# Why not take a chance???



## mountainraider68 (May 26, 2012)

First of all im not looking for a arguement or any fight just really would like a straight anwser from honest up front guys. Im a young christian that is strong in my faith and was just puzzled at something. As an Atheist your belief is in Non existence of GOD or any faith right? So you have no worries of jugdement and HE double hockey sticks? But why not take the risk or the chance of believing in a GOD since theres so no risk involved on your end? I really hope this all makes since sorry if it does not!


----------



## Ridge Walker (May 26, 2012)

You either believe in something or you don't. Saying you believe in a god "just in case" is just faking it.

RW


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 26, 2012)

hello mountainraider, most athiest who spend any time on a place like this, have looked into religion, all forms of it. I say, "all forms of it" because human nature would have us to think that only what we believe is truth. The fact is that there are many religions out there. So just believing in a God is, well, I can't put it into words. Which god of which religion are you asking that they believe in? That is what they will be thinking. In other words, what makes you think that yours is the correct one. That is what they will be thinking. Your sincere concern is respected


----------



## hummdaddy (May 26, 2012)

if a god would talk to me ,i would do one of 2 things ....believe (but which one would i pick to believe in)or up my meds..nothing has  spoken to me in 38 years but myself,my family,and short list of true friends(that's what i have faith in) and i don't see any god saying a word to me  before i die....


----------



## JFS (May 26, 2012)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html


----------



## doenightmare (May 26, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> if a god would talk to me ,i would do one of 2 things ....believe (but which one would i pick to believe in)or up my meds..*nothing has  spoken to me *in 38 years but myself,my family,and short list of true friends(that's what i have faith in) and i don't see any god saying a word to me  before i die....



Maybe you need to listen better???


----------



## hobbs27 (May 27, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> if a god would talk to me ....



Post#1 He sent a messenger to you, Someone that's just freshly born of the spirit, seeking to share the love they have just recieved, from the God that died for our sins.

Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The relationship is two sided also. He's already shed the blood and made a way with his grace. You want to hear the great spirit speak to you?You must show a little faith and call on Him first, or go hear the preached word. There was a time in my adult life that my faith was weak. I wasn't attending worship services and I wasn't calling on His name.I did everything on my own, and did I ever make a mess of stuff. Once I got serious about my relationship with God again and started studying the Bible and praying and worshipping with brothers and sisters my life turned around for the better.He has blessed me over and over and over again spiritually. My God, the God that saves, the God the OP has just got to know is a real, true, living God and he will speak to you...you have to call on him first, and keep those ears open to the spirit.


----------



## atlashunter (May 27, 2012)




----------



## hummdaddy (May 27, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Post#1 He sent a messenger to you, Someone that's just freshly born of the spirit, seeking to share the love they have just recieved, from the God that died for our sins.
> 
> Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
> 
> The relationship is two sided also. He's already shed the blood and made a way with his grace. You want to hear the great spirit speak to you?You must show a little faith and call on Him first, or go hear the preached word. There was a time in my adult life that my faith was weak. I wasn't attending worship services and I wasn't calling on His name.I did everything on my own, and did I ever make a mess of stuff. Once I got serious about my relationship with God again and started studying the Bible and praying and worshipping with brothers and sisters my life turned around for the better.He has blessed me over and over and over again spiritually. My God, the God that saves, the God the OP has just got to know is a real, true, living God and he will speak to you...you have to call on him first, and keep those ears open to the spirit.



i keep my ears open to reality,and what makes you think i have not lived and am living what you called a blessed life....i am happy just like i am


----------



## hobbs27 (May 27, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> what makes you think i have not lived and am living what you called a blessed life....i am happy just like i am



Because I was lost before I was found, I was blind but now I see. I know what it's like having no spiritual Father to call on.The silence of a reprobate mind.Knowing I could never overcome the grave, looking at this ole flesh knowing the only thing that seperated it from life and the decay of death was time.
 Now I have a spiritual Father to call on and He talks to me,He guides me,and I know this ole flesh will still be left behind in the grave but that's where it belongs and my soul will be with Jesus where it belongs, and I'll see those loved ones that's already moved on, those I miss so much. These things I once thought were the ramblings of a madman, now I know them to be true, because God woke me up, and revealed himself to me.
 You can't know true happiness and true love without knowing the God that came here in the flesh and died for you , that you may have eternal life in heaven.


----------



## mountainraider68 (May 27, 2012)

Thanks guys for your anwsers and i can see that you gotta know that you know to be a christian cant just try to fall into something you dont believe in but really appreciate the help. GOD bless


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 28, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> Thanks guys for your anwsers and i can see that you gotta know that you know to be a christian cant just try to fall into something you dont believe in but really appreciate the help. GOD bless



Earlier you asked if your post makes "since" (sense).  Does that apply to this one as well?


----------



## atlashunter (May 28, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Because I was lost before I was found, I was blind but now I see. I know what it's like having no spiritual Father to call on.The silence of a reprobate mind.Knowing I could never overcome the grave, looking at this ole flesh knowing the only thing that seperated it from life and the decay of death was time.
> Now I have a spiritual Father to call on and He talks to me,He guides me,and I know this ole flesh will still be left behind in the grave but that's where it belongs and my soul will be with Jesus where it belongs, and I'll see those loved ones that's already moved on, those I miss so much. These things I once thought were the ramblings of a madman, now I know them to be true, because God woke me up, and revealed himself to me.
> You can't know true happiness and true love without knowing the God that came here in the flesh and died for you , that you may have eternal life in heaven.



You're still headed for the grave just like everyone else. The only thing that has changed is you're now wasting precious time engaged in wish thinking to ease your troubled mind rather than facing reality as it is.


----------



## bigreddwon (May 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You're still headed for the grave just like everyone else. The only thing that has changed is you're now wasting precious time engaged in wish thinking to ease your troubled mind rather than facing reality as it is.



Well said.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (May 28, 2012)

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by Christ. And the way of the Sinner is hard.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You're still headed for the grave just like everyone else. The only thing that has changed is you're now wasting precious time engaged in wish thinking to ease your troubled mind rather than facing reality as it is.



This flesh will go to the grave.I won't.How do I know this?Lets just say I have some inside information that you don't.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 28, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> This flesh will go to the grave.I won't.How do I know this?Lets just say *I have some inside information that you don't*.



This is the type thing that excites me.  Tell me more about this.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 28, 2012)

Michael F. Gray said:


> Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by Christ. And the way of the Sinner is hard.



I've never understood the motivation for providing scripture to convince a nonbeliever that the bible is legit.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 28, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Because I was lost before I was found, I was blind but now I see. I know what it's like having no spiritual Father to call on.The silence of a reprobate mind.Knowing I could never overcome the grave, looking at this ole flesh knowing the only thing that seperated it from life and the decay of death was time.
> Now I have a spiritual Father to call on and He talks to me,He guides me,and I know this ole flesh will still be left behind in the grave but that's where it belongs and my soul will be with Jesus where it belongs, and I'll see those loved ones that's already moved on, those I miss so much. These things I once thought were the ramblings of a madman, now I know them to be true, because God woke me up, and revealed himself to me.
> You can't know true happiness and true love without knowing the God that came here in the flesh and died for you , that you may have eternal life in heaven.



(nice speech) i don't believe in heaven or - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 28, 2012)

Why does this always boil down to "right" or "wrong"?  I choose not to believe, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim I'm "right".  Worship a Craftsman Lawn mower, or a 1978 Pontiac Firebird, if it's what you need, have at it, just respect my point of view as I do yours.  

You can't argue against faith, but; faith itself is no arguement. 

If I said I went to Publix and picked up two packs of bun length Oscar Meyer All-Beef Weiners ('cause they were on BOGO) and 2 packs of Publix brand buns, then went to the UGA stadium on game day and fed everyone there,  (also taking a second to turn all the bottled water into tasty Budweiser) would you believe me? Or would you just maybe need some evidence that such an incredible feat happened?


----------



## atlashunter (May 28, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> This is the type thing that excites me.  Tell me more about this.



Yes please share it with the rest of us.


----------



## atlashunter (May 28, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> If I said I went to Publix and picked up two packs of bun length Oscar Meyer All-Beef Weiners ('cause they were on BOGO) and 2 packs of Publix brand buns, then went to the UGA stadium on game day and fed everyone there,  (also taking a second to turn all the bottled water into tasty Budweiser) would you believe me? Or would you just maybe need some evidence that such an incredible feat happened?



I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. If you happened to encounter a talking donkey or a unicorn somewhere along the way you'll need to have more than just testimony to convince me.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Yes please share it with the rest of us.



I can't share it with you because I didn't pay for it, but the One that did will share it freely.
 I can tell you all about Jesus, but there's only two times reprobate minds will ever consider it for truth.
1. When you're in a mess and have nowhere else to turn.
2. When death and the grave is creeping up on you and you start to feel death taking over.

The only reason I waste my time telling you those things is because the Gospel never leaves you, whether you believe it or not, these words I write here about Jesus will come to you while you're trying to sleep, when you see your children born, see them smile, or see them sick.When death comes calling you...maybe then you will call out for God Almighty to save you. 
 I've seen it before, folks spent a lifetime turning away God only to finally give in and accept him on their death bed. I pray you are so lucky.
 You may wonder too as the fellow posted before why folks are so concerned that others choose to not believe. It's because it saddens us, we have a great burden for people that have life eternity given to them only to reject Him.It's kind of like watching people with great talents just waste them on drug addictions or alcoholism.It makes no sense to us.


----------



## atlashunter (May 28, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I can't share it with you because I didn't pay for it, but the One that did will share it freely.
> I can tell you all about Jesus, but there's only two times reprobate minds will ever consider it for truth.
> 1. When you're in a mess and have nowhere else to turn.
> 2. When death and the grave is creeping up on you and you start to feel death taking over.



This pretty much confirms what I said earlier about wish thinking doesn't it? Truth sells itself. It doesn't require people to be in a scared and desperate mental state to be considered truth. Sure helps a lie though.

I was hoping you could share with us this inside information that the rest of us aren't privy to.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Truth sells itself. It doesn't require people to be in a scared and desperate mental state to be considered truth. Sure helps a lie though.
> .



You're right, and we all know the Truth. It just takes the reality of death for some stubborn reprobate minded people to accept the Truth. And even then some will take that last breath of life denying him. 
 While those of us that have accepted Him, get to live an exceptional life here blessed everyday by his presence, no matter how rich or how poor, we have all we need in Him.


----------



## Ridge Walker (May 28, 2012)

There are plenty of Jews, Muslims, Satanists, Hindus, Wiccans, Agnostics, etc. living exceptional lives too. Out of all of them, I dare say the Atheists are making the most out of, and enjoying this life to it's fullest potential.

RW


----------



## mountainraider68 (May 28, 2012)

Matthew 10:32
 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven. 

Hobbs27 Your getting it done man.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 28, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> Matthew 10:32
> So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven.



Again I ask why this strategy makes sense to you.

Me: The bible is a fairy tale.
You: Well just check out this bible verse as proof that it's true.


----------



## atlashunter (May 28, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> You're right, and we all know the Truth. It just takes the reality of death for some stubborn reprobate minded people to accept the Truth. And even then some will take that last breath of life denying him.
> While those of us that have accepted Him, get to live an exceptional life here blessed everyday by his presence, no matter how rich or how poor, we have all we need in Him.



More self serving fantasy and not a particularly good one as fantasies go.

We're still waiting for you to disclose this inside information.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 28, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> You're right, and we all know the Truth. It just takes the reality of death for some stubborn reprobate minded people to accept the Truth. And even then some will take that last breath of life denying him.
> While those of us that have accepted Him, get to live an exceptional life here blessed everyday by his presence, no matter how rich or how poor, we have all we need in Him.



I admire your dedication and devotion to your beliefs, hobbs27.  I'd admire you even more if you were able to see the fact that simply because some choose not to believe as you do, they aren't automatically wrong or unwashed heathens that need to be educated or pitied.  To each his own, and remember; not all that wander are lost...


----------



## bullethead (May 29, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> First of all im not looking for a arguement or any fight just really would like a straight anwser from honest up front guys. Im a young christian that is strong in my faith and was just puzzled at something. As an Atheist your belief is in Non existence of GOD or any faith right? So you have no worries of jugdement and HE double hockey sticks? But why not take the risk or the chance of believing in a GOD since theres so no risk involved on your end? I really hope this all makes since sorry if it does not!



Lets all put our "risk" where our mouth is....
I'll go to a Christian church(of your choosing in my area) every Sunday for a year (and worship), JUST in case I have misunderstood and have gotten it all wrong IF you will worship in a primal-indigenous ceremony( of my choosing) every Sunday for the same year......JUST IN CASE we are each wrong. We will cover more bases this way and we can document our experiences on here through text and pictures. If we feel a life changing experience along the way we must be honest and post how and why BUT if either of us was to back out before a years time is up, that person must admit on here that their alternate(hand picked by the other person) form of worship is the One, True and Only religion for all eternity.
If I must drink the blood and eat the body, you might have to kill a chicken but it will all equal out.

Deal? Or are you saying there are only two choices....your way or nothing?


----------



## stringmusic (May 29, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Why does this always boil down to "right" or "wrong"?


I choose to think it more along the lines or correct or incorrect.


> I choose not to believe, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim I'm "right".


Then why in the heck do you choose not to believe? I choose to believe in things I believe are true, I would wager you do as well.



> You can't argue against faith, but; *faith itself is no arguement*.


.... that you'll accept. 



> If I said I went to Publix and picked up two packs of bun length Oscar Meyer All-Beef Weiners ('cause they were on BOGO) and 2 packs of Publix brand buns, then went to the UGA stadium on game day and fed everyone there,  (also taking a second to turn all the bottled water into tasty Budweiser) would you believe me? Or would you just maybe need some evidence that such an incredible feat happened?



If 500 years earlier, some guy in a country a looong way away wrote that you were going to do that, that would be sufficient evidence for me.


----------



## bullethead (May 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If 500 years earlier, some guy in a country a looong way away wrote that you were going to do that, that would be sufficient evidence for me.



 Nostradamus wrote down thousands of predictions, people have studied them. If someone (or a group of people) decided to take those predictions and form a central figure to create a religion around those predictions coming true would that make it any more true?
If you know the prediction (in this case prophesy) it is not hard to embellish the "facts" to fit....and in the case of Christianity, the prophesy in the OT(Torah) was not fulfilled.


----------



## StriperAddict (May 29, 2012)

Sorry if my coming back late from a trip up to see my folks means I may have missed some answers...



bullethead said:


> Nostradamus wrote down thousands of predictions, people have studied them. If someone (or a group of people) decided to take those predictions and form a central figure to create a religion around those predictions coming true would that make it any more true?
> If you know the prediction (in this case prophesy) it is not hard to embellish the "facts" to fit....and in the case of Christianity, the prophesy in the OT(Torah) was not fulfilled.


 
... but the many prophecies of Christ (over 300) ought be taken seriously, which were laid out in the OT & Torah. This is a scientific and numerical impossibility for one man to perform or embelish, if he were not the predicted Lord foretold long before birth.


----------



## ambush80 (May 29, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> Matthew 10:32
> So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven.
> 
> Hobbs27 Your getting it done man.



If by "getting it done" you mean that he is confirming what we already knew: that he has nothing to back up his claims except the Bible and that fear is the best way to sell what hes got, then yes, he's doing a bang up job.


----------



## JB0704 (May 29, 2012)

To accept anything from the Bible, one has to exercise faith to some level, at least to the extent that you would recognize the existence of a higher power.  You aren't going to open it up and say "well, that proves it!"  Unless you believe a god does or can exist, the rest will remain nonsense.


----------



## ambush80 (May 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> To accept anything from the Bible, one has to exercise faith to some level, at least to the extent that you would recognize the existence of a higher power.  You aren't going to open it up and say "well, that proves it!"  Unless you believe a god does or can exist, the rest will remain nonsense.



Same with any other religion........

We can all agree that 2+2=4.  That's what I'm putting my money on.

Furthermore, even if one were to accept the existence of a god while maintaining reason in every other aspect, one would have a hard time accepting the claims of the Bible (or any of the other popular religious texts).


----------



## vowell462 (May 29, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Why does this always boil down to "right" or "wrong"?  I choose not to believe, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim I'm "right".  Worship a Craftsman Lawn mower, or a 1978 Pontiac Firebird, if it's what you need, have at it, just respect my point of view as I do yours.
> 
> You can't argue against faith, but; faith itself is no arguement.
> 
> If I said I went to Publix and picked up two packs of bun length Oscar Meyer All-Beef Weiners ('cause they were on BOGO) and 2 packs of Publix brand buns, then went to the UGA stadium on game day and fed everyone there,  (also taking a second to turn all the bottled water into tasty Budweiser) would you believe me? Or would you just maybe need some evidence that such an incredible feat happened?



I would absolutley believe you. Two packs of weiners is 16 hot dogs. That would be more than enough to feed everyone at the GA stadium as there arent many that attend those horrible games. Roll Tide.


----------



## stringmusic (May 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Same with any other religion........


Not really, religions/non religions can be broken down in 3 categories, only God exists, only the universe exists, both God and the universe exists.



> We can all agree that 2+2=4.  That's what I'm putting my money on.


Made up numbers? What exactly are you going to win or gain with your figurative money? You believe there is nothing to be gained, I do.



> Furthermore, even if one were to accept the existence of a god while maintaining reason in every other aspect, one would have a hard time accepting the claims of the Bible (or any of the other popular religious texts).



Who said one had to give up reason to accept the existence of God?


----------



## JB0704 (May 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Furthermore, even if one were to accept the existence of a god while maintaining reason in every other aspect, one would have a hard time accepting the claims of the Bible (or any of the other popular religious texts).



If you could pick any god of the various gods that are worshipped, which would it be?  Why?


----------



## bigreddwon (May 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If you could pick any god of the various gods that are worshipped, which would it be?  Why?



I'd pick Neptune, might help my terrible luck fishing...


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 29, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> I would absolutley believe you. Two packs of weiners is 16 hot dogs. That would be more than enough to feed everyone at the GA stadium as there arent many that attend those horrible games. Roll Tide.



 At last a little humor! Nice reply.


----------



## ambush80 (May 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Not really, religions/non religions can be broken down in 3 categories, only God exists, only the universe exists, both God and the universe exists.



Many gods exist?  Evidence, evidence, evidence...That's all people want. That feeling in your gut that tells you that Jesus is Lord is not enough in any sensible person's mind to believe.




stringmusic said:


> Made up numbers? What exactly are you going to win or gain with your figurative money? You believe there is nothing to be gained, I do.



Piece of mind.  Knowing that given the evidence, REAL evidence, not some experience unique to you and you alone, examined and scrutinized using time tested, universal principles.  You believe that a person rose from the dead because it's written in a book.  Now you will believe anything.




stringmusic said:


> Who said one had to give up reason to accept the existence of God?



Because the concept of god is irrational.  He's magical.  Isn't that the part that is the most wonderful and amazing to you?


----------



## JB0704 (May 29, 2012)

bigreddwon said:


> I'd pick Neptune, might help my terrible luck fishing...



But, isn't that bad luck balanced by some decent hog-killin abilities?  Or, do I have you confused with somebody else?

Who is the god of hunting????


----------



## dawg2 (May 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But, isn't that bad luck balanced by some decent hog-killin abilities?  Or, do I have you confused with somebody else?
> 
> Who is the god of hunting????



The classic god(dess) of hunting is Artemis.


----------



## JB0704 (May 29, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> The classic god(dess) of hunting is Artemis.



Thanks, I was thinking Athena, but was too lazy to look it up.  

I know it's crazy, but I do a lot of praying when I'm hunting.  Not so much for success, but creation seems like it blurs out the peripheral stuff that interfere's with my thoughts.  So, for me anyway, hunting is some good communication time.

And no, before one of the skeptics ask, I have never heard him talk back to me.


----------



## ambush80 (May 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If you could pick any god of the various gods that are worshipped, which would it be?  Why?



If man were instilled with a sense of god as many claim (a position that I whole heartedly disagree with) it would be a universal experience.  That would make me think that he would be an amalgam of all the religious beliefs in the world.

There are many notions that various religions have that seem to reflect how things actually work.  Nirvana for example.  All things go back into the "soup" to be reconfigured and reused.  That seems to me to be how things really work.


----------



## j_seph (May 29, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Because I was lost before I was found, I was blind but now I see. I know what it's like having no spiritual Father to call on.The silence of a reprobate mind.Knowing I could never overcome the grave, looking at this ole flesh knowing the only thing that seperated it from life and the decay of death was time.
> Now I have a spiritual Father to call on and He talks to me,He guides me,and I know this ole flesh will still be left behind in the grave but that's where it belongs and my soul will be with Jesus where it belongs, and I'll see those loved ones that's already moved on, those I miss so much. These things I once thought were the ramblings of a madman, now I know them to be true, because God woke me up, and revealed himself to me.
> You can't know true happiness and true love without knowing the God that came here in the flesh and died for you , that you may have eternal life in heaven.


Loved this, thank you


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Who said one had to give up reason to accept the existence of God?



You don't if you're using "faith" as an answer to everything.  Problem is, faith doesn't prove anything except itself.  Believing in the "whole package" (virgin birth, resurrection, various and sundry miracles, etc.) does involve some suspension of disbelief - faith. 

In all other aspects of daily life, people require proof.  Bankers don't "believe" you'll pay a mortgage back, they take the title to the house.


----------



## ambush80 (May 29, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Because I was lost before I was found, I was blind but now I see. I know what it's like having no spiritual Father to call on.The silence of a reprobate mind.Knowing I could never overcome the grave, looking at this ole flesh knowing the only thing that seperated it from life and the decay of death was time.
> Now I have a spiritual Father to call on and He talks to me,He guides me,and I know this ole flesh will still be left behind in the grave but that's where it belongs and my soul will be with Jesus where it belongs, and I'll see those loved ones that's already moved on, those I miss so much. These things I once thought were the ramblings of a madman, now I know them to be true, because God woke me up, and revealed himself to me.
> You can't know true happiness and true love without knowing the God that came here in the flesh and died for you , that you may have eternal life in heaven.



Props to Atlas for finding this:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JqowmHgxVJQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JqowmHgxVJQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


----------



## stringmusic (May 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> That feeling in your gut that tells you that Jesus is Lord is not enough in any sensible person's mind to believe.


It's not supposed to.



> Piece of mind.  Knowing that given the evidence, REAL evidence, not some experience unique to you and you alone, examined and scrutinized using time tested, universal principles.


Just because you do not accept the evidence that there is, and choose to accept evidence of objection, does not mean there is no evidence.



> You believe that a person rose from the dead because it's written in a book. * Now you will believe anything.*


Au contraire', just the opposite.




> Because the concept of god is irrational.  He's magical.  Isn't that the part that is the most wonderful and amazing to you?


_You_ think the concept of God is irrational, why should I accept _your_ personal rationalization of the concept of God and not my own?


----------



## stringmusic (May 29, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> You don't if you're using "faith" as an answer to everything.  Problem is, faith doesn't prove anything except itself.  Believing in the "whole package" (virgin birth, resurrection, various and sundry miracles, etc.) does involve some suspension of disbelief - faith.
> 
> In all other aspects of daily life, people require proof.  Bankers don't "believe" you'll pay a mortgage back, they take the title to the house.



You don't use faith in any other aspect of your life?


----------



## ambush80 (May 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It's not supposed to.
> 
> 
> Just because you do not accept the evidence that there is, and choose to accept evidence of objection, does not mean there is no evidence.



Give me your evidence....and leave that Willard nonsense out of it. 

I know you can't and that's fine.  You are free to believe anything you want based on anything you want.  You can read tarot cards or tea leaves or Revelations.  Just don't try to pass it off as reason or logic to those who are actually rigorously applying such.




stringmusic said:


> Au contraire', just the opposite.



Do you believe that god can make a rock fall up?  

What if God came to me in the night, riding a fiery chariot pulled by a talking donkey and I have repented and now claim Jesus as my lord and savior. Amen! Halleluiah! 

Would you believe me?

What if the next day I cast out a devil and rebuked a hurricane by the power of His precious blood.  Would you believe that?




stringmusic said:


> _You_ think the concept of God is irrational, why should I accept _your_ personal rationalization of the concept of God and not my own?



You keep on using that one book to tell you what's real.  I'll use all the rest.


----------



## bullethead (May 29, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Sorry if my coming back late from a trip up to see my folks means I may have missed some answers...
> 
> 
> 
> ... but the many prophecies of Christ (over 300) ought be taken seriously, which were laid out in the OT & Torah. This is a scientific and numerical impossibility for one man to perform or embelish, if he were not the predicted Lord foretold long before birth.



So Jesus and the people of his times, especially his followers, studied the Torah. Within the Torah there are prophesies which must be fulfilled in order to be the Messiah.
You are telling me that it is a scientific and numeric impossibility for one man to perform or embellish these things and yet NOWHERE outside of the Bible these great feats exist. The people that wrote them down in the NT did so 40-100 years AFTER they "happened" and those authors never actually met Christ or witnessed any of the events.....yet you say no one took the liberty of embellishing the stories to make them follow what has been taught for thousands of years prior???

Sorry but Jesus absolutely did not fulfill the prophesies in the Torah or the Jews would be following him to this day.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/mashiach.htm


----------



## mountainraider68 (May 29, 2012)

BULLETHEAD, haha you wouldnt understand me and you are a different creature. Ive been saved and been changed forever through my savior who died for my sins. 2 choices i think your a little confused or would a better word be lost??? if you havent figure out yet im a christian and theres one choice its christ!


----------



## bullethead (May 29, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> BULLETHEAD, haha you wouldnt understand me and you are a different creature. Ive been saved and been changed forever through my savior who died for my sins. 2 choices i think your a little confused or would a better word be lost??? if you havent figure out yet im a christian and theres one choice its christ!



mountainraider, haha I totally understand you and many like you. All of you fail to realize that there are other people on this planet that have beliefs that are just as real and genuine as yours, yet you disregard theirs for the same reasons you criticize others for disregarding yours.
There is one choice for you. Save the saving schtick, your in the wrong forum. Your whole argument falls way short of being one way or the other. It is that narrow-mindedness that shines through when statements and claims are made through assertion rather than fact.
Other than the feeling in your heart(which is not exclusive to Christianity) you have zero actual evidence that anything you believe is factual or true.

You don't want to accept my challenge to you, yet you want people to flock to your challenge.
We are each totally comfortable in our INDIVIDUAL beliefs, let it stay that way.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Props to Atlas for finding this:
> 
> >



Really? A cartoon. hah.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The people that wrote them down in the NT did so 40-100 years AFTER they "happened" and those authors never actually met Christ or witnessed any of the events.....



First of all what you say is false, John witnessed Christ with his own eyes.
 Secondly, I dont trust your dates, where do you get those and why do you trust the dates to be true, but not the subject that was written?


----------



## bullethead (May 29, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> First of all what you say is false, John witnessed Christ with his own eyes.
> Secondly, I dont trust your dates, where do you get those and why do you trust the dates to be true, but not the subject that was written?



Thirdly, do some research.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2012)

Hey Bullet, I agree about the socalled fullfilled prophesis. The writers are being over zealous trying to make Jesus fit. They pick and choose.   Check out Isaiah 22:starting at 20. The tent peg, "what he opens no one can shut..... yet we see that this gives way. So they pick and choose. No this can't be about Jesus, but this one can be??? Much or most of that stuff was never meant to be applied to Jesus. Yet, to clarify, just because some writers were overzealous in trying to prove Jesus was the expected Messiah, this does not mean that he was not.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 29, 2012)

Step back from "faith" for a moment, and let's have a look at the Bible. Remove the flights of fancy and it's not a bad history book, the places and names did exist at one time and still exist today in many cases.  The book gives a good accounting of life and times in the era, but it's been rewritten countless times, and rewritten from the point of view of people who wanted to subjugate others and give them a reason for hope in their otherwise desolate lives.  There is no physical proof of any of the miracles and other godly actions performed, simply text that was written by worldly men and those words have since been altered many times to say what those who rewrote the book wanted it to say.  

Jesus was, in all probability, a real person who lived in the times depicted and had a charismatic message that appealed to many, and; not surprisingly, still does today.  That doesn't make him a deity.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Thirdly, do some research.



I'm not the one making outrageous claims of timelines, nor am I the one avoiding a question.
Christ hung on the cross at or very close to 33AD, The temple and Israel were destroyed in 70 AD.Now there's an internal argument among Christians about the dates of the written scripture, but one thing that sways me to believe it all had to be written before 70AD is that the destruction of the temple is never mentioned, I find that odd for it to not be mentioned and all the writters for the exception of Luke being Hebrew.
 You may ask why the internal argument? It has to do with eschatology and people wanting to be right, see premillenials try to disprove amillenials and postmillenials by the dating of the scripture, they put Revelations being written in 96 AD, and that date just doesn't hold mustard to the history accounts of Josephus.
 You want to see some historical data that backs up the scripture, read the Jewish Wars by Josephus, or Foxx Book of Martyrs, it's a continuation of the NT in a sense.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Step back from "faith" for a moment, and let's have a look at the Bible. Remove the flights of fancy and it's not a bad history book, the places and names did exist at one time and still exist today in many cases.  The book gives a good accounting of life and times in the era, but it's been rewritten countless times, and rewritten from the point of view of people who wanted to subjugate others and give them a reason for hope in their otherwise desolate lives.  There is no physical proof of any of the miracles and other godly actions performed, simply text that was written by worldly men and those words have since been altered many times to say what those who rewrote the book wanted it to say.
> 
> Jesus was, in all probability, a real person who lived in the times depicted and had a charismatic message that appealed to many, and; not surprisingly, still does today.  *That doesn't make him a deity.*


That is a hard one to accept. Some, including myself, believe in a much more platible Jesus. Just a man, whom God was pleased with. The first to experience a hope that has been held by many since the beginning, life beyond the grave


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm not the one making outrageous claims of timelines, nor am I the one avoiding a question.
> Christ hung on the cross at or very close to 33AD, The temple and Israel were destroyed in 70 AD.Now there's an internal argument among Christians about the dates of the written scripture, but one thing that sways me to believe it all had to be written before 70AD is that the destruction of the temple is never mentioned, I find that odd for it to not be mentioned and all the writters for the exception of Luke being Hebrew.
> You may ask why the internal argument? It has to do with eschatology and people wanting to be right, see premillenials try to disprove amillenials and postmillenials by the dating of the scripture, they put Revelations being written in 96 AD, and that date just doesn't hold mustard to the history accounts of Josephus.
> You want to see some historical data that backs up the scripture, read the Jewish Wars by Josephus, or Foxx Book of Martyrs, it's a continuation of the NT in a sense.



The timelines have been gone over...and over and over and over on here to the point of nausea. I have read just about everything I could find about the dates. I have read Pro, Con and Middle ground. Taking it all into account I stick with the later dates written by people that never talked to, witnessed or met Jesus. John MIGHT be the closest to achieving those, but even that is not concrete.

It has been shown that the writings of Josephus have been added to and or forged.

Read on if you care to, this is just one example.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Give me your evidence....*and leave that Willard nonsense out of it.*
> 
> I know you can't and that's fine.  You are free to believe anything you want based on anything you want.  You can read tarot cards or tea leaves or Revelations.  Just don't try to pass it off as reason or logic to those who are actually rigorously applying such.


"Give me your evidence, but leave that reasonable and logical Willard argument out of it" 

The only decent argument against Dr. Willards article on this site has been atlashunter's strawman. So, there is some evidence for you. I'll also take gene building for $1,000 Alex.



> Do you believe that god can make a rock fall up?


Simple play on words, the question itself is illogical.



> You keep on using that one book to tell you what's real. * I'll use all the rest*.


As will I. This is actually the crux of Pascals wadger. You use "all the rest", I'll use "all the rest, plus the Bible", I just get more out of the situation than you do.


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Step back from "faith" for a moment, and let's have a look at the Bible. Remove the flights of fancy and it's not a bad history book, the places and names did exist at one time and still exist today in many cases.  The book gives a good accounting of life and times in the era, but it's been rewritten countless times, and rewritten from the point of view of people who wanted to subjugate others and* give them a reason for hope in their otherwise desolate lives.*  There is no physical proof of any of the miracles and other godly actions performed, simply text that was written by worldly men and those words have since been altered many times to say what those who rewrote the book wanted it to say.
> 
> Jesus was, in all probability, a real person who lived in the times depicted and had a charismatic message that appealed to many, and; not surprisingly, still does today.  That doesn't make him a deity.



Do you have an evidence for this statement?


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

String,

Just because you get shot down and don't like it doesn't mean you can dismiss the refutation as a straw man.


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> String,
> 
> Just because you get shot down and don't like it doesn't mean you can dismiss the refutation as a straw man.



Taking what we know to be true about the physical and applying it to a non physical entity, thereby seemingly refuting the stage one argument for God, is a straw man. 

Kind of like MC's recent argument that the current Libertarian party has a Liberal agenda.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 30, 2012)

He said he had heard it in a way that he had never heard before and that he was able to understand... then he said it in the exact way that I've heard it thousands of times.. 



hobbs27 said:


> Really? A cartoon. hah.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Taking what we know to be true about the physical and applying it to a non physical entity, thereby seemingly refuting the stage one argument for God, is a straw man.
> 
> Kind of like MC's recent argument that the current Libertarian party has a Liberal agenda.



Applying what you know about the physical and real, to the non physical and imaginarey is impossible. Anyone can imagine their way around anything real.


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Applying what you know about the physical and real, to the non physical and imaginarey is impossible. Anyone can imagine their way around anything real.



Who is doing that? Did you read the article?


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Taking what we know to be true about the physical and applying it to a non physical entity, thereby seemingly refuting the stage one argument for God, is a straw man.
> 
> Kind of like MC's recent argument that the current Libertarian party has a Liberal agenda.



I've already thoroughly explained all of this in the other thread. Simply saying "non-physical" doesn't get you out of the problem to which you had no other answer. Either your God cannot think or act, or it is subject to the same logical constraints that Willard places on Voyager II. Either way it wipes out the basis of his argument.


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I've already thoroughly explained all of this in the other thread. Simply saying "non-physical" doesn't get you out of the problem to which you had no other answer.


I am not simply saying "non-physical", that is the answer to the the problem of where the physical came from. Mr. Willard lays out an argument that the physical is not eternal and that there must be a non-physical entity for the possibility of the physical to exist at all. Either A. the physical is eternal, or B. the physical is not eternal, we have already went over this, but Willards article states that B. is true and also provides the opportuinity for anyone to display otherwise. The need is there for a non-physical entity for there to be a starting point for the physical.



> Either your God cannot think or act, or it is subject to the same logical constraints that Willard places on Voyager II. Either way it wipes out the basis of his argument.


God and Voyager II are not the same, why are you placing the same logical constraints on the origin of the physical as you do on God, which has no origin?


----------



## TheBishop (May 30, 2012)

It's threads like this that strengthen the validity of Helmuth Nyborgs theories.  Some posters almost completly validate it themselves.


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I am not simply saying "non-physical", that is the answer to the the problem of where the physical came from.



You're trying to use that to exempt God from the logical constraint of time that Willard uses.




stringmusic said:


> Either A. the physical is eternal, or B. the physical is not eternal, we have already went over this, but Willards article states that B. is true and also provides the opportuinity for anyone to display otherwise. The need is there for a non-physical entity for there to be a starting point for the physical.



I have a very simple question for you and I want you to take some time to think about it before you answer. Why is this not the settled question (whether the physical is eternal or not) for physicists and cosmologists that it is for Mr Willard? Don't answer. Just think about it.




stringmusic said:


> God and Voyager II are not the same, why are you placing the same logical constraints on the origin of the physical as you do on God, which has no origin?



It's not about origins, the constraint is placed by necessity string. Thought and action are by definition, events. They require time to be possible. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.



And on a separate but slightly related note I have to question this business about God being non-physical. Can you tell me how exactly a non-physical entity can have an image? Isn't an image a physical property? How then could man be created in the image of a non-physical entity with no image?


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You're trying to use that to exempt God from the logical constraint of time that Willard uses.



"Moreover, this completed set of causes is highly structured in time and in ontic dependence, through relationships which are irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive. Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed and specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds it place. Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. *That is, there is in it at least one "cause," one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.*

If this were not so, Voyager's passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of events. In simplest terms, its causes would never "get to" it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before dominoe x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it.) Since Voyager II is past Triton, there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it. *Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: a being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent.*"


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

Yes string I read that before. Not a problem. Posit an infinite causeless being. I'm fine with that. Now answer the problem of how that being can reach the event of creating this universe if that event is preceded by infinity. According to Mr Willard that is impossible. God will never reach the point in time which he creates the universe because he will never get to that particular domino.

You're trying to eject an infinite God out of this problem of infinity that Willard has created and it just doesn't work. An eternal God is subject to the very same problem that Willard has with the natural being eternal.


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Yes string I read that before. Not a problem. Posit an infinite causeless being. I'm fine with that. Now answer the problem of how that being can reach the event of creating this universe if that event is preceded by infinity. According to Mr Willard that is impossible. God will never reach the point in time which he creates the universe because he will never get to that particular domino.
> 
> You're trying to eject an infinite God out of this problem of infinity that Willard has created and it just doesn't work. *An eternal God is subject to the very same problem that Willard has with the natural being eternal.*


No, Mr. Willard is not asserting that the natural is eternal, therfor, God does not fall to the same restraints.



> This completes the demonstration in our first stage of theistic evidence. To sum up: The dependent character of all physical states, together with the completeness of the series of dependencies underlying the existence of any given physical state, logically implies at least one self-existent, and therefore non-physical, state of being: a state of being, or an entity, radically different from those that make up the physical or "natural" world.



This state of being applies to the physical, it is necessary because the physical is not eternal, the entity put forth here does not adhere to this, because it is eternal.

There is no domino effect for this being, because this being is eternal and non-physical, or spiritual if you will.



> A more serious and perhaps more "common sense" objection to my position, but one that is, I think, answerable, is contained in the child's question: "Mommy, where did God come from?" (He's just been told that God made trees and clouds, you know.) In our terminology: "Where did this self-existent being come from?" And the answer is that He (She, It) didn't come from anything because He didn't come at all.
> 
> One will have trouble with that answer only if they have already assimilated existence to physical existence. Then and only then does the perfectly general question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" make sense. Without that assimilation the answer is: "Why shouldn't there be?" And it turns out there is no good reason to suppose that everything that exists resembles physical existents in coming to be "from" something other than themselves.


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, Mr. Willard is not asserting that the natural is eternal, therfor, God does not fall to the same restraints.



What he is asserting is irrelevant. The restraint is there whether he likes it or not.




stringmusic said:


> This state of being applies to the physical, it is necessary because the physical is not eternal, the entity put forth here does not adhere to this, because it is eternal.
> 
> There is no domino effect for this being, because this being is eternal and non-physical, or spiritual if you will.



 String come on! We are talking about logical constraints that apply to all existence, all reality, whether you call it physical or not.

You are saying that the physical was started by God. Fine, let's accept that. Does that mean God precedes the physical? According to you, yes! By how much? According to you, infinity. Let me stop right there. Do you agree up to this point?


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> What he is asserting is irrelevant. The restraint is there whether he likes it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes



If the time that precedes his creation of the universe is infinite then how did he ever reach that point in time?


----------



## dawg2 (May 30, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> First of all im not looking for a arguement or any fight just really would like a straight anwser from honest up front guys. Im a young christian that is strong in my faith and was just puzzled at something. As an Atheist your belief is in Non existence of GOD or any faith right? So you have no worries of jugdement and HE double hockey sticks? But why not take the risk or the chance of believing in a GOD since theres so no risk involved on your end? I really hope this all makes since sorry if it does not!



I am not an atheist, but look at it this way:  What if a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. asked YOU to believe in their "god" just in case you were wrong about yours.  

Would you start praying to their god "just in case"?


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> If the time that precedes his creation of the universe is infinite then how did he ever reach that point in time?



He is eternal, or an uncaused being.


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> He is eternal, or an uncaused being.



I understand that. He existed prior to the universe for an infinite period of time. My question remains unanswered. How did he reach the particular point in time of creating the universe if it was preceded by infinity? As Mr Willard points out if you have an infinite series of dominoes preceding a particular domino then you will never reach that particular domino.


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I understand that. He existed prior to the universe for an infinite period of time. My question remains unanswered. How did he reach the particular point in time of creating the universe if it was preceded by infinity? As Mr Willard points out if you have an infinite series of dominoes preceding a particular domino then you will never reach that particular domino.



As an eternal being, there is no time for Him to reach, He is infinite.

eternal (adj)
e·ter·nal [ i túrn'l ]
1.existing through all time: lasting for all time without beginning or end
2.unchanging:* unaffected by the passage of time*
3.seemingly everlasting: seeming to go on forever or recur incessantly

You're putting a point in time on a being that by definition has no point in time. I understand that it is like trying to picture a one ended stick, and you want to apply the same logic to God and the physical in which He created and it simply cannot be done.


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> As an eternal being, there is no time for Him to reach, He is infinite.
> 
> eternal (adj)
> e·ter·nal [ i túrn'l ]
> ...



No sir. You and I both put a point in time called the beginning of the universe and then went back from there to infinity. That is the point in time. Call it "God's time" because we are talking about the context of time in which God acts and we are talking about a specific act at a specific point in that infinite timeline.

I'm not even going to bother asking the question for the umpteenth time because I know you don't have a good answer and I know you understand the question at this point.

This is what I originally referred to as a case of special pleading. You're trying to get God out of the problem by nothing more than asserting that the problem simply doesn't apply to him. But two can play that game. If my question doesn't apply to an eternal God then it also doesn't apply to a physical reality that is eternal. And that being the case as well as it being the case that we at least have evidence of the existence of the physical but none of God, as Carl Sagan said, why not just skip the middle man?


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> No sir. You and I both put a point in time called the beginning of the universe and then went back from there to infinity. That is the point in time. Call it "God's time" because we are talking about the context of time in which God acts and we are talking about a specific act at a specific point in that infinite timeline.
> 
> I'm not even going to bother asking the question for the umpteenth time because I know you don't have a good answer and I know you understand the question at this point.
> 
> This is what I originally referred to as a case of special pleading. You're trying to get God out of the problem by nothing more than asserting that the problem simply doesn't apply to him. But two can play that game. If my question doesn't apply to an eternal God then it also doesn't *apply to a physical reality that is eternal*. And that being the case as well as it being the case that we at least have evidence of the existence of the physical but none of God, as Carl Sagan said, why not just skip the middle man?



Where do you come up with the natural world being eternal?


----------



## ambush80 (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> As an eternal being, there is no time for Him to reach, He is infinite.
> 
> eternal (adj)
> e·ter·nal [ i túrn'l ]
> ...



You are saying that everything has a beginning except for God.  How does he view the beginning of the Universe?  Where is the "point" on his infinite timeline at which he made the Universe?


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> I am not an atheist, but look at it this way:  What if a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. asked YOU to believe in their "god" just in case you were wrong about yours.
> 
> Would you start praying to their god "just in case"?



WOW! and a huge Thank-You!


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where do you come up with the natural world being eternal?



It's just a possibility.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2012)

I am a person of reason and logic. I don't like what some say that things you can't understand have to be believed by faith. But there are some things that we have no answer for. Such as outer space. Infinity. So I guess what I am refering to is  God having a beginning or always existing. Somethings I don't try to figure


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You are saying that everything has a beginning except for God.  How does he view the beginning of the Universe?


I have no idea.


> Where is the "point" on his infinite timeline at which he made the Universe?


I'm not really sure what you're asking here. I can't give you a date, if thats what you're asking.


----------



## stringmusic (May 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> It's just a possibility.



It's not according to Willard's argument, one that you have agreed with and only added God into.

Maybe you were accepting for arguments sake?


----------



## ambush80 (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I have no idea.
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're asking here. I can't give you a date, if thats what you're asking.



You have no idea so you make up an un-caused cause.  What does a "date" mean to an infinite being?  



stringmusic said:


> It's not according to Willard's argument, one that you have agreed with and only added God into.
> 
> Maybe you were accepting for arguments sake?



Would saying that the Universe always existed qualify as an un-caused cause?


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It's not according to Willard's argument, one that you have agreed with and only added God into.
> 
> Maybe you were accepting for arguments sake?



Willard is wrong on that point. The very same reason he suggests there could not be an eternal multiverse would also apply to God or any other eternal entity.

Willard is trying to make a scientific case against the possibility of nature being eternal. Again I can only point out that is not a widely accepted view among physicists and cosmologists.


----------



## mountainraider68 (May 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> mountainraider, haha I totally understand you and many like you. All of you fail to realize that there are other people on this planet that have beliefs that are just as real and genuine as yours, yet you disregard theirs for the same reasons you criticize others for disregarding yours.
> There is one choice for you. Save the saving schtick, your in the wrong forum. Your whole argument falls way short of being one way or the other. It is that narrow-mindedness that shines through when statements and claims are made through assertion rather than fact.
> Other than the feeling in your heart(which is not exclusive to Christianity) you have zero actual evidence that anything you believe is factual or true.
> 
> ...



So if all of this fall short why is there so much evidence pointing toward christ that your constantly having to fight. Saving schtick? im just told to tell you the good news not shove it down your throat its your decsicion to choose. Like why would the whole world base the year 2012 on a death of some random guy, Dont you think theres a little more to that than meets the eye???


----------



## mountainraider68 (May 30, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> I am not an atheist, but look at it this way:  What if a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. asked YOU to believe in their "god" just in case you were wrong about yours.
> 
> Would you start praying to their god "just in case"?



I based this question towards athesist because there really is nothing in there belief no god no eterenity nothing. But you might not understand this if you dont know GOD and this might seem like a bad anwser but its simply because i know the truth. There no swaying my faith is it because im stubborn no im not at all. Im actually easy to persuade but it because im changed im saved GOD has done to much in my life, for this strong hold to break.


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> I based this question towards athesist because there really is nothing in there belief no god no eterenity nothing. But you might not understand this if you dont know GOD and this might seem like a bad anwser but its simply because i think I know the truth. There no swaying my faith is it because im stubborn no im not at all. Im actually easy to persuade but it because im changed im saved GOD has done to much in my life, for this strong hold to break.



Fixed a critical omission.

I'm reminded of a family I know. Their 3 year old son/grandson accidentally got trapped in the car on a hot summer day. He was flown to the hospital and they prayed their hearts out that God would save his life but their prayers went unanswered and the child died. They still worship God just as they always did. When you only count the hits and ignore all the misses that come your way you can substitute an empty milk carton in God's place and get the same results.


----------



## JB0704 (May 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Would saying that the Universe always existed qualify as an un-caused cause?



If the universe is the cause, then yes.


----------



## ambush80 (May 30, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> I based this question towards athesist because there really is nothing in there belief no god no eterenity nothing. But you might not understand this if you dont know GOD and this might seem like a bad anwser but its simply because i know the truth. There no swaying my faith is it because im stubborn no im not at all. Im actually easy to persuade but it because im changed im saved GOD has done to much in my life, for this strong hold to break.



I agree.


----------



## ambush80 (May 30, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> I based this question towards athesist because there really is nothing in there belief no god no eterenity nothing. But you might not understand this if you dont know GOD and this might seem like a bad anwser but its simply because i know the truth. There no swaying my faith is it because im stubborn no im not at all. Im actually easy to persuade but it because im changed im saved GOD has done to much in my life, for this strong hold to break.





JB0704 said:


> If the universe is the cause, then yes.



What is the motivation to interject a "guy" into the equation?


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> So if all of this fall short why is there so much evidence pointing toward christ that your constantly having to fight. Saving schtick? im just told to tell you the good news not shove it down your throat its your decsicion to choose. Like why would the whole world base the year 2012 on a death of some random guy, Dont you think theres a little more to that than meets the eye???



What evidence is pointing towards Christ? Please show me/us.

2012 is based off of the death some random guy???.....2012 is based off of Christ??? please, I'd like to hear more about that.

I KNOW there is a lot more than meets the eye, that is why I believe as I do.


----------



## Four (May 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What evidence is pointing towards Christ? Please show me/us.
> 
> 2012 is based off of the death some random guy???.....2012 is based off of Christ??? please, I'd like to hear more about that.
> 
> I KNOW there is a lot more than meets the eye, that is why I believe as I do.



If think he's referring to the fact that we used AD / BC as dates. aka 2012 years after the death of christ.

It's akin to asking "Why do we base an entire day of the weekoff of Thor if Thor wasn't real?!?! (thursday)


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2012)

Four said:


> If think he's referring to the fact that we used AD / BC as dates. aka 2012 years after the death of christ.
> 
> It's akin to asking "Why do we base an entire day of the weekoff of Thor if Thor wasn't real?!?! (thursday)



Yeah, I'm playing possum because I LOVE to hear how they come to these conclusions. Then I reply with a quick lesson filled with facts, sit back, and watch the collapse of their strongest point and watch them refer back to imaginary beliefs so it all STILL makes sense in their own minds...


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2012)

http://calendopedia.com/counting.htm

From the link:
How do we count years?
In about AD 523, the papal chancellor, Bonifacius, asked a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus to devise a way to implement the rules from the Nicean council (the so-called "Alexandrine Rules") for general use. Dionysius Exiguus (in English known as Denis the Little) was a monk from Scythia, he was a canon in the Roman curia, and his assignment was to prepare calculations of the dates of Easter. At that time it was customary to count years since the reign of emperor Diocletian; but in his calculations Dionysius chose to number the years since the birth of Christ, rather than honour the persecutor Diocletian. Dionysius (wrongly) fixed Jesus' birth with respect to Diocletian's reign in such a manner that it falls on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita, i.e. since the founding of Rome), thus making the current era start with AD 1 on 1 January 754 AUC. How Dionysius established the year of Christ's birth is not known, although a considerable number of theories exist. Although Dionysius proposed this system of counting it was not generally accepted.

When The Venerable Bede (673-735) wrote his history of the early centuries of Anglo-Saxon England he adopted the system of Dionysius and its use spread until it became a de facto standard. 

What date did other calendars give when we started the year 2000?
Calendar	Date
Gregorian 	1 January 2000
Babylonion 	Year 2749
Buddhist 	Year 2544
Chinese 	Cycle 78, year 16 (Ji-Mao), month 11 (Wu-Yin), day 25 (Wu-Wu)
Egyptian 	Year 6236
Ethiopian 	23 Takhsas 1993
French 	Décade II, Duodi de Nivôse de l'Année 208 de la Révolution
Greek 	22 Kiyahk 1716
Hebrew 	23 Teveth 5760
Islamic 	24 Ramadan 1420
ISO 	Day 6 of week 52 of year 1999
Julian 	19 December 1999
Mayan 	Long count = 12.19.6.15.0; tzolkin = 9 Ahau; haab = 8 Kankin
Persian 	11 Dey 1378


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What is the motivation to interject a "guy" into the equation?



Logical conclusion when considering the alternatives.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 31, 2012)

Getting to the original question, I asked a similar question on another forum. The consensus is , the fear of he!! is the reason for becoming a Christian. 
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=671290


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Logical conclusion when considering the alternatives.



I think you should do a thorough analysis of what the "being" notion REALLY means to you.  Try to understand why you want "him" to be real so badly.  If you can do that honestly and with great courage you will find that the idea of "him" doesn't give you the comfort that you thought it did.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think if you should do a thorough analysis of what the "being" notion REALLY means to you.  Try to understand why you want "him" to be real so badly.  If you can do that honestly and with great courage you will find that the idea of "him" doesn't give you the comfort that you thought it did.



.....and then, my children become beautiful galactic accidents.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> .....and then, my children become beautiful galactic accidents.



Will you love them less if god doesn't exist?


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Will you love them less if god doesn't exist?



Nope.  I would be very sad for them if he didn't.

To me, if there is no God, we can live for our legacy our whole lives, knowing that we return to dust, and still be fulfilled.  But, understanding there is a purpose or a meaning to it all makes it easier to comprehend the "why?"


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Nope.  I would be very sad for them if he didn't.



I don't understand that.

Also interjecting a "guy" into the equation not only seems to me less logical than the alternatives but a violation of Occam's Razor.




JB0704 said:


> To me, if there is no God, we can live for our legacy our whole lives, knowing that we return to dust, and still be fulfilled.  But, understanding there is a purpose or a meaning to it all makes it easier to comprehend the "why?"



I was watching a speech last night that Dan Barker recently gave and he was saying we should be glad that there is no dictated purpose and then explained why. I thought it was an interesting counterpoint to the view you just expressed and often expressed by theists.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I don't understand that..



Not sure how else to say it.  I have told this story in here before, but here it goes again:

I tried very hard to become an atheist / agnostic at one point in my life.  This was a several year process.  The end result was a total rejection of the religion of my youth, and an absolute acceptance of the existence of a God.....followed by a return to Christianity (not religion).

During this time, I was sitting in a deer stand one morning before the sun even started to come up.  No moon.  It was a very black night.  I love these mornings in the winter because you can see tons of stars, and if you watch carefully, you can see satelites going across the dark sky.  I remember looking up at a satelite that seemed so far away, floating up there, and then considered how much farther the stars that made the backdrop were....impossibly far.  

I felt very insignificant in the grand scheme of things.  I was smaller than a tiny speck of dust when the universe was considered.  And, if there was no God, I would be correct.  I would be no more significant than the grains of sand on venus, or some other far flung planet billions of light years away.  Just a random circumstance of existence.

If that was me, then that also is every other creature in existence if there is no creator.  That would also include my kids.

I would be very sad to consider that I love them so much but they are no more than the tiny grains of sand on some far flung planet which has never, and never will, see life.



atlashunter said:


> Also interjecting a "guy" into the equation not only seems to me less logical than the alternatives but a violation of Occam's Razor....



To me, it is more simple than everything creating itself, or infinite matter always existing and interacting to create everything we see with no intelligent drive....just random laws of existence which have no reason to be there.




atlashunter said:


> I was watching a speech last night that Dan Barker recently gave and he was saying we should be glad that there is no dictated purpose and then explained why. I thought it was an interesting counterpoint to the view you just expressed and often expressed by theists.



We all find peace in our own ways and places.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Not sure how else to say it.  I have told this story in here before, but here it goes again:
> 
> I tried very hard to become an atheist / agnostic at one point in my life.  This was a several year process.  The end result was a total rejection of the religion of my youth, and an absolute acceptance of the existence of a God.....followed by a return to Christianity (not religion).
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing that. I think I can relate to the feelings you describe. I get that. When I've felt that way there are two thoughts that go along with it.

1. If that is the reality that is the reality. My feelings about it simply don't factor in to what is. I can choose to face and accept reality as it is or I can grab on to some other view not because it is true but because it makes me feel better. The question that matters most to me is what is true, not what best helps me sleep at night. I would rather acknowledge the reality of my insignificance in this universe, it was here long before me and will be here long after, than to spend precious time deceiving myself so that I'll feel better.

2. It really isn't all doom and gloom. Yes I have to accept a finite life that won't last as long as I would prefer. I have to accept that when it's over for me it's just as permanent as for any other living creature. On the other hand when you consider the odds that you are here at all it seems such a waste to spend time and energy wishing for more than you really should when you already have more by chance than you could ask for. It's a view expressed well in this video.



Considering the alternative to mortality and really thinking about the promise made by many religions I've come to the conclusion it's not a promise worth having. Anyone who thinks it desirable to live for eternity severely underestimates just how long that is. So for me what matters, the only thing that matters is this life. I'm good with that. Asking or expecting more is expecting far too much. I find my own purpose in life and it can be whatever I choose for better or worse. I cherish that freedom and choose to do my best to make the most of the time, enjoy it, and try to make it better for others along the way.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

Oh and I meant to ask you, why would you try to become an atheist/agnostic? That seems odd to me especially if you were a Christian to begin with. When I was growing up atheist was like a dirty word in our house. I never thought I would become one and certainly didn't wish it. Now I see how silly that is but when I was younger if someone said they were an atheist that was right up there with saying they were a devil worshipper. They were missing something at best and downright evil at worst.


----------



## dawg2 (May 31, 2012)

mountainraider68 said:


> I based this question towards athesist because there really is nothing in there belief no god no eterenity nothing. But you might not understand this if you dont know GOD and this might seem like a bad anwser but its simply because i know the truth. There no swaying my faith is it because im stubborn no im not at all. Im actually easy to persuade but it because im changed im saved GOD has done to much in my life, for this strong hold to break.


Well the perspective of the religions I mentioned would say: YOU don't know God.  Atheism is a religion of no god(s).  It takes faith to go down that path just as you take faith down yours.  The Atheists think you don't know god because he doesn't exist.  You think they don't know god because you believe he does.  It is actually much deeper than the way you tried to simplify it.

Case in point:



atlashunter said:


> Fixed a critical omission.
> 
> I'm reminded of a family I know. Their 3 year old son/grandson accidentally got trapped in the car on a hot summer day. He was flown to the hospital and they prayed their hearts out that God would save his life but their prayers went unanswered and the child died. They still worship God just as they always did. When you only count the hits and ignore all the misses that come your way you can substitute an empty milk carton in God's place and get the same results.


----------



## dawg2 (May 31, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Getting to the original question, I asked a similar question on another forum. The consensus is , the fear of he!! is the reason for becoming a Christian.
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=671290


Actually, I would say the number 1 reason for being a christian is based on your families religion.  I would say it is the number 1 reason for being any religion, not just christian.  Other religions have he11 also.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> .....and then, my children become beautiful galactic accidents.



I just looked at my little girl then looked out at a magnolia flower.  Both one of a kind and temporary.  I'm compelled to enjoy them right now; completely.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

There is another video related to the second point I made that expresses really well what I was trying to say and how ungrateful it is to ask or expect eternal life. I can't post it but if you want to see it just search "Eternal Life: The High Price of a Believer's Love" on youtube.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 31, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> Actually, I would say the number 1 reason for being a christian is based on your families religion.  I would say it is the number 1 reason for being any religion, not just christian.  Other religions have he11 also.



My sister said she doesn't understand why the Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. I said if you were raised that way you wouldn't either.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Oh and I meant to ask you, why would you try to become an atheist/agnostic? That seems odd to me especially if you were a Christian to begin with. When I was growing up atheist was like a dirty word in our house. I never thought I would become one and certainly didn't wish it. Now I see how silly that is but when I was younger if someone said they were an atheist that was right up there with saying they were a devil worshipper. They were missing something at best and downright evil at worst.



There were multiple factors.  Primarily, the God I was taught when I was young was the God of wrath.  I had grown up afraid of the creator, completely missing the point of the entire NT.  Being a rebellious fella, I grew to resent this ominous presence in the universe.  So, naturally, I tried to reject it.

Another factor was that I really, really didn't like any of the Christians I knew.  That led me to try to distance myself from them as far as possible.

Eventually, though, we all settle on a belief system.  I could not, and still cannot, rationalize existence without a creator.  And, then, that led me back to Christianity.  However, the second time, I pursued my faith outside of external teachings.  I don't buy everything the preacher sells.  I cross reference with what I know, or believe.  That is why a bunch of my beliefs are a bit different than the mainstream.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> My sister said she doesn't understand why the Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. I said if you were raised that way you wouldn't either.



That's a question that your average Christian isn't going to put much time or effort into studying. It's easier to just say "they're blinded to the truth".


----------



## Four (May 31, 2012)

JB0704,

So in summary, you believe in god because without god you cant find meaning in life? I've heard other people on this forum boil there spirituality down to this as well. 

Also it seems (correct me if im wrong) you chose the christian veneer for the god that you have to have exist because it's the familiar one? Meaning, you as a person might have still been unable to accept a life without god, but if you were more familiar with another god you might have chosen that one  instead?

Also, I applaud your honesty. I've known both people that god past the life is meaningless without god thing, and those who haven't.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 31, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> Actually, I would say the number 1 reason for being a christian is based on your families religion.  I would say it is the number 1 reason for being any religion, not just christian.  Other religions have he11 also.



More simply, I think it's the fear of death. Whether that is the fear of death leading you to a bad place or just non existence. I think the fear of non existence was around long before the fear of going to a bad place. A good place and a bad place to go after death was devised later on (probably a good place first) to cope with the fear of non-existence.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I just looked at my little girl then looked out at a magnolia flower.  Both one of a kind and temporary.  I'm compelled to enjoy them right now; completely.



I have no doubt you love your daughter every bit as much as I love mine.  My thoughts are not so much in reference to my relation to my kids, it is more in reference to my kids relevance in the universe.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

Four said:


> So in summary, you believe in god because without god you cant find meaning in life? I've heard other people on this forum boil there spirituality down to this as well.
> 
> Also it seems (correct me if im wrong) you chose the christian veneer for the god that you have to have exist because it's the familiar one? Meaning, you as a person might have still been unable to accept a life without god, but if you were more familiar with another god you might have chosen that one  instead?



I can't really speak of what I would believe if I had been raised hindu, or muslim.  I can really only speak for my own experience.  And here is the way I see it, or, my conclusion:

I choose Chrisitianity through faith, meaning I "buy into the resurection and teachings of Jesus."  I believe that if God exists, and is the creator of life, then resurecting is one heck of a way to prove it.  Faith is the key word here.  Gotta have it.  I can no more prove the resurection of Jesus than a hindu can prove the concept of reincarnation, or a Budhist can prove Zen (forgive me if I have them confused).  But I do believe.

Is that because I am comfortable there, perhaps, but it is where I am at now regardless of how I got here.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> There is another video related to the second point I made that expresses really well what I was trying to say and how ungrateful it is to ask or expect eternal life. I can't post it but if you want to see it just search "Eternal Life: The High Price of a Believer's Love" on youtube.



I appreciated your responses, and the video makes good points.  I get that life is sweeter if it is temporary.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject.


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2012)

Making up your own meaning in life is like having 1 million dollars 1 million years ago. You're rich, but it wont buy you anything.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I have no doubt you love your daughter every bit as much as I love mine.  My thoughts are not so much in reference to my relation to my kids, it is more in reference to my kids relevance in the universe.



I think if one steps back and takes a really broad view of history it might be said that their relevance is the same as that of any other now unknown human that once lived, died, and has now been gone for thousands of years. In fact I would say from the universes perspective their significance is no more or less than the significance of any other creature that has ever lived and died.


Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to he!!,
But on earth indifference is the least
We have to dread from man or beast.

How should we like it were stars to burn
With a passion for us we could not return?
If equal affection cannot be,
Let the more loving one be me.

Admirer as I think I am
Of stars that do not give a dam,
I cannot, now I see them, say
I missed one terribly all day.

Were all stars to disappear or die,
I should learn to look at an empty sky
And feel its total dark sublime,
Though this might take me a little time.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> In fact I would say from the universes perspective their significance is no more or less than the significance of any other creature that has ever lived and died..



Or, really, any partical of dust that ever floated through the universe.  That's why it makes me sad to consider that my kids might be no more or less important than dust on the moon.  It doesn't mean I love them more, it's just that I hope they have value greater than dust universally speaking (of course they do personally).

Good poem, though.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Or, really, any partical of dust that ever floated through the universe.  That's why it makes me sad to consider that my kids might be no more or less important than dust on the moon.  It doesn't mean I love them more, it's just that I hope they have value greater than dust universally speaking (of course they do personally).
> 
> Good poem, though.



The question is value to who? Value to the universe? The universe appears completely indifferent to our existence as far as I can tell. The extinction of 99% of all species that have ever existed testifies to that indifference. Who is left to value that early human child that died tens of thousands of years ago that nobody now knows about? Our fate is the same as theirs. Yet someone valued them at one time and someone valued you just as you value your children. And it seems to me that is what really matters. A thousand years from now we will be just as insignificant to this world and the rest of the universe as those long forgotten lives that came before us. So what? You'll not be here to concern yourself with that and neither will your children be or theirs. We still have value when and where it really counts.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I appreciated your responses, and the video makes good points.  I get that life is sweeter if it is temporary.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject.



At at my best friend's father's funeral his brother said "I know dad is up there catching a big 'ol Heaven bass".  How big is that Heaven bass?  How long did it fight?  Did it feel pain?  How should I feel about all the bass that I catch from now on knowing that they pale in comparison, in a way that I can't even imagine,  to a Heaven bass?

I think I'll just eat this peach, this plain old, no good Earth peach, and taste it.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> The question is value to who?



....well, God.  And we are getting back to my faith here.  If the story of Jesus is correct, than they are of much greater value than the extinct species.  There value does not end when the universe's memory of them fades.  The children 10k years ago are just as important as the kids today.

And that's how it all ties together for me.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Or, really, any partical of dust that ever floated through the universe.  That's why it makes me sad to consider that my kids might be no more or less important than dust on the moon.  It doesn't mean I love them more, it's just that I hope they have value greater than dust universally speaking (of course they do personally).
> 
> Good poem, though.




I value that speck of Moon dust, and all the other specks of dust.  They're all wondrous.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> At at my best friend's father's funeral his brother said "I know dad is up there catching a big 'ol Heaven bass".  How big is that Heaven bass?  How long did it fight?  Did it feel pain?  How should I feel about all the bass that I catch from now on knowing that they pale in comparison, in a way that I can't even imagine,  to a Heaven bass?



That's not really where I am going with this.  Concepts of heaven vary as much within Christianity as denominations do.  Heaven is a very confusing subject for me.



ambush80 said:


> I think I'll just eat this peach, this plain old, no good Earth peach, and taste it.



You and I had this discussion before, and I view the life we have as a precious gift to enjoy while we have it.  I am in no hurry to get to heaven.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I value that speck of Moon dust, and all the other specks of dust.  They're all wondrous.



Ok.  They might be.  I just hope that in the grand scheme of the universe a particle that sits idle and inanimate will be of lessor value than my beautiful baby girl.

Perhaps it is a human condition to desire such things, I dunno.  I don't really care either way.  It just is what it is.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ....well, God.  And we are getting back to my faith here.  If the story of Jesus is correct, than they are of much greater value than the extinct species.  There value does not end when the universe's memory of them fades.  The children 10k years ago are just as important as the kids today.
> 
> And that's how it all ties together for me.



I can see the appeal in that. There are also downsides if the Christian view is true. Christopher Hitchens was very good at explaining those and I'll not go into it here.

For me the only question that matters is, is it true? And I see no reason to believe Christianity is and plenty to believe it is not. So the weight of the evidence is that it just isn't true IMO, whatever the appeal may or may not be.

My point is that looking at the alternate view (that there is no God and your existence is temporary) can actually go from bleak to bright provided you aren't expecting more than anyone should expect from a temporal existence.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

I just can't imagine dust being as wonderous as my daughter......call me crazy.  I know your daughter is beautiful and wonderful too.  I can't imagine thinking all she is is dust and an insignificant circumstance.  I honestly don't want to.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ....well, God.  And we are getting back to my faith here.  If the story of Jesus is correct, than they are of much greater value than the extinct species.  There value does not end when the universe's memory of them fades.  The children 10k years ago are just as important as the kids today.
> 
> And that's how it all ties together for me.



Are you a creationist or do you believe we evolved?


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> For me the only question that matters is, is it true? And I see no reason to believe Christianity is and plenty to believe it is not. So the weight of the evidence is that it just isn't true IMO, whatever the appeal may or may not be..



I do see the value in intellectual honesty.  And this has presented me with difficulties in my faith.  As we have covered, I have certain perspectives that will not line up with mainstream Christianity.  But, I appreciate your perspective, and I understand it.



atlashunter said:


> My point is that looking at the alternate view (that there is no God and your existence is temporary) can actually go from bleak to bright provided you aren't expecting more than anyone should expect from a temporal existence.



I absolutely agree.  But, as I have related in this thread, I can't get past the temporal hurdle.  I am convinced there is a God.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Are you a creationist or do you believe we evolved?



Both.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I just can't imagine dust being as wonderous as my daughter......call me crazy (will delete the photo in a bit).  I know your daughter is beautiful and wonderful too.  I can't imagine thinking all she is is dust and an insignificant circumstance.  I honestly don't want to.



I think it comes back to a question of perspective. From the perspective of the universe she IS dust, star dust, just in a different arrangement for a finite period of time. Do we as humans value each other more than inanimate dust? Of course, as we should regardless of whether or not there is some creator out there. Her value to you I would hope is the same whether God exists or not.

As beautiful and valuable as your child is, we all know that nature could wipe her or any of us out in an instant without a second thought (and does on a regular basis!). It seems self evident to me that nature has no concern for us one way or another. I also have to question how one reconciles this reality with the idea of an all powerful being that values us so much. Those ideas don't seem to mesh too well with reality.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Both.



Should have seen that one coming.  What I meant was do you think humans were created directly from scratch as in the Genesis account or did we evolve from non-human ancestors (regardless of whether a creator set those wheels in motion). If the latter... that would mean the transition from non-human was a gradient. If we have greater value than the other creatures I'm curious how one who accepts that we evolved pinpoints where on that gradient the transition to greater value occurred. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> From the perspective of the universe she IS dust, star dust, just in a different arrangement for a finite period of time...



Unless the universe (God), arranged her, or arranged for her arrangement.  Then she is more than stardust, she becomes a creation....something with purpose.



atlashunter said:


> Do we as humans value each other more than inanimate dust? Of course, as we should regardless of whether or not there is some creator out there. Her value to you I would hope is the same whether God exists or not..



It would not change.  I believe atheists love and value their children just as much as believers do.  It is not a question of human perspective, but of universal perspective.  Absence of intent would just make me sad for her and my son.



			
				atlashunter said:
			
		

> As beautiful and valuable as your child is, we all know that nature could wipe her or any of us out in an instant without a second thought (and does on a regular basis!). It seems self evident to me that nature has no concern for us one way or another..



Nature, God, other people, the universe does what it will.  The circumstances during existence do not change whether or not there is a purpose of existence.  We are either chance or intended.  One gives me peace, the other does not.



			
				atlashunter said:
			
		

> I also have to question how one reconciles this reality with the idea of an all powerful being that values us so much. Those ideas don't seem to mesh too well with reality.



The problem of evil.  We could really start chasing rabbits on that one.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I just can't imagine dust being as wonderous as my daughter ...



Awwwwww.

What a cutie!


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Unless the universe (God), arranged her, or arranged for her arrangement.  Then she is more than stardust, she becomes a creation....something with purpose.



I suppose. I just don't see any reason to believe that is the case. You jump off a cliff without a parachute the laws of nature are going to be applied to you as equally as that rock you threw before you jumped. Purpose or no purpose to your life, no exception will be made because you are more special than that rock. It's either that way because there is a God that chose it to be that way in which case I would have to question the proposition that he values you any more than that rock. Or... there simply is no God. The latter seems the more likely and rational explanation to me.

Good discussion. I enjoyed this one.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Should have seen that one coming.  What I meant was do you think humans were created directly from scratch as in the Genesis account or did we evolve from non-human ancestors (regardless of whether a creator set those wheels in motion). If the latter... that would mean the transition from non-human was a gradient. If we have greater value than the other creatures I'm curious how one who accepts that we evolved pinpoints where on that gradient the transition to greater value occurred. Hope that makes sense.



It does make sense, but, I'm afraid my response won't make much sense to you.

I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.  I believe creation happened over a long period of time and life evolved along the way.  I know to some that is heresy, but I do not see that it interfere's with my faith.  But, I do believe in Jesus who makes it clear that man has value.  That seems to mean we were an intentional act.  I also reconcile that our evolution was very different than other animals (though I know all of the skeptics will disagree) in that we evolved to dominance through intelligence, not physical attributes.

That being the case, I believe God has to be the origin of life, and _how_ we were "created" is irrelevant to whether or not there was a purpose in our creation.  Man, earth, the stars, whatever, could have been original intent.  I am certain we are most likely not the only critters of value in the universe, but my faith in Jesus allows me to believe we do have value over the dust that was used to create us.

I am pretty sure that sounds awkward, let me know the parts I need to clarify.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Awwwwww.
> 
> What a cutie!



Thank you sir!!  She has me wrapped.  I tell my wife every day that there is nothing in this world more precious than a baby girl.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Good discussion. I enjoyed this one.



I have enjoyed it as well (though I think I stepped on a landmine with the evolution response)


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It does make sense, but, I'm afraid my response won't make much sense to you.
> 
> I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.  I believe creation happened over a long period of time and life evolved along the way.  I know to some that is heresy, but I do not see that it interfere's with my faith.  But, I do believe in Jesus who makes it clear that man has value.  That seems to mean we were an intentional act.  I also reconcile that our evolution was very different than other animals (though I know all of the skeptics will disagree) in that we evolved to dominance through intelligence, not physical attributes.
> 
> ...



I'm good with all of that. The point I was trying to get to was whether God did it or not, if we evolved over a long span of time from non-human ancestors at what point along the way did we incur this greater value than our non-human ancestors and the rest of life?


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> The point I was trying to get to was whether God did it or not, if we evolved over a long span of time from non-human ancestors at what point along the way did we incur this greater value than our non-human ancestors and the rest of life?



At the beginning point of our creation, whichever point that may be.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> At the beginning point of our creation, whichever point that may be.



If we evolved from non-human ancestors determining that point is problematic.


----------



## JB0704 (May 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> If we evolved from non-human ancestors determining that point is problematic.



Yes it is.  But, the beginning of value is less important to me than the existence of value.  I don't care if God determined to "create man in his image" at the first expansion of the universe, of after 300 million years of dinos roaming around.  What is important is that God demonstrates love towards humanity through Jesus (and I know we can argue for manths on that subject as well).


----------



## dawg2 (May 31, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> More simply, I think it's the fear of death. Whether that is the fear of death leading you to a bad place or just non existence. I think the fear of non existence was around long before the fear of going to a bad place. A good place and a bad place to go after death was devised later on (probably a good place first) to cope with the fear of non-existence.



I still say it is who raises you and what their religious preference is.  Most small children do not fear nor understand death.  That comes later in life.  Their religion starts at an early age, way before they understand he11 or death.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  They might be.  I just hope that in the grand scheme of the universe a particle that sits idle and inanimate will be of lessor value than my beautiful baby girl.
> 
> Perhaps it is a human condition to desire such things, I dunno.  I don't really care either way.  It just is what it is.



I think self preservation, preservation of the clan/species is innate but I think this notion of being special or having purpose comes from something else.  Hubris maybe.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 31, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> I still say it is who raises you and what their religious preference is.  Most smal children do not fear no runderstand death.  That comes later in life.  Their religion starts at an early age, way before they understand he11 or death.



Which religion sure, but religion and spirituality in general.. Children sure didn't come up with religions.


----------



## StriperAddict (May 31, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Which religion sure, but religion and spirituality in general.. Children sure didn't come up with religions.


 
Correct, man does.  Which is why grace and mercy come from Christ, as faith in Him has nothing to do with (man-made) religion. But that's for another thread perhaps, since I'm sure many think faith in Christ is man made and not dervived by Divine Providence.


----------

