BarryK Claims God Exists

[joele]

Society has rules about sexual behaviour aside from the Church. Eg age of consent, consent, how many spouses. It’s not tyranny to have moral values, if they are not enforced.

Of course it isn't (always) tyranny to have laws, but those laws IMHO should be based humanitarian values and on the best available knowledge of today and not the frozen in time knowledge of 2000 years ago.

[Barryk]

today.

2) I could also just take the humble/honest position and simply say "I don't know", that doesn't mean we can or should insert a god. It is like the explanation the Norse had for lightening, it was Thor's hammer generating it. Humans have a knack rather than admitting honestly "I don't know" to make something up and throughout our history what we made up was often gods and supernatural beings until our knowledge grew and those gaps shrunk. Hence the old adage, god of the gaps, we tend to shoehorn him in when we have nothing better.

Hi again
I think it was St Augustine who said that if you think you understand God you don’t. Yes, our knowledge has grown, but there is no rational explanation of the existence of our world, unless we look outside it. Energy had to start somewhere.
Cheers Barry

[Barryk]

Of course it isn't (always) tyranny to have laws, but those laws IMHO should be based humanitarian values and on the best available knowledge of today and not the frozen in time knowledge of 2000 years ago.

I agree. The Catholic Church is not limited by the “Sola Scriptura” doctrine of the Protestant churches. It has a teaching tradition too. The Catholic Church is involved in a multitude of humanitarian activities, despite its issue with some of its members.
Cheers Barry

[Barryk]

I must admit, i'm very disappointed to read your views on sexual reproduction and orientation. They strike me as bigoted, hurtful and basically violent, which perfectly encapsulates the RCC. You put the church above the welfare of individuals and whole communities and i find that appalling. The decline of your church is truly a significant social good.

Hi Pip
It’s hard to understand your comment that my views are violent. I find that comment “bigoted” and “hurtful”. The most violent activity in Australia today is the killing of the innocent unborn, 80,000 a year. An atheist friend of mine is completely against abortion.
Cheers Barry

[Irrev-Black]

I must admit, i'm very disappointed to read your views on sexual reproduction and orientation. They strike me as bigoted, hurtful and basically violent, which perfectly encapsulates the RCC. You put the church above the welfare of individuals and whole communities and i find that appalling. The decline of your church is truly a significant social good.

Hi Pip
It’s hard to understand your comment that my views are violent. I find that comment “bigoted” and “hurtful”. The most violent activity in Australia today is the killing of the innocent unborn, 80,000 a year. An atheist friend of mine is completely against abortion.
Cheers Barry

Perhaps somebody could ask somebody else some direct questions, and the other party could give some direct answers, based on verifiable fact.

I think that we may come to some understanding if this was to happen.
https://theconversation.com/how-the-bud ... int-142285St Josaphat said mistakes were made.

[two dogs]

...
... there is no rational explanation of the existence of our world, unless we look outside it. ...
...

Argument from personal incredulity!

[joele]

Yes, our knowledge has grown, but there is no rational explanation of the existence of our world, unless we look outside it.

I disagree with both parts of that, there are multiple rational (yet unproven so far) theories for how something came from nothing.. Kraus's book "A universe from Nothing" is a decent read or this video below is a slightly different theory.. Again we get back to my Thor's hammer example, just because we don't know something (yet) does not mean it is rational to posit a supernatural being.



To the 2nd part, I more easily assert that god is not a rational explanation as you are just shifting the problem back to him (i.e. him having always existed) and therefore adding additional assumptions (not following occam's razor).

Energy had to start somewhere.

That is purely an assertion, prove it. Why does energy need to start somewhere and not "God had to start somewhere"? Ohh right Special pleading, he is outside the rules, sigh. This is getting repetitive. You are claiming energy needs to start and god is the reason it started, you need to prove both assertions.

[two dogs]

You seem to think that the four canonical gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, and hence eyewitness accounts (despite the contradictions among them)?

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses

I said witnesses or people who knew witnesses. They were certainly written soon after Jesus ascended into heaven in about AD 32.
...

Somewhere between 34 to 78 years after Jesus ascended into heaven (wherever the fuck that is) is "soon"?!

Have you any idea how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be due to the malleability of memory, even after a short period of time? If not, I recommended reading some of the books/articles on that subject by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus

[Irrev-Black]

Hi Joele, sorry I can’t accept this argument. The book doesn’t say itself is true. The book contains witness accounts. All we have from those days is what is written. If we discount what is written, we have no history at all. No film, photos, web in those days.

The book CLAIMS to have witness accounts, that doesn't mean they are true witness accounts.. The Koran claims to have the same, many other holy books from many other religions claim to say the same, do you believe in them too??

Most notable characters and events from history have better evidence than a collection of books written by their devotees long after they died. But they are also not making extra-ordinary claims, you would think if god wanted to be known by humanity he would do better than only show himself in a backwater (even for those times) where no one would write about him until well after he died.

Just funny that god showed himself a lot in ancient times when humans knew relatively little and frauds were common place and as technology advanced and human rationality advanced he stopped appearing.

(SNIP)

I rarely quote Dawkins, but here goes!

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

I'd also like to know how BarryK reconciles that villainous Old Testament, dick-obsessed, despot with New Testament Jesus and the nicey-nicey heavenly father who's content to sit back and say he's well pleased with how sonny-boy is doing.

So many questions.

[Barryk]

Somewhere between 34 to 78 years after Jesus ascended into heaven (wherever the fuck that is) is "soon"?!

Have you any idea how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be due to the malleability of memory, even after a short period of time? If not, I recommended reading some of the books/articles on that subject by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus

A quick Google search shows Herodotus is the most famous early Historian, some say the first. His main works were about events 70 to 20 years before he wrote about them. Looking at the greatest modern historians I notice Shelby Foote is mentioned. He lived until 2005 and his celebrated work was bout the American Civil War. By definition all history is written after the event.
Cheers Barry