kyonu said:
The argument goes both ways. God is either something or nothing, and if he's something, then he came from nothing.
I see a lot of arguments of no "proof" of this and that, but no one saying this applies the logic to their own argument, which is one of the reasons I left religion as a teenager. I cannot be apart of something that likes to ignore ideas or "what ifs". Curiosity is human nature, and if "God created man", then he created curiosity. If he would disown a human because he is curious, then he is not a God at all; he would then be prejudiced. If a religion's belief is that corrupted, then I say "goodbye" to it immediately.
I agree about curiousity. It's designed as a drive to learn.
The fact that "nothing" can be proven is proof enough to keep an open mind. Every Christian I personally know says having an open mind is the work of the devil. They believe one thing and one thing only, and keep reciting the same words over and over, and if they can't explain it, "God works in mysterious ways". Gets kind of annoying to me... Especially when the debate gets technical. Don't forget tho, the work of the devil was the work of man--the Devil was an angel who cared about man more than God did, according to mythology.
Not 'every' Christian. You are pretty much listening to the vocal minority of right wing Christians. I'm not big on churches, but you ought to hear some of the things our current pastor says. I think, at least, it might change your mind about what 'every Christian' believes. The vast majority tend to occupy the 'silent majority' category, and pretty much think little of the loud mouth know it alls. As for your thoughts on the devil, I think you are repeating something you heard from the people who disgust you; people not that knowledgeable. If you want a true depiction of how ha-satan (Hebrew for The Adversary) is viewed by religions based on Judaism, read the first part of the book of Job. People keep confusing the character created in Milton's 'Paradise Lost' with how he is represented in the Bible. No fallen angel. No war between God and the fallen angels, etc. not trying to get you to rid the Bible, just clearing a misperception which has worked its way into the Christian doctrine and is now perpetuated...
Also, "Evolution from an Ape" doesn't need to be proven. The similarities are there. Apes learn as we do, walk as we do, have almost identical internal systems as we do. There would be no need for a God to create an ape if there are humans, since they would produce the same effective creation. They eat, have sex, sleep, etc just like humans. Why have both?
As for the "complexity" of evolution, lets look at the most basic of an element--a rock. How many parts of a rock are complex? Actually, a whole lot. They have layers, and the layers have layers. They have as many elements as man, they have the SAME elements as man. Over time, a rock, in its definition, evolves (by obtaining more layers). Rocks have their own gravity.
The difference? We have created rock before. We have melted elements and smashed them together, and when they cool, they create a rock with all the same properties. We can add layers. We can add gravity (by adding more layers). It doesn't surprise me that difficult items were evolved naturally, and saying "god did it" is a cop out in my mind, because one doesn't truly understand how it came to be. Taking the word of a couple of books which have been re translated over a millennia (and often incorrectly translated,
and this website will describe some; heck even some politician last year tried to mend the bible to omit certain things in order to cover something that wasn't allowed by the bible! Article has since been removed from Google under the "right to be forgotten" act) seems like it's a risky bet. For all we know, since there is not one human on earth that knows the original translation, it could in fact say that God DOESN'T exist, but someone didn't like it and re translated it. But since we don't know for sure, I decided to step aside entirely and let people take it with their own salt.
The Bible has been amended over and over again throughout the centuries. The books were selected from a plethora of available writings based on what the extant church leaders believed. Iraneus, in particular, was quite selective according to his own beliefs, not only burning books he thought didn't support his/his church's view, but often burning the owners of said books, as well. Many books we only know about because they were referred to in writing - Iraneus himself was a prolific writer. He referred to people and books, quoting them and explaining their viewpoints, so he could debate them lol.
Even the books of the Bible have been modified over the centuries by clerical copying mistakes or intentional modification - all for righteous purposes of course
the oldest copies of Mark don't have the last 16 verses in the modern day version of Mark. They were added later to bring the book more in line with Mathian thinking. The Protestant version of Daniel leaves out several interesting stories which go a long way in providing context for the latter stories. Apparantly one church leader wanted to leave Daniel out completely, but the book's stories were so popular with the masses, he left in a truncated version.
Many theists - probably most - think the apostles were handed a a gift wrapped package of information and instructions on exactly what to believe and how to succeed in church building. Lol. They weren't. They went off in different directions, theorized, came up with different 'answers' built churches, argued and physically fought - the formation of the Christian church was often, by any definition, a state of war. Since there was no means of mass or rapid communication, one church rarely knew exactly what the other was doing. For example, research the 'gangster synod'. At a major meeting of religious leaders, one faction forcibly subdued everyone, forced them to sign a blank parchment, wrote their own views doctrine, and had riders ready to disseminate copies to the major churches as the law voted on by everyone. It took years for the story to get around: by then much of the doctrine had already been added to the churches' doctrines. Some removed the falsely added doctrine, others didn't.
You can't bundle all Christians, all churches, all doctrine together in a stereotypical bundle. While Trinitarianism is currently predominate, there are still many world wide Christians churches that do not accept the level equality of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They believe the son is subverting to the Father, and the Holy Spirit is just Gods will - not a separate entity. There are numerous variations out there lol.
I generally advise theists to pay less attention to what others tell them is true, and to read, study and think for themselves.
