I read something I found peculiar

[solarwave]

Our in that verse = trinity

There are many gods described in Christianity.

Define 'god' then ^_^ Most Christians deny that theirs is essentially polytheistic (the existence of angels, demons, etc. necessitate it). Do you not see it like most Christians then?

angels arn't gods......

[chatpilot]

fr0d0 my point was that the reference to making "man in our image" is about gods truine nature and not a reference to any type of physical appearance as we would understand physicality. As god is a trinity so is man. God: father, son, holy spirit Man: mind (spirit), body, and soul the reference to his image is a reference to his truine nature. I hope this explains my idea a little better.

[fr0d0]

Ah right thanks Chatty. I've never considered that angle before, which is possibly why I didn't see it.

---

Intellectually the theory works. It holds up via internal proof. It's weakness is that at any point another theory might be presented that equally works. But even then this theory allows for that.

First of all it's not a theory, it's a hypothasis. A guess/belief a baseless assertion. Evidence is required for it to be more than that.
So without further delay...evidence please.

Theory in the scientific sense yeah. Before I swamp yo ass with a tirade of biblical proofs are you sure you'd accept internally verifiable proofs?

Indeed. But if you, as a scientist observed a repeated pattern, you would make a summary and claim substantiation. How is that different to 99% of humankind exhibiting this phenomena?

It's a belief. You see it as a pattern, I see it as normal personal beliefs. I'm not seeing this pattern you speak of. There are alot of people in the world who have funny beliefs and I just see it as pure and simple delusion. No pattern.

If the majority see a pattern who is deluded? We all understand stuff the only way we can. We can do no better.

Yours isn't an opposite position. To be opposite you'd have to dismiss faith _and_ science. I fully embrace science and faith.

I dismiss faith not science. Anything religious is dismissed. I'm quite able to stand by science and not faith. Religion and science rarely get on.

You don't need to dismiss faith _because_ of science though. Scientific theory isn't challenged by faith IMO. If a belief contradicts hard science then that belief is mistaken IMO.

I bet this debate could go on.
I think I'm developing a sore throat. Though sore throats tend to cause my voice to go really deep and sexy, it hurts to talk. Would be nice to have the deep part and not the painful part.

I'll be back tomorrow and hopefully after sleeping in my sore throat should heal up.
Good debating frodo. Well played.

Later, as my little sis would say.

Ace

Sore throats are the worst if they keep you awake. Hope you heal some.

Yeah ditto

[Ace Otana]

Yep, I've got a sore throat and my voice has gone deep. It's just sooo predictable! Blasted thing!
Ok, back to topic at hand.

Theory in the scientific sense yeah. Before I swamp yo ass with a tirade of biblical proofs are you sure you'd accept internally verifiable proofs?

The only kind of proof I'll accept is a scientific one. I don't do superstitions.
Like that quote "Superstition is a religion for fools".
The bible is not proof. Just like the qur'an is not proof of allah.

If the majority see a pattern who is deluded? We all understand stuff the only way we can. We can do no better.

During the medieval times religion was high and wide spread. The vast majority believed, does not mean they were right though. It is a claim remember, and an unprovable one. So who's the deluded one? We aren't the ones claiming there is an invisible flying man in the sky.

You don't need to dismiss faith _because_ of science though. Scientific theory isn't challenged by faith IMO. If a belief contradicts hard science then that belief is mistaken IMO.

I don't need science in order to dismiss faith. I dismissed it because I have no faith. I don't believe. I prefure to go to science for answers and understanding. I never have believed in some spirit or god. I don't have faith and that is why I dismiss it. Science wasn't the direct reason of why I dismissed faith. I dismissed it before I looked into science. I was hugely impressed when my father took me to both the natural history museum and the science museum (in london). No faith/religion could ever top that.
So I stuck with the eye opening science and dismissed the boring talk from religion.

[fr0d0]

Yep, I've got a sore throat and my voice has gone deep. It's just sooo predictable! Blasted thing!
Ok, back to topic at hand.

It's not so bad if you're in one of those 'Barry White' moods

Theory in the scientific sense yeah. Before I swamp yo ass with a tirade of biblical proofs are you sure you'd accept internally verifiable proofs?

The only kind of proof I'll accept is a scientific one. I don't do superstitions.
Like that quote "Superstition is a religion for fools".
The bible is not proof. Just like the qur'an is not proof of allah.

I don't do superstition either. I'm afraid internal proofs are all there is. Ah well.

If the majority see a pattern who is deluded? We all understand stuff the only way we can. We can do no better.

During the medieval times religion was high and wide spread. The vast majority believed, does not mean they were right though. It is a claim remember, and an unprovable one. So who's the deluded one? We aren't the ones claiming there is an invisible flying man in the sky.

It means they were wrong in that case. They had no choice but to believe, which of course isn't belief at all.

It's an internally proven claim. It isn't scientifically provable just logically provable.

I don't claim there's a flying man in the sky either. In this instance I'm claiming that there's something tangible that people describe as a soul. God is a description of something we also observe associated with the soul. It happens to describe a lot of stuff very thoroughly and satisfies the inquisitiveness of our minds. At no point does it ever require scientific proof.

You don't need to dismiss faith _because_ of science though. Scientific theory isn't challenged by faith IMO. If a belief contradicts hard science then that belief is mistaken IMO.

I don't need science in order to dismiss faith. I dismissed it because I have no faith. I don't believe. I prefer to go to science for answers and understanding. I never have believed in some spirit or god. I don't have faith and that is why I dismiss it. Science wasn't the direct reason of why I dismissed faith. I dismissed it before I looked into science. I was hugely impressed when my father took me to both the natural history museum and the science museum (in london). No faith/religion could ever top that.
So I stuck with the eye opening science and dismissed the boring talk from religion.

Science never answers the 'why' questions. Which seems to suggest you've never been interested in 'why', just 'how'. Thing is, I bet you consider the why all the time, and make up your own shit to rationalise it. What your doing is reinventing the wheel as you must. No bad thing. I have a lot of respect for honest questioning.

[Ace Otana]

I'm afraid internal proofs are all there is. Ah well.

Then it's impossible for me to believe it. Can't do belief/faith.

It means they were wrong in that case. They had no choice but to believe, which of course isn't belief at all.

Right in one sence and wrong in the other. Yes many were forced to go to chruch and pray even if inside they were skeptical. Many also believed strongly and hated those who didn't. Which of course you know of the inquisition. Religion back then was often forced on people. In a time when freedom of speech didn't exist.

It's an internally proven claim. It isn't scientifically provable just logically provable

For you it's a proven thing. For me it's the complete opposite. There is no evidence to support the claim.

I don't claim there's a flying man in the sky either.

So you don't claim a god exists?

At no point does it ever require scientific proof.

That is strangely convieniant. It does require scientific evidence if it is to be taken seriously.

Science never answers the 'why' questions.

Maybe it's because there aren't many why answers. If there is no purpose in anything, then there really can't be a why to it. There is no why the earth exists but how.
We as humans naturally try to see patterns in everything and ask why but the question should be how. Not everything has a purpose to it. Including us.

Thing is, I bet you consider the why all the time

Not really. We humans use "why" as in why do we take certain actions or why we build certain things and such. There tends to be a purpose to our actions but outside of that there is no purpose. No why to it.

[fr0d0]

It's an internally proven claim. It isn't scientifically provable just logically provable

For you it's a proven thing. For me it's the complete opposite. There is no evidence to support the claim.

But we're talking chalk and cheese. You have no chalky evidence for my cheese

I don't claim there's a flying man in the sky either.

So you don't claim a god exists?

I don't think 'exists' applies. God 'is'. (xtain) God doesn't fly or live in the sky.

At no point does it ever require scientific proof.

It does require scientific evidence if it is to be taken seriously.

Only in science. There's 'Christian Science' but they're a whole other bowl of fruit

Science never answers the 'why' questions.

Maybe it's because there aren't many why answers. If there is no purpose in anything, then there really can't be a why to it. There is no why the earth exists but how.
We as humans naturally try to see patterns in everything and ask why but the question should be how. Not everything has a purpose to it. Including us.

I think everything has a purpose, or it wouldn't exist. I have a purpose to reproduce myself and have this amazing sex drive trying to make it happen

[Ace Otana]

But we're talking chalk and cheese. You have no chalky evidence for my cheese

It's your claim, you prove it.
It's not down to me to provide evidence for anything. Since I'm not claiming anything.

I don't think 'exists' applies. God 'is'. (xtain) God doesn't fly or live in the sky.

Many refure god as the flying invisible man.

Only in science. There's 'Christian Science' but they're a whole other bowl of fruit

Christian scince is not science. Because science does not support baseless assertions.

I think everything has a purpose, or it wouldn't exist. I have a purpose to reproduce myself and have this amazing sex drive trying to make it happen

I don't think that. Nothing has any real purpose. You don't require a purpose in order to exist. The universe was not made for us, nor was this planet. Humans have that funny idea that we have some special purpose when in fact we don't. We have an evolutionary purpose but outside that we have none. I'm happy with that.

[Darwinian]

Christian science is basically a world full of fantasy and rife with abuse to twist reality to accommodate it's own agenda.

Also, isn't Christian Science and oxymoron.. Pretty sure it is as it's either Christian or it's scientific but can't really be both..

[Samson]

Darwinian, Christian Science is neither....Just simply took the stores of "Jesus" healing the sick and thought it was a message that man could ultimately do the same, through prayer and practice. I have family here in Louisiana that are Christian Science. You should hear the conversations when my wife and I are around them. (Wife works in the Pharmacy and I'm a Chemist)...... We both are an abomination in their view of thinking...lolol