Not that this will change your mind in any way, but I feel the need to address this.
Using the Miriam Webster dictionary, definition 1d for generation is “a type or class of objects usually developed from an earlier type.”
With the knowledge that Christianity is a generation of Judaism, since Christianity has not passed away as of yet and so the prophecy has not been disproved.
That’s one way of reading it so that it does not produce a contradiction. I doubt you will change your interpretation of the passage however, and will continue to use it as a refutation of the Bible. Fine. I’ve done what I can.
Cyrin: one cannot prove a negative, so why are you asking people to do so? I don’t understand.
You can prove a positive - so why don’t you prove that god does exist, and then I’ll gladly convert (no, I would not say “that god who just appeared last week was an illusion”… I accept reality unlike most christians).
Hey, I can talk about anything, but when it comes to God and religion, I don’t care one way or the other. I may think that some of Cyrin’s beliefs are “screwy” or what ever, (As I was brought up a Catholic and he wasn’t) but I’m not gonna hold that against him. [sub] …but he still sucks at UT…[/sub]
Believe in a god or don’t, it’s not my problem. Just don’t dare tell me I’m wrong with how I live my life, because I’m not doing it to you. (And by ‘you’, I mean ‘you’ in general, this isn’t directed at you Cyrin. )
But I think that in regards to the OP, the question is self-defeating. Again, as was mentioned before, you can’t prove a negative. (If you can, I sure as hell don’t know how. ) It should have been: (As I had mentioned to Cyrin on a smoke break.)
Then, I believe, this woulda/coulda been a calmer thread.
There is an inherent problem with that. No Christian can offer any (what you would consider) proof of Gods existence. We can tell you what it was that opened our eyes to His existence, and what facts opened other peoples eyes to the truth, but unless you can be satisfied with the possibility of his existence, and look for proof in your own way, you’ll never find it.
I’ve said it before, I can’t in good conscience “beat someone about the brow” and make them believe God exists. If they did finally succumb to my constant attacks and said “Ok fine, I believe!” It wouldn’t have been God working in their Heart, it would have been me, pressuring them. That’s not what God wants. That person won’t hold onto the idea of God for long after I leave the room.
Sorry, although I am not going to attribute dangerous motives to you personally, there are far too many people in the world that claim to know what God wants…
There are three possible opinions on this subject:
[ul]
[li]God does Exist[/li][li]God Might/might not Exist[/li][li]God does not exist[/li][/ul]
If you believe:
[list=a]
[li]God does Exist[/li]Or
[li]God might/might not exist[/li][/list=a]
Then:
[ul]
[li]You can support a reason for being[/li][li]You can support the idea of right and wrong[/li][li]You can have an opinion based in reality[/li][/ul]
If you believe:
[ul]
[li]God does not exist[/li][/ul]
Then:
[ul]
[li]There is no purpose for being[/li][li]There is no such thing as right and wrong[/li][li]There is nothing that we, as humans, who have no purpose, can do or say which will affect reality[/li][/ul]
Therefore, any belief in the absence of God is a belief based in a fictional world and has no affect or basis in reality. Science can discover all it wants, but who is to say that it makes sense, because with no purpose, there is no such thing as sense.
Again, I am making a philosophical point. There are other philosophical “points” which can be made to disprove the existence of God. i.e. The “Rock so big God can’t lift it” argument. Again, any attempt to remove God (and therefore purpose) removes the definitions of “logic, sense and reality” so the argument falls apart.
False. Many nontheists do believe in a purpose. That purpose just doesn’t happen to be “avoiding hell.”
False. It is quite possible to know right from wrong, to have a morality and a moral compass, without a god making the rules. If you truly do not believe that atheists do not know right from wrong, we can start a new thread about it, though.
False. In fact, the atheist holds that reality is all we can affect, instead of the supernatural. But I guess I have to wonder what it is that Christians claim to be able to do or say that will affect reality?
Remember that “past performance does not guarentee future results.” You think that gravity is a fact that is scientifically proven? Funny, physicists don’t. They portray gravity as an illusion created by mass distorting the metric of space-time. The scientific method recognizes that little is absolutely proven, and ALL that we believe is open to be disproven. We believe hypotheses are likely correct because they are consistent with what is observed.
How does God stack up? Not the God of the Bible or such, but the concept that there is some universal power in the universe. Well, such a concept would predict that the universe would follow a set of laws that are, well, universal, that the laws of physics, for example, are the same in alpha centuri as they are here. Check. God should be detectable … well the detector for God is faith. The hypothesis would predict that every independently developing culture of sentient creatures would sense it and develop a concept for it. Check. Every human culture (and here I’ll include Neandertals too) have evidence of some God-concept, mostly developed independently of each other. All have come up with moral codes that are similar in their essence. Yes, I know that other hypotheses can explain these same observations, but none any better, and none inconsistent with a God hypothesis. So far it stacks up better than IPUs.
What good is a hypothesis? We use hypotheses to guide our future actions. Because I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, I behave in a certain way. The God hypothesis stacks up well here as well. Because of this belief individuals are guided in their actions. Better than IPUs here too.
Ok, but I’ve been told that atheists don’t believe in anything. An absence of belief. Even still, if two atheists come up with different purposes, who is to say who is right? So then, why can’t each atheist go on and do whatever he or she desires. i.e. Killing people. I think it’s ok, so i am going to go on and kill people, and who are you to tell me I am wrong. If there is nothing but us then who are we accountable to? No one. So do whatever you want then, without fear of weather it is right or wrong.
Again, Right or Wrong. But according to whom. To you? To the guy sitting next to you? Why do we all seem to have the same sense of right and wrong? why do we instinctively know that it is bad to kill people? Why did those terrorists have to use religion to justify killing all those Americans? why can’t we stand back and say, Well, I guess that was just their purpose here, Killing is Ok according to them. The fact that righteousness exists, that we condemn people for terrible acts like those on Sept 11 proves to me that we are all influenced by the same moral code. Who is coordinating that? why do we all come to the same conclusions concerning morality? Why don’t small children born in the Jungle of Africa, pick up sharp sticks and kill their families because they just think it’s right? Because God exists and he gives us that moral code when we are born. You can’t explain it any other way (unless you can, and if so I’d like to hear it)
You are absolutely correct. My bad. Affect was the wrong word, replace that with, “Come to conclusions based upon reality” because a man without purpose for being cannot trust even his own thoughts to be truth.
Çyrin:
Your OP contains a logical fallacy that has been pointed out numerous times: You are asking us to prove a negative, and that is impossible.
Also it has been pointed out numerous times that it is up to an asserter of a positive to present credible, objective evidence.
Your indescribable feelings can and has been explained by current neuroscience. No diety nessisary. Internal emotional subjective religious experience is not scientific, objective, empirical, credible evidence (emphasis on credible) for divine or spiritual realities or beings.
Having been brainwashed as a child before I learned to think for myself, I too had indescribable religious feelings. Looking back, it makes me sad that I fell for that utter bullshit. All I can say is that primates are easily influenced.
There is no why to life. It just is. Sure you can have personal whys as to what makes it worth it to you. But why base those personal reasons on other people’s ancient fairytales that you digested whole when you were young and now as an adult have rationalized into an eloborate construction based on triggered conditioned feelings?
Beleiving in a benevolent daddy-god is an infantile fantasy, to paraphrase Frued, IMHO. Why do you think it has such power? It appeals to the child in people who want the universe to love them, be fair, protect them (even from permanent death), soothe them and fufill thier wishes (e.g. prayer) and be wonderful (either here or the afterlife). And it is a fantasy that has been played out over and over with numerous negative consequences to the present day (can you say “twin towers”). Are you aware of how many pantheons have been believed in in human history? The old religions are now termed mythologies. Do you honestly believe that your religion is somehow different (rhetorical question, I guess that you do)? Do you realize how absurd this infantile fantasy looks to nonbelievers?
That is why it is hard to take relgious people seriously. Because it is so patently infantile. Also, it is hard to take someone seriously who believes in things with no objective evidence for thier beliefs.
Athiesm, by definition is a lack of belief in gods, due to a lack of objective evidence. That is a much more logical position to take than belief with no evidence.
I have to say I disagree with your example. God is supernatural, hence any description of natural/universal laws are not descriptions of God.
And if we are going to say God is (pointing around) that or that or that, why call it God?
Why bother to contemplate whether there is a God if God is the physical universe? If God, for you, is the world, then yeah you’ve encountered proof of God.
It seems, as I’ve encountered this idea before, the idea of God becomes appropriated as the human psyche requires.
Howso? Given that your truth is a matter of faith, which you’ve already admitted can’t have conclusive proof, how is an atheist any less certain about truth than you?
:
)
) It should have been: (As I had mentioned to Cyrin on a smoke break.)