I do not believe in it. If you are talking about "unchanging kinds" with regards to vestigial legs in humans/whales, then i'll say that theory only comes from the evolusionist camp. Ther are no vestigial legs at all. Its just copulatory guide for holding on during intercourse and those of whales were possibly adapted for claspers during mating.

According to scriptures, there are close related land mamals whose viscera are same. They need these for the close related lifestyles they live. It still doesnt proove beyond that that they eveolved from 1 generic beign. What the proponents of such theory fail to tell us is that the viscera of all animals are almost alike just that some features are prominent and adapted for certian purpose/lifestyles.

layi:

I do not believe in it. If you are talking about "unchanging kinds" with regards to vestigial legs in humans/whales, then i'll say that theory only comes from the evolusionist camp. Ther are no vestigial legs at all. Its just copulatory guide for holding on during intercourse and those of whales were possibly adapted for claspers during mating.

You are beyond redemption, layi
See
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/introduction.html
for the evolution of whales

layi:

According to scriptures, there are close related land mamals whose viscera are same. They need these for the close related lifestyles they live. It still doesnt proove beyond that that they eveolved from 1 generic beign. What the proponents of such theory fail to tell us is that the viscera of all animals are almost alike just that some features are prominent and adapted for certian purpose/lifestyles.

What's the relevance of this?

layi:

@Ijebuman
Did Bible Writers believe the earth was flat?

No—this false idea is not taught in Scripture!

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space—the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. Some people may have thought the earth was flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving.
<snip>

so please explain the following quotes

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

layi:

Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly.

Which means everything in the Bible is subject to different interpretations like any other historical document that was translated and passed down from previous generations.
So quoting the verses in the Bible to justify the end of the world is no different from someone quoting the letters of Nostradamus http://skepdic.com/nostrada.html predicting the end of the world. They can both be twisted to suit any arguement.

layi:

When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.

Scientific errors in the Bible
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/discrepancies/scientific-errors/

@nferyn
Of what relevance? U might have to ignore that then..i can't put it better.Sayin i'm beyond redemption isnt a big deal...because i've always thought u are. Tit 4 tat.


@ijebuman
Its useless explaining scriptural quotes to non christians because it takes more that grammar to understand the scriptures. 1 is the context in which it was written and secondly is the Spirit's inspiration (or better put revelation) which enlightens you and even makes u see beyond the words.

No one is disputing the facts that LadyC put down.

layi:

@nferyn
Of what relevance? U might have to ignore that then..i can't put it better.Sayin i'm beyond redemption isnt a big deal...because i've always thought u are. Tit 4 tat.

Obviously this redemption thing was meant as a joke.
And yes, I really didn't understand the purpose of the second paragraph. the similarities accross [i]kinds [/i]are more of an indication for evolution than for seperate creation.

goodguy:

No one is disputing the facts that LadyC put down.

We already did that in a few other threads, https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-3330.0.html among others>

layi:

@ijebuman
Its useless explaining scriptural quotes to non christians because it takes more that grammar to understand the scriptures. 1 is the context in which it was written and secondly is the Spirit's inspiration (or better put revelation) which enlightens you and even makes u see beyond the words.

@@layi
you're so funny, non christain call me whatever you want, i choose to believe in a higher power (not a christain God or a Muslim Allah) . I refuse to tie myself to any religion and engage in a competition over whose religion is the best.

"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough". - Aldous Huxley

@nferyn
I knew it was a joke. U saw d icon.

All i've got to say about Evolution is that GOD started it all. He allowed adaptation but not complete change to an entirely different animal. I do not believe all animals evolved from 1


@ijebuman
Non christian isnt an insult. Neither is it derogatory to me. I do not belong to any religious sect as well. U took this personal because the Huxley quote really should not have come in here. I've never debated for supremacy. we are only unissuing issues (like i always said).
Omo Ijebu remi wa. She a jo je omo iya

layi:

@nferyn
All i've got to say about Evolution is that GOD started it all. He allowed adaptation but not complete change to an entirely different animal. I do not believe all animals evolved from 1

Obviously not all animals evolved from one. Our mitochondria are an example of a merge of a single celled organism (a bacterium) into the cells of a multi-celled organism. There are also traces of viral DNA in our genome. At the beginning of life, you cannot look at evolution as a tree, but rather as a bush with many interwining branches.

See: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_24

layi:

Non christian isnt an insult. Neither is it derogatory to me. I do not belong to any religious sect as well. U took this personal because the quote really should have been because i've never debated for supremacy. we are only unissuing issues (like i always said). Om iya ni wa o

didn't take it as an insult, we've been on the same side on some issues and today we're on different sides, doesn't change a thing

layi:

Om iya ni wa o

of course

Everyday, I see on CNN newsbar about catastrophic things. These are pure signs.

I don't see how that thread disputes my previous post. Also, not being a Christian does not automatically mean you are somehow enlightened, as many seem to believe nowadays. Christianity makes a lot of sense. Here's why. We all have a sense of right and wrong. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to say something is “fair” or “unfair”. The question is where does this sense of right and wrong come from?

Some say the sense of right and wrong is just a cultural norm. But why do the different cultures agree so much on what is right and wrong? Doesn't that hint at some kind of baseline standard?

Some say our ideas of right and wrong are merely social conventions. But, social conventions (e.g., manner of dress) usually differ widely among cultures and time periods. Our ideas of right or wrong have not. Although there have been differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, those differences don’t vary all that much. This hints at a common standard. By the way, it’s important to distinguish between differences in morality and differences in fact. For instance, putting witches to death in England hundreds of years ago because of their evil powers might be seen as bad now. But, we might still do it today if we actually believed witches were that powerful and used those powers for evil.

Some say this sense of right and wrong is just an instinct that’s been developed over time. But, the sense of right and wrong is beyond mere instinct. It tells us which instinct is the right one to follow. For instance, let’s say we see someone on the train tracks while a train is fast approaching. One instinct (the herd instinct) urges you to help the person. Another instinct (self-preservation) urges you to stay away from the tracks so you don’t get hit. Now, you have two instincts competing inside you. But, then a third thing tells you that the instinct to help is the right one. Likewise, the instinct to fight can be either good or bad, depending on the situation. The instinct to help can be either good or bad, depending on the situation. Something above the instincts guides us in determining when it would be right or wrong to fight or to help.

Some say the concept of right or wrong comes from what we think is good for society as a whole. If someone asked you what the point of behaving decently is even if behaving decently might not personally benefit him or her, it is not helpful to say in order to benefit society. Because, trying to benefit society - in other words being unselfish - is one of the things that is part of decent behavior. All you’re really saying is the point of behaving decently is in order to behave decently. The idea that behaving decently is good must come from something else. 

What I’m leading to is that this inherent sense of right and wrong (moral law) must come from Something. Something is directing the universe and appears to urge us to do right and make us feel responsible and uncomfortable when we do wrong. It is more like a Mind because mere matter is not likely to be giving us instructions. From the moral law this Mind has put into our minds, we can conclude that this Mind is good. But that doesn't mean this Mind is soft or indulgent because the moral law isn't soft or indulgent. It tells us to do the right thing, no matter how painful or dangerous or difficult it is to do. This Mind is absolute goodness but we are not. If this Mind is purely impersonal, there is no sense in asking “It” to make any allowances for when we are not good. 

It is after you've realized that there is a real moral law and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power, that Christianity begins to make sense. Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness.  Christianity offers an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. It offers an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind behind the moral law and yet also a Person. Christianity tells you how the demands of this moral law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf; how God himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God.

What I’ve posted is, for the most part, from the book called Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (who used to be an atheist, but became a Christian). What I've said here doesn't even begin to cover what the book covers on Christianity. Please take a look at it. Even if you think that Christianity is not the only way or you're not “religious” at all, what if you're wrong? Be open-minded to the possibility of being wrong now while you have the chance to do something about it, rather than later (after death) when it’s too late.

Hi LadyC,

I guess you're addressing me, so I'll take the bait.

That thread indeed wasn't, but I seem unable to find the one with the argument. I'll have to redo my stuff

That's quite an impressive argument you've put up. Unfortunately it is full of logical errors and a lot of a priori's. Even though you can maintain a belief in a supreme being on logical grounds, it is impossible to do so for the God of the Bible. Anyway, preparing a rebuttal of your argument is going to take some time, so allow me to answer you this evening or some time tomorrow.

Regards

What's wrong with a priori knowledge? Common sense is based on a priori knowledge.

LadyC:

I don't see how that thread disputes my previous post. Also, not being a Christian does not automatically mean you are somehow enlightened, as many seem to believe nowadays. Christianity makes a lot of sense. Here's why. We all have a sense of right and wrong. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to say something is “fair” or “unfair”. The question is where does this sense of right and wrong come from?

Never did I say that not being Christian makes one automatically enlightened. I am yet to see the first person that claims such a thing. Anyway, atheism does not imply a specific worldview. It is just the absence of a God belief. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no moral implications to being atheist, neither positive, nor negative.
The differences among atheists are wide and large.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair once said that

Organizing atheists is like hurding cats

Contrary to what CS Lewis thinks, his analogies on morality do not imply the existence of a Christian God.

It is not true that everybody knows what is right and wrong. This differs between cultures and over time. This (rather volatile) sense of right and wrong is an evolutionary implication of language and living in cooperative groups of humans. Anthropology and Sociobiology define this phenomenon as reciprocal altruism.

Of course, you cannot fault CS Lewis for not being aware of this research as it is fairly recent, but in this day and age anyone researching the origins of morality should be aware of it. The current usage of this argument from objective morality is very similar to creationists talking aout Darwin's Theory of Evolution without looking at the additions and refinements that have been made to the theory since.

LadyC:

Some say the sense of right and wrong is just a cultural norm. But why do the different cultures agree so much on what is right and wrong? Doesn't that hint at some kind of baseline standard?

See above. And no, they do not agee as much on this as you may think. Practices such as about culturally sanctioned polygamy, infanticide, cannibalism, wife beating, self mutilation, castration, incest and war do exist. There is very litle common ground between cultures regarding this. On top of this our morality has evolved considerably over time, as our attitude towards slavery shows.

LadyC:

Some say our ideas of right and wrong are merely social conventions. But, social conventions (e.g., manner of dress) usually differ widely among cultures and time periods. Our ideas of right or wrong have not. Although there have been differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, those differences don’t vary all that much.

As I pointed out, they do vary significantly and they are not mere social conventions, but rather biological imperatives that are necessary for our survival as a species. Since the development of large, organised, technologically more advances societies, our moral codes have evolved and do include several cultural adaptations, just look at the moral imperatives of the Bible (especially the old testament) and compare that to our current moral stance. The roots of our morality have not changed though and that's why current morality regularly clashes with the uglier parts of our human nature.

LadyC:

This hints at a common standard. By the way, it’s important to distinguish between differences in morality and differences in fact. For instance, putting witches to death in England hundreds of years ago because of their evil powers might be seen as bad now. But, we might still do it today if we actually believed witches were that powerful and used those powers for evil.

No, we would certainly not do such thing nowadays, as our standards for evidence have drastically changed. The witch hunts were a political tool, used by the church to get rid of independent thinkers (usually women who practiced herbal medicine) and at the same time appropriating their posessions. You should really read a bit more about that period. Very intresting.

LadyC:

Some say this sense of right and wrong is just an instinct that’s been developed over time. But, the sense of right and wrong is beyond mere instinct. It tells us which instinct is the right one to follow. For instance, let’s say we see someone on the train tracks while a train is fast approaching. One instinct (the herd instinct) urges you to help the person. Another instinct (self-preservation) urges you to stay away from the tracks so you don’t get hit. Now, you have two instincts competing inside you. But, then a third thing tells you that the instinct to help is the right one. Likewise, the instinct to fight can be either good or bad, depending on the situation. The instinct to help can be either good or bad, depending on the situation. Something above the instincts guides us in determining when it would be right or wrong to fight or to help.

That's why situational ethics, combined with utilitarianism is a better proposition than rigid carved in stone moral laws. Anyway, it is not either/or. Instinct is part of the equation, but not the only element.

LadyC:

Some say the concept of right or wrong comes from what we think is good for society as a whole. If someone asked you what the point of behaving decently is even if behaving decently might not personally benefit him or her, it is not helpful to say in order to benefit society. Because, trying to benefit society - in other words being unselfish - is one of the things that is part of decent behavior. All you’re really saying is the point of behaving decently is in order to behave decently. The idea that behaving decently is good must come from something else.

I have already explained where it comes from. I don't think there are very many people that use what is good for society as a guiding norm. Those that do, are rationalising their behaviour post factum. If you take a hunter gatherer group as unit of analysis though, there is definitely a benefit in working for the best interests of the group even though you may not directly benefit from it.

LadyC:

What I’m leading to is that this inherent sense of right and wrong (moral law) must come from Something. Something is directing the universe and appears to urge us to do right and make us feel responsible and uncomfortable when we do wrong.

This is sloppy thinking, based on false premisses. Even under the assumption that this objective morality would exist, you cannot draw such a conslusion. It is an argument from ignorance: if I cannot conceive any source for it, it must [/i]come from God. There is an evolutionary source for our morality.

LadyC:

It is more like a Mind because mere matter is not likely to be giving us instructions.

Matter can definitely [i]give instructions, as the mind is nothing but matter. Again, CS Lewis could not have been aware of current research in neurology, but you shouldn't dig up this argument in view of our current scientific knowledge.

LadyC:

From the moral law this Mind has put into our minds, we can conclude that this Mind is good.

How can you conclude that? And what mind are you talking about? the similarities in our moralities (even though they are far fewer than you assume) are caused by the wiring in our brains: part is genetical, part is developmental biology and part is culture.

LadyC:

But that doesn't mean this Mind is soft or indulgent because the moral law isn't soft or indulgent. It tells us to do the right thing, no matter how painful or dangerous or difficult it is to do. This Mind is absolute goodness but we are not. If this Mind is purely impersonal, there is no sense in asking “It” to make any allowances for when we are not good.

This makes absolutely no sense. this Mind you are talking about does not exist as a separate entity and your deductions are not based on any solid data.

LadyC:

It is after you've realized that there is a real moral law and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power, that Christianity begins to make sense.

Your premisses are incorrect. That Power is a non-entity unless you start from the assumption that a supreme being exists. And even then you cannot deduce that Christianity uniquely makes sense, any supreme being - even the infamous[i] flying spaghetti monster[/i] makes sense in that unsubstantiated context.

LadyC:

Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. Christianity offers an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating gyoodness and loving it. It offers an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind behind the moral law and et also a Person. Christianity tells you how the demands of this moral law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf; how God himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God.

Yes it gives [b]an [/b]explanation of morality from incorrect assumptions and premisses. [b]Any [/b]internally consistent value system can do that. And to be quite honest, Christianity isn't even internally consistent

LadyC:

What I’ve posted is, for the most part, from the book called Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (who used to be an atheist, but became a Christian).

CS lewis never really was a conscient atheist. He was an weak agnostic atheist that was unimpressed with the tales coming from the main religions. His Christanity has also never been fundamentalist, as he did not believe in the infallibility of the Bible as God's word and certainly wouldn't fall for any end-times prophecies.

LadyC:

What I've said here doesn't even begin to cover what the book covers on Christianity. Please take a look at it. Even if you think that Christianity is not the only way or you're not “religious” at all, what if you're wrong? Be open-minded to the possibility of being wrong now while you have the chance to do something about it, rather than later (after death) when it’s too late.

I could certainly be wrong, but I have not even seen [b]one [/b]convincing argument in favor of Christianity. CS Lewis will only appeal to Christians that need strenghtening of their faith and do not bother to look into the latest scientific findings as a source for their knowledge, but rather use the comfortable blanket of superstition and faith.
As a sidenote, from the properties of God: onmiscient, onnipotent and omnibenevolent, I cannot draw but two conclusions, either:
1. I will go to heaven, regardles of my disbelief
2. God is internally contradictory and thus doesn't exist

LadyC:

What's wrong with a priori knowledge? Common sense is based on a priori knowledge.

A priori, there's nothing wrong with a priori arguments, but you cannot use them to prove something if this something needs these a priori arguments to start with.
Anyway, common sense is [b]wrong [/b]in very many instances, especially when it comes to science. there is nothing common sense about the Theory of Evolution. That's probably why so many gullible people reject it even without looking at the evidence in it's favour.

You posted: "Even though you can maintain a belief in a supreme being on logical grounds, it is impossible to do so for the God of the Bible." Here’s one argument.

In the universe, there must exist a first cause by which no cause precedes it. There must exist an uncaused cause. Let’s call this uncaused cause “God.” God must be by definition eternal, else God would need a cause also. All finite, changing things that exist need causes. To say "well then what caused God" assumes that God is a finite, changing thing. God, if He exists, must be infinite and unchanging else we are left with an infinite regress, which is a philosophical absurdity. The uncaused cause therefore cannot be temporal. Anything that is actually eternal by definition cannot have a cause. The question “who caused God” becomes an absurdity if applied to an eternal being. So, if God is eternal, then He doesn’t need a cause (in fact, he can’t possibly have a cause or he’s not eternal).  Therefore, if the universe is created then its creator must be eternal else He would be part of the universe and would need a cause like everything else.

God must also have existence outside of time, else he would be part of the measurable universe, hence temporal and finite (and also requiring a cause). Time, by definition, is a measurement of change. If something does not change, then it exists beyond time. All that changes has causes for those changes. If God exists fully within time, then time itself becomes greater than God, and God becomes a limited, temporal contingent being precluding Him from being the uncaused first cause. The only way God could be the first eternal, uncaused cause, is for His existence to be unlimited by time, therefore ultimately impervious and transcendent of time. But if God is impervious to time, then He is immutable. So right off the bat, God must possess at least these two qualities: eternality and immutability. Just knowing these two attributes alone, we can eliminate millions upon millions of potential gods!! Gods such as Shiva, Vishnu, and Ra are not immutable. Gods such as Aphrodite and Poseidon are finite. In fact, all Greek gods are finite and mutable. Therefore, we can conclude that if God exists, he cannot be any of the Greek gods. Based upon just these two qualities alone, eternality and immutability, we can logically eliminate whole religions as being false. Buddhism, for example, goes out the door – and along with it, all the Baddisatvahs and the eight-fold path. A logical person would at minimum reject any god that does not possess at least these two qualities. 

It is obvious that any being that is eternal and immutable with enough knowledge to create a vastly complex universe must be highly intelligent. Highly is a serious understatement. From the tiniest particles to vast galaxies, the pure, raw intelligence that this being must possess is something that is utterly incomprehensible. He must also be extremely powerful.  This universe is awesome in its scope and magnificence. A weak being could not create such a tremendous place. But it doesn’t stop there.

This universe is not only complex, but is also sentient. You and I right now are living, breathing, sentient beings possessing emotion and awareness of our existence. A being that is eternal, immutable, highly intelligent, and extremely powerful that creates sentient beings must also be a sentient being. How could a creator create something greater than himself? NO matter how a big a robot one makes, it will still be lesser than the smallest sentient being. If god was impersonal “force”, from what part of that “force” came the intelligence to create a universe? From what part of that “force” came the ability to create sentience and self-awareness? From what part of that “force” comes the laws of physics, logic, music, hope, joy, human will? It is highly illogical to say “If god exists, then he is an unintelligent, weak impersonal being.” This is utter nonsense. Therefore, we can reject any impersonal, weak, or unintelligent view of God. There go religions such as Taoism and Confucianism. Say goodbye to Animism and all of its basic variants.

Furthermore, we can reason that God, who must be immutable, transcendent, intelligent, powerful, eternal and moral must also be infinite in his existence, else his existence would be limited. Any limiting factor on God’s existence makes him weak and dependent upon something else. Yet, if God is infinite, then He must be alone, for there cannot be two separate infinite beings – this is a philosophical absurdity as they would limit each other. And any infinite being must by definition be fully sovereign and in absolute control over all that exists. Farewell to Baha’i and Zoroaster. You can chuck aside Hinduism and all of its nearly one billion gods. They all go down the drain.  So long to Jainism and the endless brooms. Adios amigos. We can continue the process of deduction; that is, the process of eliminating potential gods as being false because they do not possess the necessary attributes of the true God. But there is a better way, rather than deducing gods from the ground up, we should begin at the top down.

Simply ask the question, “What is the greatest possible being?” This is the question asked in the ontological argument for the existence of God first posed by St. Anslem of Canterbury in the 11th Century A.D. Anslem asks what is the greatest, most perfect notion the mind can conceive of. The human mind can conceive of such a thing that no greater thing can be conceived, which means that no other thing can be considered greater than that thing. Such a thing would be powerful indeed, for its attributes would be infinite in scope.

We could imagine a being of unlimited power, knowledge, sentience, love, perfection, etc. Without repeating the ontological argument, it is important to note that the greatest possible conceivable being is a God with infinite attributes, who is eternal, immutable, perfect, etc. Now, let me ask, of all the possible gods out there, how many fit this description? The answer is only one: the Judeo-Christian God. No other God possesses the attributes of the greatest possible being, and if it did, it would merely be a “nickname” for the real God. Let me explain: Who is Norma Jean Baker? Who is Marilyn Monroe? Both are the same person. Norma Jean is fully Marilyn Monroe and Marilyn Monroe is fully Norma Jean. You can call Marilyn anything you like – you can even call her a unicorn if you want, so long as that unicorn is described as a famous blonde actress born June 1, 1926 in LA and died August 4, 1962. But whatever title you place on her, it has no effect on who she is. She remains regardless of the “name” you place on her. Atheists often compare God to a unicorn or leprechaun, an unbelievably weak argument. Let’s analyze the common atheist unicorn example:
Take an invisible pink unicorn
Give it eternality
Give it infinite power
Give it infinite knowledge
Give it complete sovereignty
Make it morally perfect
Make it loving
Make it the ultimate creator of the universe
Does it still look like a unicorn? It is now beginning to look exactly like the Judeo Christian God. It is no longer a unicorn at all. It is now the Biblical God. This argument is the same for anything.
Take an empty diet Dr. Pepper can.
Make it weigh 205 pounds.
Make it 6’3” tall
Give it human properties; strip away its metallic properties
Convert all non-life material to living material
Make it a male
Make him 29 years old
Give him a certain DNA makeup
Make him a professional baseball player
Make him the 1997 AL MVP
Well, at this point that soda can is beginning to look remarkably like Ken Griffey, Jr. If we give the soda can just a few more attributes, then we no longer have a separate entity – we just have a self-styled nickname for Ken Griffey Jr.

The greatest possible being is God. All other gods (such as Ra, Shiva, etc.) possess inferior attributes to the greatest possible being. Therefore, they are false. Any so called “unicorn” or other “god” that possess attributes identical to the greatest possible being is no longer a unicorn, but God.

Source: Unknown

This is in response to your other two posts in reply to my post. The statement that “not being a Christian does not automatically mean you are somehow enlightened” was meant to be a general one, not directed at you particularly. The absence of a God belief implies a specific worldview. Your worldview is that there is no God and that the world came about in another way. Reciprocal altruism is not a full explanation. There are abundant examples of times humans have helped each other not expecting anything in return from those they have helped. It’s possible that in your own life, you can name an incident where you’ve helped someone not expecting anything in return from them. And these acts are seen as good. Something Else is telling us these acts are good, not the theory of reciprocal altruism (since these acts do not fall in line with the theory).

Who is to say that there weren’t those within those cultures who thought those acts (e.g., cannibalism, incest) were wrong? Just because people have a sense of right and wrong does not mean that they will follow it. It is possible that there were some within the culture that realized that polygamy, cannibalism, etc. were wrong. An example is slavery. Some people (abolitionists) realized that slavery was wrong when it was going on. Some might have thought it wasn’t wrong at all but that was most likely influenced by the financial benefits they gained from ignoring that sense of right and wrong. Another example is the Holocaust. There were some in Germany who realized it was wrong and helped the Jews hide. Just because people know what is right does not mean they will follow through with it.

And if they happen to think that what they are doing is right for one reason or another (for a reason that we now find is erroneous), that points to a belief about a matter of fact not a belief about morality. If we were in their position with the same limited knowledge, we might do the same thing if we felt it was right. To say we wouldn’t do it now is an advance in knowledge not an advance in morality.

By the way, war can be right or wrong, depending on the situation, e.g., the war against Hitler (helped to stop the Holocaust) or the U.S. Civil War (helped to end slavery). Our sense of right and wrong tells us when it is right or wrong to fight, and that sense of right and wrong cannot merely be explained by cultural norms, social conventions, instinct, reciprocal altruism, etc. as mentioned in my second to last post and above.

You posted: “If you take a hunter gatherer group as unit of analysis though, there is definitely a benefit in working for the best interests of the group even though you may not directly benefit from it.” Obviously, there is an incentive to work for the best interests of the group in that setting because you might directly benefit. What about situations where putting the interests of the group before your own actually hurt you? For example, in a hostage crisis, someone volunteers to stay so that others may be released. Where is the benefit then? And yet people out there do selfless acts everyday. Reciprocal altruism does not explain that behavior. And the theory that it is in our genetics to behave in a selfless way just doesn’t grab me. And, I already mentioned in this post and my second to last post why culture doesn’t fully explain our morality.

As I have already written about reciprocal altruism, instinct, social norms, etc., evolutionary sources fail to completely explain morality.  There must be something else, and I choose to call that “something else” God. Other people call that something else by different names. I do want to add the following quote. 

“It should be noted that attempts to answer questions about non-repeatable events (e.g., how the universe came about) are not classic science. The scientific method relies on the ability to try something repeatedly in order to determine how it happens. A knowledge of science can be used as evidence in the case, but whether a reported past event did or did not take place is ultimately not a scientific question (until someone invents a time machine). There are other disciplines whose methods are devoted to finding the truth about past events: history, forensics, archaeology. Science tells us that dead people do not come back to life once a certain level of decay has set in, and our best model, the Law of Entropy, makes the odds against this ever happening or ever having happened astronomical. History tells us that several people have in fact come back to life - even after 3 or 4 days of decay at Middle Eastern temperatures. [For that to happen, it would be called a miracle.] Science tells us that dead matter does not spontaneously spring to life [evolution], and the Law of Entropy makes the odds against this ever happening or ever having happened astronomical. [This (evolution) would also be a miracle.] History, to my knowledge, makes no mention of this ever happening either.” Source: http://gathman.org/class/design/cure.html

The above quote leads to the conclusion that science can neither prove the evolutionary worldview nor the “God as creator” worldview. The believers of either worldview rely on faith, coupled with looking at the scientific and historical (including archaeology) support around them. I believe there is more scientific and historical evidence that God is responsible for the universe than evolution, but I’m not going to delve into it here. Anyone who is interested can search on www.google.com using the search terms intelligent design and creationism. You can also check out www.creationism.org.

I disagree that the mind is nothing but matter. The mind is more than just matter. How do you think the quote “mind over matter” came about? The following definitions are from www.dictionary.com. Matter is defined as “something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.” Mind is defined as “the human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.” Mind is more than just matter. Matter is just there, occupying space. Mind is matter but also has the ability to perceive matter.

For the later arguments in your post which are based on your earlier arguments, I believe I’ve already addressed them by pointing to the flaws in your earlier arguments with my previous posts and with this post.

Christianity does require faith. But, it is also supported by reason, science, fulfilled prophecy, and archaeology. To those interested, you can do a search on www.google.com, using the words in the preceding sentence and “Christianity” as search terms. You can also check out http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com.

You’re likely to post a rebuttal. And this back and forth posting could go on for a long while. But, life is short, and I just don’t have the energy and time for a posting war. If you still feel the same way, we can just agree to disagree. And the below quote does make me wonder whether there’s a reason some people are so against Christianity. It may or may not be true, but it certainly makes me wonder.

“While Christianity should not be completely explainable by sociobiology, there are certain aspects of Christian truth that are quite compatible with it. I have always been amazed by the curious similarity between the biblical description of the natural man or the desires of the flesh, and the nature of man according to evolutionary principles. Both perceive man as a selfish creature at heart, looking out for his own interests. It is not ‘natural’ for a man to be concerned for the welfare of others unless there is something in it for him. Sociobiology seems to be quite capable of predicting many of the characteristics of human behavior. Scripture, on the other hand, informs us that the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit, that they are foolishness to him (1 Cor. 2:14). I have wondered if our sin nature is somehow enveloped by biology, or, to be more specific, genetics. Could it be that some genetic connection to our sin nature at least partially explains why ‘there is none righteous, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God’ (Rom. 3:10,11)? Does a genetic transmission of a sin nature help explain why ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23)? Is this why salvation can only be through faith, that it is not of ourselves but is a gift of God, not a result of works (Eph. 2:8, 9)? Is this why the flesh continues to war in our bodies so that we do the thing which we do not want to do, why nothing good dwells in me, and why the members of my body wage war against the law of my mind (Rom. 7:14-25)? If there is a genetic component to our sin nature, it seems reasonable to assume that only the Spirit of God can overcome the desires of the flesh and that this struggle will continue in the believer until he or she is changed, until we see God face to face (1 Cor. 13:12; 15:50-58).” Source: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/sociobio.html

Now, back to the purpose of this thread – discussing the end times. In addition to the very first message I posted on this thread, here’s more on fulfilled signs.

According to the Bible, in the last days, the most important city in the world would be Jerusalem. The prophet Zechariah said that in the last days, the whole world would unite against Israel over the question of ownership of the city (Zechariah 12). That conflict, according to the prophet Daniel, would rage until a prince of the revived Roman Empire came on the scene, and – according to Daniel 9:27 – "confirms a covenant" between Israel and her many enemies for one "week" (seven years). Daniel 2:41 says the revived Roman empire will be like iron mixed with clay, partly strong and partly weak, "but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." This empire will initially be ruled by 10 "kings," (Daniel 7:24) and, ultimately, "another" that "shall rise after them." That "other" is the Beast of Revelation 13, often referred to as the "antichrist."

There are, today, two distinct and separate entities that make up the Greater European Union. The European Union as it exists today consists of 25 member states and counting. It was created under the authority of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The other Europe is the Western European Union, or the WEU. The WEU was, according to its website, "created by the Treaty on Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self-Defence signed at Brussels on 17 March 1948." It went dormant in 1973, but was reactivated as Europe's collective security arm under the authority of the Rome Declaration in 1984. The same meeting decided to open negotiations with Portugal and Spain regarding their accession to the modified Brussels Treaty. Those countries formally became full members of WEU on March 27, 1990. Earlier agreements called for the Western European Union to merge with the EU and was scheduled to be completed in 2000. But the WEU is very much alive and appears more to be in a state of revival than shutdown, with most of Europe's military planning concentrated in the hands of the WEU's constituent cells. The WEU is broken down into membership tiers: full members, associate members, observer countries and associate partner countries. In all, the WEU consists of 28 nations, but only 10 are full member countries. All 10 full members of the Western European Union are, as a condition of membership, part of both the EU and NATO. Although they are two distinct entities with different member states and different responsibilities, both are under the control of one man, Javier Solana, former NATO secretary-general and currently serving as both secretary-general of the WEU and the European Union's first constitutional foreign minister and sole spokesman for the Council of the European Union. Before anybody quotes me as saying Javier Solana is the antichrist, I don't know who the antichrist is, and I really don't care. What is relevant is that there exists, at this point in human history, a 10-core nation European defense collective consisting of the richest and most powerful nations in Europe. Javier Solana's dual role establishes the office of Head Guy Over All Of Europe – if it isn't Solana, the precedent has been established. There is also a Jewish state called "Israel," reborn after two millennia on the same piece of land from which they were exiled, that emerged on the world stage at precisely the same point in history – 1948. Since 1948, Israel has been locked in an unending series of wars with the many Arab states on all sides that are dedicated to her destruction. On Sept. 13, the Oslo Accords were signed, setting in motion a three-stage land-for-peace formula between Israel and the Palestinians. The agreement was to have culminated seven years after it was signed with an agreement "on the final status of Jerusalem." That seven-year covenant failed and brought on what Israel calls the "Oslo War," which then brought Europe into the equation via the Quartet for Peace. All of this has placed Europe over the United States as the main peace broker.

Is all of this just coincidence? I don't think so. That takes more faith to believe than to simply recognize that God has caused events to fit precisely into His predicted scenario.

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41959

LadyC:

... God has caused events to fit precisely into His predicted scenario.

LadyC are you a sci fi fan? because your theories seem like something out of Star Wars. You portray 'God' as the all powerful emperor scheming and planning to destroy the human race Like Yoda will say “The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see the future is.”

Anyway i digress...
If God truly wanted to destroy the world he could easily divert a nice asteroid to do the job without all these conspiracy theories you've listed. The dinosaurs did not have to deal with any sign or warning they woke up one day and ended up in the Extinct section of evolutionary history...

There's more.

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six [666].” Revelation 13:18 KJV. It is interesting to note that the document that gives Javier Solana his authority as High Representative for the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy is named Article 666. Another document called Recommendation 666, which was drafted by Javier Solana himself, calls for special powers to be given to the High Representative, enabling him to take control of political and military councils in the event of an emergency.
http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/1998/x0666.htm
http://www.assemblee-ueo.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/txt/2000/rec666.html

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [seven years]: and in the midst of the week [in the middle of the seven years] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease..." Daniel 9:27 KJV. There might already be a seven-year covenant out there waiting to be confirmed. Javier Solana’s European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is to last from 2007-2013, with a mid-term review period, in which Javier Solana himself will be involved. 16 nations have signed up, including Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel signed up in December 2004. All countries will have their agreements confirmed on January 1st, 2007. Its prime aim is to bring security and political control to Europe's borders. Also, there are already plans to rebuild Israel's temple and make sacrifices again. Some of the artifacts that will go in the future temple have been completed.
http://europa-eu-un.org/articles/sk/article_4683_sk.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/pdf/strategy/Strategy_Paper_EN.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/partners_en.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/document_en.htm
http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm

"And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land [Israel]." Daniel 8:9 KJV “Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land [Israel].” Daniel 8:9 NIV. “ENP is a new policy that invites countries from East and South to share the peace, stability, and prosperity that member countries enjoy in the European Union, and aims to create a ring of friends around the borders of the newly enlarged EU. The European Neighborhood Policy is at an early stage, and will be progressively developed with the combined effort of the EU and its partners.” http://www.una.ge/eng/artdetail.php?group=articles&id=71

I got most of the above information from http://www.evenmore.co.uk/prophecy/antichrist.html. Definitely click on the link as it has more information on Javier Solana and how he compares to the Biblical description of the Antichrist. I’m not saying he is the Antichrist, but the similarities are there.

“And he causeth all, both  small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelation 13:16-17 KJV. I got the following information from http://www.evenmore.co.uk/prophecy/markofthebeast.html. Applied Digital Solutions in the USA markets the VeriChip, a microchip about the size of a grain of rice, which can be implanted under the skin. It can store 128 characters of information (about a paragraph). Ideally this would be used to store a unique number, which could reference a database on computer containing an individuals medical history, financial assets, personal details, biometric data, etc. This chip could have a wide range of applications, from security clearance and identification, secure financial transactions, retrieving essential data for medical emergencies, and the list goes on. Also, because the chip's radio emission can be tracked by satellite, it also could be used to locate a person anywhere in the world. The chip is injected by syringe (incision) under the skin, much like a family pet would be "tagged". Scientists spent over 1.5 billion dollars working out the best location to inject the chip into the human body. They only came up with two places, specifically the right hand, or the forehead. Both these locations in the body generate the most heat, and therefore are most suitable for the Lithium Ion batteries. Lithium is also an extremely poisonous metal, and if it comes in contact with the human body at all, terrible sores erupt in the flesh. The locations in the body for the chip are also mentioned in the article at this link: http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2005/1/11/corpit/9842301&sec=corpit

Also, read about the remarkable resemblance the Greek Euro bears to the image described in Revelations 17:3-6 at http://www.evenmore.co.uk/prophecy/europa.html.

Prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes, and many do not seem to notice or they ignore it. But, the Bible does say that Jesus will come like a thief in the night, when people least expect it. 2 Peter 3:10; I Thessalonians 5:4,9-10. There will be those who mock in the last days. 2 Peter 3:3-4. Jesus says that the last days will be like the days of Noah. Matthew 24:36-39. Just like those living in Noah's day (and there was rampant sin in those days as there is today) scoffed at Noah for listening to God's warnings and building an ark that would later save his and his family's life from the flood (and those who didn't listen were killed by the flood), so it is now that people scoff at those who believe the Bible's warnings about God's impending judgment on the world.  The Rapture (when Christ will take away all true believers before the Tribulation) and Christ’s return are not only coming soon, but they are coming very soon. Soon and very soon, we are going to see the King. Those who are saved do not have reason to fear, but those who are not do. I Thessalonians 5:9-10. If anyone is interested in getting saved, you can go to http://www.feargod.com/chod/steps.htm. Although, you can wait (assuming you don't die before then) and get saved during the Tribulation when the Antichrist comes to power, life will be very difficult for you as he will seek to kill those who do not worship him. Revelation 20:4

There are many more signs that have been fulfilled and are about to be fulfilled. To read about them, check out 101 Last Day Prophecies at http://www.harpazo.net/101/List.html. Also, you can check out other prophecy information and read a compelling book called Recommendation 666 online at www.fulfilledprophecy.com. Plus, see how the news is reading like Biblical signs at http://www.evenmore.co.uk/prophecy/.

All coming soon to a multiplex near you...

I must confess that LadyC has totally convinced me beyond doubt, that we are indeed living in the end times.

Luke’s version of the fig tree parable, which mentions the fig tree (Israel) and all the trees, (nations of the world) (Judges 9:8-20) states: “And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you. This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away” (Luke 21:29-33).

If the length of David’s generation (Psalm 90:9,10), Christ’s generation, and those living today is 70-80 years (a 3000 year span), it would be reasonable to conclude that the generation Christ was talking about in the parable of the fig tree will also be 70-80 years in length. If the fig tree in this parable represents the nation of Israel, as many prophetic scholars believe, and the generation that is described has a lifespan of 70 to 80 years, then we see several strong indicators [as seen in my other posts] that the generation Christ was talking about has already been born. That would mean that the return of Jesus Christ to establish his reign for a thousand years is close at hand. Many people believe that the birth of Israel in 1948 marked the beginning of the generation that would be alive at Christ’s return.

Source: http://www.raptureready.com/rap101.html

Historical Christian expectations:
In North America, most prophecies are made by Christians and based on the Bible. It is important to realize that anticipation of second coming of Jesus, and the end of the world as we know it, has been a constant expectation of Christians from the first century CE to the present time. Century after century, some 80 generations of Christians have been disappointed. It is quite possible that contemporary Christians will be as well.

Christians of every age since the death of Jesus have been anxiously awaiting the second coming, and looking for advance signs of his return.  Anticipation was heightened as the last year of some centuries approached - particularly 1000 CE and 1500 CE. It was particularly intense just before the start of the year 2000. The anticipation subsided considerably on 2000-JAN-1, but is still a passionately held expectation by many Christians.

According to Matthew 24:35-36, Jesus said that no one knows the exact date and time of the end of the world: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." However, many Christians have attempted to predict the year and month (but not necessarily the day and hour) of the end.

Various conflicting beliefs have been held by conservative Protestants about whether the second coming may happen as soon as today, or whether certain biblical preconditions still remain to be met:

Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, and many other Christian leaders who specialize in prophecy agree on one belief: that all of the conditions mentioned in the Bible which must be satisfied before the Antichrist appears on earth have been met.
1 Thus, the start of the seven years of Tribulation can occur at any time.
2 Most conservative Protestants believe that the Rapture will happen at some time during the Tribulation -- often at the beginning of the seven years.
3 Jesus is expected to return to earth at the end of the Tribulation.

Many church leaders believe, and have believed that the second coming of Christ could happen at any time during their lifetime: John Wesley said, "The spirit in the heart of the true believer says with earnest desire, ' Come Lord Jesus.' " 

D. L. Moody said, "I never preach a sermon without thinking that possibly the Lord might use that sermon to call out the last of the saints who should go to make up the full number of God's elect and to bring about the Lord's coming."

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, a well known English pastor, said, "I never begin my work in the morning without thinking that perhaps he may interrupt my work and begin His own. I am not looking for death. I am looking for him."

They were all disappointed.

Other theologians say that there is at least one biblical condition that remains to be satisfied before the Antichrist can appear, and the Tribulation can begin: the Temple must first be rebuilt on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It was destroyed by the Roman occupying army in 70 CE.
This building is sometimes referred to as the Tribulation Temple.

4 Two biblical passages imply this:  2 Thessalonians 2:3-4: says: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (KJV) Verse 4 indicates that the Antichrist will sit "in the temple of God." This implies that the temple must be rebuilt; otherwise, he would have no place to sit.

Daniel 9:27: says: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." The "week" referred to here is interpreted by most conservative Protestants to be the seven-year Tribulation. At the 42nd month point into the Tribulation, the Antichrist will terminate the ritual sacrifice of animals in the Jerusalem temple. Again, the temple would have to be rebuilt before the sacrifices can be resumed. Only then could they be ended by the Antichrist.

source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl5.htm

Ijebuman, what really is your argument? Do you really think we're living in the end times or not?

Ijebuman, you posted: "They were all disappointed." You can't say they were all disappointed when this generation has not even passed yet. There are already plans to rebuild the temple, and artifacts are being completed that will go in the temple. I posted that already. Go to http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm if you want more information. Other generations did not have the many fulfilled signs that our generation has now.

goodguy:

Ijebuman, what really is your argument? Do you really think we're living in the end times or not?

All the major religions - Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
predict the end of the world, what makes you think the christain version of events will happen and not the Buddha version or the Hindu version ?

As far as i'm concerned if NASA announces an Asteroid will hit the planet then i'll believe the world will end.

Despite all the evidences of the scriptural prophecies being fulfilled, you still aren't convinced?

goodguy:

Despite all the evidences of the scriptural prophecies being fulfilled, you still aren't convinced?

You do have a funny standard of evidence, goodguy. You'll believe anything as long as it somewhat supports your belief system.

LadyC,

I will answer your posts in detail. Even though you apparently didn't fully comprehend my post, I cannot really fault you. I was probably not precise and clear enough. Instead of addressing your remarks indirectly I should have put arguments forward that expose the irrational nature, logically inconsitency and epistimiological and metaphysical impossibility of the Christian God.

Your understanding of the scientific method is incomplete and completely off the mark though. Historical sciences apply a different method than the one posted. This line of thought is repeatedly used by creationists to refute the evidence for evolution. Maybe you should read some Popper to better understand what science is all about.

Anyway, more to follow (but it won't be today or tomorrow, I have presents to pack, shopping to do and a family party to attend for christmas)