Satan Disproves Christianity

[Zone]

Here you bring up another way to compare religions. The miraculous events associated with Mohammed were not in the Koran. They were introduced in later writings. Miracles are associated with Jesus from the start. Many speculate that the NT originated in a non-miraculous sayings document, but since no such document has been found, Christianity has this point over Islam.

The gospel of Thomas perhaps? Or that was based on the original source. I'm sure they're based on a man who actually said these things and had lead a small charismatic movement of loyal followers. The fact that the world was immanently supposed to end was a big thing of his but I don't think his prediction was right. He also seemed to have no interest at all in the Gentiles, not until after he died anyway but that was added in later. Mohammeds Night Flight is when Mohammed first discussed with God how many times Muslims were meant to pray and bartered him down to 5 seeing as he was a merchant by trade. These are all man made religions as far as I can tell, some are more a sophisticated than others but works of imagination.

This brings us back to my earlier point that things haven’t always been as they are. You’re correct that a cyclical universe is necessary from a materialist point of view.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of materialism necessarily. I would argue in favor of me not knowing and you don't know either. I think I have the high ground of honesty.

The first model didn’t work – the rate of expansion of the universe was found to be inconsistent with the model. Other models are now being worked on.

Would you rather we keep working on it looking for new evidence, ideas and theories or should we give up and call it magic?

[Godscreated]

Prove that ANY lifeform on this wonderful planet has eternal life.

This Jellyfish does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula

Turritopsis nutricula, the immortal jellyfish, is a hydrozoan whose medusa, or jellyfish, form can revert to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. It is the only known case of an animal capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary stage.[2][3] It does this through the cell development process of transdifferentiation.
Cell transdifferentiation is when the jellyfish "alters the differentiated state of the cell and transforms it into a new cell". In this process the medusa of the immortal jellyfish is transformed into the polyps of a new polyp colony. First, the umbrella reverts itself and then the tentacles and mesoglea get resorbed. The reverted medusa then attaches itself to the substrate by the end that had been at the opposite end of the umbrella and starts giving rise to new polyps to form the new colony.
Theoretically, this process can go on indefinitely, effectively rendering the jellyfish biologically immortal

All that from a mindless creature, just what is a sexually mature jellyfish, it has no brain, yet you describe it as if it has a thought process. I am not disputing that this jellyfish accomplishes this process. Sounds more like a plant to me. Eternal till it becomes breakfast, lunch, dinner or a polyp snack.

GC

[Zone]

We already have eternal life in some sense even if there isn't a continued form of existence after death as anyone who ever lived still lives in the time they lived in from their own POV. People who lived in the past perceive themselves where they are, we perceive ourselves here and now and people who haven't been born yet are perceiving themselves in the future and they think we're all dead. While there's reason why there couldn't be an afterlife I don't see any reason why some arsehole in a big hat should know anything about it.

[John V]

The gospel of Thomas perhaps?

Thomas is generally not dated before the earliest canonical writings.

Or that was based on the original source.

The speculative original source which hasn't been found.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of materialism necessarily. I would argue in favor of me not knowing and you don't know either. I think I have the high ground of honesty.

Huh? I freely admit to faith. You're dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Would you rather we keep working on it looking for new evidence, ideas and theories or should we give up and call it magic?

I don't care, unless it's being funded by a government grant, in which case I think the money could be better spent.

[Zone]

Thomas is generally not dated before the earliest canonical writings.

It may well have been contemporary with the canonical gospels. It contains all the same teachings/parables Jesus taught in the gospels only they are a little less elaborated. Certainly it is just a collection of sayings without a story of a virgin birth, miracles or a resurrection.

The speculative original source which hasn't been found.

It could easily have been something like the Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of wisdom sayings/path to immortality type of thing which was a popular kind of thing at the time.

Huh? I freely admit to faith. You're dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Faith is a belief in something you have no evidence for and I think it's best to avoid doing it. I have no evidence for materialism either so I can't really support that. Some atheists do but whatever floats their boat.

I don't care, unless it's being funded by a government grant, in which case I think the money could be better spent.

You care nothing about what is actually true at least we got that right. You're on a forum here for people who do care about these things.

[John V]

It may well have been contemporary with the canonical gospels. It contains all the same teachings/parables Jesus taught in the gospels only they are a little less elaborated. Certainly it is just a collection of sayings without a story of a virgin birth, miracles or a resurrection.

It could easily have been something like the Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of wisdom sayings/path to immortality type of thing which was a popular kind of thing at the time.

Faith is a belief in something you have no evidence for and I think it's best to avoid doing it.

1. OK, then I'll dismiss your speculation that gThomas is part of a myth-building scenario.

2. What's your evidence that it's best to avoid doing it?

You care nothing about what is actually true at least we got that right.

Incorrect. They won't determine that a cyclical universe is actually true. They'll just build a model that can't be shown to be false, and atheists will eat it up.

Atheists frequently extol the virtues of keeping our thinking within the known laws of the universe - until they feel like going outside of them themselves.

You're on a forum here for people who do care about these things.

No, I'm on a forum where people pay lip service to peer-reviewed science but don't read any peer-reviewed journals, rather getting their supposed scientific knowledge from youtube.

[Zone]

1. OK, then I'll dismiss your speculation that gThomas is part of a myth-building scenario.

You can if you like but these kinds of texts were certainly floating around in great quantity.

2. What's your evidence that it's best to avoid doing it?

I could if I wanted to have faith in Odin and the Norse gods but if they don't exist that would be a bit mad.

Incorrect. They won't determine that a cyclical universe is actually true. They'll just build a model that can't be shown to be false, and atheists will eat it up.

Or it could be some kind of multiverse or continuum. There are religions that don't even suggest a God as a creator at all. There's Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shamanism and pantheism. Anything is possible but you don't have to choose a team.

[John V]

You can if you like but these kinds of texts were certainly floating around in great quantity.

I'm simply applying your point that it's best not to believe things without evidence.

[Zone]

I'm simply applying your point that it's best not to believe things without evidence.

No that was an example of a reason why you shouldn't believe anything you read without evidence not belief. There is a danger you could live in a world that isn't reality. The danger is a little too great for my liking.

[John V]

No that was an example of a reason why you shouldn't believe anything you read without evidence.

OK, I'm not believing the posts of yours that I'm reading because they don't come with evidence.