Old Testament Question

[RhythmDawg]

Yes, it makes sense. Especially when you consider the near infinite chances (vastness of the universe and length of time) there could have been for that chance to occur.

I use my phone to post on this board, so I will provide a link in this instance to explain more about this concept. But I really think it only seems kind of magical when we look at it from a bias or native-favoritism to our own particular human form. We aren't the only viable form of life and we probably aren't even the only viable form of conscious life.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutio...robability.htm

I would assume, being a tech graduate, that you are well-versed in a scientific or technological discipline. Do you acknowledge causality? My genetic coding example, and another example… The Big Bang… There is no room for chance.

In a contextual read of the Bible in it's entirety, in searching for causality, perhaps questioning the "why" behind God in the old and New Testament's would be an enlightening exercise.

[RhythmDawg]

Personally I would blow you up to save my family (assuming there wasn't some other way to divert your car or incapacitate you). You slandering me would have no bearing on me.

Yeah the slandering part was just to announce intention.

[Guisslapp]

Personally I would blow you up to save my family (assuming there wasn't some other way to divert your car or incapacitate you). You slandering me would have no bearing on me.

But your scenario actually refutes the assumption. If I had the ability to plant the bomb, I could have done something less severe.

[DONW]

I'll pose an easier question to answer, one like-minded to many others in this thread. Every cell in our body is coded with 4 chemicals. They line up in sequence. There are multiple billions per cell. They work very similarly to 1s and 0s in computer code by telling the cell exactly what to do. The code is very similar and works very similarly across all organisms. How is this complex structure and physiology possible? Can it be random chance? Does it make sense that a process could start from nothing, by chance, and evolve over thousands of years into something so complex?

This makes a good case for deism. All we know about the God in the old Testament is that he does horrible things to people that piss him off. Have you ever thought about becoming a Deist?

[T1]

This makes a good case for deism. All we know about the God in the old Testament is that he does horrible things to people that piss him off. Have you ever thought about becoming a Deist?

You should read the New Testament. It's all about his grace and reconciliation/atonement for mankind. Knowing God's in-toleration for sin in the OT shows the magnitude of his grace in the NT.

[Guisslapp]

I would assume, being a tech graduate, that you are well-versed in a scientific or technological discipline. Do you acknowledge causality? My genetic coding example, and another example… The Big Bang… There is no room for chance.

In a contextual read of the Bible in it's entirety, in searching for causality, perhaps questioning the "why" behind God in the old and New Testament's would be an enlightening exercise.

It doesn't make sense why a God would be more exempt from causality than nature itself. Believing that God created himself or is a first cause is what violates causality. What created God? Or if he always existed, why did he always exist?

Those assertions violate causality.

I used "chance" loosely. But I used it because it relates to the probabilistic evaluation of the circumstances that a native-human form bias brings to the inquiry. Yes, I think though I don't know for sure that this is the only form that could have occurred (based on causality) but I don't think that it is magically improbable when you consider the fact that while any specific form is improbable, non-specific conscious life that could question the issue of probability is not improbable given the number of opportunities there was for some conscious life to evolve somewhere at sometime.

[RhythmDawg]

But your scenario actually refutes the assumption. If I had the ability to plant the bomb, I could have done something less severe.

You were handed the remote detonator, but did not plant the explosive.

[RhythmDawg]

Music is tricky because by what standard are you going to judge it. How well it sells? It's critical acclaim? The two have virtually no relationship to each other today. E.g., compare album sales to aggregated music critic ratings on metacritic. I generally find my tastes more aligned with aggregated critics than the consuming masses, but not surprisingly most of my friends are the opposite.

I think we have gained dominion over sound to such a large extent that the music fundamentals are a near given, and it isn't hard to create music that achieves old ideals of melody, harmony, rhythm and composition. We can produce classic instrument sounds (and simulate expressivity) very well with electronic doodads and software. Even the novice can have dominion over the sound and the rules now. All he has to do is buy GarageBand and he can produce his own slick music. It doesn't take the same level of commitment to attain the classic skills and knowledge, so it isn't rewarded as much.

From my perspective, music is just another form of creative work to express ideas and emotions. Breaking standards is just one tool of the trade. It is an element of creativity and makes your idea different than others.

I think you have described religion and its relation to God pretty accurately above.



Also, I tried to let this go, but can't. This is mildly applicable today because, as I stated, we have broken all the rules. But as a blanket generalization, this statement is erroneous...particularly the underlined portion. - Even the novice can have dominion over the sound and the rules now. All he has to do is buy GarageBand and he can produce his own slick music. It doesn't take the same level of commitment to attain the classic skills and knowledge, so it isn't rewarded as much.

[RhythmDawg]

This makes a good case for deism. All we know about the God in the old Testament is that he does horrible things to people that piss him off. Have you ever thought about becoming a Deist?

If all I knew about Him was in fact only limited to the new testament, then yes, I might consider becoming a deist. However, I read the bible in its entirety and base by belief in total context. I understand the "why" behind God in the old testament. I also have the evidence of and eye witness testimony to Jesus Christ...and I choose to have faith in its authenticity. So to answer your question, no.

[Guisslapp]

I think you have described religion and its relation to God pretty accurately above.



Also, I tried to let this go, but can't. This is mildly applicable today because, as I stated, we have broken all the rules. But as a blanket generalization, this statement is erroneous...particularly the underlined portion. - Even the novice can have dominion over the sound and the rules now. All he has to do is buy GarageBand and he can produce his own slick music. It doesn't take the same level of commitment to attain the classic skills and knowledge, so it isn't rewarded as much.

You mean to play an actual instrument well or to produce a sound recording that sounds just as good?

[Guisslapp]

You were handed the remote detonator, but did not plant the explosive.

Who planted the explosive?

[RhythmDawg]

It doesn't make sense why a God would be more exempt from causality than nature itself. Believing that God created himself or is a first cause is what violates causality. What created God? Or if he always existed, why did he always exist?

Those assertions violate causality.

I used "chance" loosely. But I used it because it relates to the probabilistic evaluation of the circumstances that a native-human form bias brings to the inquiry. Yes, I think though I don't know for sure that this is the only form that could have occurred (based on causality) but I don't think that it is magically improbable when you consider the fact that while any specific form is improbable, non-specific conscious life that could question the issue of probability is not improbable given the number of opportunities there was for some conscious life to evolve somewhere at sometime.

Excellent response. It isn't my responsibility to convince you that God exists, nor do I have any intention to...nor should anyone take on that responsibility in my opinion. But, by the same reasoning as your response, can you concede that, while you don't believe it, and perhaps a case could be made that it can't be defined as probable, God is at least possible?

[RhythmDawg]

Who planted the explosive?

Bush or Cheney...I'm not sure it matters which.

[RhythmDawg]

You mean to play an actual instrument well or to produce a sound recording that sounds just as good?

I was referring to composition, but playing an instrument can apply. Although, your argument holds when replacing performance with technology.

[Guisslapp]

I was referring to composition, but playing an instrument can apply. Although, your argument holds when replacing performance with technology.

Technology has made even composition much easier. But these days I suspect people have loose ideas about the composition and then back into the actual composition after lots of experimentation that is easy to do with cut, copy, paste, loop, changing patches, etc. The real creativity is in the composition and how that works with whatever is truly the human expressive bits that get worked into.

There is an increasing trend to where the artist is the producer and everything else is borrowed or sampled and/or software. In this scenario, the composition is not really a script anymore but the final product that can be distilled from the sound recording. At least this is my perception from someone that consumes modern music en masse.