h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think we've already dealt with the 'Israel surrounded by enemies' and the self-fulfilling prophecy part of it's foundation.

This turning green is a new one so let's debunk that. Did you know Hippos used to graze The Thames river or that Elephants used to grave the lush verdant forests of the Mediterranean around Greece? One day you'll be going skiing off piste on the floor of The Mediterranean Sea.

A changing ecology is nothing new or surprising. It hardly amounts to a fulfilment prophecy and without knowing more about it I'd like to know what this greening is due to.
Lots and lots of planting perhaps? Prophetic gardening.


You do worship and bloody perverse god if he holds you accountable for my non belief.

There is only one thing you need to do to be ready for the EndTime and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. You must be born again.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203&version=31

<>

You've misunderstood. My responsibility is to warn you. Whether you take heed or not is not my responsibility.

Ezekiel 33:6
"But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood."

I see the sword coming. Many Christians will be killed prior to Jesus returning. But it will be those who don't believe in Jesus when he returns who will experience the wrath of God.

Your link does not say anything about the Dead Sea becoming freshwater, WG. And were is Russia mentioned in the Bible, please? Smells like more of your 'temple is being built' crap.

'I see the sword coming.'

Then show it to us. Take a picture of it. If your physical eye can detect the light reflected from this sword, is it possible, in principle, to construct an artificial device . . .


Why do you use the word 'see' when what you actually mean is something more like 'imagine' or 'perversely desire' or 'expect based on my prejudices'? You don't see a sword coming.

I'm afraid the Russia thing is the Book of Daniel rearing its ugly head again. The empires whose downfall are prophesied are represented by animals, one of which is a bear. So obviously it means Russia .

I guess it's good for Britain that there are no bulldogs in the Bible.


Does Daniel mention what the Beaver is going to be doing in the last days?

Obviously the beaver is already dammed...

Yes the damning of the beaver is a part of that old misogynistic doctrine of original sin.

Evidence for God's existence?

Well, believing in God must necessarily be a step of faith but there are certain pointers to help the naturally skeptical.

We exist. First there was nothing; then there was a big bang; then there is space and time. Breathing space therefore for consideration of the existence of something 'outside of our nature' bringing our nature into being.

DNA...a code or language. Do codes or languages originate spontaneously? Answer: 'no'. Therefore, breathing space for exploring the possibilty of a 'writer' or 'composer' of said code or language.

Someone is reported in history to have been raised from the dead! As an isolated incident this could and should be ignored as preposterous. However, the person in question appears, from the many records, to be morally superior to every other human; he comes across as having extraordinary influence and authority except, apparently, when arrested and crucified. Three days later he is seen alive. The disciples are transformed. NO BODY IS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM. More breathing space for consideration of God's existence.

Antitheists often complain that the existence of suffering negates any possibilty of God's existence. Well...the antitheist's point of view of human suffering must surely be that it is 'meaningless'. The issue of suffering is a problem for every worldview. The christian does not have all the answers. This does not disprove God's existence. The christian looks to Jesus life and ultimately to his crucifixion and resurrection, to find meaning, to see a God who cares and suffers and offers hope. This does not prove God's existence. Neither should it encourage the step of faith towards to atheism.

Postmodernists object to there being an objective, universal 'truth'. Truth, they say, is tinted by cultural spectacles; you have your truth, I have mine; because God cannot be empirically proven, he cannot possibly exist! Not my point of view...just as there are more wrong ways of doing a job than the correct way, I maintain that there must needs be ONE truth.

I could refer to WG's point about experience which is valid for giving more breathing space to the possibilty of there being a God.

Ultimately though, it will be a step of faith to believe in God, but I refute the allegation that it is 'lazy' thinking or akin to believing fairy stories.

Now, the purpose of this posting has not been to win an intellectual battle; that would be pointless. Intellectual bullying is blind to the truth because it is more concerned with winning an argument or saving face.

Must go now.

Mikey2

Equally the existance of the universe can if you accept the plain reality shown in the toss of a coin could be a 50/50 chance it wasnt created by an agent outside of itself.

A scientific speculation, which is what the big bang theory (based on the mathematical extrapolation of evidence available today), is saying we think this but we dont know does indeed leave the possiblity that it was something else that created all this.

You chose in a leap of faith to say it is the bigG based largely on a feeling you have inside and testimony of a single book of unverifiable provinence. The bible attests to its own accuracey but no other contemporary book or unbiased examiner does.

"Someone is reported in history to have been raised from the dead! As an isolated incident this could and should be ignored as preposterous. However, the person in question appears, from the many records, to be morally superior to every other human; he comes across as having extraordinary influence and authority except, apparently, when arrested and crucified. Three days later he is seen alive. The disciples are transformed. NO BODY IS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM. More breathing space for consideration of God's existence.

I suppoose you are going to provide physical proof that werewolves do not or did not roam the forests of central Europe????

You cant prove a negative, if I were to bring you a bunch of bones from a tomb in Israel that were carbon dated to about 2000 years old how would you prove that they werent the bones of a bloke from Nazareth called Jesus?

"The christian does not have all the answers. This does not disprove God's existence.

And without all the answers you cant prove it either.







"DNA...a code or language. Do codes or languages originate spontaneously? Answer: 'no'. Therefore, breathing space for exploring the possibilty of a 'writer' or 'composer' of said code or language.

We call DNA a code but that is not to same as saying it is the same as a code such as morse code. DNA is a real thing itself not a alternate form of another language each segment of which is an organic part of life which replecates itslf and creates separate cells within an organism.

As it is part of the natural world like the rest of the universe its mere exsitance is no proof positive of how it came to be...well atleast not yet.



"Antitheists often complain that the existence of suffering negates any possibilty of God's existence. Well...the antitheist's point of view of human suffering must surely be that it is 'meaningless'. The issue of suffering is a problem for every worldview.<book.

Some people may I havent seen anyone here claiming that. I tend to highlight suffering when people claim that the bigG is "loving" and is only does good things. I use suffering as proof that ***if*** there is a bigG he or she is nothing like some people claim him/her to be.

"The christian looks to Jesus life and ultimately to his crucifixion and resurrection, to find meaning, to see a God who cares and suffers and offers hope. This does not prove God's existence. Neither should it encourage the step of faith towards to atheism.

How very true, the thing is I dont base my atheism on this I base it on rationalism.



"Postmodernists object to there being an objective, universal 'truth'. Truth, they say, is tinted by cultural spectacles; you have your truth, I have mine; because God cannot be empirically proven, he cannot possibly exist! Not my point of view...just as there are more wrong ways of doing a job than the correct way, I maintain that there must needs be ONE truth.

Earlier in your last post you told us you dont know everything now you are claiming to know there "must" be a universal truth in not knowing everything do you think its possible you are wrong in this assertion. What evidence have you basd your conclusion on?




"I could refer to WG's point about experience which is valid for giving more breathing space to the possibilty of there being a God.

I could point to the experience of other people to give breathing space for the possibility of there being Alien abductions, A Zionist conspiracy, ghosts and the Royal family being shapeshifting lizards from a distsnt planet.

Given my own experience and investigation of other people's experiences Im much more willing o accept the conclusion that some people need to believe in all this bullshit and then need to convice other people its true. This mental condition as opposed to rationlism/empiriscism is not wrong per se but does lead you to some very screwed up and harmful choices.

Stalkers, gamblers and suicide bombers are the extreme manifestations of people who are moved to actions upon their unfounded and unproveable *feelings*. On a more mundane level we have people who are suspicious and unfriendly to "unbelievers" or who deny their children straighforward and safe life saving medical treatments.

You Mickey seem a nice guy and you are welcome to your beliefs whatever they may be. feel free to talk to others about them and even have a chat with me but dont tell me to live my life or tellothers they must die because you think you have some supernaturally revealed insight into this universal truth you claim must exist.

vive la difference one love

Hi BCR,

>mmmm... so beauty is not a reality?

It's not a physical reality. As I pointed out a few posts ago, there's a big difference between physical truths and emotional truths. If you're saying that 'sin' is a feeling in your mind - some sort of vague guilt, I imagine - then fine. But if you're saying that 'sin' is something physically real then you need to judge it by the same standards as any other physically real phenomenon.

Example: I don't feel that Sherlock Holmes would like gazpacho soup. Does that make it a reality?

Gif

Hi WG,

>in time God will provide proof. The problem is that by then it will be too late

Poor planning on God's part, no?

Ho hum, when I (along with the ~90% of all humans who have ever lived who never heard of Jesus) am burning forever in eternal damnation, it'll be good to know it was my own fault for not being as gullable as God wants.

And, in the highly likely event that you've picked the wrong religion, I'll see you there, eh?

>Salvation is through faith. Once God has proved he exists, which he will, it will no longer be possible for you to respond with faith to the gospel.

Oh dear. Poor Mikey. He's presented evidence for God. Therefore he bases his belief at least in part on evidence, not purely on faith, and it's no longer possible for him to respond with faith to the gospel. Man, it's gonna be crowded in Hell.

By the way, is the 'faith' you talk about above the same thing as the 'faith' that Mikey says is required to be an atheist?

>the dead sea where no living thing can survive becoming freshwater

Something else that has been planned for centuries and has not actually happened. And is not actually clearly mentioned in the Bible anyway.

>the collaboration of Russia and Iran (Persia), the rise of Europe and the decline of America

Could you please point to the Bible verse where Russia or America are mentioned? The 'rise of Europe' began quite a while back, no end of the world as yet...

>It is so apparent that the final seven years prophesied in Daniel 9:27 are about to begin, its 'spooky'
(From your link)

So the world will end by 2015, and if it doesn't then the Bible is clearly in error and we can discount Christianity as a valid world view, right?

>There is only one thing you need to do to be ready for the EndTime and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. You must be born again.

We've been here before too. I also need to obey the Law, and be predestined. I also can't be a hunchback, or be a dwarf, or have a blemish in my eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or have my 'stones broken' (though, oddly, it's best if I don't actually use my 'stones'). I also have to believe in Jesus and be 'born of water and the spirit' (that one's tough; I never drink mixers). I also need to give my money to the poor.

Gif

Hi Mikey,

Ah, a nice meaty post!

>We exist.

And as you well know, citing a creator simply begs the question of where the creator came from. Your logic calls for an infinte chain of cause and effect, not a first cause. Besides, in this post-quantum-theory age, we now know that things can come into existence without cause. We've been through this before. Several times. There is no evidence for God's existence here, as I assume you recognise from your curious 'breathing space' phrasing.

>DNA...a code or language. Do codes or languages originate spontaneously? Answer: 'no'. Therefore, breathing space for exploring the possibilty of a 'writer' or 'composer' of said code or language.

Did English originate spontaneously? If not, then who designed English? DNA is not a language, and shows every sign of having formed slowly from simpler precursors. It also differs from other codes and languages in that it is

>Someone is reported in history to have been raised from the dead! [...] the person in question appears, from the many records, to be morally superior to every other human; he comes across as having extraordinary influence and authority [...] NO BODY IS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM.

I'm confused. How do the claims of Mithras that you are refering to support the claims of Christianity? Oh, silly me, it's not Mithras you're talking about, is it?

It's clearly Horus.

>the antitheist's point of view of human suffering must surely be that it is 'meaningless'. The issue of suffering is a problem for every worldview.

You seem to have misunderstood. Non-theists do not think that something has to have meaning, therefore they have no problem with saying that suffering is 'meaningless'.

>the step of faith towards to atheism.

Not believing in something is not faith. Do you have faith in the non-existence of fairies or the FSM?

>the purpose of this posting has not been to win an intellectual battle

Then it has succeeded in abundance Sorry, could never resist a one-liner.

Gif

Since we seem to have the full quorum of theists at the moment, I'd like to throw this in for general discussion.

Is Christianity consistent?

I'm thinking of two things. First, the frequently-repeated claim that suffering is explained by free will. Let's leave aside philosophical issues on whether free will exists, or whether natural disasters are caused by free will. Something like the Holocaust does indeed appear to be a lot of unnecessary suffering caused by human free will. I've pointed out before that a God who is a loving parent ought to have intervened, but let's skip that as well.

The obvious question is why God didn't make people capable of free will but also with a personality that means that they would never want to do anythig evil. As far as I know, Christians are pretty much unanimous in their response that this is logically impossible, and God cannot do things that are logically impossible.

So far, so good.

But then does God have free will? In other words, does God do evil, or is God a mindless automaton?

Will we have free will in Heaven? If so, then presumably Heaven is no better or worse than Earth.



Then we are also told that we are 'made in God's image'. If we laugh at the idea of a God who literally looks like an old man with a white beard, we are told that we are being overly literal, and that it means that we are 'spiritually' like God.

Again, so far, so good.

But then we're also told that we are 'spiritually fallen', incapable of living decent lives without divine guidance and responsible for the horrible society that Christians seem to see around themselves. Is this compatible with us being 'spiritually in the image of God'? Is God capable of 'spiritually falling'? If not, why did he make us capable of falling?



And, as a final bonus - is salvation by faith alone, as WG has said, with proof denying faith? Or is there convincing evidence of God's existence which means we can use evidence and rational thought to conclude that God exists and/or that Jesus came back from the dead without needing faith? Do people who conclude rationally that Jesus is the son of God go to hell?

Gif

Hi Gif,

I've got a view about this exchange:

M: the antitheist's point of view of human suffering must surely be that it is 'meaningless'. The issue of suffering is a problem for every worldview.

G: You seem to have misunderstood. Non-theists do not think that something has to have meaning, therefore they have no problem with saying that suffering is 'meaningless'.

I want to say to that that suffering is meaningful. it's dreadful, it's terrible, it's wrong - these are values we might well espouse and in this sense suffering is not without meaning.

But I want to distinguish that from this view that says that life has to have meaning, and specifically any kind of divine purpose.

I think I'm on record in this thread of arguing that life is full of meaning, but that meaning like our gods is of our own creation and will not outlast us. Suffering, like starvation or war or disaster, if we chose to ignore it, is still there. It is just that we decide what meaning to assign to it. I think a truly responsible moral outlook would be one that acknowledges suffering. Suffering would then be meaningful but life still ultimately meaningless, and all still without invoking god.

AS ever mikey, you are so rude as to completely ignore hard points put to you, and just repeat yourself the same as ever.

Any sort of discussion is clearly utterly pointless.

What you call intellectual buullying is just normal mode of discourse on a thread based fundamentally on a familiarity with the basic ideas, you you are either utterly incapable of understanding or just can't be bothered to try to understand. You clearly have no intention of engaing with that. So I'm no longer wasting my time trying to engage you with ideas. But then christianitty has always fed on 'ignorance'.

I doubt you have won an intellectual battle in your life if your idea is to enter a discussion based on a certain premise, and utterly ignore that premise, but just instead repeat the same old thing endlessly, that is irrelevant to the discussion going on. But how typical of a Christian to assume when other people want to discuss interesting ideas at a deep level, rather than engaging with that discussion meaningfully, it is simply ignored and dismissed and described as intellectual bullying. What utter arrogance. Just the kind of thing Christians have been running around doing for 2000 years to cultures and people everywhere.

Like I said those few tribes left are indeed lucky to escape this mind raping disease.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/god-of-eth.html



I also reccommend this guy's book The Mind Gym - a very readable (and occasionally even funny) introduction to philosophy.

Gif

I'm sorry if I have gone a bit OTT with mikey, but he has completely ignored any of the points *I* put to him. I call that downright rudeness. I'm making no more excuses for this behaviour, but prefer calling a shovel of ****, a shovel of ****.