U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2013, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,883 posts, read 31,769,092 times
Reputation: 12628

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by romans519 View Post
Who created the chemicals for those chemical reactions? I watched the video you posted. The question still remains, how did life begin?

By the way, has anyone on this forum ever listened to this presentation by Hugh Ross? You can read it or listen to it at the link below.

Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe
Good grief, nobody created the chemicals... They came about naturally...If you think you are going to convince people on this forum that a god exists, then think about what board you are on....I won't be wasting my time reading Hugh Ross's drivel....I've read his progressive creation nonsense before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2013, 01:49 PM
 
39,086 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5087
Quote:
Originally Posted by romans519 View Post
Who created the chemicals for those chemical reactions? I watched the video you posted. The question still remains, how did life begin?

By the way, has anyone on this forum ever listened to this presentation by Hugh Ross? You can read it or listen to it at the link below.

Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe
Part I)
Since we are at the 'Who made everything then?' stage, I ought to say that this is something of an academic debate, because it has nothing much to do with the atheist campaign against organized religion, because Cosmic origins have little bearing on it. If we suppose for sake of argument that some sort of cosmic mind decided to produce it all out of nothing, that has nothing to do with any of the man -made religions or their gods.

If you say there is only One God we are talking about, I'd respond 'get everyone to agree which one (and which religion) that is, and get back to me. That should keep you busy for a century or so

So, having established that I am not in principle firmly apposed to some kind of creating mind, I pick up your point. Biochemicals, like heavy elements, exist in Nebulae throughout the Cosmos. They are the debris of exploding stars gone Novae, which is of course what planets are eventually made of.

Where did that all come from? Biochemicals and heavy elements are produced (racks his brains) by fusion which is the latter stage of a star's life. (It is staggering to think that most of the cosmos has already died and been reborn, perhaps several times) and stars coalesce out of the cosmic gas of the Big Bang, (I suspect just one of innumerable myriads of such events and other cosmoses) which presumably came from a coalesced point of a matter -cloud collapsed under its own gravity formed from the matter - basis of the cosmos which is handily between nothing and something, so that it can always have been there and also needs nobody to Will it into existence.

This is of course vague and speculative and everything I guess may turn out to be wrong. Yet it is more of a mechanism than an invisible yet complex being having all knowledge and capability and which itself didn't need to come from anywhere or be made and accomplished everything without means or mechanism but just a Jedi wave.

Now the above scenario I suggested is something of a sleight of hand as I know almost nothing for sure. Yet I do believe that it makes a lot more sense that the goddunnit explanation and is why, even when we get down to the very basics of 'Who made everything then?' the answer is 'Nobody really knows, but there is no good reason for saying that it was 'Who' but rather 'what'.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-22-2013 at 02:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 02:21 PM
 
39,086 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5087
Part II

So, if we really have no compelling reason to postulate a cosmic mind to start everything off, why do we need to have such a mind by pure act of will (which is what the supernatural creation of Life has in mind) turning inert biochemicals into the sort of half - life that we see in stromatolites, viruses (given that crystals are perfectly able to grow in their own way, without being alive) and the stuff done recently in test tubes?

Why is there this incredulity at a supposed leap from amino acids to bacteria, given that we have examples of the intervening stages of RNA, DNA, cells and, as soon as one cell absorbed another for lunch and the other ones began to vanish except for those which had a mutation that produced a rather less appealing or tougher skin, and they began the branch of plants while the predators began the line of animals and the great arms - race of natural selection had begun and the assemblages of such cells began to make impressions in the Precambrian shale -mud before the massive diversity of forms of the Cambrian 'explosion'?

Why is this impossible or even difficult to buy in any form? I don't (and I don't think any atheist logically can) deny any possibility of a God being involved, but there is not a shred of evidence for it and no reason why there should be. And that is the argument of Matt Dillahunty of the Austin Atheists and is why the caller destroyed nothing but any claim to have workable ears.

Now, as to the resurrection....'Just close those doors until I've finished would you? Thanks..'
(1) assuming that it happened as described, the involvement of Arimathea suggests that Jesus, who conked out suspiciously soon after a swig of wine which he had refused up to then, was not actually dead and the idea was to get him out as soon as the coast was clear and of course long before the guard rolled up the next morning. Rather late

(2) But I don't think it happened as described, because the resurrection accounts differ widely.
The only thing that all four accounts agree on is that the women rolled up on the Sunday morning and found the tomb open and the body gone. dead or alive Arimathea wanted his tomb for his own family and Jesus' body would have been shipped quietly back to Galilee. The Disciples knew nothing of this being scattered and in shock, but. once they found out what had happened to the body, the began to discuss the failure of Jesus' mission and they all agreed that body aside, the messianic spirit had gone back to sit at God''s right hand, and perhaps it was indeed Peter (as Luke and Paul both claim) who first 'saw' the risen Jesus and learned that he would be retuning to finish the job, and that within their own lifetimes.

(3) The accounts, as I say only agree on the women finding an empty tomb. The synoptics all have an angel of sorts giving a quick explanation, but they all tread the episode very differently and John doesn't have that angel at all.

From then on the resurrection accounts are utterly discrepant and the conclusion is that each wrote their own resurrection account since a ghost Jesus in heaven wasn't convincing enough and so a solid fish eating Jesus still with holes in was required.

Mark's 'missing' ending has often been discussed but the conclusion is obvious. There wasn't one. Originally, the story went, it ended with an empty tomb and even the explaining angel was added to the synoptic original (which John of course didn't use for his gospel).

Thus there is no need for a supernatural explanation for the Jesus story any more than for the start of life...yes, yes, you can let them out now. .don't trample each other in the rush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,975 posts, read 18,573,926 times
Reputation: 18674
To add to AREQUIPA's above excellent post....Two points.

The resurrection story is not a part of the Q source material.

Paul wrote that Jesus "...that he was buried and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures. ( 1 Corinthians: 15:3-8)

These are important considerations because:
A) Material outside of the Q source must be viewed as agenda additions to the gospels.
and
B) There is nothing in the scriptures anywhere which calls for a reanimating Messiah. Not one line, not one word in the OT which concerns itself with the Messiah, says anything at all about the Messiah dying and returning to life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 07:12 PM
 
39,086 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5087
Correct. There is no 'Q' material, nor Mark/Matthew material. There is 'P' material, odd tales used by both Luke and John. Apart from that there are 4 different accounts, though there are the angels at the tomb, but John places them later than the Synoptic account - after the women had reported to the disciples.

P.s. Paul appears to endorse a lot of the Gospel story, but I am beginning to see it the other way around: many of the important gospel episodes took Paul's remarks and turned them into screenplay, as it were, just as they did with OT material which thus turned into prophetic material.

Paul appears to refer to the betrayal by Judas with references to betrayal to the forces of darkness, but 'betrayal' has the connotation more of 'handing over' and is Paul commenting on the idea (got from the apostles, no doubt) that Jesus was 'handed over' by God to the powers of darkness so that the obedience/reforging of the covenant could be done.

The Judas - figure has been been produced, like the involvement of the Sanhedrin to blame the jews for what happened to Jesus, though this produces the theological oddity (noted with Judas before now) that they were helping God's plan along and Pilate (made to look like the nice Roman who was trying to spare Jesus - not to mention Jesus himself asking for god to let him off), was trying to thwart it.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-22-2013 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 07:26 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 39,770,900 times
Reputation: 16146
Quote:
Originally Posted by romans519 View Post
Well, they both agreed that, as far as humans know, a person cannot come back alive after being dead for 3 days on their own without divine help. This leads to the logical conclusion that life cannot begin from nothing without divine help. So for life to begin its only logical to conclude that before it began, it was dead right? But if you don't agree it was dead before it began, then how do you explain life coming from nothing without divine help?

I think there are more arguments to gather from the video. I'll have to watch it again later when I get the chance.
You don't seem to grasp what the words "agreed" and "logical" actually mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,144 posts, read 5,108,647 times
Reputation: 2539
The youtuber that posted this doesn't understand what brilliance is. Accepting the fact that there is a possibility of something being true no more verifies its existence than me saying it is possible that there is an invisible gnome sitting on my shoulder. It doesn't make it rational or brilliant to believe something because there is a possibility of it being true. Also, the argument is predicated under the idea that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead. However, there is no evidence outside of the bible that support that belief. If this nonsense is considered brilliant then I'm a one legged parrot.
Also, the cosmological argument is inherently flawed for several reasons. For one, it assumes that an entity outside of the cosmos had to create the universe. This complicates the argument because you also have to explain god's existence. Saying "god did it" doesn't explain anything and in actuality is a cop out. It's like me saying that a ghost knocked over the cup of water because I can't think of anything better. I'd also like to know how someone can make something out of nothing. I've never seen that happen before.
Another problem with the cosmological argument is that it is based on a flawed understanding of what science actually says. When scientists talk about "nothing," they aren't talking about nothing as being nonexistence. When scientists talk about "nothing" they're talking about empty space, not nonexistence. There have been experiments that have shown it is possible to create life from nonliving material.
Thirdly, the cosmological argument fails because it makes the assumption that the universe had to have been created by an external entity when this is not the case.
Life originated through natural processes. There is no such thing as the supernatural and this video only proves god is a way to halt curiosity and questioning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 11:22 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,975 posts, read 18,573,926 times
Reputation: 18674
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post

The Judas - figure has been been produced, like the involvement of the Sanhedrin to blame the jews for what happened to Jesus,.
I believe that the Sanhedrin and the Romans would have been in perfect harmony concerning what needed to be done about Jesus. With his provocative Messiah imagery entrance into Jerusalem, followed by the physical assault on the Temple money changers, Jesus was announcing that his direct target was the Sanhedrin. He was challenging the authority of the Temple and Judea was a dependent theocracy at the time. The religious authorities were also the civil authorities, the religious laws carried the force of civil laws.

In the account of his trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus is charged with the crime of blasphemy, specifically his claim that he had the power to forgive sins. By Hebrew law only Yahweh had such power and it was a capital crime to assert otherwise. What the Sanhedrin lacked was the power of execution, for that they needed the Romans. The Romans had no interest at all in the fine points of Hebrew theology and Jesus claiming the power to forgive sins would have been an irrelevancy to them. Consequently, when brought before Pilate, the charges have been modified. Now the indictment is for claiming to be the Messiah, the King of the Jews. That was a crime the Romans took seriously. They had set up the Sanhedrin as their puppet government and a challenge to it was a challenge to Roman authority.

There would have been no need for a trial before Pilate. All that would have been required was for him to receive a request from the High Priests to execute a seditious peasant and Pilate would have signed it without a thought. Another one of these Passover trouble makers?....cross....done. If indeed Jesus had stirred up a big enough fuss to attract the personal attention of the Prelate, it still would have been a perfunctory affair. There is only one question which Pilate asks Jesus which appears in all four gospels. That is "Are you the King of the Jews?" And that is all that would have been of interest to Pilate. Everything else in the trial narratives are questions which interested the members of the cult 30 to 60 years later.

Consequently, I do not see much need to invent Judas or any special circumstances to place the blame on the Jews, the Sanhedrin definitely wanted Jesus executed. Paul, preaching to the gentiles of the Roman empire, had a strong need not to increase the appearance of Jewish guilt, but rather to decrease the appearance of Roman guilt. Under his influence, the story moves from Mark's account of Pilate simply honoring a tradition by offering to release a condemned criminal for Passover (There was no such tradition, Mark apparently invented it) through Mathew who enhances the story by adding the tale of Pilate's wife having a dream and warning Pilate not to have anything to do with this "innocent man", and Pilate washing his hands after reluctantly giving into the crowd and condemning Jesus. By the time of John, it has reached preposterous levels with Pilate evolving into a virtual attorney for Jesus, and not simply because he believes him innocent, but because he recognizes the divinity of the accused. When John's Pilate asks the crowd what shall he do with the King of the Jews, John has the crowd yelling "We have no King but Caesar!"

It was this need for cleansing the Romans leaving only the Jews responsible, which established the basis for a couple of thousand years of Christian hostility toward Jews.

The same sort of gospel to gospel modification process takes place in the story of Jesus meeting John the Baptist. There was a marketing problem because at the time of their meeting, John was famous and Jesus was an unknown. In the first gospel, Mark has John predicting that there will be one who follows him who is greater, but at no time in the narrative does Jesus get acknowledged by the Baptist as that greater one.

That wouldn't do, it had to be made clear that Jesus was John's superior.

So when Luke relates the tale, he has the heavens opening up and the voice of God provides a confirmation. And once more, by the time we reach John's gospel, the story has been modified beyond recognition. John does not baptize Jesus at all, he merely is there to announce that Jesus is the true Lord and Light and the incident is turned into a Messiah anointing.

It is from the writers of these clearly contradictory and self serving biographies of Jesus that we have the only evidence of a Jesus resurrection, and it comes in the form of a claim, with evolving details as each new gospel was produced.

To launch an argument which assumes the reality of the resurrection as a required element, is to plant your platform on quicksand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 03:45 AM
 
39,086 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5087
Very good and interesting post, but I don't want to to get too far off the topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,975 posts, read 18,573,926 times
Reputation: 18674
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Very good and interesting post, but I don't want to to get too far off the topic.
The foundation of the thesis being presented in this thread is an assumption of the legitimacy of the resurrection story. If it is found to be without credibility, then this entire debate is rendered instantly void.

Therefore an examination of the source being replied upon is a necessary first step, otherwise this discussion would be limited only to people who accept the resurrection as well established.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top