DaVinci Code Protesters

[Viking]

This is operating under the assumption that carbon dating is accurate, especially back that far, right? Try these sites:

http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

Here's a quote from one of them: "In the 1940s, scientists succeeded in finding out how long it takes for radiocarbon to disappear, or decay, from a sample of carbon from a dead plant or animal. Willard Libby, the principal scientist, had worked in the team making the nuclear bomb during World War 2, so he was an expert in nuclear and atomic chemistry. After the war he became very interested in peaceful applications of atomic science. He and two students first measured the "half-life" of radiocarbon. The half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for half the radiocarbon in a sample of bone or shell or any carbon sample to disappear. Libby found that it took 5568 years for half the radiocarbon to decay. After twice that time (about 11000 years), another half of that remaining amount will have disappeared. After another 5568 years, again another half will have disappeared. You can work out that after about 50 000 years of time, all the radiocarbon will have gone. Therefore, radiocarbon dating is not able to date anything older than 60 or 70 000 years old. The job of a radiocarbon laboratory is to measure the remaining amounts of radiocarbon in a carbon sample. This is very difficult and requires a lot of careful work to produce reliable dates."

As you can see, I don't think the use of carbon dating for dates millions and billions of years old is accurate, nor do many scientists. You'll also note that these sites are not "biased" in any way (which should please declansdad), meaning they're not Christian-run or affiliated, but should provide an objective basis for looking at the validity of this "science." So, I don't buy that there's no "opinion" involved when looking at carbon dates of greater than 70k years.

That being said, there is nothing in the Bible which states that life existed 530 million years ago, nor did I claim that it did, b/c I don't believe it did, nor does the Bible support that. And based on the limitations of carbon dating, neither does it.

You are the living proof that half an eduction is worse than no education at all: There are many more methods to date things than carbon-dating, i.e. lead fossils, mineral-content, etc.
We just had a very revealing article in a popular science magazine about people like you (Creationists) and how they try to push their agenda by using pseudo-science and pseudo-logic.

 

[declansdad]

Sounds like you have a bias against people who have a bias. Who isn't biased towards the way they believe? Aren't you? You are biased against these 2 men b/c they believe a certain way.

The bias that I have in this situation is that I believe that these men have a need to prove that God exists. If they don't, two things could happen: one, the basis for their religion will non existent, or two, they will need to rely on the "believing is simply faith" argument

You're asking for information from a source that can't possibly exist. People write books. People are biased, one way or the other, based on how they believe.[/QOTE]

This is the point I have been making. Neither side can convince the other side because of the bias that they have.

But what this does show is that you're unwilling to read information with an objective mind. Why? If you're so convinced of your beliefs, do you think these men will sway you? Or are you not convinced enough of your beliefs?

Again, I have never once stated what I believe so you are making an assumption that I disagree with what you are saying. What I was saying is that I don't believe that these men would have been completely objective, based on what they do.

Then again, do you even have the ability to read such a book with an open mind, since you don't even know what's in it?

Again you are making an assumption.


All that I have asked from you is the same thing that you have asked from other posters. Post information that will back up your claim and let the discussion flow from that. Stop with the you show me yours first statements

 

[Mugg Mann]

This is operating under the assumption that carbon dating is accurate, especially back that far, right? Try these sites:

http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

Here's a quote from one of them: "In the 1940s, scientists succeeded in finding out how long it takes for radiocarbon to disappear, or decay, from a sample of carbon from a dead plant or animal. Willard Libby, the principal scientist, had worked in the team making the nuclear bomb during World War 2, so he was an expert in nuclear and atomic chemistry. After the war he became very interested in peaceful applications of atomic science. He and two students first measured the "half-life" of radiocarbon. The half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for half the radiocarbon in a sample of bone or shell or any carbon sample to disappear. Libby found that it took 5568 years for half the radiocarbon to decay. After twice that time (about 11000 years), another half of that remaining amount will have disappeared. After another 5568 years, again another half will have disappeared. You can work out that after about 50 000 years of time, all the radiocarbon will have gone. Therefore, radiocarbon dating is not able to date anything older than 60 or 70 000 years old. The job of a radiocarbon laboratory is to measure the remaining amounts of radiocarbon in a carbon sample. This is very difficult and requires a lot of careful work to produce reliable dates."

As you can see, I don't think the use of carbon dating for dates millions and billions of years old is accurate, nor do many scientists. You'll also note that these sites are not "biased" in any way (which should please declansdad), meaning they're not Christian-run or affiliated, but should provide an objective basis for looking at the validity of this "science." So, I don't buy that there's no "opinion" involved when looking at carbon dates of greater than 70k years.

That being said, there is nothing in the Bible which states that life existed 530 million years ago, nor did I claim that it did, b/c I don't believe it did, nor does the Bible support that. And based on the limitations of carbon dating, neither does it.

From one of the links on the cite you provided;

"Radiometric methods measure the time elapsed since the particular radiometric clock was reset. Radiocarbon dating, which is probably best known in the general public, works only on things that were once alive and are now dead. It measures the time elapsed since death, but is limited in scale to no more than about 50,000 years ago. Other methods, such as Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon and others, are able to measure much longer time periods, and are not restricted to things that were once alive. Generally applied to igneous rocks (those of volcanic origin), they measure the time since the molten rock solidified. If that happens to be longer than 10,000 years, then the idea of a young-Earth is called into question. If that happens to be billions of years, then the young-Earth is in big trouble.

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989."

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

My apologies on using the term carbon dating. I was incorrect in citing that particular dating method, but I thank you for inadvertantly providing the exact evidence that you claim no one else has.

How do you KNOW that life on our planet started several billion years ago, since you weren't around?

Asked, and now answered. Again, my thanks for providing the evidence yourself.

 

[auntpolly]

He didn't believe in the Biblical God. Just making a point that his name is not the one to bring up as an example in this case. If you want to go into the whole "higher power", spiritual/not religious stuff, it is a bit different, don't you think?

You know what he meant when he said God? What is meant by "Biblical God" anyway? I don't think there is as big a division between "the 2 Gods" as you seem to.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

You are the living proof that half an eduction is worse than no education at all: There are many more methods to date things than carbon-dating, i.e. lead fossils, mineral-content, etc.
We just had a very revealing article in a popular science magazine about people like you (Creationists) and how they try to push their agenda by using pseudo-science and pseudo-logic.

While I won't bother to insult you, I will say that the question related specifically to carbon dating, not to other methods, which you are talking about. My reply related specifically to carbon dating, as well.

And it's OK if you disagree with everything I say, it doesn't bother me. You appear to have preconceived notions about God, religion, Christianity, me, etc... that won't be swayed, and that's your business.

 

[Viking]

While I won't bother to insult you, I will say that the question related specifically to carbon dating, not to other methods, which you are talking about. My reply related specifically to carbon dating, as well.

And it's OK if you disagree with everything I say, it doesn't bother me. You appear to have preconceived notions about God, religion, Christianity, me, etc... that won't be swayed, and that's your business.

Insult? Where?
I simply stated facts as you obviously do not know a lot about things not covered by the bible.
The bible is a good source as a codex for ethical behaviour, although it is not exactly unique in that point as most of it's core statements in that area are shared with most other religions.
But the bible is NOT an instrument to explain how our universe developed. The bible is more or less a collection of fairy tales with the intent to make people behave according to a certain set of ethics - nothing more and nothing less.
BTW, fairy tales are used for the same purpose, only on a lower level: i.e. Little Red Riding Hood teaches kids not to talk to strangers.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

The bias that I have in this situation is that I believe that these men have a need to prove that God exists. If they don't, two things could happen: one, the basis for their religion will non existent, or two, they will need to rely on the "believing is simply faith" argument.

These men believed God exists prior to writing this book. Their purpose for writing the book was to try to find a logical, systematic way to help convince those others who refuse to have "faith" that God exists, insisting on proof instead. Rather than simply saying "Faith is all you need", they tried to find a way to show what they already believe in terms that the "proof-seeker" will logically understand. Irregardless of what you think their bias is, an objective person could still read their book, and then make a decision themselves.

This is the point I have been making. Neither side can convince the other side because of the bias that they have.

This is where I disagree. If that's the case, then wouldn't someone's first impression or opinion on something NEVER change, b/c anything they heard contrary to what they believed would be evaluated in light of the bias they already have? Have you ever changed your mind about something? Me too. And if someone were to be able to present to me an argument that I couldn't escape for why I am wrong, then I would believe it, b/c any intelligent person would. Only an unintelligent person would NOT believe an argument that can't be beaten, simply b/c of bias.

Again, I have never once stated what I believe so you are making an assumption that I disagree with what you are saying. What I was saying is that I don't believe that these men would have been completely objective, based on what they do.

You're right, I guess I assumed you believe different, b/c if you agreed with what I was saying, we wouldn't be having the discussion about it, now would we?

All that I have asked from you is the same thing that you have asked from other posters. Post information that will back up your claim and let the discussion flow from that. Stop with the you show me yours first statements

I have asked repeatedly for the information from others, who said FIRST that they have it. Haven't seen any. I then said I have some I'd share, but in the proper venue, so it can be presented without all uninterested parties around to take pot shots. The only response to that offer has been you, who wanted to know the source first, at which point I told you, at which point you said you wouldn't b/c they're biased. So you have basically indicated that you don't want to hear the information I have, b/c it's biased, but now you want me to post it? Which is it?

 

[noodleknitter]

You know what he meant when he said God? What is meant by "Biblical God" anyway? I don't think there is as big a division between "the 2 Gods" as you seem to.

Wow, I see people all the time who say they don't believe in God, but they do believe in a Higher Power, something bigger than themselves in this universe. Granted, I spend a great deal of time with AA'ers who are pretty adamant that they are not the same. If they are one and the same for you, all the more power to you. That is your perogative, and really what it comes down to, personal choice.

I suspect that had someone asked Albert whether he believed in God, that he would not, but that is based on limited information. Did I speak to him personally, sadly no. I would have loved to. I still believe him to be a poor choice as an example. I believe that a couple of quotes using the word God do not make a person a believer in anything. But that is merely my opinion.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

From one of the links on the cite you provided;

"Radiometric methods measure the time elapsed since the particular radiometric clock was reset. Radiocarbon dating, which is probably best known in the general public, works only on things that were once alive and are now dead. It measures the time elapsed since death, but is limited in scale to no more than about 50,000 years ago. Other methods, such as Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon and others, are able to measure much longer time periods, and are not restricted to things that were once alive. Generally applied to igneous rocks (those of volcanic origin), they measure the time since the molten rock solidified. If that happens to be longer than 10,000 years, then the idea of a young-Earth is called into question. If that happens to be billions of years, then the young-Earth is in big trouble.

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989."

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

My apologies on using the term carbon dating. I was incorrect in citing that particular dating method, but I thank you for inadvertantly providing the exact evidence that you claim no one else has.



Asked, and now answered. Again, my thanks for providing the evidence yourself.

Mugg Mann, for every site you find that says it's accurate, I can find a site that says it's not:

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

This battle won't be able to be won using the web, so something else has to be used. That's why I said that using the tired argument of "well, it's been dated back a gabillion years" needs to be thrown out, earlier.

Asked, and now re-answered.

 

[Viking]

Wow, I see people all the time who say they don't believe in God, but they do believe in a Higher Power, something bigger than themselves in this universe. Granted, I spend a great deal of time with AA'ers who are pretty adamant that they are not the same. If they are one and the same for you, all the more power to you. That is your perogative, and really what it comes down to, personal choice.

I suspect that had someone asked Albert whether he believed in God, that he would not, but that is based on limited information. Did I speak to him personally, sadly no. I would have loved to. I still believe him to be a poor choice as an example. I believe that a couple of quotes using the word God do not make a person a believer in anything. But that is merely my opinion.

Yes, there may very well be a higher power, but it will most probably not be a bearded man on a throne, a multiarmed woman, a cat, or what else HUMANS thought up.
The most conclusive proof that there is no god according to the beliefs of our human religions is that that there are so many different religions and so many out of these claiming that they are the only right one.
Once again: If believing in a god facilitates leading your life, that's fine with me. But please don't try to use those fairy tales to explain how life started nd under all circumstances please refrain from trying to force the beliefs of your religion onto other people, i.e. abortion, same sex marriages, consumptium of certain foods or substances, etc.

 

[Viking]

This battle won't be able to be won using the web, so something else has to be used.

Why don't you try it with intellect?

 

[ford family]

The biggest blasphemy in TDC is the statement that Christ wasn't considered Divine by the early church. That His Divinity was created at the Council of Nicea by Constantine. None of which is true.

But are you sure about that? This seems to be the nub of the problem that Christians have with TDC.
An interesting article was written recently by Boris Johnson, a Conservative member of the British Parliament :-


Dan Brown has resurrected a heresy that rattles the Church
By Boris Johnson
(Filed: 18/05/2006)

Jesus had a baby, yes Lord. Jesus had a baby, yes my Lord. It sounds pretty blasphemous, put like that, doesn't it? The only reason I dare to begin with those words is that they represent the beliefs of growing millions of otherwise sane British adults. Yup, folks, we all seem to be swallowing the new gospel. You on the Tube, madam, turning the pages with such narcosis that you miss your stop: you believe it, don't you?

You, sir, sneaking your dog-eared copy off to the loo for a quick fix - you think there's probably something in it, too, hmmm? According to astonishing statistics from the Roman Catholic Church, 22 per cent of British adults have now read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, and of those an amazing 60 per cent believe that, yeah, it is probably the case that Jesus indeed got married to Mary Magdalene and sired a line of descendants.

By my maths, that means that there are at least six or seven million people in this country who now believe that it's true: that for two millennia the Roman Catholic Church has been engaged in a desperate struggle to conceal the existence of the Christ family, and that they are probably all over the place: behind the fish counter at Sainsbury's; creating loaves for Hovis; causing people to rise from their beds in hospital.

They could be anywhere. They could be reading this paper. They could (gulp) be you. There is something in the logic of Dan Brown's book that has convinced millions that they have really uncovered the biggest, the spookiest, the most chilling conspiracy in history.

Never mind the autoflagellant cowled assassins and the idiotic anagrams. This story has clearly touched something in the popular psyche, and if you need any evidence, look at the global panic that book and film seem to have induced in the Roman Catholic Church.

In the Vatican, the papal portavoce has described this pot-boiler as "shameful and unfounded lies". In India, no fewer than 200 Christian organisations have succeeded in having the film blocked from release, and even here in placid little Britain the officials of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, have called for it to carry a "health warning".

You may think that the Church is barmy to get so hot under the dog-collar, and you may think that Austen Ivereigh, the Archbishop's public affairs man, has forgotten the golden rule of his trade.

Why, you may ask yourself, are they rising to the bait? And yet the more one thinks about the doctrinal message of The Da Vinci Code, the clearer it is that the Catholics are right to think this a seditious text.

It is not just the sex. Among Dan Brown's assertions is that Jesus had a long, loving and matrimonial relationship with Mary Magdalene, a former prostitute. This is, of course, a vaguely embarrassing allegation to make about a man who has always been taken to be a model of chastity, but it does not seem in itself a fatal blow to Christianity.

They were married, says Dan Brown; there is no suggestion of fornication; and plenty of other early Christians were married and had children. No, it is not the News of the World aspect of the book that worries the Church, or which is now filling the shelves of WH Smith with Da Vinci-ana. It is the simple possibility of Christ's reproduction that is so mesmerising; and, in discussing this idea with such awful readability, Dan Brown has reopened a controversy that the Church thought had been settled in ad325.

The reason this piffle is such a howling hit is that it resurrects the great unspoken doubt in the minds of all Christians, that has existed ever since the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is about whether Christ can really be man and God at once.

If you walk round the Louvre at a less frenzied pace than Tom Hanks and co, you will notice a fascinating gradual change in the depiction of the ancient gods. As the human race gains in intellectual self-confidence, the image of the divine becomes more and more anthropomorphic.

Egyptian jackals, Babylonian curly-bearded cow-hoofed centaurs: they all give way to the human-shaped gods of the Greeks and the Romans until finally, at the very moment when the Romans have first declared that their emperor is a god, a Jewish heresy also announces that God has been made man in the form of Christ, and from then on there were those who couldn't get their heads round it.

If he was a god, how come he died? And if he was a man, how did he rise from the dead? From the very beginning of Christianity, there were Gnostics, who contested the full divinity of Christ, and by the third century AD the chief exponent of this type of view was a Libyan Christian bishop called Arius.

The Catholic Church said Christ was of the same substance as the father, coeternal. No, no, said Arius, he couldn't be of the same substance; he was just similar; he was just a chap really; not homoousios, but homoiousios.

Arius spoke for everyone who has ever said that "Jesus was a really great guy and a great teacher, but I don't think he was really the biological son of God". He had many supporters, and the wrangle engulfed the Christian world until Constantine settled it rather incompetently at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the doctrine of the Trinity was pronounced.

But the controversy rumbled on for hundreds of years, until it produced its most potent successor, Islam, which regards the idea of the son of God as blasphemous.

By depicting Jesus as a man who fathered, Dan Brown is making the same objection as Arius, and putting his finger on the logical problem in the doctrine of the Incarnation. Are the descendants of Christ meant to be divine? Patently not. But why not, if Jesus was God?

The answer must be that Jesus was not of one substance with the father, and that is why the Catholic Church is so rattled. This book may be bilge, but it awakens an ancient and distinguished heresy. Dan Brown is the new heresiarch, and I vote that he, the Pope, Austen Ivereigh and the rest of us convene a new Council of Nicaea to settle the matter.


Boris Johnson is MP for Henley

ford family

 

[wvrevy]

Mugg Mann, for every site you find that says it's accurate, I can find a site that says it's not:

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

This battle won't be able to be won using the web, so something else has to be used. That's why I said that using the tired argument of "well, it's been dated back a gabillion years" needs to be thrown out, earlier.

Asked, and now re-answered.

Exhibit A as to why nobody has bothered answering you, NC. You tried to show part of a scientific argument that would support your contention, and when called on the fact that you omitted the part that definitively proves you wrong, you switch to a "christian science" website as if you're providing some kind of "proof." Why should anybody bother providing actual evidence when you refuse to believe pure, scientific fact when it's placed in front of you?

Oh, and that vaunted book you mentioned earlier? It's a joke.

1. An infinite number of days has no end.
2. But today is the end of history (history being a collection of all days)
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today!

1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complex design.
3. Therefore the universe had a designer.

These are two of the "logical" arguments used in the book. The first includes a plain fallacy (that "infinity" can have no end), and the second is just plain goofy. Here...I'll give you a few of the same kinds of logic structures that prove the exact opposite:

An All-Virtuous Being Cannot Exist
- God is (by definition) a being than which no greater being can be thought.
- Greatness includes the greatness of virtue.
- Therefore, God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous.
- But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger.
- Indeed, a being, can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed.
- A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is not one than which no greater being can be thought.
- For you can think of a greater being, one that is nonsuffering and indestructible.
- Therefore, God does not exist.

The Problem of Evil
- If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
- The attributes of God - a being of omnibenevolence - are not consistent with the existence of evil.
- Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist
- If God exists, then he is perfect.
- If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
- If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
- The universe is not perfect.
- Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
- Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.[5]

The Paradox of Omnipotence
- Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
- If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
- If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
- Therefore god is not omnipotent.
- If God exists, he is omnipotent.
- Therefore, God does not exist.

(And my personal favorite)
1. It is empirical fact that unnecessary suffering exists in the world.
2. An omniscient model God would be aware of this unnecessary suffering.
3. An omnipotent model God would have the power to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
4. An omnibenevolent model God would have the desire to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
5. It follows that a God with the attributes of the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent model God does not exist.

What follows are statements often made by Christians in support of their belief, followed by logical rebuttals by the author:

1. "Evil is a product of human free will. God gave us free will because free will is a very valuable thing. But he cannot both give us free will and prevent us from doing evil."

Not all evil is the product of human free will, for example, natural disasters. If you redefine evil to include only human-caused ills, you still have to deal with the unnecessary suffering of natural disasters that are under God's control.

2. "Some amount of suffering is necessary for humans to develop important moral virtues. Some moral virtues can only exist in response to suffering or other bad things. Examples: courage, charity, strength of will."

This could be accomplished with a whole lot less suffering than exists in the world.

3. "Good and evil exist only as contrasts to each other. Therefore, if evil were eliminated, good would automatically be eliminated as well."

Good can exist independent of evil. Winning a race is good, but losing it is not evil. Buying a toy for your granddaughter is good, but not doing so is not evil when she already has a playroom full of toys.

4. "Slightly different from #3: If evil were eliminated, then we wouldn't know that everything was good, because we can only perceive things when there is contrast."

Even if we did not identify something as good, it still can be good. And it still can be good even if we have no experience of bad. My granddaughters know that having toys is good, although they have never had no toys and so have not had the opposing experience.

5. "Perhaps God has a different conception of evil from ours. Maybe what we think of evil is good."

We trust our own judgment on the evil of gratuitous suffering. No one can conceive of a reason God could have for allowing so much suffering. Why should we worship a God who allows acts that we regard as unspeakable? If God has a different conception of evil from ours, then so much the worse for God. He is then nothing more than an evil potentate. He might have power, but he has no moral authority and no one should worship him. "Good" and "evil" are our words and they name our concepts. It is confused thinking to suppose that some God's opinion would make any difference in our concepts.

6. "Perhaps there is some underlying purpose served by all the evil in the world, but we humans are not smart enough to comprehend it. Have faith."

What could that possibly be? Again, why should we blindly accept acts that go against our very nature? Why would God give us a nature that finds his actions so reprehensible?

7. "God is not responsible for evil. The Devil is.

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is stronger than the Devil and so still ultimately responsible.

8. "If we simply weaken the definition of God, then the existence of God may be compatible with the existence of evil. This, for example, he might be unable to instantly eliminate all the evil."

While the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God described in scriptures is hardly benevolent, the faithful of these religions are far more likely to ignore unpleasant scriptural passages than abandon belief in a benevolent God.

Sorry, but there IS no reasonable, logical argument for the existence of the Christian God, nor the infallibility of the bible (don't get me started on the contradictions inherent in that book ). The simple fact is that you choose to believe, despite reason or logic.

 

[wvrevy]

By the way...there is an excellent rebuttal to the aforementioned book out on the net. I have not read through the entire thing as yet, but the author certainly seems to know what he is talking about:

I don't have enough faith to be a Christian

 

[declansdad]

These men believed God exists prior to writing this book. Their purpose for writing the book was to try to find a logical, systematic way to help convince those others who refuse to have "faith" that God exists, insisting on proof instead. Rather than simply saying "Faith is all you need", they tried to find a way to show what they already believe in terms that the "proof-seeker" will logically understand. Irregardless of what you think their bias is, an objective person could still read their book, and then make a decision themselves.


This is where I disagree. If that's the case, then wouldn't someone's first impression or opinion on something NEVER change, b/c anything they heard contrary to what they believed would be evaluated in light of the bias they already have? Have you ever changed your mind about something? Me too. And if someone were to be able to present to me an argument that I couldn't escape for why I am wrong, then I would believe it, b/c any intelligent person would. Only an unintelligent person would NOT believe an argument that can't be beaten, simply b/c of bias.


You're right, I guess I assumed you believe different, b/c if you agreed with what I was saying, we wouldn't be having the discussion about it, now would we?


I have asked repeatedly for the information from others, who said FIRST that they have it. Haven't seen any. I then said I have some I'd share, but in the proper venue, so it can be presented without all uninterested parties around to take pot shots. The only response to that offer has been you, who wanted to know the source first, at which point I told you, at which point you said you wouldn't b/c they're biased. So you have basically indicated that you don't want to hear the information I have, b/c it's biased, but now you want me to post it? Which is it?

You just don't get what I'm trying to say. You continue to make assumptions about what I believe, question my intellect and whether I have an open mind. Yet I have never made these types of comments to rebut you.

If you want me or anyone else out there to examine the proof that you say you can provide, put it out there. You brought it up on this board yet when challenged to provide the proof, you reply that you will only do it in another forum. You told everyone on this board that you can prove the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible, so do it. Time to put your money where you mouth is.

 

[JoyG]

But are you sure about that? This seems to be the nub of the problem that Christians have with TDC. [/i]

ford family

Absolutely sure.

Jesus had a baby, yes Lord. Jesus had a baby, yes my Lord. It sounds pretty blasphemous, put like that, doesn't it? The only reason I dare to begin with those words is that they represent the beliefs of growing millions of otherwise sane British adults. Yup, folks, we all seem to be swallowing the new gospel. You on the Tube, madam, turning the pages with such narcosis that you miss your stop: you believe it, don't you?

You, sir, sneaking your dog-eared copy off to the loo for a quick fix - you think there's probably something in it, too, hmmm? According to astonishing statistics from the Roman Catholic Church, 22 per cent of British adults have now read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, and of those an amazing 60 per cent believe that, yeah, it is probably the case that Jesus indeed got married to Mary Magdalene and sired a line of descendants. [/i]

ford family

I believe this. Many people find TDC a quick and interesting read. People who haven't picked up the Bible in years have read TDC. If they are not well versed in the New Testament or in church history what Dan Brown says will sound plausible.

Dan Brown has reopened a controversy that the Church thought had been settled in ad325. [/i]

ford family

Dan Brown claims in TDC that there was a controversy. There was no controversy. TDC claims the Nicean Creed (which "officially" defined the doctrine of Jesus' divinity) was hotly debated and passed by a very close vote. In reality only 5 of the more than 300 bishops present protested the Creed. In the end, only 2 refused to sign it. There is also no evidence that suggests the topic of "throwing out books of the Bible" ever came up as claimed in TDC.

The reason this piffle is such a howling hit is that it resurrects the great unspoken doubt in the minds of all Christians, that has existed ever since the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is about whether Christ can really be man and God at once. [/i]

ford family

That is an interesting statement. I would acknowledge that agnostics or atheists might hold that "great unspoken doubt" but for devout Christians the doctrine of Jesus' humanity and divinity is a no brainer.

and from then on there were those who couldn't get their heads round it.

If he was a god, how come he died? And if he was a man, how did he rise from the dead? From the very beginning of Christianity, there were Gnostics, who contested the full divinity of Christ, and by the third century AD the chief exponent of this type of view was a Libyan Christian bishop called Arius.

The Catholic Church said Christ was of the same substance as the father, coeternal. No, no, said Arius, he couldn't be of the same substance; he was just similar; he was just a chap really; not homoousios, but homoiousios. [/i]

ford family

Yes, there were people that did not believe Jesus' claims of divinity from the very beginning. These were unbelievers, gnostics, men like Arius. However Jesus did claim to be divine (Matthew 2:6-12, Mark 14:61-64, Luke 22: 66-71, Matthew 4: 25-26, etc. etc. etc.). And the Early Church taught that he was divine (read the writings of Paul through out the New Testament).

Arius spoke for everyone who has ever said that "Jesus was a really great guy and a great teacher, but I don't think he was really the biological son of God". He had many supporters, and the wrangle engulfed the Christian world until Constantine settled it rather incompetently at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the doctrine of the Trinity was pronounced.[/i]

ford family

The Catholic Church didn't invent the doctrine of divinity. This doctrine had been taught from the beginning. The catholic church decided in effect to write it down in the form of an "official creed" to be used to settle the matter for once and all. Arius and gnostics like him were viewed as heretics. Dan Brown is re-hashing heretical material.

As a personal aside, I'm not Catholic and it wouldn't have mattered to me if the Catholic church had EVER convened to offically agree that Christ was divine. The New Testament is FULL of places where Jesus' divinity is claimed and being familiar with the New Testament is the BIGGEST proof that His divinity was taught long before the Nicean Creed.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Why don't you try it with inellect?

OK, I'll try. But I think I'll use intellect, rather than inellect...

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Exhibit A as to why nobody has bothered answering you, NC. You tried to show part of a scientific argument that would support your contention, and when called on the fact that you omitted the part that definitively proves you wrong, you switch to a "christian science" website as if you're providing some kind of "proof." Why should anybody bother providing actual evidence when you refuse to believe pure, scientific fact when it's placed in front of you?

Oh, and that vaunted book you mentioned earlier? It's a joke.



These are two of the "logical" arguments used in the book. The first includes a plain fallacy (that "infinity" can have no end), and the second is just plain goofy. Here...I'll give you a few of the same kinds of logic structures that prove the exact opposite:



What follows are statements often made by Christians in support of their belief, followed by logical rebuttals by the author:


Sorry, but there IS no reasonable, logical argument for the existence of the Christian God, nor the infallibility of the bible (don't get me started on the contradictions inherent in that book ). The simple fact is that you choose to believe, despite reason or logic.

And this was my point for not offering the advice on this board, but in another forum for those who could truly have an open mind, rather than a bent to NOT believe no matter what they hear, which you, and others have. It doesn't make me mad, though, I have no hard feelings. It makes me sad, though.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

By the way...there is an excellent rebuttal to the aforementioned book out on the net. I have not read through the entire thing as yet, but the author certainly seems to know what he is talking about:

I don't have enough faith to be a Christian

I know the rebuttal you mention, I've read through a great deal of it. A lot of the assumptions this poor soul uses are based upon his view of God, that a perfect God wouldn't do this or that, that things aren't logical or are counterintuitive. This puts God on our level, saying that if we can't understand it about Him, it must not be true. Again, everything is approached not with an open mind, but with a bent to NOT believe, no matter what is heard. But, like I said, doesn't make me mad, b/c it doesn't affect me one way or the other. It just makes me sad for him.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

You just don't get what I'm trying to say. You continue to make assumptions about what I believe, question my intellect and whether I have an open mind. Yet I have never made these types of comments to rebut you.

If you want me or anyone else out there to examine the proof that you say you can provide, put it out there. You brought it up on this board yet when challenged to provide the proof, you reply that you will only do it in another forum. You told everyone on this board that you can prove the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible, so do it. Time to put your money where you mouth is.

You're right, I evidently don't get what you're trying to say. You seem to be perched on top of the fence, writing in a disagreeing style but not wanting to say you disagree, and then when it is assumed that you disagree you get upset that I say that, when what other conclusion can I draw from what you say (or don't say)? If I am wrong about what I have assumed about you from what you have said, I suppose you could clear it up by stating what you believe. Otherwise, I'll have to keep on assuming, won't I?

My money is where my mouth is. You know my condition (open, objective minds in a different forum, which you may or may not have), but do not want to take me up on that. You keep getting upset thinking I haven't done what I said I would, but actually I have done exactly what I said I would, you just don't (or perhaps can't) go the extra step to either say "I don't have an open mind, so it doesn't matter" or "I do have an open mind, let's do this somewhere else." Why not, I would ask?