Christian Persecution. Is it ok?

[Luciratus]

Posiden/Neptune was still a physical god who dwelled in a physical palace either at the bottom of the sea or in Olympus. All "pagan" belief system worshiped physical gods. The only religions that didn't to my knowledge originated in the Middle East or Asia. Religious faiths such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Manichaeism, Christianity, Budhism, and Taoism worship things which are non-physical. Thus to compare their deities to other physical deities is a weak argument.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Poseidon is also a god, and this non-physical nonsense, quite apart from being open to a great deal of interpretation is irrelevant. Or are you trying to suggest that someone actually met Poseidon?

That is why pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster arguments can't be applied, they are straw-man.

Your understanding of logical fallacies is lacking.

Yes, whether a god is physical or non-physical is incredibly important. If you claim to have a physical god he must be able to be manifest at some point. No, no one ever met Posiden because he isn't real. However because you can scan the oceans with satellites and divers you can see that their is no palace or Poseiden. The same applies to all other physical gods, except for Native American deities. With a transcendent god you can only disprove god by proving that the perfection of the universe and nature were natural. This has not occurred. Thus you cannot effectively disprove the existence of God as much as you'd like to. At current God is just as likely as science's explanation of the world(the big bang and evolution as it is understood now). If we were going for what was known only we would all be agnostic. What is open for interpretation? All ancient Greek sources claim Poseidon is a physical being. All refutable Christian sources say God is transcendent. That is an important point if you are debating the existence of a god.

[Luciratus]

Posiden/Neptune was still a physical god who dwelled in a physical palace either at the bottom of the sea or in Olympus. All "pagan" belief system worshiped physical gods. The only religions that didn't to my knowledge originated in the Middle East or Asia. Religious faiths such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Manichaeism, Christianity, Budhism, and Taoism worship things which are non-physical. Thus to compare their deities to other physical deities is a weak argument.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Poseidon is also a god, and this non-physical nonsense, quite apart from being open to a great deal of interpretation is irrelevant. Or are you trying to suggest that someone actually met Poseidon?

That is why pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster arguments can't be applied, they are straw-man.

Your understanding of logical fallacies is lacking.

Yes, whether a god is physical or non-physical is incredibly important. If you claim to have a physical god he must be able to be manifest at some point. No, no one ever met Posiden because he isn't real. However because you can scan the oceans with satellites and divers you can see that their is no palace or Poseiden. The same applies to all other physical gods, except for Native American deities. With a transcendent god you can only disprove god by proving that the perfection of the universe and nature were natural. This has not occurred. Thus you cannot effectively disprove the existence of God as much as you'd like to. At current God is just as likely as science's explanation of the world(the big bang and evolution as it is understood now). If we were going for what was known only we would all be agnostic. What is open for interpretation? All ancient Greek sources claim Poseidon is a physical being. All refutable Christian sources say God is transcendent. That is an important point if you are debating the existence of a god. Also I don't see how it is a no true scotsman fallacy, for Christians Poseidon isn't real, while God is. Religion isn't all that unreasonable compared to the current understanding of the Big Bang or Evolution.

[Luciratus]

Posiden/Neptune was still a physical god who dwelled in a physical palace either at the bottom of the sea or in Olympus. All "pagan" belief system worshiped physical gods. The only religions that didn't to my knowledge originated in the Middle East or Asia. Religious faiths such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Manichaeism, Christianity, Budhism, and Taoism worship things which are non-physical. Thus to compare their deities to other physical deities is a weak argument.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Poseidon is also a god, and this non-physical nonsense, quite apart from being open to a great deal of interpretation is irrelevant. Or are you trying to suggest that someone actually met Poseidon?

That is why pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster arguments can't be applied, they are straw-man.

Your understanding of logical fallacies is lacking.

Yes, whether a god is physical or non-physical is incredibly important. If you claim to have a physical god he must be able to be manifest at some point. No, no one ever met Posiden because he isn't real. However because you can scan the oceans with satellites and divers you can see that their is no palace or Poseiden. The same applies to all other physical gods, except for Native American deities. With a transcendent god you can only disprove god by proving that the perfection of the universe and nature were natural. This has not occurred. Thus you cannot effectively disprove the existence of God as much as you'd like to. At current God is just as likely as science's explanation of the world(the big bang and evolution as it is understood now). If we were going for what was known only we would all be agnostic. What is open for interpretation? All ancient Greek sources claim Poseidon is a physical being. All refutable Christian sources say God is transcendent. That is an important point if you are debating the existence of a god. Also I don't see how it is a no true scotsman fallacy, for Christians Poseidon isn't real, while God is. Religion isn't all that unreasonable compared to the current understanding of the Big Bang or Evolution.

[Luciratus]

Posiden/Neptune was still a physical god who dwelled in a physical palace either at the bottom of the sea or in Olympus. All "pagan" belief system worshiped physical gods. The only religions that didn't to my knowledge originated in the Middle East or Asia. Religious faiths such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Manichaeism, Christianity, Budhism, and Taoism worship things which are non-physical. Thus to compare their deities to other physical deities is a weak argument.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Poseidon is also a god, and this non-physical nonsense, quite apart from being open to a great deal of interpretation is irrelevant. Or are you trying to suggest that someone actually met Poseidon?

That is why pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster arguments can't be applied, they are straw-man.

Your understanding of logical fallacies is lacking.

Yes, whether a god is physical or non-physical is incredibly important. If you claim to have a physical god he must be able to be manifest at some point. No, no one ever met Posiden because he isn't real. However because you can scan the oceans with satellites and divers you can see that their is no palace or Poseiden. The same applies to all other physical gods, except for Native American deities. With a transcendent god you can only disprove god by proving that the perfection of the universe and nature were natural. This has not occurred. Thus you cannot effectively disprove the existence of God as much as you'd like to. At current God is just as likely as science's explanation of the world(the big bang and evolution as it is understood now). If we were going for what was known only we would all be agnostic. What is open for interpretation? All ancient Greek sources claim Poseidon is a physical being. All refutable Christian sources say God is transcendent. That is an important point if you are debating the existence of a god. Also I don't see how it is a no true scotsman fallacy, for Christians Poseidon isn't real, while God is. Religion isn't all that unreasonable compared to the current understanding of the Big Bang or Evolution.

[Luciratus]

Posiden/Neptune was still a physical god who dwelled in a physical palace either at the bottom of the sea or in Olympus. All "pagan" belief system worshiped physical gods. The only religions that didn't to my knowledge originated in the Middle East or Asia. Religious faiths such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Manichaeism, Christianity, Budhism, and Taoism worship things which are non-physical. Thus to compare their deities to other physical deities is a weak argument.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Poseidon is also a god, and this non-physical nonsense, quite apart from being open to a great deal of interpretation is irrelevant. Or are you trying to suggest that someone actually met Poseidon?

That is why pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster arguments can't be applied, they are straw-man.

Your understanding of logical fallacies is lacking.

Yes, whether a god is physical or non-physical is incredibly important. If you claim to have a physical god he must be able to be manifest at some point. No, no one ever met Posiden because he isn't real. However because you can scan the oceans with satellites and divers you can see that their is no palace or Poseiden. The same applies to all other physical gods, except for Native American deities. With a transcendent god you can only disprove god by proving that the perfection of the universe and nature were natural. This has not occurred. Thus you cannot effectively disprove the existence of God as much as you'd like to. At current God is just as likely as science's explanation of the world(the big bang and evolution as it is understood now). If we were going for what was known only we would all be agnostic. What is open for interpretation? All ancient Greek sources claim Poseidon is a physical being. All refutable Christian sources say God is transcendent. That is an important point if you are debating the existence of a god. Also I don't see how it is a no true scotsman fallacy, for Christians Poseidon isn't real, while God is. Religion isn't all that unreasonable compared to the current understanding of the Big Bang or Evolution.

My understanding of logical fallacies is rather decent, not impressive but okay. The arguments mentioned above attempt to prove with the most ridiculous and preposterous statements that Christianity is unreasonable and unproveable. These examples cannot be correlated to the existence or lack there of, of God. Thus it is a straw-man argument.

(Sorry for some reason, my post didn't go through right away. When it did it posted an insanely numerous amount of times.)

[Aggicificicerous]

Yes, whether a god is physical or non-physical is incredibly important. If you claim to have a physical god he must be able to be manifest at some point. No, no one ever met Posiden because he isn't real. However because you can scan the oceans with satellites and divers you can see that their is no palace or Poseiden. The same applies to all other physical gods, except for Native American deities. With a transcendent god you can only disprove god by proving that the perfection of the universe and nature were natural. This has not occurred. Thus you cannot effectively disprove the existence of God as much as you'd like to. At current God is just as likely as science's explanation of the world(the big bang and evolution as it is understood now). If we were going for what was known only we would all be agnostic. What is open for interpretation? All ancient Greek sources claim Poseidon is a physical being. All refutable Christian sources say God is transcendent. That is an important point if you are debating the existence of a god. Also I don't see how it is a no true scotsman fallacy, for Christians Poseidon isn't real, while God is. Religion isn't all that unreasonable compared to the current understanding of the Big Bang or Evolution.

You don't scan the ocean with satetillites, and divers cannot go very deep. But you're saying that a physical god can be disproven, while a non-physical god cannot (proving the universe and nature are natural does not disprove god). Nonsense. A god is, by definition, something with supernatural power. Supernatural powers go beyond what technologies and understandings we have and can grasp. You cannot disprove Poseidon any more than the Christian god because he too may simply be using his power to appear invisible to us.

Incidentally, Olympus is up in the heavens, or the same place the Christian god is thought to reside.

My understanding of logical fallacies is rather decent, not impressive but okay. The arguments mentioned above attempt to prove with the most ridiculous and preposterous statements that Christianity is unreasonable and unproveable. These examples cannot be correlated to the existence or lack there of, of God. Thus it is a straw-man argument.

No, your understanding of logical fallacies is flawed. A strawman is something you accuse the other side of saying or believing. If I said that all religious people believe in ridiculous things like pink unicorns, that would be a strawman. Instead, people are saying that belief in a god cannot be substantiated any more than belief in a pink unicorn. That is not a strawman.

Oh, and you really only needed one post to say that.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Quintuple post ftw.

[Luciratus]

You don't scan the ocean with satetillites, and divers cannot go very deep. But you're saying that a physical god can be disproven, while a non-physical god cannot (proving the universe and nature are natural does not disprove god). Nonsense. A god is, by definition, something with supernatural power. Supernatural powers go beyond what technologies and understandings we have and can grasp. You cannot disprove Poseidon any more than the Christian god because he too may simply be using his power to appear invisible to us.

Incidentally, Olympus is up in the heavens, or the same place the Christian god is thought to reside.

No, your understanding of logical fallacies is flawed. A strawman is something you accuse the other side of saying or believing. If I said that all religious people believe in ridiculous things like pink unicorns, that would be a strawman. Instead, people are saying that belief in a god cannot be substantiated any more than belief in a pink unicorn. That is not a strawman.

Oh, and you really only needed one post to say that.[/quote]

---

Actually satellites have been used to detect monuments and artifacts beneath the ocean. Divers can go deep enough to discover monuments such as palaces. Both a physical and a non-physical god can be disproven. You just need different types of evidence. Yes proving the universe and nature are the result of natural occurances independent of God would verify that the existence of God is unlikely. Otherwise there would be no reason not to believe in a God. Yes, supernatural does mean beyond human technology and understanding. However Poseidon's powers were still limited. Poseidon could not appear invisible that was Hades/Pluto. Because we have proven that the occurances of the ocean are natural there is no longer any prove for his existence.

Poseidon dwelled in an under-sea palace and sometimes(rarely) in Olympus. Olympus is associated with a moutain in Greece. A very physical place. Heaven is not associated with any physical space.

Yes that is straw-man because you are saying that believing in God is like believing in a pink unicorn. That is an absurd statement meant to disparage Christianity. That is certainly a straw-man argument. Instead of a belief in God, you have substituted the weakest possible position that of an absurd entity to deflate the statements of the opposition.

I already apologized for that. It was a mistake.

[Aggicificicerous]

Actually satellites have been used to detect monuments and artifacts beneath the ocean. Divers can go deep enough to discover monuments such as palaces.

And how deep down can they go?

Both a physical and a non-physical god can be disproven. You just need different types of evidence. Yes proving the universe and nature are the result of natural occurances independent of God would verify that the existence of God is unlikely. Otherwise there would be no reason not to believe in a God.

Wrong. You cannot use physical evidence to disprove a supernatural being. As you yourself say, it might show the existence of a god is unlikely. That does not mean impossible.

Yes, supernatural does mean beyond human technology and understanding. However Poseidon's powers were still limited. Poseidon could not appear invisible that was Hades/Pluto.

This fails on several points. First, you do not know all of Poseidon's powers. Second, the ocean is a large and often-deep place. A remote hiding place that is virtually impossible to find is not out of the question. Third, there are plenty of gods which you would accept as physical (such as Hades) that can, as you said, "appear invisible" (nice oxymoron there).

Because we have proven that the occurances of the ocean are natural there is no longer any prove for his existence.

Now you're on to something. Apply that to the entire world or even universe, and...

Poseidon dwelled in an under-sea palace and sometimes(rarely) in Olympus. Olympus is associated with a moutain in Greece. A very physical place. Heaven is not associated with any physical space.

First, Olympus is in the heavens. Second, there was a heaven, Ouranos, for the ancient Greeks.

Yes that is straw-man because you are saying that believing in God is like believing in a pink unicorn. That is an absurd statement meant to disparage Christianity. That is certainly a straw-man argument. Instead of a belief in God, you have substituted the weakest possible position that of an absurd entity to deflate the statements of the opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_fallacy

This, once again, is not a strawman because you are not accusing religious people of believing in pink unicorns. You are saying that there is no more evidence for a god than for pink unicorns. Of course it is meant to disparage, not necessarily Christianity, but the notion of the supernatural. That in itself does not make it a fallacy.

[Luciratus]

And how deep down can they go?

---

The Mediterranean Sea is at its deepest point 3.273 miles deep. Submarines can go as deep as 2.796 miles. Satellites(which use sonar not actually direct vision) can make out shapes much deeper, such as moutains at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Although some of the sites I was observing said it was in theory possible to go much deeper.

---

Wrong. You cannot use physical evidence to disprove a supernatural being. As you yourself say, it might show the existence of a god is unlikely. That does not mean impossible.

---

I agree. However you are dealing with probability with most scientific studies, as well. You can by no certain means disprove anything. You can prove it unlikely and that's as close as you get. Poseidon has been proven unlikely by satellites, divers, and the human understanding of how the ocean operates to an extent. It is possible to garner more evidence but there will never be enough proof to completely disprove Poseidon's existence. However because his existence is dubious you can hypothesize that he is unlikely to exist. Similarly we can hypothesize that the Earth is not flat or that the Big Bang did not occur in the manner that the current model suggest. It is, as you said, impossible to prove anything with utmost certainty, I apologize, I was wrong.

---

This fails on several points. First, you do not know all of Poseidon's powers. Second, the ocean is a large and often-deep place. A remote hiding place that is virtually impossible to find is not out of the question. Third, there are plenty of gods which you would accept as physical (such as Hades) that can, as you said, "appear invisible" (nice oxymoron there).

---

If you use the Greek understanding of Poseidon his powers are well-known. The Mediterranean is not the whole ocean. Yes, it is possible as I said before but unlikely. Yes that is true, however Hades still manifest his realm within the visible confines of reality(the entrances to Hades were located in caves, particularly certain Greek and Italian caves), thus through exploration of such caves Hades could be proven unlikely to exist. Every "physical" God that I have studied has some direct effect on the understanding of the world, by disproving these manifestations of those Gods you prove their existence dubious. I figured you could appreciate the oxymoron.

---

Now you're on to something. Apply that to the entire world or even universe, and...

---

Yes, but science does not have that capability at current and they are still stuck stubbornly in traditions set by the "Old Guard".

---

Poseidon dwelled in an under-sea palace and sometimes(rarely) in Olympus. Olympus is associated with a moutain in Greece. A very physical place. Heaven is not associated with any physical space. [/quote]

---

First, Olympus is in the heavens. Second, there was a heaven, Ouranos, for the ancient Greeks.

---

Olympus is associated with the real life Mt. Olympus. There has been conjecture as to where this was located. To the Greeks Ouranos represented the sky while Gaea represented the Earth. Ouranos was specficially the heavens(not heaven) which pertained to the sky. Heaven is a spirtual realm in Christianity.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_fallacy
This, once again, is not a strawman because you are not accusing religious people of believing in pink unicorns. You are saying that there is no more evidence for a god than for pink unicorns. Of course it is meant to disparage, not necessarily Christianity, but the notion of the supernatural. That in itself does not make it a fallacy.

---

I already looked that up just to verify my current definition. Yes, it is still a straw man because regardless of whether you accuse the people of believing in the unicorn or not, you still compare their belief to a unicorn, a weaker example. Regardless of what supernatural event you compare it to the unicorn example is still a straw man. If you want to disprove something, then disprove it with evidence not funny examples. There is some evidence for God as many theist will tell you such as the perfection of the universe and nature. However with science's consistent discovery of organism not thought to exist it is a possibility that unicorns may have or still do exist. So that could cut both ways...

[Aggicificicerous]

The Mediterranean Sea is at its deepest point 3.273 miles deep. Submarines can go as deep as 2.796 miles. Satellites(which use sonar not actually direct vision) can make out shapes much deeper, such as moutains at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Although some of the sites I was observing said it was in theory possible to go much deeper.

I was referring to the divers. The Mediterranean is incredibly shallow compared to the Pacific. That being said, we have peered into the deepest parts of the ocean, but by no means have explored it completely.

If you use the Greek understanding of Poseidon his powers are well-known. The Mediterranean is not the whole ocean. Yes, it is possible as I said before but unlikely. Yes that is true, however Hades still manifest his realm within the visible confines of reality(the entrances to Hades were located in caves, particularly certain Greek and Italian caves), thus through exploration of such caves Hades could be proven unlikely to exist. Every "physical" God that I have studied has some direct effect on the understanding of the world, by disproving these manifestations of those Gods you prove their existence dubious. I figured you could appreciate the oxymoron.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. You may understand Poseidon's realms, but in a human context, nobody knew the full extent of his power. Anyway, dubious but not impossible.

Yes, but science does not have that capability at current and they are still stuck stubbornly in traditions set by the "Old Guard".

I meant if science can show Poseidon's existence to be unlikely, it can show any deity's existence to be unlikely.

Olympus is associated with the real life Mt. Olympus. There has been conjecture as to where this was located. To the Greeks Ouranos represented the sky while Gaea represented the Earth. Ouranos was specficially the heavens(not heaven) which pertained to the sky. Heaven is a spirtual realm in Christianity.

Christianity, like all religions, borrowed from previous cultures. Where do you suppose the concept of heaven originated?

I already looked that up just to verify my current definition. Yes, it is still a straw man because regardless of whether you accuse the people of believing in the unicorn or not, you still compare their belief to a unicorn, a weaker example. Regardless of what supernatural event you compare it to the unicorn example is still a straw man. If you want to disprove something, then disprove it with evidence not funny examples.

You still don't get it. The point that is trying to be made is that the unicorn is not a weaker example; it is as likely as any other deity. It does not disprove anything; nobody claims that. It merely demonstrates that any belief in the supernatural is equally tenuous.

There is some evidence for God as many theist will tell you such as the perfection of the universe and nature. However with science's consistent discovery of organism not thought to exist it is a possibility that unicorns may have or still do exist. So that could cut both ways...

The universe and nature are not perfect.

Oh, and when you find a real unicorn, tell me.

[Luciratus]

I agree but Poseidon is specifically a Mediterranean deity. That was the extent of his domain according to the Greeks. So, Poseidon is dubious at best.

---

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. You may understand Poseidon's realms, but in a human context, nobody knew the full extent of his power. Anyway, dubious but not impossible.

---

True. You would have to assume that the Greeks knew everything about their deity. I agree dubious not impossible. Christianity's god has more proof behind him than Poseidon, though(even if you think such a God doesn't have much evidence).

---

I meant if science can show Poseidon's existence to be unlikely, it can show any deity's existence to be unlikely.

---

True, I just mentioned that it has yet to do so.

---

Christianity, like all religions, borrowed from previous cultures. Where do you suppose the concept of heaven originated?

---

True, however the idea of a God is timeless. While physical gods have become outdated and dubious, a transcendant god still seems at least as probable as no god at all. Also Christians' concept of heaven is still far removed from the Greek concept of the heavens.

---

You still don't get it. The point that is trying to be made is that the unicorn is not a weaker example; it is as likely as any other deity. It does not disprove anything; nobody claims that. It merely demonstrates that any belief in the supernatural is equally tenuous.

---

The unicorn is a far weaker example than a non-physical God. The absurdity of the example alone weakens the oppositions ideas. I already pointed out that it is harder to prove or disprove something transcendant than it is to prove or disprove a physical entity. True, it does not disprove anything. The same could be said for many of the current models perpetuated by science.

---

The universe and nature are not perfect.

---

No, perfect was a bad way of wording it. The universe has never been fully explained by any models offered by science and will likely never be fully explained by science. The Big Bang does not explain how the Big Bang occurred or how the universe has achieved its current dimensions. It does not explain the ubiquity of positve and negative particles in various regions of the universe. It does not explain how the four primary forces came into being. It does not explain how matter came into being. It does not explain how energy came into being. Thus it leaves alot to be desired. Evolution does not explain how specific chemicals came together to create life. It does not account for the filling of nitches completely. It does not explain concious thought. It does not explain emotions. It does not explain various stages of life. Thus it to leaves alot to be desired. The universe was created in such a way(by whatever means) that life and the current state of the universe was possible. Are we to presume that it all happened as a result of random occurences? You could always submit to theories of alternate universes that have circulated around in theoretical physics and in theory it would be impossible for an infinite number of universes to have the same conditions as our own. I'm not saying for certain that God does exist(though I belief him to). I'm not saying there is a God. I am merely saying that the universe is in a very fortunate state(for us at least). That is why many people believed in the existence of a theistic deity.
Oh, and when you find a real unicorn, tell me.

---

I'll make sure to. I was just saying it is theoretically possible...

[Aggicificicerous]

I agree but Poseidon is specifically a Mediterranean deity. That was the extent of his domain according to the Greeks. So, Poseidon is dubious at best.

Poseidon covered all the seas. That includes seas beyond the Mediterranean (which the Greeks knew existed).

True. You would have to assume that the Greeks knew everything about their deity. I agree dubious not impossible. Christianity's god has more proof behind him than Poseidon, though(even if you think such a God doesn't have much evidence).

You keep trying to convince me of the same thing over and over, but I'm not buying it. I don't see what makes the Christian deity more convincing than any other supernatural phenomenon, from Poseidon to unicorns; none of these things can be disproven. So where is all this proof?

No, perfect was a bad way of wording it. The universe has never been fully explained by any models offered by science and will likely never be fully explained by science. The Big Bang does not explain how the Big Bang occurred or how the universe has achieved its current dimensions. It does not explain the ubiquity of positve and negative particles in various regions of the universe. It does not explain how the four primary forces came into being. It does not explain how matter came into being. It does not explain how energy came into being. Thus it leaves alot to be desired.

Likely we will never understand every part of the universe, but that proves nothing.

Evolution does not explain how specific chemicals came together to create life.

Evolution has nothing to do with how specific chemicals came together to create life. However, there are several labs researching the matter.

It does not account for the filling of nitches completely.

Examples?

It does not explain concious thought. It does not explain emotions.

Yes it does. These things gave an evolutionary advantage to our ancestors, and thus were preserved.

It does not explain various stages of life.

What exactly do you mean?

Thus it to leaves alot to be desired. The universe was created in such a way(by whatever means) that life and the current state of the universe was possible. Are we to presume that it all happened as a result of random occurences?

Have you bothered looking at how big the universe is? In 13.5 billion light years, we have proof that a single planet holds life. Perhaps more do, but the vast majority of the universe is lifeless.

And life is not random as you would expect. The way chemicals interact is not random: once you have the correct conditions, amino acids can be formed naturally thanks to the electromagnetic force.

You could always submit to theories of alternate universes that have circulated around in theoretical physics and in theory it would be impossible for an infinite number of universes to have the same conditions as our own. I'm not saying for certain that God does exist(though I belief him to). I'm not saying there is a God. I am merely saying that the universe is in a very fortunate state(for us at least). That is why many people believed in the existence of a theistic deity.

Right, out of 13.5 billion light years of virtually empty space, we have one tiny little planet holding life, and that is a very fortunate state. There is no evidence in there of a deity. You can believe all you want. Belief is not proof.

[Avenio]

No, perfect was a bad way of wording it. The universe has never been fully explained by any models offered by science and will likely never be fully explained by science.

That's quitter talk right there. People have been saying the same thing about science for two thousand years, from the motion of the planets to chemical bonding to quantum physics, and science again and again proves them wrong.

The Big Bang does not explain how the Big Bang occurred or how the universe has achieved its current dimensions. It does not explain the ubiquity of positve and negative particles in various regions of the universe.

That's the beautiful thing about the 'theory' moniker that you've neglected to attach to 'Big Bang'; its malleable. It can be corrected, adjusted or even thrown out if the facts do not support it. Just because theories do not explain every aspect of their phenomena doesn't mean that they're to be cast down as wrong. Look at Bohr models, for example. They still work when modelling certain functions of the atom and chemistry, and many students of physics and science learn this theory as a primer to the more complex and mind-bending quantum models.

It does not explain how the four primary forces came into being. It does not explain how matter came into being. It does not explain how energy came into being. Thus it leaves alot to be desired.

Again, its a theory, not a law.

Evolution does not explain how specific chemicals came together to create life. It does not account for the filling of nitches completely. It does not explain concious thought. It does not explain emotions. It does not explain various stages of life. Thus it to leaves alot to be desired.

Actually, we're getting quite close to figuring out how the chemicals on early Earth came together to form life-like structures and eventually life itself. One of the few reasons we haven't gotten closer is that the scientific understanding of what the conditions on early Earth were continue to evolve and change. The filling of niches? You mean in biology and ecology? Its quite simple; the organism that is best adapted to a certain prey/way of life will out-compete lesser adapted competitors. As for consciousness, again, we're getting quite close. Scientists believe that we evolved consciousness as a way to predict the actions of prey/predators and the social cues of other humans, and, as we began developing as a species, it became more and more complex. Emotions are caused by hormones and autonomic responses in the brain. Various stages of life? Like embryology? You know, there have been studies where scientists have tried, and succeeded, to re-engineer dinosaur traits in birds (Including successfully causing a chicken embryo to grow teeth), so I don't know where you're getting this.

The universe was created in such a way(by whatever means) that life and the current state of the universe was possible. Are we to presume that it all happened as a result of random occurences? You could always submit to theories of alternate universes that have circulated around in theoretical physics and in theory it would be impossible for an infinite number of universes to have the same conditions as our own.

Not just similar to our own, but any iteration possible for every event ever. There could be universes where the laws of physics are wildly different from our own, to universes where only silicon or sulfur-based life evolved to universes exactly like our own except that Hitler was killed in the trenches of World War I. What we percieve as a very ideal environment is most likely the result of billions of years of random iterations.

I'm not saying for certain that God does exist(though I belief him to). I'm not saying there is a God. I am merely saying that the universe is in a very fortunate state(for us at least). That is why many people believed in the existence of a theistic deity.

There are millions of stars in our galaxy, many of which have planets. There are many where life cannot exist due to any number of reasons, ranging from Jovian planets within the habitable zone to rogue planets to solar phenomena, but statistically speaking its is inevitable that systems will develop that can support life, ours among them. Assuming that we're somehow 'special' just because of this is just as bad as claiming a coin is lucky because it got a 'heads' three times in a row.

[Luciratus]

Poseidon covered all the seas. That includes seas beyond the Mediterranean and the Black (which the Greeks knew existed after a certain point).

---

Actually that would be the Titan Oceanus not Poseidon. Poseidon's palace was specifically located under the Mediterranean even if he had power over all salt water.

---

You keep trying to convince me of the same thing over and over, but I'm not buying it. I don't see what makes the Christian deity more convincing than any other supernatural phenomenon, from Poseidon to unicorns; none of these things can be disproven. So where is all this proof?

---

I've explained why, even if I'm not very good at it. The Christian deity has less evidence against him than unicorns. He is transcendant not physical. If he acts through mediums that appear natural, there is no evidence against him as of yet. Unicorns as organisms would have particular traits that are visible and manifest. Unicorns may well exist(if science finds them) and then atheists who compared God to unicorns would feel rather foolish. That said it is still a straw man and one that appears to have worked rather well since many buy into it.

---

Likely we will never understand every part of the universe, but that proves nothing.

---

I never said it did. However it remains possible that there is a transcendant God until you can prove without a doubt that he doesn't exist.

---

Evolution has nothing to do with how specific chemicals came together to create life. However, there are several labs researching the matter.

---

Yes the beginning of life is covered in the theory of evolution is it not? The Theory of Evolution suggest that all organisms have evolved from a prior organism or chemical composition.

---

Examples?
Why should there be nitches? What is there purpose? Why can't everything merely feed off of sunlight. Isn't that the most energy efficient manner of garnering energy for basic bodily processes? The current theory does not explain why nitches such as herbivores and carnivores exist at all. It just states that they are. This has no evidence as to why they are.

---

Yes it does. These things gave an evolutionary advantage to our ancestors, and thus were preserved.

---

How does the ability to realize higher concepts such as yourself or God in the way that humans are able to good for anything? If it had been a simple mutation in the genome that was not benificial it would have remained relatively small. Humans have become increasingly aware of themselves and higher ideals when they were never neccesary. I understand the concept that even if it is not useful it can exist but why should it become more widespread? What kind of advantages would a realization of higher concepts(humans could already communicate and use weapons) bring to humanity. Of course this might not even be an evolutionary question.

---

What exactly do you mean?

---

How did transitions from one life form to another occur? Why did they occur? How would transitions occur in such a way that minute changes could occur while simultaneously preserving the ability of an organism to survive in its particular environment? Evolution is not understood well enough at present.

---

Have you bothered looking at how big the universe is? In 13.5 billion light years, we have proof that a single planet holds life. Perhaps more do, but the vast majority of the universe is lifeless.

---

Correct. However the universe was put together in such a way that all of the forces, particles, and energies are present. I did not mention life specifically.

---

And life is not random as you would expect. The way chemicals interact is not random: once you have the correct conditions, amino acids can be formed naturally thanks to the electromagnetic force.

---

The way chemical interact is indeed anything but random. However the conditions, states, temperatures, percentages, and many other factors do affect how the chemicals come together. I've already brought into question, why the electromagnetic force exist. What happened at the beginning of our universe that caused the electromagnetic force to come into being? Or any force for that matter?

---

Right, out of 13.5 billion light years of virtually empty space, we have one tiny little planet holding life, and that is a very fortunate state. There is no evidence in there of a deity. You can believe all you want. Belief is not proof.

---

Space is not at all empty. Imagine how many galaxies, stars, planets, and other objects are floating in that vacuum. There is an almost infinite(to the human mind) number of particles in space. Don't be so pessimistic life might well be possible on other planets, in fact that might help disprove good as well(if you wanted to). So it comes down to fortune(bad word choice)? There is no evidence that a Big Bang occurred. I told you the evidence some see for a deity and is just as credible as current scientific models and just as open to change.



Edit: We've been moving quickly away from the point of this thread. I don't think either of us is likely to back down any time soon. As this is the case, this will be my last post on this thread debating the existence of God. However if you move back to the topic of persecution(which is worn-out and finished by now probably) I will not hesitate to comment. If you would like to debate the existence God please feel free to open another thread. I am doing this because we are off topic.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Luciratus, there's a wonderful thing called the "quote" button, located between the underline and Code buttons.

[Luciratus]

Luciratus, there's a wonderful thing called the "quote" button, located between the underline and Code buttons.

I'm sorry. I'm not very good at this thread thing yet. It's rather confusing. Also he/she quoted everything and on some things we actually agreed. All the same I'll try to be more tidy. By the way it was an interesting discussion...

[Galiria]

No Christian persecution is not OK, but I don't have much sympathy for them. After centuries of trampling people underfoot and forcing them to believe and worship their loving God, an attitude which remains to this day, I just can't find the heart to offer anything more than a 'oh, that's not nice'.

Or maybe I'm just heartless .

[Aggicificicerous]

Actually that would be the Titan Oceanus not Poseidon. Poseidon's palace was specifically located under the Mediterranean even if he had power over all salt water.

Exactly. He covered all salt water. And Oceanus was the god of all fresh water, not salt.

I've explained why, even if I'm not very good at it. The Christian deity has less evidence against him than unicorns.

No. These are both supernatural things. There is no evidence for or against them. We can only look at the world around us and make our best guesses.

I never said it did. However it remains possible that there is a transcendant God until you can prove without a doubt that he doesn't exist.

It is possible, but an argument from ignorance is not terribly convincing.

Yes the beginning of life is covered in the theory of evolution is it not? The Theory of Evolution suggest that all organisms have evolved from a prior organism or chemical composition.

Wrong. Evolution explains how life diversifies, not how it originated.

Why should there be nitches?

There are niches in life because there are niches in the environment.

What is there purpose?

What?

Why can't everything merely feed off of sunlight. Isn't that the most energy efficient manner of garnering energy for basic bodily processes?

Because some forms of life did well obtaining energy in other ways. Photosynthesis can only provide so much energy, and for an organism that requires more (like one that has motile functions), that just isn't enough. devouring organic matter, such as another organism, provides far more nutrients and energy.

The current theory does not explain why nitches such as herbivores and carnivores exist at all. It just states that they are. This has no evidence as to why they are.

Do you even know what evolution is? Evolution does not explain the why, it explains the how. Also, see above.

How does the ability to realize higher concepts such as yourself or God in the way that humans are able to good for anything? If it had been a simple mutation in the genome that was not benificial it would have remained relatively small. Humans have become increasingly aware of themselves and higher ideals when they were never neccesary. I understand the concept that even if it is not useful it can exist but why should it become more widespread? What kind of advantages would a realization of higher concepts(humans could already communicate and use weapons) bring to humanity. Of course this might not even be an evolutionary question.

Human brains have increasingly become larger and more complex. This has allowed them to make great strides in areas such as planning, technology, and food production. Something like self-awareness aids this, especially with problem solving. That being said, our self-awareness tends to be overstated, and is not limited to humans. Here's an interesting article, if you want to read more. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0

How did transitions from one life form to another occur? Why did they occur? How would transitions occur in such a way that minute changes could occur while simultaneously preserving the ability of an organism to survive in its particular environment? Evolution is not understood well enough at present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

No, really. If you don't understand basic evolution, don't try to challenge it.

Correct. However the universe was put together in such a way that all of the forces, particles, and energies are present. I did not mention life specifically.

The way chemical interact is indeed anything but random. However the conditions, states, temperatures, percentages, and many other factors do affect how the chemicals come together. I've already brought into question, why the electromagnetic force exist. What happened at the beginning of our universe that caused the electromagnetic force to come into being? Or any force for that matter?

How do you know these forces came into being with the creation of the universe? And if they did, why would it matter?

Space is not at all empty. Imagine how many galaxies, stars, planets, and other objects are floating in that vacuum. There is an almost infinite(to the human mind) number of particles in space. Don't be so pessimistic life might well be possible on other planets, in fact that might help disprove good as well(if you wanted to). So it comes down to fortune(bad word choice)? There is no evidence that a Big Bang occurred. I told you the evidence some see for a deity and is just as credible as current scientific models and just as open to change.

Space is almost entirely empty, which a few small galaxies and other debris spread out sparesly. Life might well exist on other worlds, but the fact remains that there is far more emptiness than matter.

Edit: We've been moving quickly away from the point of this thread. I don't think either of us is likely to back down any time soon. As this is the case, this will be my last post on this thread debating the existence of God. However if you move back to the topic of persecution(which is worn-out and finished by now probably) I will not hesitate to comment. If you would like to debate the existence God please feel free to open another thread. I am doing this because we are off topic.

Okay.

[Allbeama]

The second common is not true. There were codes of morality that applied to slave masters. As the people were indentured servants it was considered wrong to abuse them.

Incorrect. Read the Bible. It even tells us how hard one is allowed to smack a slave.

As for the one-eyed giants again they are physical entities and thus cannot be compared to transcendant beings.

Poseidon/Neptune then ?

I do not see why it matters though. People mix fantasy and reality in lots of books - including in the time the Bible was written.

I have heard of the ability to hit slaves as specified in the Bible. However they were freed after the seven year period. I am not familiar with the specific passage however. There were still codes of morality and they were alot more balanced than those of the Egyptians, Assyrians, or Babylonians. For a civilization at the time slavery was not an uncommon practice.

Posiden/Neptune was still a physical god who dwelled in a physical palace either at the bottom of the sea or in Olympus. All "pagan" belief system worshiped physical gods. The only religions that didn't to my knowledge originated in the Middle East or Asia. Religious faiths such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Manichaeism, Christianity, Budhism, and Taoism worship things which are non-physical. Thus to compare their deities to other physical deities is a weak argument. That is why pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster arguments can't be applied, they are straw-man.

Well, archaeological evidence suggests that slaves were not used by the Egyptians to build the pyramids. In fact the whole idea of Moses freeing the Hebrews from slavery doesn't seem to hold much water in light of current evidence.The evidence suggests that the Hebrew people were a mercenary tribe defending Egypot from here enemies. Then a pharaoh, Ramses I think, set them to working for pay on public works projects. So really what probably happened is some proud warrior race guys got fed up working the construction gig, rose up, plundered and pillaged and left town looking for greener pastures.

As for the whole apples to oranges argument your making it holds little to no water either. A physical god is just as extraordinary a claim as a non-physical god. Also, Pagans believed in gods who would take physical form but their true form was every bit as spiritual in nature as your god. To say otherwise is to demean the philosophical elegance of pagan thought. In fact, it was believed that the true form of Zeus was so beyond mortal comprehension that to look upon him in all his divine glory was death to mortals.