matter within these strata to give an approximation of a date. These sequences can be traced back billions of years: you only have to visit places like the grand canyon to see this.

Uniformitarianism, which I assume you are referring to, is an outmoded theory that was expanded upon by Lyell, and was reinvented in the 1800s... Some aspects of the argument apply still - survival of the fittest - but on the whole, the theory is out-dated.

And I suggest you look into the context of that quote by Leakey, which you have added your own spin to. That is not quite what he meant.

I apologise if this is getting personal, but I highly object to being called names, in the middle of a debate: not only is it demeaning to me, but it is also demeaning to you, since you feel that you have to flame, to validate your arguments.

[MasterMothra]

Originally posted by Nibs

Whee! I'm having too much fun with these, Mothra... I really hope you do like reading them as I do writing them.


Now, as for the second one... what, exactly do you mean by "natural law"? I'd guess, except for my fear of sounding stupid.

yes , i do nibs. i am enjoying the topic and your complete and concise answers.
natural law is like our instinct of morality. rational nature can be used to derive what is good and evil. earlier you answered my question about what becomes of those who are ignorant of "god". and it was a good answer indeed. my theory
( at present, and it is subject to change) is that if one follows natural law and does believe in god, and he worships that god, by praying to that god, offering sacrifices(ie passover, lent, ect.) he can achieve salvation. there is probably some good info on the net about thomas aquinas and his theories on natural law. i believe he even goes into divine law also, but i cant remember enough to expand upon it.
i hope what i said make sense. hehe, it may not though.

[Nibs]

Splendid, splendid... that would have been my first guess .

Assuming you described it correctly, MasterMothra, I think natural law is very true. One does not need to belong to an organized religion to practice organized beliefs. It does make it easier in many instances, though. And even if they're wrong, misery loves company, right (just kidding) ?

However, the primary focus, as I have been taught, is the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ. Assuming they haven't had the "sufficient opportunity" that I mentioned earlier, they must still be administered to in the hereafter to hear that message.

Once again, I merely speak from my own beliefs, but you know that when you ask and I answer, right ?

[MasterMothra]

thank you for the answer. your posts are most informative and to expect any less would be dissapointing.

[Cirdan]

So, if the fossil record is against evolution, geology is dubious, and archaeology points towards a younger earth, where does that leave you?

I wasn't going to post here but this quote was hilarious! I think it leaves you in desparate need of hitting the geology section of the nearest university library. Dubious? I have a degree in this "dubious" subject. So, all the fossils of billions of extinct species buried under miles of lithified sediments were just god's trial and error prior to the garden of eden? Talk about your mysterious ways! No wait, they were put ther so geologists would have something to do. lol

[afro-elf]

beardofpants

sorry about the error

as I've noted else where on this board its often hard to tell

[Earniel]

Shall I quote someone for you? Richard leaky, one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century, said: "Either we throw out the fossil record or we forget about evolution."

Now I maybe wrong about this, but this is the way I remembered it. Yet I believe that quote needs a context. Archeologists help me out if I'm wrong, please.

Mary Leakey's findings changed the entire evolution theory that was regarded as true and sound at that time. My guess was that this quote meant, that you either accept the fossil finds and the implications of them on the theory or that you cling to an evolutionairy theory that is dated.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eärniel


Now I maybe wrong about this, but this is the way I remembered it. Yet I believe that quote needs a context. Archeologists help me out if I'm wrong, please.

Mary Leakey's findings changed the entire evolution theory that was regarded as true and sound at that time. My guess was that this quote meant, that you either accept the fossil finds and the implications of them on the theory or that you cling to an evolutionairy theory that is dated.

Yep, that's what I meant. Thanks for looking it up for Wayfarer! He had spent ages trying to find something to prove his theory, and was frustrated due to the lack of evidence, and the flimsy evidence he had, and then his wife found a cache, so to speak! The quote is right, but out of context.

[Nariel Starfire]

Okay, I just want to clear up amoe Age Theory stuff.. I'll do the best I can...

As far as the Bible goes, the earliest records within the Bible itself referring to age are from Abraham. We know that he lived about X B.C. Before that, we have no way of knowing how much time was between Creation and Abraham. There are numerous names where no age is given. As for me, I personally believe that the Earth is between 10 and 15 thousand years old.

As for dating methods, I must remind you that these are not always accurate. Carbon dating was recently used on a LIVE worm, and it reported that the worm had been dead for 300 years. Carbon and Argon dating (which are by far the most evolutionarily popular) are only accurate to about 3000 years. Anything older than that, and you can't really trust it because the carbon half-lives get so messed up.

I would like to say more, but I can't answer all the questions posted here.

[Andúril]

Lief Erikson:

And God allowed it to be improbable, for in the Bible it clearly states that a large part of our belief comes from believing in things unseen. If we could see these things, or if we could prove Christianity, then where would be the faith?

It seems from what you have said that you place a higher value on faith than proof or reasonable justification for belief. I gather this from your asking how faith would play its part in Christianity, as if it were a necessary standard or reason for belief, and in asking this the implication is that proof or merely evidence is a secondary device. I hope that you can see the problem here - but perhaps I can sum it up:

I really want to believe in the flying pink unicorn. I value faith above evidence or proof, so I immediately have a belief in this flying pink unicorn (from faith). I then look around, and see if I can find anything around me that looks like it could fit neatly inside my belief.

This is particularly interesting, in that strictly speaking, those who profess to know God are actually discarding the faith aspect - they don't have faith that God exists, they know it. And what does the bible have to say about the faithless?

And again, I must disagree with all statements that miracles are decreasing in number nowadays. The Bible spans many years, talking about many different people and miracles that God has worked through them. Miracles happen now just as often, in my opinion, although my Dad thinks they might possibly be happening more frequently. We don't have new Bible now which is a collection, but there are many books out which tell how God is working. God has performed many in my life, even though I have only known him a few months, and there are other Christians all over the globe who aren't necessarily speaking up that these miracles have happened. These things are frequently of a very personal nature, and besides, it says in Corinthians that things which are spiritual or of God are madness to the unbeliever, or something to that effect. Of that we have proof. Certainly all of it is scientifically impossible, but if it were possible, than it wouldn't be a miracle, would it? Science simply doesn't know everything, and how can it claim knowledge of something so completely different? Can science delve into the spiritual? Can it prove or disprove spiritual beings?

If the amount of miracles is not decreasing, we can at least agree that the nature of the miracles is changing - and at the same time we can agree that the extent and progression of scientific knowledge is changing. The scope of possible miracles that occured in biblical times is no longer avaliable - science has answers for these previously unexplainable phenomena. And as science increases its knowledge base, so the pool of possible miracles dwindles, until we are faced with miraculous claims that either (1) have never been answered by science, or (2) are entirely new phenomena.

Also, if you are indeed correct about miraculous claims occuring more frequently, it would not surprise me, as a religion that is becoming less and less popular will undoubtedly have some type of strategy to draw in new members - this I deem as one of them. What better way to impress people than to attribute unexplainable phenomena to a god? Take a look at Benny Hinn and other TV evangelists who use "miraculous faith healings" to their own benefit. Although I think the profitability factor is priority for those people, a secondary advantage is the way it can draw in new members. Another look at Benny Hinn and others will show that local support for their healings is decreasing drastically, necessitating both the need for more outrageous healings and the entry into the global market.

I agree that miraculous events nowadays are of a primarily personal nature - it is becoming far more difficult to fool large groups of people. However, I fail to see how a perceived miracle can be strong evidence for Christianity, when miracles have reportedly been witnessed by people of other faiths. Also, sometimes someone who thinks they have been blessed with a miracle will not announce this occurence, in fear that it will somehow be explained to them in a valid way. It becomes more important that they believe a miracle is a miracle, and in doing so, their underlying beliefs are reinforced.

It is incorrect to define a miracle as that which is scientifically impossible - unless you are implying the "good" scientific impossibilities, as it is obvious that miracles are defined from a subjective moral viewpoint. An interesting point, if these "good" scientific impossibilities are attributed to God, who or what are "neutral" and "bad" occurences attributable to.

When a definition of a spiritual being can be given, it ultimately has to put itself in the line of fire of logic - does it make sense? Is it coherent? etc. If it is illogical, we can not be justified in believing it. The justification of belief in any two illogical concepts is equally non-existent.

What about the nonchristian who is mistreated in this way? This issue is up to the Lord, and he is just.

That explains why people who have committed unequal attrocities recieve equal (or is it equal?) punishment - they all go to hell. Another interesting point - who governs hell? Satan or God? Because if Satan makes the rules there, then God has no ability to excercise his justness (and is thus non-omnipotent). I take it that you believe that God's jurisdiction includes hell, and if I assume correctly, what do you base this on, other than the logical necessity of God's omnipotence?

There are many Christians who simply believe, and there are many more who actually know him.

Perhaps you can comment on what I said earlier about faith and the lack thereof.

Nibs:

As far as I can ascertain, the skeptics posting here have a problem with this single concept (though I could be very wrong indeed):

faith.

The problem with faith is that it can be used by anyone to validate their beliefs. Some have faith of a religious nature, others have faith in science. It is not an argument about whether someone has faith, it is an argument about which belief is subsequently "validated" by faith.

I admit it's perplexing, but I can personally attest to the benefits of believing that God exists and sent His Son to atone for our sins, if we would allow him through repentance.

The floor is yours...

We obviously cannot be perfect as Christ was...

We are given a relatively brief account of Jesus in the bible, and some events involving Jesus are repeated. How can we possibly know if Jesus was perfect? Why would his imperfections, if applicable, ever be mentioned in the bible (by his own followers)? One can not validate this claim - there is an element of bias involved.

Imagine you're in a drawing class. Since you have no access to an eraser, when you make a mistake, you must sincerely ask the teacher to rectify it, then continue.

If we neglect to ask help of the teacher, he will not come on his own. He is available to all those who ask him, as long as they have completed their homework.

Thats a nice story. Does the teacher in this analogy exhibit the same logical incoherency as the divine being you are referring to?

Crickhollow:

...no filth allowed in heaven.

Interesting. Is it possible to do evil, or for evil to occur, in heaven? Well, I wonder if anyone here remembers Satan's rebellion. Now I can't remember exactly what happened, but if a rebellion against God was involved, we have reason to believe that it is possible to sin in heaven. Now what issues could this bring up? Well, the question must be asked : Do souls entering heaven have their individual free-will intact? Suppose they do. We know that nobody is morally perfect, and that Christians do sin. Is the inclination to sin part of free-will? I think so. What is the justification for believing that this sinful inclination will dissapear?

[Andúril]

Wayfarer:

Wrong.

Athiesm:
a)Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b)The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

A classic case of subjective interpretation. Well anyway let me explain the way I defined the word.

Theism is the belief in a god. The "A" prefix in atheism implies non, thus non-belief. However, it is never as clear as that, due to there being two kinds (possibly more) of atheistic stance - strong and weak. The strong atheist assumes a more confident stance, and will often try to justify his belief to others, while the weak atheist just lacks belief in a god, in the same way that they lack belief in that flying pink unicorn. I would regard myself, when referring to the Christian God, as a strong atheist, and perhaps when I have done enough research on other deities I will elevate my stance from weak to strong in each case - only time will tell.

All theists say "There is A God.", but they are at odds as to who that god is.

Really? I though some theists knew their God...

You make two grave errors of assumption here.
1) You assume that theism is a logically unsound concept.
2) You assume that there is sufficient probability to believe in naturalism.

Your error lies in assuming I was referring specifically to theism by logically unsound concept - should it not ring true in other areas? Besides this, you should have seen some of my attempts at showing flaws in Christian theology, which you have not challenged as yet.

I also don't think that you have given adequate reasons for logical belief in a concious creator. What makes you think that the cause of the universe is concious, other than the loose assumption that because Christians have perceived their lives changing, it must be the Christian God?

Prove to me that there is sufficeint probability to believe that the universe is spontaneously self organized.

Why? I never claimed anything about spontaneous self organization. You seem to be continually missing my point: acceptance of the first-cause theory does not necessarily imply the Christian God's existance.

Therefore, what other reasons besides first-cause do you give to justify your convictions?

God created humans, Adam and Eve.
He told them, "Look, Everything is good right now. And everything will stay good as long as you live the way I mad eyou to live. I won't force you, I'm giving you a choice. But if you choose to go your own way, you'll live a hard life, die, and the whole world will basically suck. So please don't."
They did.
They lived hard lives, died, and the whole world basically sucks,
God did create an escape clause-jesus- that allows us to return to him and go his way. But that doesn't negate the consequences of our being imperfect (due to that choice), and thus, life is still sucky.

So God gave people free-will, and knowing full well that sinful inclination is included in the bouquet that is free-will, pleaded with Adam and Eve not to sin, therefore not to exercise their bag of tricks? This would imply a requested constraint on free-will. Strange that God would create a race in such a manner that he would have to ask them not to follow their natural tendencies, don't you think? To this someone might respond "It was the Devil's interaction with humanity that drew them into sin". Incorrect, the nature of the first created includes the capability of sinning. If Man was indeed morally perfect, He would not have committed the initial sin - attempts of the Devil would have failed as a result of perfect integrity or loyalty.

Also, I believe MasterMothra brought the issue up earlier about the afterlife prior to Jesus. How did people get into heaven without the knowledge of Christ? Have the requirements for admission changed? I believe it is clearly evident.

More nonsense.

a) Wrong. If there is no God, I simply cease to exist. I can't go to hell if there is no god, because the concept of hell requires God in the picture.
B) Also Wrong. Likewise. You don't exist anymore, so even though you are correct you won't know it.

A) Assumption that no other religion is true, or no other undocumented divine being exists, which follows that concepts of "hell" pertaining to these untrue religions do not exist. Christianity is not the only religion with the concept of "hell".
B) You are justified while you are alive.

What happened to significant probability?

It was a failed attempt at emphasizing the significantly low probability. I should have phrased myself differently.

Are you saying that, despite the fact that Billions of humans since the beginning of time have believed in some higher power, there's no reason to think they're right?

It should be clearly evident that the collective belief of society does not imply truth (flat earth and multiple religion syndrome). The only implication of a negative response to your question is a justification in the continuation of research regarding this "higher power". We have already passed this point long ago.

Science says that everything is ordered and predictable. Order cannot arise from chaos. Therefore, the ordered laws of nature must be the result of some higher order.
Eventually, you must come to some order that is self existant.
I.E. God.

Assuming your statement is true, I ask again, why the Christian God?

[emplynx]

I havn't had time to work through all the responces since I have been gone but I am going to add some reponse.

Originally posted by Nariel Starshine
Therefore, a more correct question would be "Why do good things happen to bad people?" to which the answer would be "by the grace of a loving God."

Excellent point. People say that God was an mean unloving god in the Old Testament. I heard recently, we should wonder why he was harsh in some cases, but why he wasn't harsh all the time!

Originally posted by MasterMothra
such as, "will i go to hell if i don't think jesus is the only way to god, or that jc is the son of god?

I would have to say yes. The Bible is clear on that.
what part of the bible do i believe? "thou shalt not kill", or "an eye for an eye"?
[/QUOTE]
The bible says not to murder. Murder and Killing are not the same. Both of those statements are good.

Originally posted by MasterMothra
after reading the posts, i think nibs summed it up the best. faith is the variable here. for me , i think i believe there is a god. unlike crickhollow though, i don't think jesus is the only way to god. i'm not sure if i understand what jesus's purpose was at all. if people were going to heaven b/f jesus was on earth, why did jesus need to save us from sin? we could just repent and have salvation, no jesus necessary.

Before Jesus, the faith in God, the Jews, had to sacrifice to be forgiven of their sins.
Jesus was the sacrifice for all people to end.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Hmm, this is very interesting. I think I'll just follow along and read this one, except for a few points.

Yep, these are for Wayfarer.

1. How do you know that order can't come from chaos?
4. Archaeological record goes back much further than four thousand years (I am very interested in archaeology, and know this for a fact). "The earliest traces of human occupation in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley of southern Mesopotamia date to around 5500 B.C." - that's merely one example, 6500 years ago, and that civilization already had pottery, indicating a somewhat advanced state.

1. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
4. The earth could be older... Maybe up to 20,000 but I don't think so. The Bibles is not clear, you can't just add up all the ages of people, because they often skip generations.

Originally posted by Anduril
Wayfarer:Assuming your statement is true, I ask again, why the Christian God?

Jesus fulfilled many many hundreds of prophecies. Check out this link http://feistymama.com/bp/300great.htm
Christianity is the only religion in which people who experienced someone claiming to be God first-hand, died because they wouldn't back down. If Jesus didn't really come to them after he died, why would they die over it?

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Nariel Starshine
Okay, I just want to clear up amoe Age Theory stuff.. I'll do the best I can...

As far as the Bible goes, the earliest records within the Bible itself referring to age are from Abraham. We know that he lived about X B.C. Before that, we have no way of knowing how much time was between Creation and Abraham. There are numerous names where no age is given. As for me, I personally believe that the Earth is between 10 and 15 thousand years old.

As for dating methods, I must remind you that these are not always accurate. Carbon dating was recently used on a LIVE worm, and it reported that the worm had been dead for 300 years. Carbon and Argon dating (which are by far the most evolutionarily popular) are only accurate to about 3000 years. Anything older than that, and you can't really trust it because the carbon half-lives get so messed up.

I would like to say more, but I can't answer all the questions posted here.

as far as the live worm where did you get this information?

even if it were true one error does not destroy all the supporting evidence

Carbon maybe be the most well known but there are others

when you use the term accurate it may be misleading it may not give an exact date

however when we are speaking of such massive time scale being in- accurate by 5% doesn't mean much

there not that much difference between 35,000 bc and say 30,000bc

even carbon dating still shows the earth is older that biblical account

as beardofpants says


[

Yes, but we have taken that into account when we use these dating systems, that's why we callibrate. Plus, we can base this on core sampling. No, there is no solid way of dating these phenomena, but we can try! Also, while there may be a degree of error in dating, its only plus or minus 2 - 3 %

also that is ONLY for living things geology show that the earth is billions of years old

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Nariel Starshine
As for dating methods, I must remind you that these are not always accurate. Carbon dating was recently used on a LIVE worm, and it reported that the worm had been dead for 300 years. Carbon and Argon dating (which are by far the most evolutionarily popular) are only accurate to about 3000 years. Anything older than that, and you can't really trust it because the carbon half-lives get so messed up.

ARgh! Back again...

RE carbon dating you can date from between 50 - 60 thousand years ago, right up to 1950. This is using AMS (accelerator mass spectromety). You are incorrecting in assuming that the dating goes back to only 3000 years accurately. And be careful what words you used to describe this 'accuracy'. This method is accurate, but it is not precise, unless you callibrate it. Since this method is callibrated, it is in fact, precise, NOT accurate. Also, there are other dating methods that you can use, for instance potassium argon dating.

RE dating a live worm, where is your link? If you knew anything about carbon dating, you'd know that you can't date anything more recent than 1950, (but it can't be since you said, 'recently')so that bit of evidence that you threw at us, unless it happened before 1950, is simply not true.

As for the age of the earth, I have already gone into great detail about how we can date strata that is older than the dates you have given.

Hope this clears the dating methods up for you. In future, make sure you look into some research before stating some psuedo facts.

[FrodoFriend]

Well, people, I think you should stop making vague statements trying to invalidate dating methods, considering BeardofPants knows how they work far better than anyone else here. I, for one, trust her judgment since she is studying the process right now, unlike everyone here who claims carbon dating & other methods don't work.

1. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Sorry, man, the laws of thermodynamics do not prove that order can't come from chaos. Besides, take the Big Bang theory - don't you think all the highly trained scientists who came up with that would've noticed if the basic laws of thermodynamics made it impossible? This just isn't true.

4. The earth could be older... Maybe up to 20,000 but I don't think so. The Bibles is not clear, you can't just add up all the ages of people, because they often skip generations.

The Bible is not a scientific source. If I wrote a book about my ancestors, and it only went back 2000 year or so, would that mean the Earth is 2000 years old? No! Science has given us proof that the world is much, much older than the Bible claims. You may believe that the Bible reveals things about humanity and God and spirituality, but claiming it as an absolutely factually true scientific source is rather tricky.

[BeardofPants]

Oh, and like the broken down record that I am, why would anyone use a dating method, ie carbon dating, to date something that does not fit into the appropriate time range, when it costs at least two million dollars? Who has that kind of money floating around to date a live worm to prove that carbon dating doesn't work?

[Cirdan]

I dated a live worm once. It wasn't that exepensive. A movie, a little mulch.. Now dinosaurs, they will eat you out of house and home

Sorry but this thread needed a little intentional levity. The creationists are hilarous! It's like a shaggy dog story that never ends.