toba:

Today u see top MOG here in Nigeria laying emphasis on tithing as a means to getting Gods blessings and also as a decree/commandment that should be obeyed. they arent seeing it as a principle, they also see it as a means of receiving from God i.e if u dont pay, God might not bless u like those that pays. Compare these with your own stance

If paying tithe is a principle, then it in all probability comes with its blessings which will not be enjoyed by those who don't practice it. I agree with this.

The difference in my opinion is that I do not think there is a judgement against the paying of tithe.

In the new testament (covenant), Our bodies are the temples of God and we are like priests (Remember we are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood. . .  1 Peter 2:9).
Priests did not pay tithes. Their entire life was given to God.
Therefore, in the same way, we should be totally sold out to God. Everything we own should belong to God (not just 10%)

toba:

in addition to the above, when pple suffer some forms of misfortunes, its also being attributed to non tithing at times. for eg, i was in a gathering when some suffered a loss and the Mog simply asked if the fellow is a tither, he said no. Mog simply adviced restitution. Well this chap came later to give testimony. I wouldnt want to say its a coincidence or simply an act of the tithe but a message could have been passed that tithing is more of a commandment. U obey u get the reward and vice versa. I once shared it here not long ago on a man that took a loan for a contract and first paid 10% of the loan as tithe. He was successful at the end and to date the ministry of________ stll calls him for major development. Hes success was an act of tithing or simply doing a good job? tell me what u think before i proceed
thanks

He probably would still have been successful if he didn't pay his tithes. Note that there are a lot of successful contractors in Nigeria who are not even believers. The major task is in getting the contract not in executing it. (You'll know if you've bidded for a government contract).

I think God would have preferred it if he didn't pay tithes but was ready to spend all he got from the contract to do what God wanted him to do.
Remember that Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give to the poor not just 10% (Luke 18:22)

@ homer

thehomer:

Well you'll simply have to ask those that actually do reject such a notion and remain superstitious or religious because such people actually exist.
*1
Oh you're shifting from atheism to 'militant atheism'? I didn't find any answers about the soul when it came to theism or atheism. Could you please provide them?
*2
Apparently both what?*3

Your attempts to add other features to it and still call it atheism is an attempt at redefining it.*4

Huh? Are these two statements not contradictory? He demonstrates his non-belief in fire being harmful and at the same time, one who does not believe has nothing to prove?*5

But you said atheism was a belief and by extension a worldview.*6

I[b]t's right here: the 469th post.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-552049.448.html#msg7259031

You also said there that trying to show that atheism is not a religion or worldview means that it is a belief and a worldview. How does that follow?[/b]*7

No. Both of those statements are negative. They both have not in them.*8

This is plainly an attempt to shift the focus of the discussion.*9

You were never able to explain this worldview that is presented by atheism. Do you wish to do so now?*10

Why is it odd? It seems you do not know the diverse abilities of humans to believe various things.
Making that statement does not make it true most especially as it is plainly false when you consider the example I've given you.*11

Ok then so we are agreed that religions are materialistic beliefs. This means we end up in another contradiction. Religions being both materialistic and non-materialistic beliefs. Since according to you, it doesn't have to be totally materialistic for you to call it a materialistic belief. You said this at the same post referenced above.*12

* 1 >>> i do not think i need to >>> i expected you to give an answer

*2 >>> when i talk of atheism i refer to militant atheism >>> note that >>> and note, as well, the fact that i use both terms interchangeably

*3 >>> both atheism and religion are concepts that intertwine >>> how many times do i repeat that atheism is predicated on materialism and embodied by a scientific world-view

*4 >>> all you did was rearrange my question >>> how does adding other features redefine it >>>

*5 >>> you suppose so ! >>> oya !!! >>> prove that you do not believe that fire harms

*6 >>> your link was faulty >>> however, it is true that i said atheism is belief and by extension a worldview >>> i DID NOT state that atheism is a worldview because it is a belief >>> you misunderstand me

*& >>> i do not agree >>> you got my semantics wrong >>> i talked about beliefs not statements >>> haba !

*9 >>> suit yourself

*10 >>> that was the purpose of mt TED videos >>> check out Dan Dennet's profile and RDFRS

*11 >>> so why is it so hard for you to consider atheism as a religion >>> or at least, a worldview

*12 >>> that is not a contradiction >>> religions are both materialistic and non-materialistic >>> they incorporate the aforementioned to varying degrees

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer

* 1 >>> i do not think i need to >>> i expected you to give an answer

*2 >>> when i talk of atheism i refer to militant atheism >>> note that >>> and note, as well, the fact that i use both terms interchangeably

*3 >>> both atheism and religion are concepts that intertwine >>> how many times do i repeat that atheism is predicated on materialism and embodied by a scientific world-view

*4 >>> all you did was rearrange my question >>> how does adding other features redefine it >>>

*5 >>> you suppose so ! >>> oya !!! >>> prove that you do not believe that fire harms

*6 >>> your link was faulty >>> however, it is true that i said atheism is belief and by extension a worldview >>> i DID NOT state that atheism is a worldview because it is a belief >>> you misunderstand me

*& >>> i do not agree >>> you got my semantics wrong >>> i talked about beliefs not statements >>> haba !

*9 >>> suit yourself

*10 >>> that was the purpose of mt TED videos >>> check out Dan Dennet's profile and RDFRS

*11 >>> so why is it so hard for you to consider atheism as a religion >>> or at least, a worldview

*12 >>> that is not a contradiction >>> religions are both materialistic and non-materialistic >>> they incorporate the aforementioned to varying degrees

Responding would be easier for me if I could see what you are also responding to.

the last post of mine that you responded to >>> check your profile >>> and your previous posts >>> you'll catrch my drift

Uyi Iredia:

the last post of mine that you responded to >>> check your profile >>> and your previous posts >>> you'll catrch my drift

Why don't you simply paste the posts to which you're responding. This will make it easier to follow the discussion.

I just thought to chip this in.

The big bang presupposes that there were physical particles that had always existed in space prior to the big bang itself.

The above statement does not ring true with reality as we have found out that physical realities however sectioned never explain their own existence, they have to go to something outside of themselves.

It is therefore a safe supposition to say that if there is anything that would explain its own existence it would have to be something that is non-physical.

Ah! The thread has come alive again!!

logic1:

I just thought to chip this in.

The big bang presupposes that there were physical particles that had always existed in space prior to the big bang itself.

Huh? Space appeared during the expansion of the universe. Physical particles also came in after the universe had cooled enough for them to coalesce.

logic1:

The above statement does not ring true with reality as we have found out that physical realities however sectioned never explain their own existence, they have to go to something outside of themselves.

How did you find this out?

logic1:

It is therefore a safe supposition to say that if there is anything that would explain its own existence it would have to be something that is non-physical.

Such as?

thehomer:

Huh? Space appeared during the expansion of the universe. Physical particles also came in after the universe had cooled enough for them to coalesce.

What I was trying to point out is that all the known physical particles cannot explain their existence without refering to something outside of themselves. The physical particles you talked about were coalesced from other particles. they didn't just spontaneously materialize from nothing

Therefore if anything could spontaneously materialize from nothing (where nothing means non-physical or not appreciable in the spectrum of the physical), it would have to be non-physical.

The questions you should try to answer are:
what existed before the big bang?
what caused the big bang?
Did the big bang result from physical particles or not?

Just to clarify,
by space I mean spatial location.

By saying something existed in space, I mean it existed in a particular location (somewhere)

logic1:

What I was trying to point out is that all the known physical particles cannot explain their existence without refering to something outside of themselves. The physical particles you talked about were coalesced from other particles. they didn't just spontaneously materialize from nothing

Why do you assume that the universe was ever at a state of "nothingness"?

logic1:

Therefore if anything could spontaneously materialize from nothing (where nothing means non-physical or not appreciable in the spectrum of the physical), it would have to be non-physical.

So non-physical objects spontaneously materialize from nothing? How do you know these non-physical objects are actually present? Can you distinguish them from nothing?

logic1:

The questions you should try to answer are:
what existed before the big bang?

That is if we can actually speak of a "before" the big bang.

logic1:

what caused the big bang?

That would be if we can also speak of causes when it comes to objects like the universe.

logic1:

Did the big bang result from physical particles or not?

We do know that physical parameters were involved in the process of expansion but again whether we can speak of causes is still debatable.

But I guess you already have your answers to all the questions which would be God, God, God.

This is much better didn't know when you modified your post.

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer

* 1 >>> i do not think i need to >>> i expected you to give an answer

I think you do because Gods are not the only superstitious beliefs that people do have. e.g One doesn't have to believe in a God to think that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> when i talk of atheism i refer to militant atheism >>> note that >>> and note, as well, the fact that i use both terms interchangeably

Then I think it would be better for you to avoid doing that due to confusion. I think the term you wish to use is Bright or maybe secular humanist.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> both atheism and religion are concepts that intertwine >>> how many times do i repeat that atheism is predicated on materialism and embodied by a scientific world-view

You may repeat that many times but that would not make it true. Atheism is not necessarily based on a scientific world view.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> all you did was rearrange my question >>> how does adding other features redefine it >>>

Consider this example: theism. If one claimed that the God was only one and his son was Jesus, it is no longer theism but Christianity. Claiming that the belief in Jesus and only one God (the father) is theism is redefining theism.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> you suppose so ! >>> oya !!! >>> prove that you do not believe that fire harms

Person A meets Person B who says he does not believe that fire will harm him.
Person A asks for evidence and Person B promptly ignites a lighter and hands it to Person A.
Person B then proceeds to hold his palm in the flame of the lighter.
What has Person B demonstrated? He has demonstrated that he does not believe fire will harm him. This is irrespective of whether the fire actually does harm him or not.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> your link was faulty >>> however, it is true that i said atheism is belief and by extension a worldview >>> i DID NOT state that atheism is a worldview because it is a belief >>> you misunderstand me

The link seems to be working fine. Any way, please explain it to me. What I understood was that:
Atheism is a belief.
Beliefs are worldviews.
Thus, Atheism is a worldview.

I did not misunderstand you. It is up to you to correct your error but I'll just leave this here.

Uyi Iredia:

*& >>> i do not agree >>> you got my semantics wrong >>> i talked about beliefs not statements >>> haba !

Then please clarify what you're trying to say. Also, beliefs are expressed by statements.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> suit yourself

Suited. This is why it is not appropriate to use atheism and "militant atheism" interchangeably.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> that was the purpose of mt TED videos >>> check out Dan Dennet's profile and RDFRS

Those were not explanations of a worldview.

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> so why is it so hard for you to consider atheism as a religion >>> or at least, a worldview

Because it is neither a religion nor a worldview.

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> that is not a contradiction >>> religions are both materialistic and non-materialistic >>> they incorporate the aforementioned to varying degrees

Sorry but this is a logical contradiction.
This is the definition of materialism from wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/materialism
Using the second definition.

from Wiktionary:
The philosophical belief that nothing exists beyond what is physical (also called physicalism).

Religions generally have a belief in supernatural occurrences.

thehomer:

Why do you assume that the universe was ever at a state of "nothingness"?

All known physical particles have a beginning.

Your idea that the universe was never at a state of "nothingness" is not physically possible.

You cannot define something as concrete if there is no such thing as non-concrete.
You cannot have a concept without its converse.
There cannot be presence without the possibility of absence or else presence does not mean anything.

That is if we can actually speak of a "before" the big bang.

We definitely can speak of a "before" the big bang as time is not a physical concept and it was not created by the big bang.
In fact we define when the big bang occured, approximately 14 billion years ago.

We do know that physical parameters were involved in the process of expansion but again whether we can speak of causes is still debatable.

But I guess you already have your answers to all the questions which would be God, God, God.

Now we have some improvement.
If you do not know the answers to these things then you do not have enough information to disprove the existence of God.

I think the problem with Atheism is the brazenness which most atheists have in the face of ignorance.
A more scientific stance would be agnosticism rather than atheism.

That would be if we can also speak of causes when it comes to objects like the universe.

Science posits a beginning and a cause for the universe.
The reason why science makes the above propositions is because it is established fact that every physical substance has a beginning.

Everything in the universe including the universe as a whole is referenced by space and time.
The universe has size (space) and has an age (time).

logic1:

All known physical particles have a beginning.

Your idea that the universe was never at a state of "nothingness" is not physically possible.

Why not? How do you know it is not physically possible?

logic1:

You cannot define something as concrete if there is no such thing as non-concrete.

Huh?

logic1:

You cannot have a concept without its converse.

Does this actually mean that the converse must also exist? e.g we have the concept of numbers. Is it possible for this concept not to exist?

logic1:

There cannot be presence without the possibility of absence or else presence does not mean anything.

Oh really? Do you think you know enough to determine what the possibilities are? What is the possibility of gravity ceasing to act among the various objects in the Milky Way Galaxy?

logic1:

We definitely can speak of a "before" the big bang as time is not a physical concept and it was not created by the big bang.

Can you explain what you mean by time here because time as I'm using is measurable. The Big Bang is not conscious so cannot create anything. Sure we can speak of before using language but does it actually mean anything?

logic1:

In fact we define when the big bang occured, approximately 14 billion years ago.

And we define north as tending towards the north pole. So, where is north of the north pole?

logic1:

Now we have some improvement.
If you do not know the answers to these things then you do not have enough information to disprove the existence of God.

The existence of which God? Your God? You need to realize that non-belief in your God can be arrived at using multiple means especially when one considers the contents of the book he was supposed to have written.

logic1:

I think the problem with Atheism is the brazenness which most atheists have in the face of ignorance.

This is interesting. What do you think atheism is?

logic1:

A more scientific stance would be agnosticism rather than atheism.

One thing you need to understand is that agnosticism and atheism answer different questions. Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is a concept about the existence of Gods.

logic1:

Science posits a beginning and a cause for the universe.

And what was the scientific cause for the universe?

logic1:

The reason why science makes the above propositions is because it is established fact that every physical substance has a beginning.

No. The conclusion of the Big Bang was arrived at due to evidence showing the expansion of the universe and other theories such as Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

logic1:

Everything in the universe including the universe as a whole is referenced by space and time.
The universe has size (space) and has an age (time).

Yes. So what?

From The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.

As it is nothing extraordinary that a woman should be with child before she was married, and that the son she might bring forth should be executed, even unjustly, I see no reason for not believing that such a woman as Mary, and such a man as Joseph, and Jesus existed; their mere existence is a matter of indifference about which there is no ground either to believe or to disbelieve, and which comes under the common head of, It may be so; and what then? The probability, however, is that there were such persons, or at least such as resembled them in part of the circumstances, because almost all romantic stories have been suggested by some actual circumstance; as the adventures of Robinson Crusoe, not a word of which is true, were suggested by the case of Alexander Selkirk.

It is not the existence, or non-existence, of the persons that I trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to be married, and while under this engagement she is, to speak plain language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious pretence (Luke, chap. i., ver. 35), that "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." Notwithstanding which, Joseph afterward marries her, cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn rivals the ghost. This is putting the story into intelligible language, and when told in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it. [NOTE]

Obscenity in matters of faith, however wrapped up, is always a token of fable and imposture; for it is necessary to our serious belief in God that we do not connect it with stories that run, as this does, into ludicrous interpretations. This story is upon the face of it, the same kind of story as that of Jupiter and Leda, or Jupiter and Europa, or any of the amorous adventures of Jupiter; and shows, as is already stated in the former part of the Age of Reason, that the Christian faith is built upon the heathen mythology.

As the historical parts of the New Testament, so far as concerns Jesus Christ, are confined to a very short space of time, less than two years, and all within the same country, and nearly to the same spot, the discordance of time, place, and circumstance, which detects the fallacy of the books of the Old Testament, and proves them to be impositions, cannot be expected to be found here in the same abundance. The New Testament compared with the Old, is like a farce of one act, in which there is not room for very numerous violations of the unities. There are, however, some glaring contradictions, which, exclusive of the fallacy of the pretended prophecies, are sufficient to show the story of Jesus Christ to be false.

I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true. The agreement does not prove true, but the disagreement proves falsehood positively.

The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke, there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did those two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might, nevertheless, be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood, and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood; and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the very first thing they say and set out to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they say afterward. Truth is a uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory. Either, then, the men called apostles are impostors, or the books ascribed to them has been written by other persons and fathered upon them, as is the case with the Old Testament.

The book of Matthew gives, chap. i., ver 6, a genealogy by name from David up through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and makes there to be twenty-eight generations. The book of Luke gives also a genealogy by name from Christ, through Joseph, the husband of Mary, down to David, and makes there to be forty-three generations; besides which, there are only the two names of David and Joseph that are alike in the two lists. I here insert both genealogical lists, and for the sake of perspicuity and comparison, have placed them both in the same direction, that is from Joseph down to David.
Genealogy according to Matthew. Genealogy according to Luke.
Christ 23 Josaphat Christ 23 Neri
2 Joseph 24 Asa 2 Joseph 24 Melchi
3 Jacob 25 Abia 3 Heli 25 Addi
4 Matthan 26 Roboam 4 Matthat 26 Cosam
5 Eleazar 27 Solomon 5 Lev 27 Elmodam
6 Eliud 28 David [NOTE] 6 Melchi 28 Er
7 Achim 7 Janna 29 Jose
8 Sadoc 8 Joseph 30 Eliezer
9 Azor 9 Mattathias 31 Jorim
10 Eliakim 10 Amos 32 Matthat
11 Abiud 11 Naum 33 Levi
12 Zorobabel 12 Esli 34 Simeon
13 Salathiel 13 Nagge 35 Juda
14 Jechonias 14 Maath 36 Joseph
15 Josias 15 Mattathias 37 Jonan
16 Amon 16 Semei 38 Eliakim
17 Manasses 17 Joseph 39 Melea
18 Ezekias 18 Juda 40 Menan
19 Achaz 19 Joanna 41 Mattatha
20 Joatham 20 Rhesa 42 Nathan
21 Ozias 21 Zorobabe 43 David
22 Joram 22 Salathiel



Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood between them as these two accounts show they do) in the very commencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of whom and of what he was, what authority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the strange things they tell us afterward? If they cannot be believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when they tell us he was the son of God begotten by a ghost, and that an angel announced this in secret to his mother? If they lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe them in the other? If his natural genealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the whole is fabulous? Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood? Is it not more safe that we stop ourselves at the plain, pure, and unmixed belief of one God, which is Deism, than that we commit ourselves on an ocean of improbable, irrational, indecent and contradictory tales?

The first question, however, upon the books of the New Testament, as upon those of the Old, is, Are they genuine? Were they written by the persons to whom they are ascribed? for it is upon this ground only that the strange things related therein have been credited. Upon this point there is no direct proof for or against, and all that this state of a case proves is doubtfulness, and doubtfulness is the opposite of belief. The state, therefore, that the books are in, proves against themselves as far as this kind of proof can go.

But exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books called the Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that they are impositions. The disordered state of the history in those four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the production of some unconnected individuals, many years after the things they pretend to relate, each of whom made his own legend; and not the writings of men living intimately together, as the men called the apostles are supposed to have done — in fine, that they have been manufactured, as the books of the Old Testament have been, by other persons than those whose names they bear.

The story of the angel announcing what the church calls the immaculate conception is not so much as mentioned in the books ascribed to Mark and John; and is differently related in Matthew and Luke. The former says the angel appeared to Joseph; the latter says it was to Mary; but either Joseph or Mary was the worst evidence that could have been thought of, for it was others that should have testified for them, and not they for themselves. Were any girl that is now with child to say, and even to swear it, that she was gotten with child by a ghost, and that an angel told her so, would she be believed? Certainly she would not. Why, then, are we to believe the same thing of another girl, whom we never saw, told by nobody knows who, nor when, nor where? How strange and inconsistent it is, that the same circumstance that would weaken the belief even of a probable story, should be given as a motive for believing this one, that has upon the face of it every token of absolute impossibility and imposture!

Does this actually mean that the converse must also exist? e.g we have the concept of numbers. Is it possible for this concept not to exist?

It means that there must exist the possibility of existence of the converse.

Numbers mean something because they explain something else.
The real concept behind numbers is about estimating the presence of something, we have 3 cars, 3 means nothing if it does not refer to any other thing. In fact when the brain thinks of the number 3 it actually thinks either of 3 objects or of an object whose shape resembles the shape given to the figure 3. 3 can only mean something if there is the possibility of the non existence of 3 which is the possibility that the 3 objects imagined do not exist or the object whose shape resembles the figure 3 does not exist.

Gravity is an explanation of the force of attraction between the earth and another physical body close to it.
There is the possibility that 2 bodies can repel (rather than attract) each other, the converse

thehomer:

Can you explain what you mean by time here because time as I'm using is measurable. The Big Bang is not conscious so cannot create anything. Sure we can speak of before using language but does it actually mean anything?

And we define north as tending towards the north pole. So, where is north of the north pole?

Time is a measure of "when" something occured. It is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to measure the duration of events or the intervals between them. Time is measurable. I don't think I said otherwise.
Before means something, infact you posted the comment in quotes BEFORE I posted this one.

Please what are you trying to clarify with the north of the north pole question?
A possible answer to the question is that there is no north of the north pole because the north pole is itself the point of reference when we speak of north.

thehomer:

The existence of which God? Your God? You need to realize that non-belief in your God can be arrived at using multiple means especially when one considers the contents of the book he was supposed to have written.

The existence of any God.
I made the comments that led to this particular discussion because you profess to be an atheist i.e. someone who does not believe in the existence of any God.

thehomer:

This is interesting. What do you think atheism is?

One thing you need to understand is that agnosticism and atheism answer different questions. Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is a concept about the existence of Gods.

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God or deities
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Agnosticism is the view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

For anyone to credibly defend atheism he or she must possess absolute knowledge about the creation of the universe as a start.

thehomer:

And what was the scientific cause for the universe?

No. The conclusion of the Big Bang was arrived at due to evidence showing the expansion of the universe and other theories such as Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

The scientific cause for the universe is the big bang.

The idea of the big bang was hypothesized because everyone implicitly believes that everything has a beginning.

Quote from: logic1 on December 30, 2010, 04:45 PM
Everything in the universe including the universe as a whole is referenced by space and time.
The universe has size (space) and has an age (time).

Yes. So what?

If the universe has an age then it has a beginning. If it has a beginning it was caused by something.

If the thing that caused the universe is physical then it too has a cause and we can go on and on.

Conclusion: At the very beginning of the process there has to be an uncaused cause in the equation which is most definitely non-physical

It is not the existence, or non-existence, of the persons that I trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to be married, and while under this engagement she is, to speak plain language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious pretence (Luke, chap. i., ver. 35), that "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." Notwithstanding which, Joseph afterward marries her, cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn rivals the ghost. This is putting the story into intelligible language, and when told in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it.

Of course Thomas paine did not consider the possibility of in-vitro fertilization in which case there can be pregnancy without sex that's why he says "there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it".

@divinereal
I believe we have dealt with the perceived contradictions in the account of the genealogies of matthew and luke.

Another thing which I want to point out is that the new testament is made up of letters written by the apostles to some other people.
These apostles were not infallible therefore they may have not always been 100% right about every matter.
The most important thing is the logic or central theme that their letters seek to pass across.

The bible does not claim to be the spoken word of God in its entirety even though it contains some words that God spoke which is usually preceded by words like ". . .and God said. . ."

No historical event has ever been recorded flawlessly and most likely (except probably with high definition video) no event will ever be recorded flawlessly. However we cannot therefore say that all historical events are false because of inconsistencies of various sources.
Therefore quite contrary to thomas paine's argument, the fact that luke and matthew do not agree 100% does not mean that the story of Jesus is false.

logic1:

It means that there must exist the possibility of existence of the converse.

Numbers mean something because they explain something else.
The real concept behind numbers is about estimating the presence of something, we have 3 cars, 3 means nothing if it does not refer to any other thing. In fact when the brain thinks of the number 3 it actually thinks either of 3 objects or of an object whose shape resembles the shape given to the figure 3. 3 can only mean something if there is the possibility of the non existence of 3 which is the possibility that the 3 objects imagined do not exist or the object whose shape resembles the figure 3 does not exist.

So does three exist or not?

logic1:

Gravity is an explanation of the force of attraction between the earth and another physical body close to it.
There is the possibility that 2 bodies can repel (rather than attract) each other, the converse

Does the fact that we can conceive of such an occurrence mean that it actually occurs?

The main point I'm trying to illustrate is that the fact that one can conceive of a phenomenon or an object does not mean it actually occurred or existed.

logic1:

Time is a measure of "when" something occured. It is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to measure the duration of events or the intervals between them. Time is measurable. I don't think I said otherwise.
Before means something, infact you posted the comment in quotes BEFORE I posted this one.

Time as we use it currently use it commenced with the expansion of the universe. This is how I understand and apply time in my posts about cosmology.

logic1:

Please what are you trying to clarify with the north of the north pole question?
A possible answer to the question is that there is no north of the north pole because the north pole is itself the point of reference when we speak of north.

There you've said it. To apply your answer to my question, it would be phrased thus. There is no time prior to space-time because space-time is the point of reference when we speak of time.