U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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)
 
Old 02-10-2018, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,560,010 times
Reputation: 6003

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Let me give a short view of how I see the OT and the creation of man as it might help you understand where I am coming from.
That was a lot of typing so thanks for sharing. I know it is intended as a kindness.

I have not been exposed before to the metaphor of Jesus casting a shadow from OT to NT in quite this form, it is usually said that Jesus is foreshadowed in the OT, not that he casts a shadow from it. I have always been very suspicious of the perceived fulfillment of OT predictions in Jesus. I note also that modern Jews find it by turns irritating and hilarious, as from their perspective this teaching represents a complete misrepresentation of their understanding of the Torah.

This business of things being veiled (it's veil, not vale, BTW, the latter is synonym for valley) has always been a red flag for me. Occult knowledge only for the initiates. Why would god find it necessary or helpful to hide in shadows, metaphors and symbols? I imagine that you see this as a feature rather than a bug, as it's in the service of some greater purpose to mature us into his image or some such. But when it comes to the supernatural, it must be ever seen only in the corner of one's eye, never full-on. As a predictable result, few believers agree what it is to BE a believer, and there are always plenty of unbelievers throwing up their hands in frustration because for some reason god can't simply put in an appearance and have a conversation about all this supposedly critical information he wants to impart.

 
Old 02-11-2018, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,357 posts, read 402,355 times
Reputation: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
According to you. Anthony Flew who knew the ins and outs of evolution far better then either of us or anyone else here on this form came to the conclusion via the evidence that there was a designer.
Cherry picked argument from authority. And his conclusion was based on him not understanding how life could arise. So an argument from ignorance.

Even great minds can make errors in logic, especially as they grow older.
 
Old 02-11-2018, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,560,010 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Cherry picked argument from authority. And his conclusion was based on him not understanding how life could arise. So an argument from ignorance.

Even great minds can make errors in logic, especially as they grow older.
In any case Flew endorsed a non-interventionist, Deist-style god that most of the fundamentalists crowing about his conversion would be utterly uncomfortable with. And it's the sort of god-belief I find as innocuous as it is inane ... given that there's no practical way to distinguish between an absent god, an indifferent god, and a non-existent god.

All Flew did was to wrongly identify an aspect of reality in which a first mover is a necessary entity, and then proceeded to imagine as minimalist a Being as possible to fulfill that role.
 
Old 02-11-2018, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,992,180 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
That was a lot of typing so thanks for sharing. I know it is intended as a kindness.

I have not been exposed before to the metaphor of Jesus casting a shadow from OT to NT in quite this form, it is usually said that Jesus is foreshadowed in the OT, not that he casts a shadow from it. I have always been very suspicious of the perceived fulfillment of OT predictions in Jesus. I note also that modern Jews find it by turns irritating and hilarious, as from their perspective this teaching represents a complete misrepresentation of their understanding of the Torah.


Well if they did not understand what the shadow pointed to, and obviously they did not where Christ is concerned, it is no wonder they get irritated and laugh when they see people using the OT to point to Christ.
You have read the NT, how many times do we see the writers there seemingly taking scripture out of context and using it to confirm Jesus as the Messiah.

This business of things being veiled (it's veil, not vale, BTW, the latter is synonym for valley) has always been a red flag for me.


The word is actually vail, not veil or vale


Occult knowledge only for the initiates. Why would god find it necessary or helpful to hide in shadows, metaphors and symbols? I imagine that you see this as a feature rather than a bug, as it's in the service of some greater purpose to mature us into his image or some such. But when it comes to the supernatural, it must be ever seen only in the corner of one's eye, never full-on. As a predictable result, few believers agree what it is to BE a believer, and there are always plenty of unbelievers throwing up their hands in frustration because for some reason god can't simply put in an appearance and have a conversation about all this supposedly critical information he wants to impart.


Do you think your dog understands relativity? would not matter how you tried to explain it to him he would have no clue about what you are saying.
Man because of the birth of Christ in him is a duel creature; one that is of the earth earthy and one that is of the spirit. one is of the carnal mind the other of the spiritual mind.
This is why Jesus said the Holy spirit would lead us into all truth. We simply cannot understand God with our carnal or animal minds we must rely solely on the leading of the Holy spirit.


reply in purple.
 
Old 02-11-2018, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,992,180 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Cherry picked argument from authority. And his conclusion was based on him not understanding how life could arise. So an argument from ignorance.

Even great minds can make errors in logic, especially as they grow older.

That's all you got he grew old and senile
 
Old 02-11-2018, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,992,180 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
In any case Flew endorsed a non-interventionist, Deist-style god that most of the fundamentalists crowing about his conversion would be utterly uncomfortable with. And it's the sort of god-belief I find as innocuous as it is inane ... given that there's no practical way to distinguish between an absent god, an indifferent god, and a non-existent god.

All Flew did was to wrongly identify an aspect of reality in which a first mover is a necessary entity, and then proceeded to imagine as minimalist a Being as possible to fulfill that role.

It is true Flew did not believe in the Christian God, but he did come to the conclusion from the evidence that there must be a designer of some type.
 
Old 02-12-2018, 05:43 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,357 posts, read 402,355 times
Reputation: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
That's all you got he grew old and senile
No, there was also the cherry picked argument from authority, and argument from ignorance.

You must have missed those bits.

And ! I never mentioned senile.

But then you did cherry pick someone unfortunate enough to seriously suffer from senility, as you theists frequently do. Because that is so much easier than actually looking at the evidence, isn't it.
 
Old 02-12-2018, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,357 posts, read 402,355 times
Reputation: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
It is true Flew did not believe in the Christian God, but he did come to the conclusion from the evidence that there must be a designer of some type.
He came to the conclusion from an argument from ignorance that there must be a designer of some type. The evidence for abiogenesis has moved on since then.
 
Old 02-12-2018, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,992,180 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
No, there was also the cherry picked argument from authority, and argument from ignorance.

You must have missed those bits.

And ! I never mentioned senile.

But then you did cherry pick someone unfortunate enough to seriously suffer from senility, as you theists frequently do. Because that is so much easier than actually looking at the evidence, isn't it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
He came to the conclusion from an argument from ignorance that there must be a designer of some type. The evidence for abiogenesis has moved on since then.

LOL your a hoot, it sure has moved on they found the big bang hypothesis had to many errors to be believed any longer and now hypothesis a multiverse, good grief,and this nonsense just to do away with a belief in God.
 
Old 02-13-2018, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,357 posts, read 402,355 times
Reputation: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
LOL your a hoot,
And that's your response to my refutation of the argument you made? But why the evasion, you just gave me three more arguments to refute.

One.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
it sure has moved on they found the big bang hypothesis had to many errors to be believed any longer
Strange, the latest research has refined the Hubble constant, which along with red shifting galaxies supports the big bang. I don't know where you found your argument, but it certainly isn't scientific.

Two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
and now hypothesis a multiverse, good grief,
The multiverse doesn't replace the big bang, it supports it. The multiverse hypothesis states there may be more than one universe, each of which probably underwent a big bang of it's own.

Three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
and this nonsense just to do away with a belief in God.
Stop misrepresenting the science. The theories are not there just to do away with your or any other god. The originator of the big bang theory was a Catholic priest, for goodness sake.

And the big bang theory is based on the large amount of evidence we have. Nor would it remove the need for a god. So your making no sense here.

As for the multiverse theory, it was created because the 'some god did it' hypothesis has no scientific evidence for it. Therefore we need to rationally ask why the universe is fine tuned enough for us to exist. And the most rational explanation is that there are other universe.

And do we have evidence for it? Yes, our universe. LaPlace’s Rule of Succession tells us the probability of an event occurring again after seeing it happen once is (s+1) / (n+2) = 2/3. That is a 67% chance that there are other universes.

As only universes fine tuned by chance would be capable to hold life, then any life in those universes would naturally see a fine tuned universe. That's why the argument from fine tuning is an actually argument for the multiverse.

And as no one has provided a credible, scientific answer as to why other universes should not exist, 67% is still a greater probability than the idea that some most complex intelligence who just happened to exist (a most improbable hypothesis) spoke the universe into being.
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.


Closed Thread

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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