"Death is an awful horror." So states Michael Viljuen.
His statement falls into the same category.
I don't know where he learned his philosophy, but the reality of death is that it is the normal end of temporal existence.
In other words, death is a natural part of life.
What's the big problem?
Nothing in existence is permanent, and the more ready we are to accept this, the more rational we will become about a perfectly normal ending of existence.
One day ends, and another begins. Life's like that, so stop worrying, and spreading unwarranted fear about "awful horrors."

Aaah...well..nothing quite like a challenge eh :)

<to the infantile hope of life after death proposed by religion. He then challenged Christians to argue their case as to why their faith in the afterlife should not be described as blind.>

1/ INFANTILE?

The qualifications of Christianities foremost proponent.. Paul.

a) Educated at the feet of "Gamaliel" (search that one urselves)
b) Hebrew of the Hebrews.. of the tribe of Benjamin.
c) Circumcises on the 8th day according to the Law.
d) A Pharisee by position, status and learning.

It is he who personally claims an encounter with the Risen Christ.
His claim is corroborated by Luke, the author of Luke/Acts.

The lives of the disciples/Apostles were transformed after Pentecost from timid fraidycats to those like Peter, who just days before had said "No......I don't know him"...into bold Knights of the Gospel saying publically "This Jesus who YOU crucified by the hands of lawless men"

BLIND?
Our faith is no blinder than the belief that Cook began white settlement of Australia.

Death stalks all of us... we never know when it might occur.. it might happen to me before the end of this sentence.....

Nope.. still here :)

Moreover.. living with a glorious living present reality of Christ's presense, and a secure hope of a future in His blessed presence.

1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, wehave peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope.

5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. (Rom 5:1-5)

I'm always happy for threads like this.. one can never be accused of 'Bible Bashing' when a challenge is issued :)

Throughout history these so called unbelievers have come thirteen to the dozen,and as yet have not proved anything,all the ifs and buts about science and their theories are open and can be discredited,and those that do believe in the Scientific god? not GOD?,has not as yet given or made any substantial reasons as to why they believe in this god? called science.But on a lighter note,the Blacks in South Africa did survive the daily oppression of the white parasites that controlled their lives,their values were their faith and hope in their creator,they have survived

Michael Viljoen,

you are incorrect, the burden of proof is on those who believe in life after death not on the unbelievers, you present belief as "proof", which is nonsense. Our consciousness is a product of brain function nothing more, the longevity of a delusion is not proof of its validity.

Polycarp,

you can quote from your sacred text until Doomsday(!) and I could quote from mine(if I had one) that would not prove anything.

The same tired old pseudo/philosophical claptrap, containing all the usual unsubstantiated assumptions, and setting the same old logical trap - inviting the reader to disprove a negative.
Central to the writer's thesis is the most nonsensical assumption of all - that there is something called a 'soul' which (it seems) is an allegedly indestructable essence of 'self'. Not one iota of proof has ever been offered for the existence of the 'soul' - indeed life experience clearly indicates that with the death or disablement of neurological connections comes a concommitent disappearance of function and awareness until when all neurological connections are gone, all personality is also gone, and with it the 'self awareness' so beloved and relied upon by proponents of an aware 'life after death' - ie the survival of personal identity.
All this based on a couple of silly women running around about two thousand years ago screaming out 'he has risen'!

The very notion of the survival of the incorporeal 'self' does not arise from observation or deduction. The notion is no more than the outcome of a logical impossibility - that being the impossibility of contemplating our own non-existence - and tied to that logical impossibility the corresponding fear of the existential void brings forth a desperate belief in personal continuity. That belief has been the driving force behind countless acts through the years of cruelty and barbarism as each group finds their own guru and applies their own rituals and sanctions.

"Death is an awful horror'? No, it's a natural part of life, which is all ebb and flow, transience, change. Death is only horror if you fail to grasp this.

35 years ago I believed I was about to die from a fall in the Himalayas. My only regret was that I had at times been suicidal, and my family would not know that at that time I was peaceful and happy.

I survived to play a longer innings, the end of which I will accept without fear or "horror." I'm surprised that either a Christian or a philosopher would not do the same.

Michael, death is just that, death, the end of life. To try to put it into some sort of ongoing experience requires evidence.
To use religous belief that there is an ongoing exsistence, without evidence is snake oil BS..t!!

Beliefs have consequences. I wonder if the belief that they were sending soldiers off to be 'promoted' to 'eternal life' influenced the decisions of born-again George Bush and closet Catholic Tony Blair to go to war in Iraq? I wonder how much they influence the beliefs of fundamentalists in the US and now, alas, Australia, who withhold medical treatment from their children and permit them to die instead? And we all know how they have influenced the actions of Muslim suicide bombers on, before and since the 9/11 attacks.

Beliefs have consequences; and all too often, irrational beliefs have fatal consequences for innocent bystanders instead of -- or as well as -- the ones who actually hold them. Believe what you like; but as soon as that belief has consequences in the real world, it becomes my business and everyone else's to see that what you believe is based on evidence and reason rather than wishful thinking.

what i believe to know[as a certainty]is there is a[the]god,from this certainty i trust[to KNOW]there is an after-life

[now the thing is if im wrong[and after'this'life,i dont get born into the next incarnation ....so what[i will never know]

but if'you';die and there is an after-life[you go through eternity KNOWING'you'were wrong]

but if there is or isnt[again]my reply is so what![this gift of life that i have lived i have lived as full as i chose to live it[i dont waste a second of it thinking this is all there is]plus;in knowing the'life/giver'i have had acces to conception of greatness greater than me'

my biggest issue is that those who cant concieve god[or concieve the AFTER BEING]HAVE ONLY LIVED THE'LIMITED'LIFE OF THEIR'OWN'CERTAINTIEs[wrong certainties,based on wrong concepts[implanted into perfectly good people by'other'people[so vile they take even away from others the certainty of knowing'this-life'isnt all there is

they go so far as to mis-represent'life'as well as god[dying is painless,as has been reported by many that have passed over[yes there was pain[but then just before dying all the pain left]then comes the huge deception of god'judging'us[and a judgment'day'any that can concieve the life-GIVER,realise that is just what'he'does;GIVE US LIFE[all of us]from the most'vile'to the'best'of huh?-man can realise.

it is not for me to confirm[or for me to give comfort,but that we loved;in life',we'love'in death[those'loving'to steal;love to steal in the next'life'[but]thieves have their'own'hell[they would call it heaven]because an eternity of thieving is what they'chose'to love

same with those who love all'evil'and all'good'[like goes with like [sheep with sheep[goats with goats[wheat with wheat,tares with tares]its not rocket science'

i am not'promised'anything[but knowing the'after'life[second-birth] gives me simple'comforts[and if wrong there is no one going to be able to say see'johan'there is nothing here]sadly many'waste'their after life in the delusion they really are'dead',

this is the damage lies[believing'lies does]no-one should be allowed to hurt anyones'free-chosen'[informed]belief[you that tell'your'children;this'life is all there',is are not only decieved but decieving[if you[generic'you']dont know,then dont talk about what you cant concieve,it is not only dumb[its criminally ignorant]

Polycarp

"The qualifications of Christianities [sic] foremost proponent.. Paul.

a) Educated at the feet of "Gamaliel" (search that one urselves)
b) Hebrew of the Hebrews.. of the tribe of Benjamin.
c) Circumcises on the 8th day according to the Law.
d) A Pharisee by position, status and learning."

So this Paul chap is well educated, well bred, has the tip of his penis removed and was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. How exactly does any of this make him an infallibly reliable witness?

An interesting read, this article. I agree with much of what the author has to say. He who has conquered death is most certainly worth of our attention.

For anyone interested, I'm currently engaged in discussing the claims of Jesus resurrection in the responses to Brett Walker's article which is referred to here. I've tried to show that Christianity is not something which is completely and utterly based on blind faith, because there's some good, solid historical evidence which points us to the conclusion that he rose from the dead. I'd encourage you to have a look if you want to discuss that issue- I'd love to discuss it here also, but I've already made many points in the other article so I'll refer you there to avoid repeating myself, and so you're able to see a bit of background about where I'm coming from.

Argument? Need to do better than this, Michael.

First, as mac has hinted above, the burden of proof in this matter is not shared. The fact that many believe in an afterlife contributes no evidence whatsoever to its reality. The burden of proof rests entirely on the person making an assertion - if you want to claim there is an afterlife, without proof it remains nothing more than an unsupported assertion.

Second, to expand Faustino's and Ponder's points a little, death is not "an awful horror." Or at least, it need not be so. Catholics are taught to strive for a death in a state of grace, and few of them would describe this as a horror. Sufferers of terminal illness who wish for a comfortable death before pain and disease incapacitate them would not describe this as a horror either. The "awful horror" is when death comes after prolonged and futile suffering, only after every human dignity has been stripped away. "Death is an awful horror" when it comes in the manner of someone else's choosing.

Third, while Steve Reyn's passing was premature, and possibly even tragic, the man died instantly doing what he loved. This quote from his eulogy says much: "Steve was overjoyed, exuberant and at peace. On September 26, 2008 Steve was riding his bike in Nigeria when a car took a corner too fast, lost control and struck Steve. Steve instantly passed from this world to the next." http://memoriesofsteve.com/

Onya Steve.

Michael, if you're looking for a death with which to argue against the right to end one's own life, this ain't it. Reyn died the transcendental death in a state of grace: presumably what he wished for, even if it wasn't the timing he would have chosen.

"In Christian philosophy, death is something everyone is fated to experience and an instrument that God uses for his purposes." Fine. You've articulated how christians can strive for the death that realises their beliefs. Yet you're denying non-believers the right to do the same. Not logical, not just, and not sustainable.

Typical Religious crap, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I as a agnostic/atheist don't need to prove something does exist you need to prove that it doesn't.
As for the other Christian posters, referencing your little book doesn't count, it's like reciting lord of the rings as proof there are elves.
Bu the biggest laugh however goes to “under one God”, what a wing nut, never does he think that maybe one of the other religions is the real one.
The stupidity of his statement if you follow Jesus teaching and your wrong it doesn’t matter but if you do you will go to heaven. Does he think there is only one choice? Either you’re not religious or you’re a Christian, is that what he is saying? Does he not know his own religion? Doesn’t he realise his and many other religions teach that to simply believe in God is not good enough, you have to believe the right way and behave in the right manner. How does he know he has picked the right faith?
So even though Christians dumbed down the Jewish rules a bit for getting into heaven, there still are some. That goes for many of the other faiths.

The supernatural lives in the gaps of our understanding and every day those gaps are getting smaller.

kenny quote>>Bu the biggest laugh however goes to“under one God”, what a wing nut,never does he think that maybe one of the other religions is the real one.>>

kenny you presume incorectly[im not a christian]
but the'pot'calling the kettle black continues

>>The stupidity of his statement if you follow Jesus teaching and your wrong it doesn’t matter but if you do you will go to heaven.>>

i think you think that i think jesus is god[your delusion knows no bounds]jesus was man[born of woman]what we see jesus do HE says we will do greater[greater than god my retarded BRR-other?]

>>Does he think there is only one choice?<<

no he does not[jesus was not the first messenger]he came to his own [who knew him not]didnt recognise their own mess-iah[lol]

>>Either you’re not religious or you’re a Christian>>

your presumptions straddle both sides of the fence retard[re-read your second post[your own self/hate is blinding you]yes im NOT religious,no im not an xtian[i love jesus but cant support his followers who elivate him wrongly into'god']

>>Does he not know his own religion?<<

as repeatedly stated im not into'religion'[nor xtian]

>>Doesn’t he realise his and many other religions teach that to simply believe in God is not good enough,>>

as stated im ONLY into god[get it?
im not ANY religion,i JUST believe in god[full stop]

>>you have to believe the right way and behave in the right manner. How does he know he has picked the right faith?>>

there is no right or wrong with god[more will be given]
as jesus said mine fathers house has many rooms[religions]

>>So even though Christians dumbed down the Jewish rules a bit for getting into heaven,there still are some.>>

jesus said LOVE GOD/love neighbour]thats about as simple as it gets

>>That goes for many of the other faiths.<<
jews?please explain[you think jewish is the root belief[how absurd]
abraham wernt no jew[judean isnt jewish either]this'jew'thing was only a relitivly recent invention;research your yiddish root[facts]my retarded other]

The supernatural lives in the gaps of our understanding and every day those gaps are getting smaller

Candide

"So this Paul chap is well educated, well bred, has the tip of his penis removed and was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. How exactly does any of this make him an infallibly reliable witness?"

Posted by Candide, Monday, 22 December 2008 10:38:06 PM

Hilarious - I needed a laugh.

My mother has only a few months (weeks?) left to her life. She still laughs (and cries) just like any normal person. She accepts that her life is not forever and has not suddenly become "all religious" as some do who live in fear.

The suffering will come from those who, like me, loved my mother and we will miss her.

Dear Candide....

interesting question.

It's not so much that Pauls qualifications make him an 'infallible' witness..they just make him a good one. i.e.. He knew what he was on about. You might like to have a serious look at how he develops the condition of mankind and then moves through to the experience of Christ in his letter to the Roman Christians. You will see a remarkable mind at work.

His background, and his astute mind should be taken into consideration when we read his testimony as follows: (in his letter to the Corinthian Christians)

"and last of all he appeared to me also." (1 Cor 15:8)

Fraccy....sorry to hear of your mum's near end of life. I've been through it and as an only child, I assure you.. I do identify and understand all the emotions..

I wonder if you could ask her. "Mum.. do you think about a next life/God...?" Maybe u already know the answers...but if she does show any interest.. why not take the time to read her some comforting passages from a Bible that you have? "I am the resurrection and the life...he/she who believes in me, though he/she die, will yet live"

John 11:25 The whole gospel is found in that one verse.

I read that verse at the funeral of my aunt who died recently to a mixed Protestant/Catholic/Secular audience in a country town.

Take care ..

Polly

As I said above my mother has not suddenly "found religion", because we HAVE talked about it!

For once, stop with proselytising - if you REALLY understand what I and my family are going through you would've displayed more thought and courtesy than you have.

You do so much damage - you really have no idea at all do you?

Kenny, as I was reading your post, I was thinking that yours was one of those rare replies where a response is definitely demanded. As usual then, the problem here is deciding what to reply to, given the word limit. The last comment was a gem, so this is where I'll focus my attention:

"The supernatural lives in the gaps of our understanding and every day those gaps are getting smaller."

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'll give a few brief examples:

- The creation of the universe- 50 years ago, most scientists held that the universe is eternal. Then in 1965 there were some discoveries and the Big Bang theory became the widely accepted theory. Big bang implies ex nihilo creation, or creation from nothing, which lines up with the biblical account, and leaves us scratching our heads.

- The fine tuning of the universe- Discoveries in recent years have shown that the universe is incredibly fine tuned. Over 100 constants exist in this universe, which, if changed even to the smallest degree, would render life impossible and/or the existence of stars or this planet. Basically, over 100 constants need to be extremely finely tuned in this universe for life to even exist. When you remember that this is the only universe, ie: There's no solid evidence for multiple universes, this should blow your mind.

- The resurrection of Jesus- in the 1800's many scholars held theories based on hallucinations and visions, then later psychological research showed that these were implausible.

So, I've given 3 examples here where increased scientific understanding has increased the likelihood of the supernatural. It's been advance in science, not ignorance of science, that's let us to understand the big bang creation event, and the ridiculous improbability of the finely tuned nature of our universe, and which has increased the likelihood of a supernatural explanation for the disciples belief in Jesus' resurrection.

What Michael doesnt tell us is that the purpose of the Wycliffe organisation is to bring the bible and the IDIOTIC plastic "christ" to everyone on the planet by translating the bible into every currently used language.

In effect such and activity ends up bringing the thus targeted ethic and tribal groups into the fold of Western "culture". And thus destroying the cultures of the targeted ethnic and tribal groups.

Applied western imperialism, all done supposedly with the very best of motives---ho,ho,ho.

Meanwhile please check out these related references which give an Illuminated Understanding of death and dying.And which point out that the understanding of the meaning and significance of death is the key to right life altogether.

1. http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp

2. http://www.aboutadidam.org/dying_death_and_beyond/index.html

3. http://www.dabase.org/dualsens.htm

Trav, since you have condescended to comment , I'll reply to you

The Big Bang theory doesn't imply ex nihilo creation at all, scientists, unlike the religious, do not create fantasies out of ignorance. Whether the question "what gave rise to the Big Bang" is meaningful is best left to cosmologists. There is also some evidence that the Universe might oscillate between periods of expansion and contraction. God must have been created from nothing or is He/She /It eternal, there's the trap.

The Universe is "fine-tuned",this is the most interesting argument that you use, believers used this reasoning in support of the idea of a creator god to explain life on earth. Darwin demonstrated that a special creator was not required, natural selection is the mechanism that leads to the origin of species. The jury is still out on fine tuning. Even if we accepted the existence of a creator, there is no evidence that it cares about humanity, the whole superstructure of Christian belief is built on a fantasy.

There is no independent support whatsoever for the resurrection of Jesus, his followers probably incorporated pagan beliefs of rebirth in a very effective PR campaign to the gentiles. There is in fact no historical Jesus at all.

Viljoen crap,wrong and not in context unbelievers?just how you came to that coclusion

did not explain anything

The problems with God are:
1) Existential question is pushed back. Instead of "how did multiverse come about" we have to answer "How did omnipotent being come about". Adding God actually makes the core question harder.
2) Logical issues: What does omnipotent actually mean? Here you get problems with "Can God create a rock that He cannot lift?" or "Immovable force meets iresistable object". God needs to be qualified to make any sense at all.
3) Any theory of God can be linked to any behaviour. Witch burning, pogroms throughout history. Holiness often is equated with blood thirstiness. Once you can justify your actions as Good, then all sorts of human vices become possible: Mass murder, victimisation, and recently pedophelia.
4) Thinking of God stops you thinking of Good. If people actually cared about the one Good then they would be doing Gods work. Instead they prey while they should be working or learning.
And Christianity...
1) All of the religious morals were borrowed from earlier Eastern atheistic philosophies. The Bible compilers kept the books that pandered to the prejudices of the age. (This is why Jesus tells us to treat the slaves well. Never occurred to Him that slavery is evil!)
Study the Taoist writings that pre-date Jesus to learn from the masters that he got his ideas from.
2) Folks can interpret the Bible to mean what they want: White supremicists, Anti-Gay, George Bush... There is no moral guidance in the Bible that cannot be interpreted.
3) Not choosing to "Believe" lets me interpret the world in terms of knowledge. New information can be accepted and processed without cognitive disruption or emotional pain.
4) Of the many folks I've dealt with over the years, the overt Christians, the ones really proud of it, were the most dishonest and aggressive people I've ever met.
And finally folks: learn the Tao and you never need "believe" again. Life is a process. You can learn to live with it.

*Of the many folks I've dealt with over the years, the overt Christians, the ones really proud of it, were the most dishonest and aggressive people I've ever met.*

Interesting observation! Years ago, when I was in my 20s and went
to a timber mill to pick up a load of timber, the owner pointed out
that the greediest people in the district were all religious,
for in case it just happened to be true, they were making sure that
they had bought their ticket to heaven.

I've now observed these people in the same district for a good
30 years and I have to say that he was spot on, with his observation.

Ozandy>>..problems[with God:we have-to answer"How did omnipotent being come about".>>time has been scince the last big-bang[pre big-bang god was;post big-bang god is]see the big-bang being the FIRST let there be light[BANG]

>>2]Logical?issues:What/omnipotent actually mean?<<omni as[L.omnis all.]A combining form[denoting all,every,everywhere;

>>..problems with"Can God create a'rock'that He cannot lift?">>god has but to say;'be'and it is[has but to say;'begone[and it is]

<<..God needs to be'qualified'to make any'sense'>>god is logus[logic] where'logic'is god is[god is'love'[where'love'is god is]god is'life'[where god is'life'is]god is'light'sustaining'life'

>>3) Any theory..God can be linked to'any'behaviour.<<an athiest miss-conception<<.Once you can justify your actions as Good,then all sorts of human vices become possible:>>if you'KNOW'god is'love'[then by their'deeds'they reveal if they are serving love[god]or hate[freewill]

>>4) Thinking of God stops you thinking of Good>>nonsense<<.If people actually cared about the one Good[then]they would be doing Gods work.>>GOD NEEDS NO MAN[it is man[life]that needs god]

<<they should be working or learning>>god dont need us[life is gods gift to us].

>>And Christianity..All of the religious morals were borrowed from earlier Eastern atheistic philosophies.<<god has sent many'messengers[each generation has its'messiah'[..to every'nation'has he sent his messengers]

>>The Bible pandered to the prejudices of the age.<<freewill<<(This is why Jesus tells us to treat the slaves well.Never occurred to Him that slavery is evil!)<<RECAll'THE LONG LOST SON'[what is freedom if your too ignorant to look after yourself?[better to serve a'kind'master?]

Study the Taoist>>the'tao'is literally called'the way'[god is all-ways<<2)..interpret'the Bible'to mean what'they'want:There is no moral guidance in the Bible that cannot be interpreted.<<proving god give us all freewill[by our fruits we are revealed]

>>3)Not choosing to "Believe"<<proves you have freewill>> lets me interpret the world in terms of knowledge<<as I
[you]CHOSE.

>>.New information can be accepted and processed without cognitive disruption or emotional pain.<<wrong everything has its price[cost]

4)..opinion

>>learn the Tao and you never need"believe"[?]again<<i read the tao[i dont follow its'way',nor its high priests'religion[interpritation/translation]THEIR way
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1238

>>.Life is a process..<< life is a gift[an oppertuinity to try to live without god,to see how we cant survive'without'him[how do YOU make your heart beat?]how YOU make a seed?]

Hi Yabby and of course you can fill us in with a few examples of their 'dishonesty' right? :)

Thanx..I await.

And of course...'you' are without blemish or spot....right?

wooyeahhh...

"The Big Bang theory doesn't imply ex nihilo creation at all,"

Yes, it does. Stephen Hawking said "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang".

"God must have been created from nothing or is He/She/It eternal"

According to the bible, God is eternal.

Regarding Darwin, he began to demonstrate that life can develop through the process of natural selection. Darwin said nothing about the origin of life- evolution is a theory on the development, not origin, of life. Obviously he also said nothing about the universe, t's existence or it's fine tuning either. So any attempt to claim that Evolution means there is no god, is utterly futile.

"The jury is still out on fine tuning".

The jury is out on the conclusion you draw from fine tuning, not the evidence itself. Consider all the possible universes that could've been created at the moment of the big bang. Imagine 10 with 124 zeroes after it. Or, more than the total number of particles in the universe.

The one universe that was created was the only one which could sustain our life, and it just happened to be the one which was created. Personally, I think that points strongly towards a supernatural hand being involved. Much easier to believe than believing that it was the result of an incomprehensible accident.

"There is in fact no historical Jesus at all."

Sorry, but thats a completely unsupportable position, based on speculation and selectively choosing evidence while simply ignoring or severely distorting the remaining body of evidence.

I suggest you read some stuff by the top New Testament Scholars and historians of our day- Christians like NT Wright or Darrell Bock, or atheists/agnostics like Bart Ehrman or John Crossan. All of those guys say it is historically certain that Jesus existed. In fact, there are very very few seriously educated (in this field) people who even take your idea seriously.

If you'd like to discuss Jesus resurrection further, head over to the thread for Brett Walker's article on November 26.

Trav,
Hawking's isn't the only opinion, also his comments have absolutely nothing to say in support of the existence of a creator god, it's simply a scientific statement, the Big Bang is not necessarily a point in time, as we understand time.You should refer to some recent books on cosmology, where these concepts are explained by scientists.This does not imply ex nihilo creation at all. Where was God before the creation of the Universe? Who created God? An uncreated God- why not an uncreated Universe?.

You missed my point in regard to Darwin and evolutionary theory, before Darwin people thought that the enormous variety of species on Earth was evidence of God's creation, life was so "fine-tuned" for survival. Darwin demonstrated that this "fine-tuning" could be explained by natural selection, not the work of a god. So we can't jump to the same conclusions as our ancestors in regard to the apparent cosmological "fine tuning".Of course evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, however, you are following the ancient practice of filling the gaps with God.

Now we turn to Christianity,with its concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving Deity for which there is absolutely no evidence. The term "no historical Jesus" refers to the claim that there are no non-Christian references anywhere to the of existence of Jesus, apart from some suspect interpolations, that's what I meant. See the problem.

As far as I understand Jesus was preaching to Jews exclusively anyway, and didn't really approve of gentiles.

MAC>>Where was God before the creation of the Universe?<<....the simple reply is everywhere[omnipresent][as there is no spacetime,pre the big-bang,there was no time;god resides in this timelessness]DEEP

but as you cant concieve the allness of god encompases;is all of his creation[much more than simply a material universe]your still concieving a flesh[embodied god,thus to your next question[when you know your not going to be content[with the reply]

>>Who created God?<<

no-one'created'god,what does allways was[allways will be]
,mean,in relation to eternal and omnipresent]

<<An uncreated God-why not an uncreated Universe?.>>

a thoughtfull question[see that we are dealing with an'unseen'cause]

able to be known only by those in[this]creation seeking to know;only by study of his creation[and the logic and best of that nature of this creation that is the base knowing about him who created it

[the hand of the master is reflected in his master piece]

your saying in affect that the mona-lisa dont egsist because the painter is dead[or can not be proven to be living now][yet we see the'mona-lisa'thus presume to know its creator did/does egsist]as people egsist

[life egsists]but much we have found to egsist as well is'unseen'[electricity,radiation,even light[itself unseen,yet in its light we are'able'to see[the light facilitates the seeing[god facilitates the light allowing us to see[facilitates the life allowing us to live]

[god is that logic[law]that gives predicability to his created reality]but each must[may]chose to'simply'live or'dare'to use the logic to gave us to ask higher questions[and seek higher reply]

either way we have our[own]witness,in life,that life comes only from life[till science makes its own'life'from nothing im sticking with god creation life from life is not only logical but most probable

>>..Darwin demonstrated that this"fine-tuning"could be explained by natural selection,not the work of a god<<

i will ask you to proove that he did say that[cause i know he didnt state ANYWHERE words to the affect;'god didnt create life'
that is where you go that one step too far.

I ASK FOR PROOF HE SAID THAT

i look forward to your evidence revealing it as his direct quote

Thanks for your constructive comments.

If I could respond to a few:

Mac and jpw2040, if the burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion, and you assert that the human body, mind and spirit are essentially one chemistry and expire together, do you feel this has been sufficiently substantiated?

Mac, you accuse me of putting forth ‘belief as proof’. This may touch on what I was saying. However, you are muddying the distinction between ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’. I did not offer anything as proof. If any one point of view (religious or opposing religion) could affect a proof then we wouldn’t need these discussion pages.

However, putting forth certain beliefs or opinions as a line of evidence is reasonable, at least in some domains. Judicial systems depend upon it. The testimony, beliefs or opinions of a credible witness or witnesses often form the basis of a case.

In terms of evidence, I would have thought that the New Testament puts at least a few runs on the board for the opposition to chase. For those searching for proof, could I ask what would satisfy you in this situation?

Jpw2040, my purpose in highlighting Steve’s death was not to propose any argument about euthanasia. My aim was to describe a life which gave witness to Christ’s resurrection as well as someone who had entered into the qualities of life spoken by Christ.

What’s in a name? Ho Hum has revealed the true activities of Wycliffe Bible Translators. Yes, they are involved in Bible translation. You’d think if they were trying to hide such operations they would have chosen a different name. (And the Bible’s not a Western book.)

On the subject of names, my nickname below, Merengue, is a dance originating in the Caribbean. It refers to a line taken from my favourite movie, Tin Men, starring Danny DeVito and Richard Dreyfuss. The movie’s plot involves two men who are feuding after having their egos bruised. So I thought a reference to that movie was pretty appropriate for this website.

Michael Viljoen

For[atheists]who'complain'that[we]never provide'any'evidence,

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?s=f2808dac9151ecf0d31f7af106ae8462&t=15307

Everything that begins to'exist”has a cause.The logic behind this is both obvious and intuitive.It is the principle of'Cause/Effect'.

Things simply do not happen without'a prior'or underlying'cause'[and]we see that this is true throughout the world around us.If you throw a rock up into the air,it falls down[and]there is'specific[and]underlying'cause for why this happens[which]we know as gravity.

It's an'intuitive'concept to us all,but it is also one of the underlying_axioms of'Science'.We must assume this principle of Cause and Effect to assume the truth and validity of Science.Science attempts to explain the'Natural-World'through theories that are tested by experimentation and observation.

The very concept of'experimentation'depends on the'idea'that certain conditions will cause'certain'effects.If you assume that any given Event is'without'Cause then the very basis of'Science'itself is undercut.

This presents[an]interesting predicament for those who wish to challenge my first premise.If you..claim that effects need not have a cause[then]..As a result all scientific claims are rendered unsupported.

If,however,you wish to maintain the validity of scientific claims, then you must also accept the first premise as true..Let us now move onto whether or not God’s'existence'need be caused.....a cause is only necessitated for something that at a'prior'moment was in a different state.[So in the case of existence,that which did not exist prior to some event'necessitates'a cause.]

In contrast,that which has'always'existed does not possess a prior state of non-existence;therefore a cause is unnecessary for its existence is fact.

In fact,it is illogical to suggest that there is a'cause'for something without beginning as the notion of a'cause'inherently implies that there was a state of transition,[in our case]a state of transition from non-existence to existence.This is[of course]inapplicable to that which has always existed.

Furthermore,if we look into the claim that“Something that has always existed is without cause,”another truth becomes evident.No a priori explanation can be given for'why'something that has always existed exists,only a posteriori'explanations'can be given.This is a'much'harder'concept'to grasp.

What I mean by an'a-priori'explanation is a'reason'for why something exists based on its causes....In contrast'a posteriori'explanations work the opposite direction,they explain something based on its effects,not its cause....Since it is without cause,a priori'explanations are impossible.However,[it]can be explained by[its]effects,so'a posteriori'explanations are possible....

one under god,

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on some points, however I can't resist commenting--your statements are basically theological in nature. I cannot find common ground as, in my opinion, there is no proof that the object of study exists,you're still filling the gaps in our understanding of the Universe with a creator.I attended a Christian school for 5 years so I'm not unfamiliar with your arguments, I was sceptical then I'm sceptical now. Your statements down to the paragraph beginning with "Darwin" are simply credos and are not open to logical discussion. You like Trav, have missed the point, I'm not claiming that Darwin said anything in particular, but that he removed God from personally creating the separate species on earth. The diversity of life on earth was once considered proof of the existence of a creator god, no longer. As we learn more about the universe God becomes increasingly remote.

Dan S,

In reference to your first paragraph,Yes,it appears all "three" expire together, since we have no evidence to the contrary, the burden of proof still rests with you, the belief in life after death is yours not mine. There is no scientific evidence for survival after death, why believe it?

Second paragraph, I understand the distinction, however I'm not religious and I find it impossible to "believe"

Third "putting forth certain opinions or beliefs as a line of evidence is reasonable", precisely. Christian beliefs and opinions have been tested and found to be not supported by the evidence.

Reference to the authority of The New Testament is not valid for infidels, where is the independent evidence for the events described within that book?

Michael wrote: “In terms of evidence, I would have thought that the New Testament puts at least a few runs on the board for the opposition to chase. For those searching for proof, could I ask what would satisfy you in this situation?”

The burden of proof is always on the believer. Always!

If I claim that I have fairies in my garden, then it is up to me to prove this. I can’t make this claim to anyone and then expect that they be the one to prove to me that those fairies don’t exist. That would be rude to say the least.

Proving a negative is often impossible, and I suspect this is why it is asked of Atheists. If the religious can convince themselves that Atheists share at least some of the burden of proof, then the fact the existence of the supernatural can't actually be disproven would provide a small bit of comfort for them in a world where the gaps that gods fill are shrinking by the day.

Mac is correct when he/she says that the authority of the New Testament is not valid for infidels. How much weight would Christians place on the Qur’an if a Muslim was to start quoting from it?

"Hawking's isn't the only opinion,"

Correct, but he is at the forefront and was claiming to speak for most.

"also his comments have absolutely nothing to say in support of the existence of a creator god, "

Correct, I never stated otherwise.....

"it's simply a scientific statement, the Big Bang is not necessarily a point in time, as we understand time."

Yep- singularities etc etc. However, everything that we know and can gather from science began at that time. The fact is, the big bang suggests a beginning. No one really knows what came before, and attempts at explanation have generally been varied and unsuccessful, but that's irrelevant- the point is, there was a beginning.

"why not an uncreated Universe?".

Because physics tells us that things have a reaction. Everything has a cause- it's a common sense principle first and foremost, and one which is shown to be completely true by science.

Re fine tuning, as I've already explained, these fine tuning ideas have only been discovered recently. It's been advance in science, not ignorance of science which has led us to understand how ridiculously fine tuned this universe is. Filling the gaps would involve letting our ignorance point us towards a conclusion, which is clearly not the case here. There are over 100 constants, all improbably fine tuned. If any of them were different, life, or planets and stars even, wouldn't exist.

Re Jesus, How about the gospels for starters? We have 4 books written within a generation or two of Jesus' life, telling us all about him.

We also have non Christian references- Tacitus, Josephus (twice) for starters- two historians of the day who were non Christian.

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if we should expect to see more evidence in the case that X exists. Jesus was a teacher with a small but loyal group of followers, in one small part of the Middle East, and was only around for 3 years (doing anything significant) before he was crucified. Most of his miracles were pretty minor anyway, involving few people.

Trav,

"everthing has a cause,"then so must God be caused by something, where does it all end?

I think we've exhausted the fine- tuning argument, only time will tell. I knew you going to mention Tacitus and Josephus, everybody does because there's nothing else. If my memory is accurate, Tacitus was referring to Christian beliefs not to any historical account of Jesus wasn't he? The mention of Jesus in Josephus could be the result of later interpolations, it's very weak evidence. In reference to the New Testament as a historical document- it isn't history. I have the same comment as for Dan S, your sacred text has no validity for infidels like me, INDEPENDENT evidence is required.

Regarding fine tuning, we don't need an explanation for the explanation. I'm simply posing that the evidence of the fine tuning we see in the universe, and how ridiculously well balanced the universe is (given all our recent discoveries of the constants), suggests there is a hand at work. Nothing more, nothing less. We shouldn't abandon what the evidence points towards- a supernatural hand- simply because our finite minds can't explain the best explanation.

Regarding the bible- Fair enough, but you still haven't answered my question about the level of evidence you require.

Why would you possibly expect to see evidence elsewhere of everything, or most of the stuff, in the bible? I can't think of why on earth you could possibly hold that as a reasonable expectation given the nature of ancient writings, the lack of literature of the day, the way the bible was put together etc etc. But I'd love it if you could explain so I could understand where you are coming from there.

Also, you do realise that the New Testament Gospel Accounts are independent, right? The bible is a compilation of writings by many different authors, it isn't a single source.

John was written well after the other three gospels, but didn't use any of them as sources. Therefore, John is a completely independent book. Matthew, Mark and Luke probably used similar sources and were written earlier, but are all independent in the sense that they have different authors. So they're independent in terms of authorship but not necessarily source, whereas John is independent in both. John was written around 90-95 AD. With the other three, estimates vary from around 65-90AD, with Mark being written the earliest- the consensus there is around 65-75AD.

Therefore we have four independent books all written within a generation or two, 30-60 years, of Jesus. All 4 agree on all of the key aspects of Jesus life and ministry

In addition to the above, in Mark Roberts book "Can We Trust the Gospels?", there's a list of 33 seperate things about Jesus which can be found in ALL FOUR Gospels. Not bad for four independently authored books, all written within a generation or two of Jesus life.

Now, you also mention Tacitus and Josephus. I've been through Josephus stuff in the November 26 Brett Walker article, so won't go into too much detail, I'll just summarise- Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The second mention is an interpolation, but the vast majority of scholars who have studied the passage say that Josephus did mention Jesus here, just in less glowing language. There's a couple of lines in the passage which are obvious interpolations, but there's no good reasons to reject the passage in it's entirety.

Tacitus is a Roman historian, who writes of an evil superstition spreading around, which died down for a bit and then after a while it picked up in Judea- this agrees with the biblical story, where the disciples didn't start the movement till Jesus came back and laid the spirit on them. So basically this in an independent source, who writes with a Roman bias (his serious Roman bias is attested to by all who study his stuff) and yet confirms some basic details of the story of the early Christians.

So we have independent sources in the bible alongside Non Christian references which attest to some of the basic details- which is exactly what one would expect.

Trav,

I'll agree that "fine tuning" in the Universe is a fascinating phenomenon, you read too much into it in my opinion, there is no reason to infer a Creator's hand behind it. We are made for the Universe, not the Universe for us. We shouldn't assume a supernatural hand just because our minds are not capable of understanding the Universe as an entity,perhaps only some supercomputer somewhere, some time, will understand the Universe, as science fiction writers have suggested.

As to the nature of a creator, assuming one exists, there is the problem of theodicy, which effectively refutes any concept of a personal, compassionate God, in my opinion. The Buddhists are closer to the truth, they have no need for a personal god.

In reference to the Bible, I would require unimpeachable evidence of Jesus's life, death and ministry in order to embrace Christianity, as I mentioned before, I am constitutionally sceptical. The books of the Bible are not independent, they are written by believers! As far as I understand, the Bible we have today is the creation of a 4th century Church council and the Emperor Constantine,we could have had a different Bible.

Re fine tuning- I can't buy your line of argument. You're saying that because our life is suited to the universe, we should just say that we're made for the universe and leave it at that. But the fact is, there are so many ridiculously balanced factors which, if changed a very small amount, would make the mere existence of intelligent life impossible.

Paul Davies captures my thoughts well here: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

So it isn't just that the universe is finely tuned for the existence of life. The other part of it is that the universe had to be impossible fine tuned for the universe itself to even exist.

As for theodicy, I can sympathise with your argument here because it's an emotionally charged argument that a lot of people have made throughout the years. But at it's base, I think it's illogical. You see, a perfect world is a contradiction in terms. If we have free will of any kind then our choices are what creates this problem.

Look at the world's poverty issue, for example. Many people say- Look at the millions of starving children- how can God let this happen? But they themselves are causing it by selfishly consuming the world's resources and/or not doing anything to solve the problem. There are enough resources in the world to feed us all. If we all spent our time and energy focusing on our own circle if influence (what we care about and CAN change) rather than talking about our circle of concern (what we care about but CAN't change- ie: What other people are doing)- then this poverty issue would be solved

However, I can sympathise with your point. A final note on this point- At the most, it challenges the nature of an all powerful God rather than the existence of an all powerful God- so no need for the jump to Buddhism or anything

Regarding the Bible, as I suspected previously, you're asking too much. Of course there's not going to be much evidence from non believers- why would there be!? Why would someone who DID NOT believe, write anything about Jesus miracles, or write anything claiming he was the Son of God!? I already explained- he was an obscure nodoby to most people- only those who came in contact with him and believed in him would be likely to write about him. Others might make passing references- which is exactly what we see from Josephus and Tacitus!

Also, of course the believers are biased! The Gospels authors admit as much in their writings. But does this mean we should completely write it off? No, of course not. If we write off everything which is biased, we should throw all our history textbooks out the window because there weren't many ancient writers, and those that did exist- most of them wrote with a purpose. Like writing Roman History or Jewish history etc etc.

"As far as I understand, the Bible we have today is the creation of a 4th century Church council and the Emperor Constantine,we could have had a different Bible."

Of course we could have a different Bible, anyone who has even briefly looked into New Testament history knows this. But you need to look at how the Bible was put together. The books which were canonised (ie: Chosen for the official Bible) were the ones believed to be written by Apostles, eyewitnesses or those very close to them. There are plenty of other ancient Gospels which claim different things about Jesus, but they were written later on, which is why we should trust the writings which were close to the events rather than the ones written 150 years later.

hey mac [dont think of naming 'it'
[that which it is is only able to be known by logic [or faith]]
if you must have a name call it universal logic
[logus] for short

or call it natural law
[in that i am it is ;..thus naturally some thing is
[thus something was[thus something will be]via the law of preceedance life begets life

i am that i am [nothing more [nothing less

names arnt important
but that we discover the limitations of the law of logic [and love]are

life is impossable without light

[any natural begining would occure in a flash of light then life then life finds the natural selection in times of darkness; we realise another law of logic
that light sustains life

we see by study of life that all living [usually love their own]
thus can infur a basic law[of logic must inbclude love

who is not here 'naturally',ie life born from life

who is not a part of nature[its not who' 'nature' is] but what is the nature of that which was, nature that came from it is mostr likely the same[damm the words are rubbing each other out]editing is deleting what i wrote[so figure it out yourself.....

aha a tip it is still in the previeuw box
so cut and paste [reasoned out by logic]
paste
who is not here 'naturally', who is not a part of nature[its not who's 'nature' but simply we being as our ..nature decrees us to be
[and that includes the next life after life# for science has measured the weight of the soul,'leaving' the body[but search out that for yourself]

if god is
is not the issue
[we are that is the fact]

how we are is not important
[you cant prove it anyhow]

what is important is that we realise we are
so now what can we do about it[we need do nothing]
but
[believe as you chose]

Trav,

I'll concede that the fine tuning argument is not easy to dismiss, however, to me your God is the god-of-the-gaps, science has made God more and more remote as our understanding of the cosmos becomes more sophisticated.

The problem of theodicy is not emotionally charged at all, you're misrepresenting the arguments if you believe that. I'll refer you to a site where a professional philosopher, presents a very strong case against the existence of the Christian god. "Could it be pretty obvious there's no God?"

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com

As to the New Testament, you're basically asking me to believe what you consider a profound truth without any real evidence, why those books rather than a thousand other religious texts , I am still a skeptic.

One under god,

I think you're asking me to simply believe without evidence, no chance!

im not asking you for nothing mac
the topic was death into life
you just go on ignoring stuff

[your proving you dont seek to explain a thing because you cant, thus you avoid that you got no hope of comprehending.

you wrote>>you are incorrect,the burden of proof is on those who believe in life after death not on the unbelievers,you present belief as "proof",which is nonsense>>

i presented proof that you chose to simply dismiss as

>>however I can't resist commenting--your statements are basically theological in nature.I cannot find common ground as,in my opinion, there is no proof that the object of study exists,..>>

i then realised you didnt even read the post , but you have haunted the post scince then[i return to it only to find your still blathering[proving not a real lot either way]

you fail to prove dead matter formed life
you failed to rebut life herafter
deneying god is your choice
[but not a choice based on fact it seems

only RE-interpritations of the question,but i will admit you shut down and obscured the topic the post was meant to be about affectivly with your destraction's

just as you intended
you affectivly killed off the topic
but im posting to bring it back to life

you conveniantly chose to ignore what i post[and travis posts,till you find a minor point to respond to[sometimes im wondering if your using two id's to just keep posting the same stuff and destraction

ok you found finetuning in a word search and found a blog
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com

The problem of A-theodicy is its emotionally charged in ignoring the bleeding obvious,

you're misrepresenting the arguments he himself puts as his'post'runs 20 pages

please specify what points you are making apart from god denial[in your own words[no one can correct his[the links]many errors without having the same space to put it correctly]

so you post your thoughts
[your proofs]

and write a response to the points i have allready posted

ignoring them proves your unable to rebut them
this is clearly revealed in what has allready been posted

one under god,

I read your post and found it unconvincing.

All right, so I found Trav a more interesting, coherent and civil interlocutor than you and we wandered OT, God is an interesting subject for discussion, it was not a debating tactic. I shouldn't need to say any more about life after death, see my earlier posts. For the umpteenth bleeping time, the burden of proof is on the believers. You have presented no proof of life after death.

In reference to Law's thesis, I didn't presume to summarize his arguments, I simply indicated what a professional philosopher had to say. No, I didn't find Law's article through Google but through a site I regularly visit www.butterfliesandwheels.com which is dedicated to clear thinking, you should visit it, I'm sure you would benefit greatly. You seem to be implying that there is a life force that distinguishes "living' from "dead" matter, this is an archaic idea and not useful in modern science( think of viruses).Finally, patiently, the burden of proof is on you.

Mac,

Re fine tuning, we'll need to leave it there, as I really do think your Gaps charge is rather unfair, and without much basis. But as a final comment on the issue- Science itself can't prove or disprove God, but I think fine tuning strongly points towards some kind of divine design- Robert Jastrow recognised this when he called one fine tuning discovery "the most theistic result to ever come out of science".

"As to the New Testament, you're basically asking me to believe what you consider a profound truth without any real evidence, why those books rather than a thousand other religious texts , I am still a skeptic."

But why do you reject the entirety of the text itself? You've kept repeating your charge of unreliability, without either A. Giving any reasons why you reject it or B. Answering any of the positive evidence and arguments I've laid out.

I really hope (and I'm guessing you probably do...) have more reasons than the mere existence of other religious texts as evidence against the bible...But as of yet, you haven't really provided them. You've just made big blanketed general statements.

For example, and as a starting point for further discussion, many historians have shown that Luke was a very, very reliable historian by showing that the historical references in Luke and Acts are extremely accurate. The New Testament is very strongly confirmed by many archaelogical discoveries.

And regarding your link to Stephen Law, I really don't have time to read the whole thing- it's a very long piece. I had a brief skim, but if you think his argument is so strong why don't you summarise his best point or two and we can go from there. And btw, he is one of many philosophers. There are many, many Christian philosophers who would disagree with him, many of whom have dealt with this particular question at hand. Well known and respected Christian philosphers include Peter Kreeft, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Alvin Platinga...I could go on. There's stacks.