Well not from your redefined version of omnipotence. But not being able to create a real eternal being is just as nonsensical as not being able to really make the dead alive. It only works if dead wasn't really dead.

What do you mean they "fall flat"? What falls flat? How? Your faith should erode as soon as you look into the bible and see horrible stuff, like stoning gay people,

So the soul is always the same, regardless of what happens here? That means you can't be sure what you really are? Why should I care about a different version of me living on forever somehow?

I just insert that stuff for my own entertainment. Otherwise this would bore me to tears. Consider it the price of being schooled by me. (<-case in point) :D

The question is what I think about M-theory? I don't care for it, don't think it has merit.

How could I do anything else but ignore this. I could tell you there are no gods. But how does either of this help us. I am showing you how gods aren't needed. If there is only nothing, then that is all, the word would be meaningless. I don't see how this philosophical wordplay is even related to gods.

Why would you assume the laws of thermodynamics work differently anywhere else? And why would you assume gods can violate those? Why would you even insert a god there? (You weren't so easily ready to accept that gods could violate other laws like logic.)
GOD OF THE GAPS HELLO

And what we don't know, we simply fill with gods.

That is just as false as real omnipotence. It is simply impossible. Weird that you declare this possible here, but chose to redefine omnipotence instead of simply declaring violation of the rules of logic possible for gods.

And heaven? Wtf?

Somehow I got this impression, yes. Investigation is a little difficult ~1900 years later, also because any counter-evidance has been thoroughly and willfully destroyed.

Now, what about Jesus' last words?
And what about after the resurrection? Vague and contradictory at best. The most "reliable" source (Paul) never saw the re-living Jesus in person.

But there is also missing evidence of things that should have made an impact on the people, be they Romans, Jews or anything else.
Why are there no independent reporst about an earthquake (Matthew 27:51, 54, Matthew 28:2)? Or an eclipse (Mark 15:33, Luke 23:45)? Or the zombie army of saints (Matthew 27:52-53)?
With events at this scale, shouldn't there be numerous reports available outside the NT?

Well, we'll see what he turns up with.

His website is called "Risen Jesus"? Most of his videos are "Someone vs Mike: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"

I tried to read a little on his website and I see no sign that he works like a "professional historian", to be honest.

Well, for me the most far-fetched explanation is "divine intervention". And you don't have to tell me how historians work - I was one. I do not "refuse to allow the possibility that something could be the best explanation". I just say that you're "best explanation" stems from your religious bias, while I say "I ain't know shit" and I will not prefer any explanation "from Jesus never existed" to "Jesus is God's son" over the other as truth, let alone let it govern my life.

Well, I'm not trying anymore. You want your religion to be special and you want to believe that other people believed it because it's true. But people are told stories of UFOs and believe them. People believe Däniken. People (1.57 billion!) believe Muhammed.

And where does this lead us? Are the UFO-believers right? Or the Inca religion was right and since it died out we will all go to Inca hell?

Why exclusive?

Thanks for the link. I tried to read into it a little, but right in beginning when he talks about "Law of human nature" he makes the typical mistakes of seeing humas as "the summit of creation" i.e. when he claims that animals don't quarrel. Many of his points I answered already in this thread. See about survival of societies and civilizations and the importance of instincts. I can't understand why people always need to see some god behind everything when the simple answer is a sum of instincts and "common sense".

Take an example the old Ultima games (parts 4-7). There are eight virtues that I think most people can agree upon in this medieval fantasy world (common sense) and they do not stem from Christianity but from Lord British's interest in East Asian philosophy. Ultima had a very interesting character creation system where you had to answer questions. These questions always begin with a little story and then you have to decidew what to do. The trick is, in the stories the virtues get in conflict, thereby showing that "rules set in stone" make no sense. The are no "wrong answers".

Example: And I have "respected scholars" like Ze'ev Herzog. And now?

Well, this is debatable. For centuries "how to live this life" was to conquer your neighbors and kill the heathens.

And as I already said, at it's core the religion is about the apocalypse when Jesus comes back and all faithful will be rewarded (the rest goes all howling and teeth-gnashing).

Most people do not need Christianity to tell them "how to live this life", yet Christans most of the time seem to think they hold the Holy Grail of Truth. I think this is the reason why Christians meet with so much headwind nowadays when the confinements of closed societies fall with the interconnectedness of humanity.

I will not deny that religion (even Christianity :-P) can be helpful for single individuals with kaput lives who need something to get themselves up and running again. For some people it's the "Big Brother" (or watchful father) aspect to motivate them to follow rules. For some it's the "belonging to some group" aspect, that gives them support.
What I don't like are people that impose their beliefs on people who clearly don't need it since that is a sign of arrogance. And the Christians (and some Atheists, I admit) are the most vocal doing this.

*doesn't read* last 1.5 months of topics

wow, this is still going???

Maybe if I take my clothes off everyone will leave.

I've been airing out my loins for the past month to no effect, but have at it.

no it doesn't. If a thing was alive, then dies, it could be brought back to life by advanced tech - that doesn't even require omnipotence. If you want it to simultaneously be alive and dead, you're just making up arguments based around semantics for the fun of it.
My 'redefined' omnipotence has nothing to do with word-play and everything to do with God being powerful enough to do anything.

All I can suggest is that you read the Bible with a more open mind. When you come across something that seems like it doesn't make sense - take a look into the context, original language, culture and reasons for things.
Or you could go to the skeptics' annotated bible and see them LOL their way through it ... but those guys weaken their own case by trying desperately to ridicule every out of context sentence with no knowledge of what they're reading.

I didn't say that - I said that the soul works through the body - if the body/brain is damaged, it can't perceive/act as it would.

great - can you suggest which theories you do like?

then why are we arguing over whether there was nothing? We agree on that point. We disagree on where the universe (observable) came from.

I didn't say 'other laws like logic' - I only ever got into the logic part as it was merely semantics being argued. Being unable to make a square circle has nothing to do with the laws of physics. Newtonian physics doesn't describe quantum motion. We have no GUT. Black holes might well bring in other problems.
The laws of thermodynamics may well be less absolute than you think.
Even quantum mechanics allows for the creation of a particle and its opposite from a zero energy point. It 'borrows' energy that must be paid back. From where does it borrow? Either the energy existed or it didn't according to you. If it existed already, why must it be paid back? And what we know, is filled by God too. He doesn't recede, just because you can show how gravity works. The explanation goes from 'He did it with magic' to 'He did it with gravity'. As I said before - I don't know if He can violate the rules of logic or not, but I think He's able to think of a way around any logic problem you care to pose. Nonetheless, wordplay has nothing to do with the laws of nature and everything to do with the limitation of language.
The laws of physics, on the other hand, keep evolving (or rather our knowledge of them).

I'm just going to pop this here...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/johansson-photos-change-everything-says-dawkins-201109164314

:)

I think in general everything has had to adapt to the internet. Christianity has been insular in the past, but that is by no means the glue that is holding it together. In fact, I think the internet is good Christianity because insularity often leads to lazy thinking. It is good for Christian ideas to be challenged and even someone like Dawkins is a great boon to Christianity. The internet allows for a much greater exchange of ideas, even in places where people don't normally think much about it, such as video game forums. People have been predicting the end of Christianity for almost as long as they've been predicting the end of the world, so I don't think it is dying out any time soon. The internet is the place where refuted ideas go to die and repeatedly come back to life as zombies.

No who is talking sci-fi? Dead is dead, revival is impossible. If advanced tech can do something like that, then the person wasn't really dead, like when you defibrilate people or do mouth to mouth.

Yeah except the illogical stuff you excluded in your (not?)-redefinition....uhm yeah no word play at all.

You always say out of context, but even when you read all the context, much of the stuff is still horrible. How should I have an open mind, when your god tells us genocide is ok, if the victims go to heaven. Why do I need an open mind to hating gay people?

So what does this mean then if not that the soul is always the same?

General relativity, evolution, quantum theory, there are alot.

Don't know, you started it when I said that nothing is meaningless if it's all there is.


You realise that this could all also apply to your arguments? You know everything must have a cause and so on....

Really? Why? All we have argued so far is whether Deism (all the first cause BS) is valid. But how do you argue for this point of view?

Yes, the limits of language prevented our ancestors from making up better gods that aren't so easily deconstructable. :D

That the soul can grow / mature / change through it's experience. I don't know that this is the case, it's just an idea.
If you're stuck in a box and unable to interact with things in a normal way, you don't stop being you or even growing, you just are separate from the world in which you live. I imagine it's very frustrating. Erm, no? Having a cause or not is a question of eternality. If you say that energy can't be created or destroyed (and assert that saying it can is the same as saying something is illogical), then it's not the same. You claim that energy is eternal - my question is merely one of science - what is zero point and how does it borrow energy?
My question was a genuine scientific interest one though - I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to know the answer to: "Even quantum mechanics allows for the creation of a particle and its opposite from a zero energy point. It 'borrows' energy that must be paid back. From where does it borrow? Either the energy existed or it didn't according to you. If it existed already, why must it be paid back?"

God does not require that the energy came from anywhere else - He is eternal and can create more energy. The same way science 'evolves' its knowledge. The argument has always been that everything in the universe comes from God. He speaks to us in terms we can understand. Therefore, to nomadic shepherds, he uses a certain metaphor to explain what they had no knowledge for. To simply give them the knowledge and understanding (way beyond what we have even today) would deprive us (as a species) of the opportunity to grow and learn. Just think, Star Trek would never have been made O_O

Uh what now? It is seperate but can grow?

Good questions. You know it is amazing how much scrutiny you apply when it comes to science, but when it comes to your religion that is all gone.

Really, this is the same as science? Someone makes up a story, which could be a metaphore or not, and then you bend it to fit with our modern morality? I think not.

Fascinating and thought provoking - thanks. I'm still following.

You're welcome. I think the discussion has lost most of its drive tough.

I've found that sniffing paint fumes will give you the same sensations as this thread. :D