A friendly debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2011, 08:45 AM
A friendly debate
Hi guys, so the past weeks I've been discussing with a Catholic friend on religion, in hope to seek the opinions of both sides. It ended up with a close to 100 post spiral, and it's getting harder to understand (I'm not a philosophy person).

Anyone interested to read through the posts and help me out? Tell me if you are then I'll send you the convo log Smile Thanks.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2011, 08:51 AM
RE: A friendly debate
It will me much easier for you tell us where have you stuck, on what question has he confused you. Because reading a 100 posts...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2011, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2011 09:09 AM by robotworld.)
RE: A friendly debate
I posed some questions, he answered them Smile I hope to learn more about the POV of both sides Big Grin

1) It's kind of sweeping if you claim that the other Gods which exist are lesser Gods, and how do you know whether they cannot overrule the creator?
2) If the other tribes are creating so much trouble for God's people, why create them in the first place?
3) So, does God allow the breakage of his laws in his name or under special circumstances?
4) So... the "fake" idols are lies? Are you implying that people who worship other Gods will be banished?
5) Well, just because some traditions are there to guide people of the past doesn't mean we have to follow them in today's world. Let's use murder, in which we still agree it's a crime, for it involves denying another person's right to live. The past will of course stay the same, and who is to say the traditions which are passed down are right all the time? We don't change the past to suit the present, but we adapt from the past to allow for progress in the present world.
6) ALL OF THE LAWS?? O_O
Leviticus 19:27, Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 21:17-18, Deuteronomy 13:12-15, Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Are you sure laws like these have to be followed? There are many more interesting laws in there Smile
7) Must there be something to create the first being in the first place? Couldn't life just have originated through the combination of chemicals which happen to be present in the right conditions? Scientists have successfully simulated the early conditions of earth and are able to create organic compounds essential for life such as amino acids (Miller–Urey experiment).

Finally, I keep forgetting to ask this:
How does one know if whatever the Bible says is infallible? Is it always taken to be the truth? Why then?




1. Could a robot overrule a creator if the robot is less wise than the creator? If the creator knows how to shut down the robot and not vice versa, should it be not that the robot is a lesser being, less powerful than the creator even if the robot is physically stronger?
2. Love. Love is loving your enemies, and loving everyone, even if you know they will oppose you.
3. No, and you must understand that there is a ranking of laws. The Great Commandment, the Ten Commandents, etc. in that order. Conflicts of commandments arise, but can be solved once you see the hierarchy.
4. The "fake" idols indeed are lies. And people who worship other Gods won't be banished, they will just take a longer time in purgatory.
5. Severe Naturalistic Fallacy. Just because what you're going through now is progress does not mean it's the natural thing to do, neither does it mean it's the right thing to do. Besides, there have been many studies which show that what we know now, what we practice, all comes from tradition. If you want to adapt from the past to allow for progress in the present world, technically now murder is appropriate. You need to test to see if a gun works, or a nuclear missile works. Just fire on humans, best way to test it. Surely this is unethical?
If you are of the opinion that we must adapt the past, you're saying that we shouldn't follow past laws, and by contrast, you're saying we can murder, steal, disobey our parents, disregard the law. Because that's how society can most quickly progress. You're damning yourself and your conclusions.
6. You're quoting the wrong laws. These are laws which classify society. Christ has already fulfilled them by saying "Moses gave you those laws because you were so difficult to teach!". It's the laws of God which matter here, and these laws of God, these laws of worship, were all fulfilled when Jesus was crucified.
7. Then who created the chemicals? Who created the combination of chemicals? Just because scientists have successfully stimulated the early conditions of earth, it means someone needs to be there to create it - There was no scientist on earth during the first days of the earth. Something must have created those chemicals, something must have made the chemicals interact. It would be foolish to say that life could have just originated from the RIGHT combination. If this were so, the RIGHT combination can be repeated without human manipulation, not by a scientist in the lab.
8. it is the definite truth. To say you do not trust the bible is to say you do not trust your parents. To say so is like saying you do not trust your sight, your ears, your tongue, your skin, your nose. If you don't trust your senses, you don't know ANYTHING. Similarly, if you don't trust the Bible, neither do you know the bible, or if you say it is a lie, you know NOTHING. Because even your present-day science evolved from the theological concepts in the Bible.
I realised the context of some questions/ answers may not be clear. So, if anyone is interested in the whole thing tell me Big Grin

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2011, 02:39 PM
RE: A friendly debate
I try to answer it question by question
(17-08-2011 09:05 AM)robotworld Wrote:  1) It's kind of sweeping if you claim that the other Gods which exist are lesser Gods, and how do you know whether they cannot overrule the creator?
1. Could a robot overrule a creator if the robot is less wise than the creator? If the creator knows how to shut down the robot and not vice versa, should it be not that the robot is a lesser being, less powerful than the creator even if the robot is physically stronger?
I find both, question and answer a little bit confusing. For me, they stand at the same level as the biblical god. They are in the heads of many people and thats why they're "mighty" even if they don't really exists. But how can God create Gods? Isn't that irrational?

Quote:2) If the other tribes are creating so much trouble for God's people, why create them in the first place?
2. Love. Love is loving your enemies, and loving everyone, even if you know they will oppose you.
You have to change the question, then it would cause him more trouble to answer: Why do they believe in another god if the biblical god created them?

Quote:3) So, does God allow the breakage of his laws in his name or under special circumstances?
3. No, and you must understand that there is a ranking of laws. The Great Commandment, the Ten Commandents, etc. in that order. Conflicts of commandments arise, but can be solved once you see the hierarchy.
That is no answer. I think it's beyond debate that the church has contravenced the Ten Commandents too often.
"Don't murder". Did they ever find that interesting at holy wars?
"Thou shalt not steal". - 24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein; only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. - Even the biblical Joshau has stolen...
and so on... the sad history of church.

Quote:4) So... the "fake" idols are lies? Are you implying that people who worship other Gods will be banished?
4. The "fake" idols indeed are lies. And people who worship other Gods won't be banished, they will just take a longer time in purgatory.
Didn't God made them worshipping other gods? Or is that out of his power?

I skip point 5, because it goes on in point 6:
Quote:6) ALL OF THE LAWS?? O_O
Leviticus 19:27, Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 21:17-18, Deuteronomy 13:12-15, Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Are you sure laws like these have to be followed? There are many more interesting laws in there Smile
6. You're quoting the wrong laws. These are laws which classify society. Christ has already fulfilled them by saying "Moses gave you those laws because you were so difficult to teach!". It's the laws of God which matter here, and these laws of God, these laws of worship, were all fulfilled when Jesus was crucified.
But isn't that what you mentioned in point 5? Laws for the past, not useful for the moment. How do he know that the other laws from the past aren't "fulfilled"?

Quote:7) Must there be something to create the first being in the first place? Couldn't life just have originated through the combination of chemicals which happen to be present in the right conditions? Scientists have successfully simulated the early conditions of earth and are able to create organic compounds essential for life such as amino acids (Miller–Urey experiment).
7. Then who created the chemicals? Who created the combination of chemicals? Just because scientists have successfully stimulated the early conditions of earth, it means someone needs to be there to create it - There was no scientist on earth during the first days of the earth. Something must have created those chemicals, something must have made the chemicals interact. It would be foolish to say that life could have just originated from the RIGHT combination. If this were so, the RIGHT combination can be repeated without human manipulation, not by a scientist in the lab.
Following question: Who created god? And if god didn't need a creator, why do the chemicals and combinations need one?

Quote:Finally, I keep forgetting to ask this:
How does one know if whatever the Bible says is infallible? Is it always taken to be the truth? Why then?
8. it is the definite truth. To say you do not trust the bible is to say you do not trust your parents. To say so is like saying you do not trust your sight, your ears, your tongue, your skin, your nose. If you don't trust your senses, you don't know ANYTHING. Similarly, if you don't trust the Bible, neither do you know the bible, or if you say it is a lie, you know NOTHING. Because even your present-day science evolved from the theological concepts in the Bible.
He is not proving his argument.
I don't trust my parents everytime, neither my sight, ears, tongue, skin, nose. All these are things who can fail. And present-day science hasn't evolved from the bible. The Science in the 20. century was inspired by the bible, but not influenced by it. He is lying.

Hope some of my answers my help you Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2011, 04:26 PM
RE: A friendly debate
(17-08-2011 09:05 AM)robotworld Wrote:  I posed some questions, he answered them Smile I hope to learn more about the POV of both sides Big Grin

How great it is to have someone who will actually keep up a debate! I actually thought about answering each question, but in the interest of ending the debate before it spirals into another 100 posts, may I suggest this question?

What is the basis for the bible being true? Obviously his answers are based on scripture (mostly), and it's important for the premise of the argument to be true, otherwise everything that follows is nonsense. This very site provides several examples of contradictions in the bible. The Skeptics' Anotated Bible lists several more, the most of powerful and unanswerable of which (based on personal experience), is "When did Jesus' temple tantrum occur?"

I understand you asked this question in one form in question #8, but the answer is simply a restatement of his beliefs with conviction. There are Muslims that are completely convinced that the Q'uran is true - because the Q'uran says it's true and they don't see the contradictions (or believe them when pointed out). Ask him if he believes the Q'uran and what his basis is for disbelieving it. Be sure to repeat his answer to #8 as a response. It may seem sarcastic, and it certainly won't win him over, but he has to hear how his response sounds from your point of view. He needs to provide a stronger proof than "It's true because I know in my heart it's true."

Finally, I'd like to plug my blog here because I posted this morning about this very topic (belief by faith) - http://starcrashx.wordpress.com/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2011, 04:30 AM
RE: A friendly debate
Hello again! Here are the questions I asked, thank for the help!

1) What is the basis for the bible being true?
2) Who created god? And if god didn't need a creator, why do the chemicals and combinations need one?
3) Also, I think you mean science in the past was inspired by the Bible. Indeed, some scientists in the past delved into science to complement their faith Smile

The answers Smile

1. The Bible is true because of testimony and evidence. There have been archaeological evidence from anything after Noah (with the exception of Noah, where there is a genealogical reference). The events which happened in the Bible of which left physical marks, most of them are indeed found.

2. Again you're thinking in terms of physics. God is beyond this world, so he is not bound by this world. Remember a chemical compound must be created by two separate elements, and those elements came from neutrons and electrons etc. The common theory for the start of the world is the big bang, which means that the world was created from something. But what created that mass in the first place if everything physical is created by something else? It cannot be infinite regression. The conclusion is that something which is not bound by physics created physical objects, and because that something is not bound by the laws of physics, where he does not need to be a result of a reaction, similarly he does not need to be created by anything. Because he is not the physical world or part of it, it is possible he can just exist without being created.

‎3. Science complements faith. Because there is no such thing as the perceived religion-science divide. It actually does not exist.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2011, 08:57 AM
RE: A friendly debate
If it helps, here are some of my own responses to the specific questions:

(20-08-2011 04:30 AM)robotworld Wrote:  1. The Bible is true because of testimony and evidence. There have been archaeological evidence from anything after Noah (with the exception of Noah, where there is a genealogical reference). The events which happened in the Bible of which left physical marks, most of them are indeed found.

There is no testimony. No one alive has witnessed the events of the bible, and certainly no one ever witnessed the events of Genesis 1. Since the entire book of Genesis contains several, several generations of human events and had to wait for the invention of paper, it's unlikely that the writer witnessed any of it.

However, the Book of Mormon contains 11 signatures of witnesses who saw the golden plates of Joseph Smith, granting authenticity to his claim. Are we to say these witnesses were lying? (Yes.) Witness testimony is poor evidence, and the archaeological evidence for the bible actually disproves the vast majority of it. Consider the ludicrous story of God "stopping" the sun in Joshua 10:12 so that Joshua could win a battle against the Gibeonites. Since stopping the sun's movement doesn't actually lengthen days, it's assumed that the Earth stopped, but this creates many scientific problems. The only archaeological evidence we'd need of that is the moon flying off into space or crashing to Earth, neither of which happened. And TheThinkingAtheist has a great video about the silliness of Noah's Ark (despite what you hear, that Ark has never been found on Mount Ararat).

(20-08-2011 04:30 AM)robotworld Wrote:  2. Again you're thinking in terms of physics. God is beyond this world, so he is not bound by this world. Remember a chemical compound must be created by two separate elements, and those elements came from neutrons and electrons etc. The common theory for the start of the world is the big bang, which means that the world was created from something. But what created that mass in the first place if everything physical is created by something else? It cannot be infinite regression. The conclusion is that something which is not bound by physics created physical objects, and because that something is not bound by the laws of physics, where he does not need to be a result of a reaction, similarly he does not need to be created by anything. Because he is not the physical world or part of it, it is possible he can just exist without being created.

None of this is found in the bible, just believed by modern apologists. You put up a good example - if we assume that something (like God) can exist without being created, we can assume anything else exists without creation... you have your unsubstantiated claims, and we have ours.

Many people claim God lives outside of time, but never explain what this looks like. An event like creation requires a moment where that thing doesn't exist, then a moment where it does exist. Getting from one moment to the other requires time. We can't even picture an event like the creation of time. Stephen Hawking brilliantly imagines time as an enclosed manifold like the surface of a sphere - without beginning or end. Not only can it not be proven that God "exists outside of time" (a phrase not found or referenced in the bible), but it can't even be logically assumed. A God without time is a God that can't do anything.

(20-08-2011 04:30 AM)robotworld Wrote:  ‎3. Science complements faith. Because there is no such thing as the perceived religion-science divide. It actually does not exist.

Science disproves the literal truth of the bible all the time, especially when discussing the age of the earth or universe. It's important to look these things up and be prepared to argue against the incompatibility of science and young earth creationism.

You can also expect an argument about what constitutes "real" science. This is because your average believer doesn't understand what constitutes evidence. If you read nothing else, I'd definitely recommend that you read this link. He may also assume that scientists who contradict the bible have some motive to lie or misread their results, which is an assumption that needs evidence. If we are to simply dismiss any evidence that contradicts the bible, we can equally dismiss any evidence that contradicts the Q'uran or Scientologists' tome Dyanetics. But any discussion of evidence requires a good understanding of evidence, so I would again direct you to that final link.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 03:32 AM
RE: A friendly debate
Thanks everyone for the help Smile

Now I'm just plain confused.

A:Just curious, How is ‘God did it’ a good explanation for every mechanism, theory, phenomena that we are still unsure of today?

B:This begs the question: Can you offer a better explanation which we cannot critique?

A:Currently, no. But that doesn't mean God did it if we do not know. We simply don't know until we find the truth.

B:but you see, even if you attempt to find a truth, you cannot find a truth, as you have to remember UN. Based on UN, something must create something, so you have an endless regression, which is impossible, as it begs the question: What creates the first thing? again, you are making the assumption that everything is physical. And theists did not say that God did it is a explanation for EVERYTHING. it is just an explanation for some things. God is the explanation for everything that cannot be fit into science, and that is a very strict category, not the category you are basing on, which is broad. Your argument is the argument from induction, which has many flaws. Just because science can solve the problems when our ancestors could not solve does not mean it can solve the problems we today cannot solve. You are assuming that Science can solve everything. Again, beware not to fall into scientism, which you are arguing from. Scientism has MANY major flaws.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 05:14 AM
 
RE: A friendly debate
Hey guys I'm new to this forum so be patient.
But it does all seem like alot of pointless hot-air being circulated with no possible end-point in sight.

Religious belief is taken on board by people without any recourse to logic. Therefore you cannot use logic to refute or disturb their beliefs.
Religious people desperately try to justify what they intuitively know is a delusion, with their version of logic, which of course, because they are paranoid schizophrenics, is completely bizarre!
Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 07:56 AM
RE: A friendly debate
(21-08-2011 03:32 AM)robotworld Wrote:  A:Just curious, How is ‘God did it’ a good explanation for every mechanism, theory, phenomena that we are still unsure of today?

Note: From scientific point of view, a good explanation of a mechanism is something that allows you to make accurate predictions about future behavior of that mechanism. "God did it" explains absolutely nothing. It's basically "stop asking questions" in disguise. In fact, it's intellectual poison, because it kills curiosity.

Quote:B:but you see, even if you attempt to find a truth, you cannot find a truth, as you have to remember UN. Based on UN, something must create something, so you have an endless regression, which is impossible, as it begs the question: What creates the first thing? again, you are making the assumption that everything is physical.

Actually, that's not true. At the moment of big bang, space, time, matter, energy and even laws of physics were all created at the same time. When you go back to the beginning, the law of causality itself falls apart.

Quote:And theists did not say that God did it is a explanation for EVERYTHING. it is just an explanation for some things. God is the explanation for everything that cannot be fit into science, and that is a very strict category, not the category you are basing on, which is broad.

Let me guess, that "very strict category" is defined as "anything scientists can't explain right now", right? God of the gaps.

Quote:Your argument is the argument from induction, which has many flaws. Just because science can solve the problems when our ancestors could not solve does not mean it can solve the problems we today cannot solve. You are assuming that Science can solve everything. Again, beware not to fall into scientism, which you are arguing from. Scientism has MANY major flaws.

Science may very well fail at solving many problems, but that's no excuse for not even trying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: