Previous Proof Discussions Continued

[Sedition]: ask for a source from one of my arguements and ill be glad to give you one.however i dont see how any of my arguements require one.be specefic.thats what ive been raging on about you.you arent very specific with your citation.this isent a MLA format thesis paper.

And the 10 page essay thing was a sarcastic crack at the fact that i COULD type up 10 pages of redundant facts to refute that particular post you made,but did not feel like stating the obviuos over and over until it stopped flying over your head

[Child of God]: Many of the allegations you've made require sources. For example, your claim about Hitler, your claim about your opinion of the origins of modern science, your claim that science and religion have always been at odds and contradicted one another, just to name a few. Many of your points are merely personal opinion based on faulted logic that in a regular debate you'd be pinned big time for. You may wish to research Fallacies of Debating, since you invalidate many of your points by falling into these errors. In the debate you wish for, mere personal opinion cannot count unless it is validated by the Cartesian Logic format and/or a creditable secondary source. If you just want opinion verses opinion you don't have to worry about that. Again, perhaps you should look into a post-secondary class on rhetoric and logic to further these.

For my Works Cited page you are right it isn't MLA, it's Chicago A, the citing style used for history. I'm a English and History Major and tudor, so I think I would know the different formats. English and Philosophy use MLA, History, Science and Math use Chicago, and Psychology and any medical field use APA format. If you don't know the difference I'd suggest you look them up. And I would like sources for all of your arguments so far, as I have provided for you.

This is also not a paper, it's a debate. If it was a paper then there would be citations, but I'm not going to footnote every argument I make. I don't have that kind of leisure time between my two jobs.

In regards to your sarcastic comment, if you can't back it up, don't make the claim since I DO have a 9 page essay I wrote for philosophy about a topic simillar to this. You should know by now that in this debate, as you demanded, this is facts. Don't make claims you can't back up. I fail to see what it is that is flying over my head, and would ask that you stop being so sarcastic and rude. You began this debate very civily and I would ask that you continue with it and stop antagonizing, patronizing, making inverse attacks on the people not the topics, and being sarcastic and rude. I have done none of these to you and ask that you treat myself with the same respect I have showed you.

[Sedition] Due to my busy schedule,and the fact that my last post was eaten by ET;ill try to break my original post into about 2 or 3 smaller post,posting as time allows.first in this post i must bring up the fact that you basiclly backed up my assertion that free will cannot exist if there is an omnipotent omniscient creator in the mix.you define free will as "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."

I would agree that this is a valid description of free will.now here is were ya trip into a logic hole;you agree with me that god knows all and can do all,and you agreed that he already knows everything that has,can,and will happen for eternity.since you agree with that its logical to conclude that he has already passed judgement on you due to the fact that he knows what choices you will make,and already established a done deal.you agree that he is omnipotent,so everything he does is purposefull.now lets look at your definition of predestination:"To fix upon, decide, or decree in advance; foreordain, Destiny; fate."

so if he knows all you will do,he knows if youll follow any arbitual path he set for you,and thus passes judgement at the beginning of time.If everything is set in stone becuase he already knows everything,then free will cant exist.if free will cant exist and he decided everything at the beginning,then he created you to live and die,then go to wherever he decided you should go.if this is all true and he is all powerfull,then he made people on purpose just to screw with them and send a good deal of them into eternal suffering,not becuase they deserved it,but becuase he designed them to do so.

[Child of God]: Actually, I do not believe it is logical to conclude that He has already passed judgement on you before you are conceived and has condemned you from the start. Right now you are arguing from the standpoint that God does exist but is not fair/just, so I will respond to that standpoint. Since we are arguing from the point that the ‘Christian/Jewish’ God does exist, we must assume the Bible is God’s Word since it establishes the ‘Christian/Jewish’ God from the God of other religions, and by arguing the God of Christians/Jews, you validate the source from which Him is know. That said, His Word also tells us that no person is judged until the appointed time. I would like to point out that no where in the Bible does it say we go directly to Heaven when we die. It does say that we enter into a sleep, from which we are awaken from at the end. All people enter this sleep until Judgment Day, at which time it will be decided whether we go to Heaven or Hell. Just like we do not become angels. We are told that angels were created by God before the creation of the world. These are just common misconceptions based on literary works from the Rennaisance (so?), such as John Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. God forms our souls at the start. When we are concieved, God forms and knows our souls, souls which are then placed into sinful bodies when we are conceived. God creates all of us good at the start and with the intent of relationship. How are we to know what occurs with our soul before we are born? The Bible doesn't address that. For all we know, we could all be in relationship with God before we are born via our souls. If that is the case, then to cause you to cease to exist is just as cruel and unjust then to place the soul in a body which may cause you to fall. It's the value of life, which God respects and loves. 

Addressing now the issue of those Natural Science Laws I spoke of, here are paraphrasing of them;

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Between any two objects there is an attracive force that is proportional to the square of the two objects' masses adn proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between them. (F=(m1xm2)/d squared, where M is the mass of the object and d is the distance between them.)

This is the law used when scientists talk about determing the distance between celestial bodies, including between the earth and the sun. This law also determines that if the earth were to be at 9.7 rather than 9.8 from the sun, it would spiral into the sun, and if it was at 9.9 it would spiral too far away from the sun to support life. 9.8 is what keeps the earth in it's rotation and the ability for earth to support life.

Newton's Three Laws
Law of Inertia: an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force
Law of Motion: an object's acceleration is proportional to the net force exerted on it by its surroundings and is proportional to the inverse it its mass. The direction of the acceleration is the same as the direction of the next force. (a=F/M where a is acceleration, F is the force exerted and M is the Mass on which the Force is being exerted)
Law of Forced Pairs: Forces always come in pairs: Whenever one body exerts force on a second body, the second exerts a force on the first. The two forces are equal in strength but opposite in direction.</b>

These three laws demonstrate the sophistication of our world and how it works. Using the Law of Probablity, it is impossible that randomess could have created such sophistication. Newton's Law of Forced Pairs also demonstrates again how if there was even slight variation between the earth and the sun, the Earth's orbit would be shifted and unable to support life.

Laws of Thermodynamics
Law of Conservation of Energy: The total energy of all the participants in any process must remain unchanged throughout that process. That is, energy cannot be created or destroyed through natural means. Energy can be transformed and it can be transferred, but the total amount always stays the same.</b>

Big Bang says there was an explosion of matter which then goes out and randomly forms the Universe. That doesn't add up since something cannot be naturally created out of nothing. Notice here though, the key word is naturally. It does not rule out supernatural means. (It should also be noted that supernatural can also be defined as above or exceeding the natural as presently understood.)

Law of Increasing Entrophy: The total entrophy of all participants in any physical process cannot decrease, but it can increase. It can either increase or remain the same.</b>

This again goes against Big Bang, which says that energy in the Universe is collapsing in on itself, and supports a proposed idea that as we get closer to the End, energy in the universe increases as the Battle in the Spiritual World becomes more active in the natural world. Either way, it goes directly against Big Bang theory that the Universe is collapsing in on itself.

Tomorrow, I will answer your question about the Fibbonaci Sequence.


[Sedition]well well,you did awnser my questions,and brought up some issues i definantly disagree with,first i want to discuss this quote "These three laws demonstrate the sophistication of our world and how it works. Using the Law of Probablity, it is impossible that randomess could have created such sophistication. Newton's Law of Forced Pairs also demonstrates again how if there was even slight variation between the earth and the sun, the Earth's orbit would be shifted and unable to support life."

Im gonna just ask one simple question to that: how can you mathematiclly come to the conclusion that the universe is to complex to of happend randomly?for example,if there are a rabbit and a turtle in a race,its more likely that the rabbit will win,but thats not an absolute.what if the rabbit takes a nap and the turtle kept going?saying something is true becuase its more likely is the same thing as the story of the race between a rabbit and a turtle,im sure you have heard it.also,how do you mathmaticlly measure complexity anyway?more so draw the conclusion that complexity equals designer.that simply doesent make sense and i need you to give a solid explanation behind that assertion.

[Child of God]: Sure, and my answer is; I honestly don't know. I don't know how they are able to come up with the Law of Probablity or any of the laws and say for certain. That is so far over my head I'm getting a nose bleed just from trying to see the bottom of that! ^-^' Again however, challenging accepted Academia is beyound this wiki. How they were able to establish these and present them as concrete, unfallible laws I don't know. Those are questions I constantly ask as well (my physics professor didn't like me very much!), but it quite honestly beyond me. In response to your analogy about the rabbit and the hare, you are right. Logically, the hare should win. But what about external forces? Logic and natural laws only tell us what will happen if anything externally interfers. If something externally does interfer, it falls beyond their scope. It's the same thing with God. When you look at the world, it's logical to assume from the surface there is no God, that everything is random and chaotic. However, when you look at the details within the larger picture, you see connection. Look even closer and you can see an order, and even though that order doesn't prevail, you can see it's still there. That's the key, is looking at the details within the big picture. If you take only portions of the picture and focuse on the details, you're right, you won't find any continuity whatsoever. However, when you take the whole picture (that being history) rather than just a piece (not just a portion in history) and look at it in detail as a whole, you see a continuity.

[Sedition] you keep speaking of a bigger picture,and some sort of cosmic order.please describe and support such a claim.history tends to repeat itself,but if anything thats to blame on human nature rather then anything supernatural.

[Child of God]: 99% of human history is prehistory, or history before the dawn of civilization. Civilization is defined as being reached once a culture has attained these three criteria:

-writing
-metallurgy
-urbanism

These are the bare minimums for scholars to consider a culture as having reached civilization. Once these three are met, there are about 9 other criteria as well.

-cities as administrative centers
-a political system based on defined territory rather than kinship
-many people engaged in specialized, none-food-producing activities
-status distinctions based largely on accumulation of wealth
-monumental building
-a system for keeping permanent records
-long distance trade
-sophisticated interest in science and art
-sophisticated religious system

Though there is constantly debate about revision of the order of these criteria, this is the currently accepted standard.
The four earliest cultures to reach this point, in the believed order, are;

-Mesopotamia (The Euphrates and Tigris I believe)
-Egypt (The Nile)
-Indus Valley (along the Indus River in India)
-China (The Yellow River)

Since writing had not been developed in prehistory, we have no written record of that time, only legends that were later recorded when writing was first created, as well as practices that had been passed down through the generations. Science doesn't tell us this; archeology does though science is used to help with some things in determining this. Some argue the two are interchangeable, but I beg to differ; the approach to each academic area is much different, as well as how the conclusions are drawn.

Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley are the only two civilizations which had contact with one another, leaving China and Egypt to develop in isolation. However, it wasn’t until Mesopotamia’s apex that they had continuous contact with the Indus Valley, such as through trade. It is also thought to be the first culture to develop a sophisticated writing system based on more than pictographs/hieroglyphic-like symbols since the discovery of the Black Stele and the Ebla Tablets, constructed under Hammurabi during the neo era of Mesopotamia in roughly 7th century B.C.E. Incidentally, the Stele mentions many cities which archeologists have yet to find but are described in the Bible, as well as proves there was written language before Moses. (It had been argued in academia that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) because written language had not developed yet, which these tablets now proved to be incorrect since they were written 700 years before Moses.) The Tablets describe the Genesis flood briefly. Carvings found of Hammurabi also name him with a name similar to Ambrathol, who is mentioned in Genesis, speaking with Abraham. 

Egypt’s culture was based on its religious system. Their temples were the building blocks of developing city centers, as is the case with the majority of cultures. China has the existence of Gods. The first Indus Valley people worshiped Gods. Mesopotamia and later Babylon worship Gods. The God/Gods were the foundation of all of these civilizations. Writing began in all four cultures as a tool for religion, in order to keep and maintain proper records and accountability to God/the Gods. City centers and marketplaces centered around temples, which in all cultures were the first public buildings that developed. Evidence of this can been seen in the two oldest cities yet discovered; Catal Hayuk and Jericho.

Catal Hayuk is the oldest discovered settlement to have made a complete Neolithic (agriculture based rather than hunter-gatherer based settlement) transition. The oldest layer uncovered is believed to be from +/- 7500 B.C.E. It has no temples or any form of public buildings, only having mud houses. It also never reached development of metallurgy or writing and thus never reached civilization.

Jericho is the first known city to have reached civilization. It covered roughly 10 acres, and, as is told in the bible, was discovered as once having a giant wall surrounding it which had collapsed as well as having a very large well in the city center. Jericho had few public buildings, the largest being a temple.

Why are Catal Hayuk and Jericho and all this other information significant to our conversation? Because it demonstrates that agriculture alone was not sufficient enough to make the complete transition to civilization and that religion was a necessity. There is no culture in the world that developed civilization without religion, despite the number of cultures that developed in complete isolation. It shows the universal need of humans for a connection with a higher source. This was, and still is, built into our cores as humans, the instinctual knowledge, or a priori knowledge, that there is something greater than ourselves over us. What that something is greatly differs from culture to culture, but that basic need is found in every culture. The development of religion would not have occurred if that a priori knowledge wasn’t in us. Even in early cultures with an extremely large pantheon of Gods, the ‘head God’ is usually benevolent, kind and just. (Greece and later doesn’t classify as earlier cultures since there are quite a few cultures that developed before them and from which they took their ideas about the Gods from. By early, I am referring to the founding or ‘cradles’ of civilizations.) The evidence from different cultures which support Biblical claim also validate the Torah, and have made it the most historically correct ‘religious’ or ‘holy’ book in the history of any culture or of the world.

Looking at some of these ancient factors individually, they may not amount to much. But when pieced together and looked at as a whole, it begins to take form into something much larger. If you would like more explanation using later time periods in history, such as the Classical Eras of Greece, Rome, India, Japan, Egypt I would be happy to post more. If you would like some on the ‘Dark Ages’ and Renaissance I can provide some but Medieval and Imperial history I’m not as up to date on. Again however, this is only one or two of many, many examples in world history.  

The 'cosmic order' can be found in the connections between cultures and their histories. History repeates itself not becuase of a cosmic order but because people are stupid, plain and simple. They don't change and continue making the same mistakes. Mistakes that, if you notice, God has solutions for in the Bible. But people, ancient or modern, don't want to rely on God to solve problems or correct mistakes, so they keep making them all over again. In saying so though, when God gives a command in the Bible it must be taken in context. For example, if God told the Jews to seige Jericho that doesn't mean they can go and lay seige to whoever they want. It was a specific command for a specific point in time, for that point in history. If you read the full context of a command, usually it is oblivous which is a 'one-time' command and which is a command that is meant to stand for time (ie. the Ten Commandments). Almost all cultures develope in the same general way, hitting roughly the same milestones in mostly the same order. I say mostly because yes, there may be an exception I'm not aware of.

---

Go to The Proof Discussions Page 2
Back to Previous Proof Discussions
Back to The Proof