# Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/science-someday-rule-possibility-god-115945479.html

Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?
By Natalie Wolchover | LiveScience.com – 8 hrs ago

Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science. 

Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.

Carroll argues that God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help," he told Life's Little Mysteries.

He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil. But could science really eventually explain everything?

Beginning of time

Gobs of evidence have been collected in favor of the Big Bang model of cosmology, or the notion that the universe expanded from a hot, infinitely dense state to its current cooler, more expansive state over the course of 13.7 billion years. Cosmologists can model what happened from 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang until now, but the split-second before that remains murky. Some theologians have tried to equate the moment of the Big Bang with the description of the creation of the world found in the Bible and other religious texts; they argue that something — i.e., God — must have initiated the explosive event. 

However, in Carroll's opinion, progress in cosmology will eventually eliminate any perceived need for a Big Bang trigger-puller.

As he explained in a recent article in the "Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity" (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), a foremost goal of modern physics is to formulate a working theory that describes the entire universe, from subatomic to astronomical scales, within a single framework. Such a theory, called "quantum gravity," will necessarily account for what happened at the moment of the Big Bang. Some versions of quantum gravity theory that have been proposed by cosmologists predict that the Big Bang, rather than being the starting point of time, was just "a transitional stage in an eternal universe," in Carroll's words. For example, one model holds that the universe acts like a balloon that inflates and deflates over and over under its own steam. If, in fact, time had no beginning, this shuts the book on Genesis. [Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change, New Theory Says]

Other versions of quantum gravity theory currently being explored by cosmologists predict that time did start at the Big Bang. But these versions of events don't cast a role for God either. Not only do they describe the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, but they also account for how time was able to get underway in the first place. As such, these quantum gravity theories still constitute complete, self-contained descriptions of the history of the universe. "Nothing in the fact that there is a first moment of time, in other words, necessitates that an external something is required to bring the universe about at that moment," Carroll wrote.

Another way to put it is that contemporary physics theories, though still under development and awaiting future experimental testing, are turning out to be capable of explaining why Big Bangs occur, without the need for a supernatural jumpstart. As Alex Filippenko, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a conference talk earlier this year, "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

Parallel universes

But there are other potential grounds for God. Physicists have observed that many of the physical constants that define our universe, from the mass of the electron to the density of dark energy, are eerily perfect for supporting life. Alter one of these constants by a hair, and the universe becomes  unrecognizable. "For example, if the mass of the neutron were a bit larger (in comparison to the mass of the proton) than its actual value, hydrogen would not fuse into deuterium and conventional stars would be impossible," Carroll said. And thus, so would life as we know it. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]

Theologians often seize upon the so-called "fine-tuning" of the physical constants as evidence that God must have had a hand in them; it seems he chose the constants just for us. But contemporary physics explains our seemingly supernatural good luck in a different way.

Some versions of quantum gravity theory, including string theory, predict that our life-giving universe is but one of an infinite number of universes that altogether make up the multiverse. Among these infinite universes, the full range of values of all the physical constants are represented, and only some of the universes have values for the constants that enable the formation of stars, planets and life as we know it. We find ourselves in one of the lucky universes (because where else?). [Parallel Universes Explained in 200 Words]

Some theologians counter that it is far simpler to invoke God than to postulate the existence of infinitely many universes in order to explain our universe's life-giving perfection. To them, Carroll retorts that the multiverse wasn't postulated as a complicated way to explain fine-tuning. On the contrary, it follows as a natural consequence of our best, most elegant theories.

Once again, if or when these theories prove correct, "a multiverse happens, whether you like it or not," he wrote. And there goes God's hand in things. [Poll: Do You Believe in God?]

The reason why

Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says.

"Most scientists … suspect that the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase 'and that's just how it is,'" Carroll wrote. People who find this unsatisfying are failing to treat the entire universe as something unique — "something for which a different set of standards is appropriate." A complete scientific theory that accounts for everything in the universe doesn't need an external explanation in the same way that specific things within the universe need external explanations. In fact, Carroll argues, wrapping another layer of explanation (i.e., God) around a self-contained theory of everything would just be an unnecessary complication. (The theory already works without God.)

Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues. But he grants that "the idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis."

Psychology research suggests that belief in the supernatural acts as societal glue and motivates people to follow the rules; further, belief in the afterlife helps people grieve and staves off fears of death.

"We're not designed at the level of theoretical physics," Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, told LiveScience last year. What matters to most people "is what happens at the human scale, relationships to other people, things we experience in a lifetime."


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

Yep, this Carroll fella is an atheist and thinks that one day science will push God aside, like the many atheists before him and like many athiests after him. He is simply hypothesizing and hoping.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

This is a good one... 



> Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.


According to Mr. Carroll, we have had 13 billion years to get God out of the picture and it still hasn't happened, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were him or you.


----------



## 7MAGMIKE (Sep 18, 2012)

God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times due to the fact that satan has a stronger hold in these times.  He knows his days are numbered and is fighting hard to claim as many souls as he can before his ultimate demise.  A lot of science is proving the existence of God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2012)

"WE" have had 13 billion years to get God out of the picture????? How long have you and your ancestors been around?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2012)

7MAGMIKE said:


> God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times due to the fact that satan has a stronger hold in these times.  He knows his days are numbered and is fighting hard to claim as many souls as he can before his ultimate demise.  A lot of science is proving the existence of God.



Pretty amazing how God and religion have been fighting Satan and evil since day one yet have not gained a inch of ground. That doesn't make for a very good track record for ultimate power. 
Yes science is proving the Devil too. Here's a link:
..............?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2012)

7MAGMIKE said:


> A lot of science is proving the existence of God.



Such as?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 18, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yep, this Carroll fella is an atheist and thinks that one day science will push God aside, like the many atheists before him and like many athiests after him. He is simply hypothesizing and hoping.



It's like training wheels.......


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 18, 2012)

I thought science had already ruled out God.

.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> "WE" have had 13 billion years to get God out of the picture????? How long have you and your ancestors been around?



According to Mr. Carroll and many of our resident naturalist, over 13 billion years.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Sep 18, 2012)

Is anybody curious about why your body is the way it is and how it grows, forms and remains alive and functioning and this and that etc.. ??


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> According to Mr. Carroll and many of our resident naturalist, over 13 billion years.



Is that your interpretation of what Carroll said?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Is that your interpretation of what Carroll said?



No, he said it would happen sometime in the future.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Sep 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I thought science had already ruled out God.



Not a bad point.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Sep 18, 2012)

7MAGMIKE said:


> God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times due to the fact that satan has a stronger hold in these times.  He knows his days are numbered and is fighting hard to claim as many souls as he can before his ultimate demise.  A lot of science is proving the existence of God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, he said it would happen sometime in the future.





> According to Mr. Carroll, we have had 13 billion years to get God out of the picture and it still hasn't happened, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were him or you.



Where did he say that?


----------



## monster012211 (Sep 19, 2012)

Just do me a favor, go grab a paint brush and "at random", meaning no planned or structured strokes, hold the paint brush with paint on it and fling the paint at a sheet of paper and let me know how long it will take you to write the letter L. My guess is that it would take a REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY long time, if you could even do it. The reason I say this is because the simplest life form took about 23 pages worth of data to write out its DNA structure. How long do you think that would take, probably not even possible without some form of planning. Yet people like you and Mr. Carroll believe and want us to believe that the creation of the universe was just some random act that happened with no architect.


----------



## Four (Sep 19, 2012)

Nope, there will always be a concept of god that someone can cling to that cannot be disprove..

You can easily do this by saying "god is the universe" or "god is outside our universe and is undetectable"

Then scientists just go "oh..ok"

I do believe that scientific discovery and education will eventually make theists the minority and make religion a non-issue. treated the same way flat earths and conspiracy theorists are treated.

Just speculation / hope of course. We could get hit by  a meteor and get dumped into an age of superstition.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Where did he say that?



When he stated that the universe is 13 billion years old.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2012)

monster012211 said:


> Just do me a favor, go grab a paint brush and "at random", meaning no planned or structured strokes, hold the paint brush with paint on it and fling the paint at a sheet of paper and let me know how long it will take you to write the letter L. My guess is that it would take a REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY long time, if you could even do it. The reason I say this is because the simplest life form took about 23 pages worth of data to write out its DNA structure. How long do you think that would take, probably not even possible without some form of planning. Yet people like you and Mr. Carroll believe and want us to believe that the creation of the universe was just some random act that happened with no architect.



Some people act like they know exactly who the architect was/is.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 19, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I thought science had already ruled out God.
> 
> .



Ronnie, this is the best response to a thread I have seen in a while. 

Science in fact has ruled out God. All you have to do is ask those in here who believe in the fact that reason and proof overrule faith and hope. They have already ruled out God and say so all the time. 

I'm not sure why though. I for one have no problem believing in science and God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> When he stated that the universe is 13 billion years old.



He stated that the universe is 13 Billion years old and you added what you wanted to add to that statement to make it seem like he said something he did not. Humans, especially "modern" humans, have not been here all that long and definitely no where close to having been around for 13.7 Billions years to try to disprove a God. Those are your words and are mentioned no where in the article in the context you put them in.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Some people act like they know exactly who the architect was/is.



I do, I do!!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> He stated that the universe is 13 Billion years old and you added what you wanted to add to that statement to make it seem like he said something he did not.


What I stated is implied by the universe being 13 billion years old and the supposed start of human evolution.




> Humans, especially "modern" humans, have not been here all that long and definitely no where close to having been around for 13.7 Billions years to try to disprove a God.



How long has consciousness been around?


----------



## Havana Dude (Sep 19, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I thought science had already ruled out God.
> 
> .



Most excellent post sir. They just want to do it again to make sure


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 19, 2012)

Four said:


> I do believe that scientific discovery and education will eventually make theists the minority and make religion a non-issue. treated the same way flat earths and conspiracy theorists are treated.
> 
> Just speculation / hope of course. .



This reminds me of all the times I have heard preachers declare "revival's 'a comin' y'all!!!!"



			
				Four said:
			
		

> We could get hit by  a meteor and get dumped into an age of superstition



.....or wiped out.....


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 19, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I for one have no problem believing in science and God.



Agree.....and not sure why it would cause a problem for anybody to do the same.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Sep 19, 2012)

The equation of DOGMA makes rational thought incompetent...too there delight!!!


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What I stated is implied by the universe being 13 billion years old and the supposed start of human evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Implied.......

I'd wager consciousness has been around longer than beliefs.


----------



## arcaidy (Sep 19, 2012)

Supposedly the universe is made up of 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter and 4% of the stuff we can actually see. Basically science is telling us to believe 96% of our universe is made up of stuff we can’t confirm exists. Yet someone who has faith in a religion is silly...


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2012)

Religion would have us believe someone who we can't confirm exists made the 96% of the stuff we can't confirm that exists. Science just eliminates the Red Herring.


----------



## arcaidy (Sep 19, 2012)

Religion doesn’t tell how, it tells why. Science attempts to tell you how, but relies on faith to explain it.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Implied.......


Yes, implied.



> I'd wager consciousness has been around longer than beliefs.



Ok, insert how ever long consciousness has been going on into my statement then.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, insert how ever long consciousness has been going on into my statement then.



Maybe someone can answer that but I will be the first to admit I cannot. Because I cannot answer it, I will not just insert some invisible deity as the only possible solution to the who/when/and why of the question.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 19, 2012)

arcaidy said:


> Supposedly the universe is made up of 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter and 4% of the stuff we can actually see. Basically science is telling us to believe 96% of our universe is made up of stuff we can’t confirm exists. Yet someone who has faith in a religion is silly...



So a being of infinite power; of a nature that is beyond your comprehension jives blissfully with everything else that you understand about how things work?


----------



## arcaidy (Sep 19, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So a being of infinite power; of a nature that is beyond your comprehension jives blissfully with everything else that you understand about how things work?




There is not a single person on this planet that understands how everything works. From a scientific point of view all we have is a “best guess” as we currently understand it.  When you simplify everything down to the beginning of it all nothing gives the answer. Something has always existed without a beginning. Science can’t even explain what time is let alone how it even came to be.

I don’t claim to have the answer. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the individuals who claim science eliminates the possibility of a high being when it requires a deep level of faith to accept current theories. 

Personally I do not see how anyone who has even a simple grasp of science can tell someone a higher power doesn’t exist. When it comes down to it that idea isn’t provable.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 19, 2012)

arcaidy said:


> There is not a single person on this planet that understands how everything works. From a scientific point of view all we have is a “best guess” as we currently understand it.  When you simplify everything down to the beginning of it all nothing gives the answer. Something has always existed without a beginning. Science can’t even explain what time is let alone how it even came to be.
> 
> I don’t claim to have the answer. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the individuals who claim science eliminates the possibility of a high being when it requires a deep level of faith to accept current theories.
> 
> Personally I do not see how anyone who has even a simple grasp of science can tell someone a higher power doesn’t exist. When it comes down to it that idea isn’t provable.



Here's the thing: what are science's 'best guesses' based on? Math? Lab work? Core samples? Genetic coding?  Observation?

What are believers' 'best guesses' based on?


----------



## arcaidy (Sep 19, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Here's the thing: what are science's 'best guesses' based on? Math? Lab work? Core samples? Genetic coding?  Observation?



What good is all that information without faith in the underlying principles and theories? Our understanding of things is based on reverse engineering of what we currently have the ability to “see”. We have ideas of what the laws of physics are because of the little we've been able to piece together. We have no idea if we're looking at the full data set required to understand it all or a tiny little piece. 

Currently all science can tell us is we're far from understanding where it all began and how it all works. It takes faith to accept what we currently know as truth. The basic principles of gravity, time and the beginning are unknown but define everything we know. 

To quote science says you have faith in the unknown which puts it in the same mindset as religion. In principle they are the same.  If you have to have physical proof of something to believe in it your issue is with faith. In that case both science and religion fall apart…


----------



## gtparts (Sep 20, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Here's the thing: what are science's 'best guesses' based on? Math? Lab work? Core samples? Genetic coding?  Observation?
> 
> What are believers' 'best guesses' based on?



Glad you asked. Initially, faith (belief) is often not much more than a gnawing dissatisfaction with ourselves and the world as we see it. What the world offers is not hope, but a wild gyration of self-centered existence. We crave order, boundaries, consistency, and lasting peace. We find greed, hatred, and chaos.

And, we rebel against what we want and need most. Does that make sense? Of course not, but that is the very nature of sin.

Once we experience the freeing nature of what God has done for us through His Son, we see a "package deal" that is sufficient to sustain us through anything and everything that we may encounter in our life.

Ultimately, it is the certain knowledge that by relinquishing our desire to control and understand "everything", and with a trust built on the relationship we have in Christ, we are becoming better, more useful, and more appealing to God and more compassionate towards others. 

If that isn't happening, then we have most certainly gotten it wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 20, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Glad you asked. Initially, faith (belief) is often not much more than a gnawing dissatisfaction with ourselves and the world as we see it. What the world offers is not hope, but a wild gyration of self-centered existence. We crave order, boundaries, consistency, and lasting peace. We find greed, hatred, and chaos.
> 
> And, we rebel against what we want and need most. Does that make sense? Of course not, but that is the very nature of sin.
> 
> ...



Man stares into the abyss and sees nothing staring back at him, so he makes up god to make him feel better.  

Absence of a god doesn't cause people to be greedy, hateful or chaotic.  And just because I don't see it your way doesn't mean that I don't understand how the psychology of belief works.  I'm not blinded by sin.  There are many 'package deals', available.  They all do pretty much the same thing; that is: prevent you from making good decisions on your own.  The freedom that you feel is the freedom from accountability.  Any nice thing you do is because you're trying to please god, not because you know its right.  Conversely, any bad thing you do can be attributed to god's unchained pit bull Satan.  

I and most other people who live logically understand that there are things that we won't explain in our lifetimes.  I don't have to plug in a 'catch all' to live with that.  Most Christians I know, particularly the ones who had naughty streaks in them that were able to control their demons through religion traded one vice for another.  The godless I know who wrestled their appetites into submission truly have the look of those who have come through to the other side with a clear mind and understanding, not the glazed over look of willing cattle.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Sep 20, 2012)

monster012211 said:


> Just do me a favor, go grab a paint brush and "at random", meaning no planned or structured strokes, hold the paint brush with paint on it and fling the paint at a sheet of paper and let me know how long it will take you to write the letter L. My guess is that it would take a REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY long time, if you could even do it. The reason I say this is because the simplest life form took about 23 pages worth of data to write out its DNA structure. How long do you think that would take, probably not even possible without some form of planning. Yet people like you and Mr. Carroll believe and want us to believe that the creation of the universe was just some random act that happened with no architect.



People are too afraid to respond to this with a legitimate response(trying to prove it false).  Excelent explanation good metaphorical post


----------



## arcaidy (Sep 20, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I and most other people who live logically understand that there are things that we won't explain in our lifetimes.



Yet here you are trying to tell others their way of thinking is wrong. Thinking logically, how can you not see the fault in that???


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 20, 2012)

arcaidy said:


> Yet here you are trying to tell others their way of thinking is wrong. Thinking logically, how can you not see the fault in that???



I wouldn't use the word 'wrong' to describe peoples religious beliefs.  It's those who claim moral superiority, granted directly to them through divine revelation, that freely use that kind of language to describe the behaviors and thoughts of others.  If someone's logic is unsound I might point out the error.  If they use the wrong 'formula' to solve a problem I might point that out as well.


----------



## arcaidy (Sep 20, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I and most other people who live logically understand that there are things that we won't explain in our lifetimes.





ambush80 said:


> If someone's logic is unsound I might point out the error.



How can you admit in one sentence you don’t understand everything and then turn around and tell someone else their logic is wrong with out a shred of proof? 

In the end you cannot use science to disprove religion. Our best and brightest scientist can’t explain the basic pieces of our universe and faith is required to accept current theories.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 21, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> those in here who believe in the fact that reason and proof overrule faith and hope.



You say that like reason and proof SHOULDN'T over ride hope. When I have reason and proof on Sunday evening that the following day is going to be Monday.... I can HOPE all I want to that it won't actually happen and I won't have to go to work. HOPE can't get around reason and proof... and if you let it, you're lieing to yourself.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What I stated is implied by the universe being 13 billion years old and the supposed start of human evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And since god hasn't been around that whole time, we haven't had that whole time to disprove him. He's only been around as long as we have had enough mind to imagine him up... Imagine up all of his divine power and ways.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 21, 2012)

Plenty of believing Scientists today.

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


----------



## Oldstick (Sep 21, 2012)

When I read the article, if all that those high falutin' thinkers say is true about what we know for certain, then it sounds to me like we are way closer to ruling God IN than out.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 21, 2012)

Oldstick said:


> When I read the article, if all that those high falutin' thinkers say is true about what we know for certain, then it sounds to me like we are way closer to ruling God IN than out.



"High falutin'"  That's what my dad used to say when we argued with him using terms or concepts that he didn't understand.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 21, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> "High falutin'"  That's what my dad used to say when we argued with him using terms or concepts that he didn't understand.



When we did that, my dad would always just tell us he was way smarter than we would ever be........


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 21, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> When we did that, my dad would always just tell us he was way smarter than we would ever be........




Was he right?

My dad said that he didn't need reason to justify his faith.  He said that the 'natural mind' plays tricks on you (with some help from the Devil) so that you will be blinded from the truth.  I'm as old now as he was then and I have to say with all honesty that he stopped learning and kind of stopped thinking.  I'm smarter than he is.  That's just the truth.  

All this time that he wasted......


----------



## thedeacon (Sep 21, 2012)

Suppose I go out and buy and old volkswagon, I don't like Volkswagons so I decide to blow it up with about 50 lbs of TNT. That should be enough to really take care of that thing. I blow it up and when the smoke clears I find that Volkswagon had fell to the ground in the form of 1000 Timex watches keeping perfect time. Took a licken and keeps on ticken.

I have just as much chance of that happening as the earth had to forming in perfection just the right distance from the sun and moon with just the right amount of atmosphere and gravity etc. without Gods help.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 21, 2012)

thedeacon said:


> Suppose I go out and buy and old volkswagon, I don't like Volkswagons so I decide to blow it up with about 50 lbs of TNT. That should be enough to really take care of that thing. I blow it up and when the smoke clears I find that Volkswagon had fell to the ground in the form of 1000 Timex watches keeping perfect time. Took a licken and keeps on ticken.
> 
> I have just as much chance of that happening as the earth had to forming in perfection just the right distance from the sun and moon with just the right amount of atmosphere and gravity etc. without Gods help.




Deacon,

This analogy and all the other ones like it (tornado blowing through a junk yard, names appearing written in the sand.) are flawed.  They're not even close to what science claims happened.  Science claims that random acts resulted in a simple type of order that got built upon over a long period of time.  There were other combinations that didn't work out.  How do we know?  Because they are still happening and in fact can be reproduced to some extent.  It's your side that claims that things came together in a "poof" like way.   

When you claim to see the finger of god in the shape of a banana or a leaf or the spots on a trout you're no closer to the truth than the people that see the image of Jesus in burnt toast or a stained Walmart receipt.  

A man rose from the dead......c'mon.  Even the best mathematician in the world couldn't fudge the numbers to make that add up.

If you call the natural forces at work on the Earth perfection than your standards are pretty low.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 21, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Deacon,
> 
> This analogy and all the other ones like it (tornado blowing through a junk yard, names appearing written in the sand.) are flawed.  They're not even close to what science claims happened.  Science claims that random acts resulted in a simple type of order that got built upon over a long period of time.  There were other combinations that didn't work out.  How do we know?  Because they are still happening and in fact can be reproduced to some extent.  It's your side that claims that things came together in a "poof" like way.
> 
> ...



You said above..  "Science claims that random acts resulted in a simple type of order that got built upon over a long period of time.
Science does not claim that!  Some scientists claim that.  But all scientists don't claim that.  Some scientists even believe in God and Jesus.

Here's the problem:  Many atheists live in boxes.  In that box, they're able to keep anything out that might infect their atheism.

Believers don't do that.  We give any person the opportunity to prove themselves wrong in regard to God's existence.

Now, when you can turn a volkswagon into thousands of watches, you'll get my attention.

It's got to be volkswagons.


----------



## Oldstick (Sep 21, 2012)

Well I am obviously not anyone's Daddy on here, but I concur that I don't need any proof of my faith, although it is here today and has always been here plus the absolute proof will eventually become clear to everyone as man's research and investigaton continues.

Don't know how many years in the future it might be, but eventually all our knowledge of the universe will converge into a single undefined point (or points) wherein it is impossible for us to gather any further hard evidence.

(Of couse, this would not preclude anyone from making further impossible to prove hypotheses or mathematical conjectures.)  

Apparently mankind is pretty close to that point now judging by the weak arguments being thrown out by the so called elite, who now sound desparate to prove their atheistic views are based on logic.


----------



## Oldstick (Sep 21, 2012)

thedeacon said:


> Suppose I go out and buy and old volkswagon, I don't like Volkswagons so I decide to blow it up with about 50 lbs of TNT. That should be enough to really take care of that thing. I blow it up and when the smoke clears I find that Volkswagon had fell to the ground in the form of 1000 Timex watches keeping perfect time. Took a licken and keeps on ticken.
> 
> I have just as much chance of that happening as the earth had to forming in perfection just the right distance from the sun and moon with just the right amount of atmosphere and gravity etc. without Gods help.



I would probably say there is a trillion times greater chance of the first thing happening (watches) than the second (the universe or life on earth) by random chance.

But they will never admit to that.  Someone decided back when they discovered the earth wasn't flat that it disproved the existence of God and the idea sticks until this day among certain segments of the "unbiased" scientific community.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 22, 2012)

Oldstick said:


> I would probably say there is a trillion times greater chance of the first thing happening (watches) than the second (the universe or life on earth) by random chance.
> 
> But they will never admit to that.  Someone decided back when they discovered the earth wasn't flat that it disproved the existence of God and the idea sticks until this day among certain segments of the "unbiased" scientific community.



No, they wouldn't.  They would try to come up with a real number.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 22, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You said above..  "Science claims that random acts resulted in a simple type of order that got built upon over a long period of time.
> Science does not claim that!  Some scientists claim that.  But all scientists don't claim that.  Some scientists even believe in God and Jesus.
> 
> Here's the problem:  Many atheists live in boxes.  In that box, they're able to keep anything out that might infect their atheism.
> ...



That would get my attention too.  You're thinking of the scientific claims the wrong way.  That's nothing like what they describe happening.

My 'box' has no lid.  Show me something true and I will put it in there.


----------



## Oldstick (Sep 22, 2012)

Well yes obviously the "trillion" number I threw out was just for rhetoric, but I believe the real number, if anyone actually pegs it, will be immense.

And notice I said believe, and that is good enough for me.  That does not mean I'm not in favor of people spending time and resources to continue digging.  I am highly in favor of that.  And my background and interests are in the sciences so therefore gladly accept any new findings that are backed up with good evidence.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 22, 2012)

Oldstick said:


> Well yes obviously the "trillion" number I threw out was just for rhetoric, but I believe the real number, if anyone actually pegs it, will be immense.
> 
> And notice I said believe, and that is good enough for me.  That does not mean I'm not in favor of people spending time and resources to continue digging.  I am highly in favor of that.  And my background and interests are in the sciences so therefore gladly accept any new findings that are backed up with good evidence.


----------



## thedeacon (Sep 22, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Deacon,
> 
> This analogy and all the other ones like it (tornado blowing through a junk yard, names appearing written in the sand.) are flawed.  They're not even close to what science claims happened.  Science claims that random acts resulted in a simple type of order that got built upon over a long period of time.  There were other combinations that didn't work out.  How do we know?  Because they are still happening and in fact can be reproduced to some extent.  It's your side that claims that things came together in a "poof" like way.
> 
> ...




You ever heard of the big bang theory


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 23, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Here's the thing: what are science's 'best guesses' based on? Math? Lab work? Core samples? Genetic coding?  Observation?
> 
> What are believers' 'best guesses' based on?



What is a "Core sample"?


----------



## monster012211 (Sep 23, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If you call the natural forces at swork on the Earth perfection than your standards are pretty low.



I can't remember the exact distances, but the planet Earth is in a narrow window that would even allow sustained life. If it were closer, the ozone would fry, if it was further away, it would be too cold there. The Earth's atmosphere is unique. It allows the perfect balance to sustain life. So yeah I'd say that's a very high mark for standards, as perfect as you can get. I'd like to see you do better


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 23, 2012)

Science is not capable of ruling out the possibility of anything. That is not how it works.

Please review your 6th grade science text books on the scientific method.


----------



## panfried0419 (Sep 23, 2012)

And this is why I'm a evolutionary creationist. I believe that science proves there is a God and vice versa. Do I believe the world is 6000 years old? No...because scripture doesn't prove that. But looking at all the wonders of this world I do believe in intelligent design. I also believe that Jesus was Son of God and I accept him as my Lord and Savior. Then when I tell both atheist and fellow Christians I get told I am wrong. But in the end I know my beliefs and don't Judge others.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 23, 2012)

monster012211 said:


> I can't remember the exact distances, but the planet Earth is in a narrow window that would even allow sustained life. If it were closer, the ozone would fry, if it was further away, it would be too cold there. The Earth's atmosphere is unique. It allows the perfect balance to sustain life. So yeah I'd say that's a very high mark for standards, as perfect as you can get. I'd like to see you do better



Perfect. And the reason that Life(as we know it) exists. It is not like all the other planets were attempts and failures and "our" planet was the right attempt. If it were due to some sort of intelligent design there would be no need for the sun or gravitational pull, or anything other than a perfectly designed place for created life to exist. No need for asteroids to smack earth and ruin it all. We are lucky. The only reason we are here is because this is the spot that can support the life we know of. If design is true there is no reason all the other planets could not be the exact same distance as we are and all thrive with life. We just happened to get the spot that suits us. We are here because of the events that took place billions of years ago. We are the result of simple forms of life evolving into more complex forms and a good chance that those earliest forms started somewhere other than this planet. If we could thrive somewhere hotter or colder we would be there talking about how we were designed to be there.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Perfect. And the reason that Life(as we know it) exists. It is not like all the other planets were attempts and failures and "our" planet was the right attempt. If it were due to some sort of intelligent design there would be no need for the sun or gravitational pull, or anything other than a perfectly designed place for created life to exist. No need for asteroids to smack earth and ruin it all. We are lucky. The only reason we are here is because this is the spot that can support the life we know of. If design is true there is no reason all the other planets could not be the exact same distance as we are and all thrive with life. We just happened to get the spot that suits us. We are here because of the events that took place billions of years ago. We are the result of simple forms of life evolving into more complex forms and a good chance that those earliest forms started somewhere other than this planet. If we could thrive somewhere hotter or colder we would be there talking about how we were designed to be there.



You're words sound like the words of a man who has found the answer to all the questions that are continually probed on this forum.
But in truth, (and you know this) your words are based on nothing.  The world is filled with people who have "decided" why things are the way they are now.
There are Christians who have "decided" what God wants them to do.  And what they've decided doesn't always align with God's word.

Science is nothing more than the ongoing search of scientists.
As I said earlier, many of those scientists believe in God and in his Son, yet they continue to research the beginnings of our existance.  But they'll never complete their search because the evidence will continue to change.

By the way, I thought you believed in God??


----------



## Oldstick (Sep 23, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Science is not capable of ruling out the possibility of anything. That is not how it works.
> 
> Please review your 6th grade science text books on the scientific method.



Very good point.  Science is only about gathering statistical evidence.  Take something even as ordinary as the force of gravity.  Every single one of the whatever trillion, billion of our observations throughout history has shown that the smaller object will accelerate more toward the bigger object (earth) and we can also accurately calculate how fast.  Therefore, no one volunteers to jump a cliff testing it once again. 

But there is never any absolute proof that we couldn't wake up one day and the nature of gravity has somehow changed, no matter how remote we consider that possibility.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 23, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You're words sound like the words of a man who has found the answer to all the questions that are continually probed on this forum.
> But in truth, (and you know this) your words are based on nothing.  The world is filled with people who have "decided" why things are the way they are now.
> There are Christians who have "decided" what God wants them to do.  And what they've decided doesn't always align with God's word.
> 
> ...



I hope there is some sort of God. Which,Who,What....I can be honest and say that I honestly do not know.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 24, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Was he right?



My response will obviously be quite biased.



ambush80 said:


> My dad said that he didn't need reason to justify his faith.



My Dad was similar.  In fact, reason was met with indignation.  Who am I to question the "almighty God" kind-of stuff.  That is a false premise, though.  I never really questioned God (to my Dad anyway, I did question God's existence for a good while, but quietly).  I questioned man's interpretation of God and scripture.  I wanted to understand God and the logical problems presented by a traditional view of scripture.

What I think happens is that folks tend to believe man's views and interpretations are the same as God's words....so, questioning man becomes questioning God.  And that tends to take people down a road you are describing....where logic and reason are useless.



ambush80 said:


> I'm as old now as he was then and I have to say with all honesty that he stopped learning and kind of stopped thinking.



Any time you let somebody else dictate the truth you shut down reason, and stop thinking.  This happens in church....where "the preacher said" is as good as gospel.  I see a lot of this, and after seeing what happens to people when they begin to let a man be the dictator of truth....a lot of harm can happen.  That's why I am afraid of "organized church."  I have been going back a bit lately, here and there.  But people scare me.



ambush80 said:


> All this time that he wasted......



Nah man.  Faith / non-faith is a personal thing.  If they enjoy where they aer at, then what is the harm?  We only get one shot at being alive.  Might as well spend this time the best way we know how.  If a person is happy shutting off reason, then that's fine too.  They just value things differently than yourself.

One thing I have noticed in this forum, and in my personal dealings with atheists / agnoststics is that you guys tend to put a ton of stock in intellectual purity.  Where other folks of faith will put a ton of stock in spiritual purity / faith.  It's a differing value system.  I do not see how one can be claimed superior to the other because it is an individual position and choice.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 1, 2012)

Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues. But he grants that "the idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis."

Psychology research suggests that belief in the supernatural acts as societal glue and motivates people to follow the rules; further, belief in the afterlife helps people grieve and staves off fears of death.

"We're not designed at the level of theoretical physics," Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, told LiveScience last year. What matters to most people "is what happens at the human scale, relationships to other people, things we experience in a lifetime."[/QUOTE]




_Way too many errors in both science and logic to fully comment on this article. I love the ending most of all. No one who writes these types of articles ever catches the quandary they are in. If you claim belief in God is simply an evolutionary process that allowed man and society to advance and not really "truth" then there is no reason to believe your claims either, they are simply random thoughts and if they confer a survival advantage they will live on, BUT there is no reason to seriously consider them TRUE! Your theory then would boil down to the same purpose as "belief in the supernatural acts as societal glue". Your claim that there is no God would only be a concept for societal glue, but there would be no reason to believe it's true._


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Way too many errors in both science and logic to fully comment on this article. I love the ending most of all. No one who writes these types of articles ever catches the quandary they are in. If you claim belief in God is simply an evolutionary process that allowed man and society to advance and not really "truth" then there is no reason to believe your claims either, they are simply random thoughts and if they confer a survival advantage they will live on, BUT there is no reason to seriously consider them TRUE! Your theory then would boil down to the same purpose as "belief in the supernatural acts as societal glue". Your claim that there is no God would only be a concept for societal glue, but there would be no reason to believe it's true.



Your right...it's all Bull-Snorkey! Reality is what an individual will accept. It differs from person to person. But....some "realities" seem to make more sense than others, well at least that's the way I see it! lolololol


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> But....some "realities" seem to make more sense than others....



I wonder how much sense the drug endused realities mentioned in another thread make?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I wonder how much sense the drug endused realities mentioned in another thread make?



You have probably listened to the results of some drug induced realities on your itunes/cd/cassette. Lots of people have a song or an album that seems as though it was written specifically for them because it has meaning or grabs them in a certain way. Turns out the musician was whacked out of their mind when they wrote it.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You have probably listened to the results of some drug induced realities on your itunes/cd/cassette. Lots of people have a song or an album that seems as though it was written specifically for them because it has meaning or grabs them in a certain way. Turns out the musician was whacked out of their mind when they wrote it.





Hadn't thought about that.  But, when I consider how much I enjoy Pink Floyd, it makes a little bit of sense.

I still say it is not "reality."


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 2, 2012)

"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." Oxford dictionary. You can't "choose" reality. A drug induced state may change your perception of reality but the reality still stands externally.  Even the statement that " you choose your own reality for yourself"  is said to mean that this is a truth statement and is meant to be an absolute. In other words you are saying "here is an absolute reality I want everyone to know", which is that "there is no absolute reality". It is a self defeating contradictory statement. By stating it you prove you actually do believe in certain realities. And if there are certain realities, then God certainly may be one of them.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."
> And if there are certain realities, then God certainly may be one of them.



Now we are getting somewhere. 

Which one of the above seems to be more accurate to you?


----------



## Asath (Oct 3, 2012)

“Believers don't do that. We give any person the opportunity to prove themselves wrong in regard to God's existence.”

Um?

REALLY?

We are allowed the opportunity to prove ourselves wrong?  

How very benevolent of you.  

We’ve given you a couple of thousand years to prove yourselves RIGHT, and you’ve done nothing with that time other than to torture, maim, intimidate, bully, kill, factionalize, divide, and seek power and riches at the expense of all who disagreed.

Do not dare stand and smugly tell me about YOUR God’s existence, when YOUR God is the SAME God of Abraham that stands as the basis of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – SAME GOD.  SAME starting point.   If YOUR God exists, then you ALL must be right. 

So which one of you deluded chuckleheads has PROVEN themselves, or the others, to be wrong?  

Nice of you to allow the others to be wrong, but it appears, since we’re busy rebuilding a large part of Manhattan, that some of your fellow Believers in your SAME GOD seem to disagree.  Darn.  How very inconvenient for the folks who ALL Believe in the SAME GOD.  

Oddly enough, this God of yours has never chimed in, and stood in front of the rest of us so that we could be convinced.  He seems to rely entirely on control-freak zealots who write Books in His homage and deluded ancients isolated in a long ago desert to convey His Message.

That doesn’t seem very God-Like.  

Seems more like the opposite. 

The only definition of Evil, in our modern world, can be contained now in a single word – ‘Belief.’


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 3, 2012)

You bring up an excellent and most difficult question for the Christian. Why does God allow evil in the world or those that are morally wrong to exist. Why doesn’t He annihilate people at the first lie or when they cheat on a test (although I suspect this wouldn’t allow many to reach reproductive age and carry on the species)? Even more troubling, why does he allow a child to die of cancer? These are difficult questions for the Christian in my opinion. However, there is no point here for the atheist. If there is no God then there is no basis for right and wrong, only personal opinion. If there is no God then there is no evil. A child dying of cancer should be a point of rejoicing for the evolutionist who is happy to see the gene pool cleansed of inferior genetic material. The atheist is happy to see Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot kill millions because they serve their “father”, survival of the fittest. However since most atheists I know are “good” people, they don’t rejoice over these facts, they are saddened and know its “wrong”, they just can’t explain why. The atheist has a much more difficult problem than the Christian with this.

The Christian struggles with evil in the world, but the Christian God is not what the Muslim sees as God. The Christian God died on a cross to save the infidel while Muslims believe that the infidel should be destroyed. The infidel includes the Christian and the Jew, so I don’t think saying that they are all the same God makes sense propositionally. For two things to be the same, what is true of one must be true of the other. While people have killed in the name of Christianity, they violate the Christian beliefs. When one kills in the name of Islam, apparently they aren’t violating their moral code, and when an atheist kills they aren’t violating any rules, simply acting out evolutionary process.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> You bring up an excellent and most difficult question for the Christian. Why does God allow evil in the world or those that are morally wrong to exist. Why doesn’t He annihilate people at the first lie or when they cheat on a test (although I suspect this wouldn’t allow many to reach reproductive age and carry on the species)? Even more troubling, why does he allow a child to die of cancer? These are difficult questions for the Christian in my opinion. However, there is no point here for the atheist. If there is no God then there is no basis for right and wrong, only personal opinion. If there is no God then there is no evil. A child dying of cancer should be a point of rejoicing for the evolutionist who is happy to see the gene pool cleansed of inferior genetic material. The atheist is happy to see Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot kill millions because they serve their “father”, survival of the fittest. However since most atheists I know are “good” people, they don’t rejoice over these facts, they are saddened and know its “wrong”, they just can’t explain why. The atheist has a much more difficult problem than the Christian with this.
> 
> The Christian struggles with evil in the world, but the Christian God is not what the Muslim sees as God. The Christian God died on a cross to save the infidel while Muslims believe that the infidel should be destroyed. The infidel includes the Christian and the Jew, so I don’t think saying that they are all the same God makes sense propositionally. For two things to be the same, what is true of one must be true of the other. While people have killed in the name of Christianity, they violate the Christian beliefs. When one kills in the name of Islam, apparently they aren’t violating their moral code, and when an atheist kills they aren’t violating any rules, simply acting out evolutionary process.



The funny thing about these religions is that the followers will say anything as if they are facts because they themselves believe it. Interject any God instead of your God about good/evil and it all reads the same. Make blanket statements about other religions to make a personal guess without actually researching those religions and it SOUNDS like you studied Islam and Judaism but if you did you have the core beliefs wrong. From day one in those three religions the God was/is the same God. Whether or not that God sends his Son or a Prophet to one or all of those religions the God of Abraham is the same "core"God throughout. All three of those religions think "their" God did something special just for them to separate them from each other and the believers go on and on about how that difference somehow makes their religion more right. NOT A SINGLE RELIGION , let alone any one of the three mentioned can, has or will prove that anything they say as fact is actually true. You talk of "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."  as quoted from the Oxford dictionary.....and then insert an invisible player into your lineup and jump up and down like he is scoring touchdowns when the other REAL players are actually playing the game.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 3, 2012)

I have a tough time following you. It appears to me that you are trying to make the blanket statement about all religions. I have studied many religions. I also come from a multidisciplinary science background and several degrees in scientific fields from large secular universities ( I only point that out to let you know I don't have some religious fanaticism background, more of an agnostic approach). I simply have tried for myself to approach issues of science, religion, and morality from a logical and reasonable point of view. Your statements express a great deal of emotional angst. I think you should rethink that Christianity, Islam, Jewish faith are all " the same". I made the distinction especially of Islam and it isn't rational to just claim " they are all the same because I said it". I want to learn from you and I need a little more than that.

Being a former football player, I don't follow your football analogy. Maybe  I took too many blows to the head.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 3, 2012)

Please help. I have difficulty with your points. You make a blanket statement about religion and then complain about blanket statements. I think you may be arguing against " reality" but you are proposing what you think everyone should believe is real. I think your football point may have been that things that are invisible are not real. Is that what you meant? We may have a problem then with gravity, magnetic fields, electrons, thoughts, etc.

Thanks.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Please help. I have difficulty with your points. You make a blanket statement about religion and then complain about blanket statements.


Not complaining about blanket statements, just pointing out that no religion has an edge in their beliefs or God(s) over any other religion like the followers seem to think that "their" religion does.



outdooraddict said:


> I think you may be arguing against " reality" but you are proposing what you think everyone should believe is real.


I am using Oxford's definition of reality and comparing it to what people perceive as the reality of God(s)/religion/beliefs.
I don't think anyone has to believe a certain way, I just like to hear the rationality and reasons that back up those beliefs. Devils Advocate if you will...



outdooraddict said:


> I think your football point may have been that things that are invisible are not real. Is that what you meant? We may have a problem then with gravity, magnetic fields, electrons, thoughts, etc.
> Thanks.



What i am saying there is that the game will be decided by the staff, refs, and players actions NOT because some of the fans are praying for the Home team to win and some are praying for the Visitors to win. Despite their best prayer efforts an invisible hand is not going to tip the odds to one team or the other yet when the game is over there will be more than a few fans that had their hands clenched in prayer truly believing that their God allowed their team to win.
IE: things are going to happen one way or another whether we like the outcome or not and I find it silly to give credit to an invisible being or God, or Sun, or rock or whatever people pray to for those outcomes. Sports, tests, illnesses, hunting, dating,....whatever happens happens. Adding a God into the mix doesn't change anything. And for those who think it does HOW do you differentiate WHICH one of the thousands of Gods stepped in and "made it happen"???


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 3, 2012)

Thanks, I certainly missed your point on football. Can't say that I ever prayed to win a game, whether I was playing or not. I do disagree about any "religion" having the edge over others. I have a knowledge of God that is very different than other religions portray, and I come to my conclusions based on rational thought. It seems the best explanation for what I observe and the questions I have such as on existence, cause and effect, life, the universe, and morality. No other religion seems to answer the questions as well, so much as I believe in gravity as the best explanation for certain questions despite my ability to "put it on the table and show it off" so the Christian God seems to be the best explanation for my questions until someone can show me something better. I'm a simple man looking for the simplest answer to the questions. I continue to think you are making a mistake by trying to lump all religions and all views of God as the same. You are begging the question. They are so different. I do appreciate your help, though.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks, I certainly missed your point on football. Can't say that I ever prayed to win a game, whether I was playing or not. I do disagree about any "religion" having the edge over others. I have a knowledge of God that is very different than other religions portray, and I come to my conclusions based on rational thought. It seems the best explanation for what I observe and the questions I have such as on existence, cause and effect, life, the universe, and morality. No other religion seems to answer the questions as well, so much as I believe in gravity as the best explanation for certain questions despite my ability to "put it on the table and show it off" so the Christian God seems to be the best explanation for my questions until someone can show me something better. I'm a simple man looking for the simplest answer to the questions. I continue to think you are making a mistake by trying to lump all religions and all views of God as the same. You are begging the question. They are so different. I do appreciate your help, though.



For every Christian that has a PERSONAL experience that proves to them the Christian God is the One True Real God, there is a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, tree worshiper, sun worshiper, and medicine man that with equal conviction will tell you a story that proves to them the exact same thing albeit with a different God.

I totally understand that each religion and religious experience is unique to an individual but that is often what makes it so hard for me to believe any one of them is any more believable or credible than the next.

There are no doubt vast differences in the religions, heck there are 10,000 different denominations within Christianity.......but the reason it seems as though I lump them all together is because (for me) not a single one of them actually has an edge in making a case for their God/beliefs as being more true than the next. Not one  can provide a shred of tangible evidence that backs up their claims.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> For every Christian that has a PERSONAL experience that proves to them the Christian God is the One True Real God, there is a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, tree worshiper, sun worshiper, and medicine man that with equal conviction will tell you a story that proves to them the exact same thing albeit with a different God.
> 
> I totally understand that each religion and religious experience is unique to an individual but that is often what makes it so hard for me to believe any one of them is any more believable or credible than the next.
> 
> There are no doubt vast differences in the religions, heck there are 10,000 different denominations within Christianity.......but the reason it seems as though I lump them all together is because (for me) not a single one of them actually has an edge in making a case for their God/beliefs as being more true than the next. *Not one  can provide a shred of tangible evidence that backs up their claims.*



Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Jesus.



Mohammad

What is your point?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Mohammad
> 
> What is your point?



Mohammad and Jesus were not even close to the same. Mohammad never claimed to be a god or the God, only a prophet. 

My point is, Jesus is unique in religions. You pointed out the fact that uniformity of religions is a problem for you, I'm stated that Jesus is unique in that aspect.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Mohammad and Jesus were not even close to the same. Mohammad never claimed to be a god or the God, only a prophet.
> 
> My point is, Jesus is unique in religions. You pointed out the fact that uniformity of religions is a problem for you, I'm stated that Jesus is unique in that aspect.



Other than Jesus being a person like Mohammed what evidence is there of anything more? Only the wild stories and claims set religions apart. It is their inability to back up those claims with facts is where they all stand together.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Other than Jesus being a person like Mohammed


....


stringmusic said:


> Mohammad and Jesus were not even close to the same. Mohammad never claimed to be a god or the God, only a prophet.






> Only the wild stories and claims set religions apart.


Well yes, claims obviously set them apart.



> It is their inability to back up those claims with facts is where they all stand together.


So now it's the claims themselves, at least we've taken a step forward here.

We've been over the facts a millions times, you'll do everything you can to deny them, and I'll do everything I can to prove them.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think our definition facts differ and why we are so far apart on religion.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think our definition facts differ and why we are so far apart on religion.



We probably differ more on evidence of claims than we do facts.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Mohammad and Jesus were not even close to the same. Mohammad never claimed to be a god or the God, only a prophet.
> 
> My point is, Jesus is unique in religions. You pointed out the fact that uniformity of religions is a problem for you, I'm stated that Jesus is unique in that aspect.



From:http://www.inplainsite.org/html/jesus_savior_fraud.html

 JESUS CHRISTâ€”
UNIQUE SAVIOR OR AVERAGE FRAUD?

Kyle Butt, M.A. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. 



> WHO ARE THESE OTHER â€œUNIQUE SAVIORSâ€�?
> History is filled with examples of those whose livesâ€”real or imaginedâ€”share certain traits with the well-documented life of Jesus of Nazareth. Such accounts often compose a portion of the curriculum in college-level comparative religion courses, and provide a fine starting point for any study about the uniqueness of Jesus.
> 
> Consider, for example, Dionysus, a well-known, mythological god. The usual story of his birth relates that he was the offspring of Zeus, the immortal leader of the Greek gods who impregnated a human female by the name of Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, King of Thebes (see Graves, 1960, p. 56). Dionysus is said to have descended to the underworld and conquered death, ultimately bringing his dead mother back to the land of the living. He also is said to have died and been raised again. His followers called him Lysios or Redeemer, and grape juice commonly was used to symbolize his blood.
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> From:http://www.inplainsite.org/html/jesus_savior_fraud.html
> 
> JESUS CHRIST—
> UNIQUE SAVIOR OR AVERAGE FRAUD?
> ...


----------



## holler tree (Oct 3, 2012)

thedeacon said:


> Suppose I go out and buy and old volkswagon, I don't like Volkswagons so I decide to blow it up with about 50 lbs of TNT. That should be enough to really take care of that thing. I blow it up and when the smoke clears I find that Volkswagon had fell to the ground in the form of 1000 Timex watches keeping perfect time. Took a licken and keeps on ticken.
> 
> I have just as much chance of that happening as the earth had to forming in perfection just the right distance from the sun and moon with just the right amount of atmosphere and gravity etc. without Gods help.



LOL !! I love it preach it brother. it truely amazes me that most athiests are so educated and nieve at the same time. how can someone so smart not believe in God. its all around you and you dont even see it. its as simple as the the air you breathe. im just a dumb redneck with a simple high school education but I can see it in every single person or thing on this planet its all been PERFECTLY planned to inner twine and work as one. I could go on but I would rather go shoot my bow with my son.


----------



## fish hawk (Oct 3, 2012)

holler tree said:


> LOL !! I love it preach it brother. it truely amazes me that most athiests are so educated and nieve at the same time. how can someone so smart not believe in God. its all around you and you dont even see it. its as simple as the the air you breathe. im just a dumb redneck with a simple high school education but I can see it in every single person or thing on this planet its all been PERFECTLY planned to inner twine and work as one. I could go on but I would rather go shoot my bow with my son.


Thats a good post!!!


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 3, 2012)

Debunking Christ Mythers : Osiris/Dionysus

http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2011/06/debunking-christ-mythers-2_28.html

INTRODUCTION:  The second popular claim that Jesus never existed or that we can't really know anything about the Jesus of history is because the Jesus of the four gospels is nothing more than a cobbled up fable with details borrowed from the ancient Egyptian myth of Osiris (Dionysus - Greek).  This series of articles are written for the sole intent of encouraging Christians in their faith by showing that the historical claims of the Christ-mythers is pure bunk when compared to what the ancient sources and their scholars actually say about the mystery religions.

The Problem
Christ-mythers point to the ancient Egyptian myth of Osiris/Dionysus (@ 500 B.C.) supposedly having a virgin birth, a death and resurrection, and even a celebration of the god's birth on December 25th as evidence that early Christians borrowed from ancient Egyptian mythology that pre-dated Christianity by centuries and it has too many similarities for there to be no borrowing.  Thus, according to them, the Jesus of the four canonical gospels never existed, but is a patchwork of ideas borrowed from ancient pagan religions. They'll claim the following about Osiris/Dionysus:

Born of a virgin on December 25th.
Was said to be "the son of God".
A sacrificial meal was eaten in honor of Dionysus.
Died and was subsequently resurrected.
The pagan "Dying-Rising" god motif

According to Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, the idea of the dying-rising god motif as a parallel to Christianity's concept of the death and resurrection of Christ was popularized by James Frazier in The Golden Bough, which was first published in 1906 (Reinventing Jesus, 250).  However, historical scholar Edwin Yamauchi has noted that while Frazier made many parallels, they have been discredited by a host of scholars since his ideas were at their height in the 1960s (Edwin Yamauchi, Easter:  Myth, Hallucination, or History?).  We will briefly survey this particular claim of the Christ-mythers in regards to Osiris and Isis and show that they have no substance.

The Refutation

Osiris (Dionysus is his Greek name), was an ancient Egyptian god who originally wasn't associated with the mystery religions.  The Hellenistic form of Osiris worship was developed into a mystery religion through the innovations brought about by Ptolemy I (@ 300 B.C.).  These changes involved a synthesis of older Egyptian religions with Greek thought which lead to Plutarch identifying Osiris as the Egyptian manifestation of the Greek god Dionysus.  Habermas and Licona summarize the Osiris/Dionysus myth this way,
Osiris was killed by his brother, chopped up into fourteen pieces and scattered throughout Egypt.  The goddess Isis collected and reassembled his parts and brought him back to life.  Unfortunately she was only able to find thirteen pieces.  Moreover, it is questionable whether Osiris was brought back to life on earth or seen by others as Jesus was.  He was given status as god of the gloomy underworld.  So the picture we get of Osiris is that of a guy who does not have all his parts and who maintains a shadowy existence as god of the mummies.  . . . Osiris's return to life was not a resurrection, but a zombification."  [Gary Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids:  Kregel, 2004), 91]  

Second, one of the significant differences between Yahweh and the Egyptian gods is that Yahweh is sovereign and transcendent over nature whereas the Egyptian deities were identified with nature and tied to its processes.  Henri Frankfort puts it this way, 
The Egyptian gods seem captive within their own manifestations.  They personify power but remain incomplete as personages.  And yet these vague and grandiose gods were not distant and intangible; the Egyptians lived forever within the sphere of their activities. . . . . [T]he Egyptians explained the daily appearance of the sun as its birth; the moon waned because it was the ailing eye of Horus.  When barley was made into beer and bread, it was Osiris - manifest in the grain - who died.  We shall meet such images at every turn, and we must not interpret them as allegories for we cannot abstract a meaning from them without falsifying the beliefs which they express.  [Henri Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion (Mineola, NY:  Dover, 1948), 28 as quoted in Reinventing Jesus, 251.]
Frankfort's point is that these "dying and rising gods" are tied to nature and aren't transcendent over it.  The late first century biographer Plutarch similarly commented, 
Whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, . . . you must not think that any of these talkes actually happened in the manner in which they are related.  [Plutarch, Moralia, trans. Frank Cole Babbitt, Leob Classical Library, (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1936), 5:32.  Available at penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/A as quoted in Reinventing Jesus, 252.]
Bruce Metzger, who was the top American New Testament textual critic of the 20th century said this regarding the relationship of the resurrection of Christ with the Osiris myth, 
Whether this can rightly be called a resurrection is questionable, especially since, according to Plutarch, it was the pious desire of devotees to be buried in the same ground where, according to local tradition, the body of Osiris was still lying. [Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies:  Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, New Testament Tools and Studies 8 (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1968), 20-21.  See also Reinventing Jesus, 253] 
Quoting from the same article noted above, historian Edwin Yamauchi similarly comments,
It is a cardinal misconception to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the "resurrection" of Hebrew-Christian traditions.  In order to achieve immortality the Egyptian had to fulfill three conditions: (1) His body had to be preserved, hence mummification.  (2) Nourishment had to be provided either by the actual offering of daily bread and beer, or by the magical depiction of food on the walls of the tomb.  (3) Magical spells had to be interred with the dead - Pyramid Texts in the Old Kingdom, Coffin Texts in the Middle Kingdom, and the Book of the Dead in the New Kingdom.  Moreover, the Egyptian did not rise from the dead; separate entities of his personality such as his Ba and his Ka continued to hover about his body.  [Edwin Yamauchi, Easter:  Myth, Hallucination, or History?]
Therefore, to speak of Osiris/Dionysus as rising from the dead is a gross exaggeration.  The Osiris myth has more to do with Night of the Living Dead than with the Jesus of the four gospels.

The supposed "Virgin Birth" of Dionysus

Yamauchi responded to this assertion in an interview with Lee Stroebel like this, ". . . there's no evidence for the virgin birth of Dionysus . . .  As the story goes, Zeus, disguised as as human, fell in love with the princess Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, and she became pregnant.  Hera, who was Zeus's queen, arranged to have her burned to a crisp, but Zeus rescued the fetus and sewed him into his own thigh until Dionysus was born.  So this is not a virgin birth in any sense."  [Lee Stroebel, The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 2007), 180.]

Eating the Flesh of the gods?

Ronald Nash, in his The Gospel and the Greeks notes,
Attempts to find a Dionysiac source for Paul's teaching about the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:14-22; 11:17-34) or the words of Jesus in John 6:53-56 face at least one major obstacle:  the chronology is all wrong.  As we have seen, many times the belief or practice that is supposed to have influenced first-century Christians is too late; it developed after A.D. 100.  In this case, the Dionysiac practice is too early!  The savage practice of eating one's god appears to have long since disappeared by the time we get to Jesus and Paul.  [Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, (Phillipsburg, NJ:  P&R Publishing, 2003), 141]
Nash goes on to quote J. Gresham Machen,
If Paul is dependent upon the pagan notion of eating the god, he must have deserted the religious practice which prevailed in his own day in order to have recourse to a savage custom which had long since been abandoned.  The suggestion does not seem to be very natural.  It is generally admitted that even where Christianity is dependent upon Hellenistic religion, it represents a spiritualizing modification of the pagan practice.  But at this point it would have to be supposed that the Christian modification proceeded inexactly the opposite direction; far from marking a greater spiritualization of pagan practice, it meant a return to a savage state of religion which even paganism had abandoned. [J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion, 282-83 as quoted in Nash, 141-42.]

Summary:

1.  There is no evidence that Osiris/Dionysus rose bodily from the dead.   
2.  There was no idea of of a bodily resurrection in the Osiris/Dionysus myths but only mummification.  Instead, Osiris/Dionysus became a god of the netherworld.  As one put it, Osiris is not a dying god, but a dead god, always depicted as a deceased, mummified king.  He may be "alive" in the spirit realm according to the myth, but this would have been true for anyone who died and had their body entombed.  In fact, Egyptian religion had not concept of resurrection, only of immortality beyond the grave.  These are two entirely different concepts [Lee Stroebel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2007), 163, 177-78.    
3.  There is no evidence of a virgin birth in the Osiris/Dionysus myths.
4.  Neither the Bible nor Christianity claims that Jesus was born on December 25th, so any parallels with ancient myths are completely inconsequential.  This date was chosen by emperor Aurelian in the third century.
5.  It is true that Dionysus/Bacchus came to be associated with wine-making and that worship of these gods involved "eating them", but the association is tied to drunken pagan ecstatic orgies and cannabalism common in ancient mystery religions that disappeared long before Jesus and Paul arrived on the scene.  In other words, there is no "striking parallel" to Christ's miracle at the wedding at Cana or the celebration of communion in the Lord's Supper with the use of wine.  Instead, the foundational parallels are to be found in the Jewish rite of the O.T. passover meal and God's provision of manna for Israel in their wilderness wanderings. 

Tryggve Mettinger in the Riddle of the Resurrection sums it up best:
There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.  While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.  [Tryggve Mettinger, The Riddle of the Resurrection - "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East (Stockholm:  Almqvist & Wiksell International:  2001), 221.]

IN CONCLUSION, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Christians borrowed from the teachings of the Isis, Osiris/Dionysus cult to make their claims about Jesus of Nazareth nor do any supposed parallels actually exist.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2012)

Still looks like many similarities for talented writers and story tellers to embellish and add to as the tales get passed on from generation to generation. If one were to conjure up a god/man there are more than enough prior gods and stories to piece enough together to form yet another one.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Believers don't do that. We give any person the opportunity to prove themselves wrong in regard to God's existence.”
> 
> Um?
> 
> ...



I have no issue with your right to your opinions, but is it really necessary to call us names? How do you get away with that?


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Still looks like many similarities for talented writers and story tellers to embellish and add to as the tales get passed on from generation to generation. If one were to conjure up a god/man there are more than enough prior gods and stories to piece enough together to form yet another one.



Seems like quite a stretch to push this to meet the preconceived Idea of the myth. A real problem for the idea that a myth developed is that we have such early transcripts in the time of eye witnesses. This lacks the classic development of a myth. It wasn't tales that passed on, it was transcribed early. While one might argue specifics of "proof" for certain miracles, these writings are not consistent with myths. Actually, it is the argument now almost 2000 years later that has more of the quality of a myth than what was written in the first century.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Seems like quite a stretch to push this to meet the preconceived Idea of the myth. A real problem for the idea that a myth developed is that we have such early transcripts in the time of eye witnesses. This lacks the classic development of a myth. It wasn't tales that passed on, it was transcribed early. While one might argue specifics of "proof" for certain miracles, these writings are not consistent with myths. Actually, it is the argument now almost 2000 years later that has more of the quality of a myth than what was written in the first century.



Go back 5000 years to where the creation story, garden of eden,Noah's ark etc all have ties with Sumerian stories told a thousand years before these were written. read on up through the next 3000 years where the groundwork was laid for the prophesies to come true. Then silence for hundreds and hundreds of years(It's not that anyone wasn't writing...just that someone deemed those writings unworthy of making the final cut, same as the writings that did not make it into the OT and later NT). Now 2000 years ago we have a new set of writers(knowing what needs to be done to fulfill prophesy)(and do not write these together but have a copy of the author before him to go by) that write as if they were right along side the Messiah's parents when they dodged the authorities as a King was killing all the first born children in hopes of stopping Jesus reign(in reality there is no actual record or evidence of that happening at any time in that region,  could it be that Herrod had been dead before Jesus was born as the mixed up dates in the Bible suggest?). Then silence for 30 years. NO ONE wrote about the only Son of GOD, God reincarnate to ever live and walk among the people of the earth....well the CHOSEN people(oddly enough the one miniscule spot on the entire globe where EVERYTHING ever started)! These writers tell the tale (even though all but possibly one never saw or even met Jesus) as if they were there right along side Jesus witnessing these astounding events and actually seeing the prophesy fulfill as his life went on. Though, some of the prophesies were never filled, a few kind of filled and some(according to the faithful) are still gonna be filled...when the time is right. It is argued that even though these writers were not actual eyewitnesses to the events their hands were guided by God to record the events as it happened. Yet there are errors, untruths, geographical inaccuracies, times and dates wrong, stories that do not jive, historical inaccuracies and on and on and on. Im sorry, but to me I don't see any divine intervention in writings like that and if so, the intervention is not divine at all.  Transcripts that were written at the earliest of 40-60 years AFTER an event that tell of eyewitnesses  accounts based off of stories that were  told for 2-3 generations already.....No doubt with a hint of embellishment. Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John(well known to not be the real authors names and certainly not the disciples) actually interview 500 people who were there and witness anything?? Or did they hear 4th hand by grandchildren/great-grandchildren that 500 people witnessed the event? But anyway we have the son of the most powerful God right here on earth and it is recorded nowhere else in anyone's history. Other people outside of the Jewish faith lived right among the heart of these stories and while they recorded taxes, deaths, births, weather, historical events and everything else..none of them paused to jot down anything about a man that walked on water, healed people, raised dead people, turned water to wine, arose from the dead himself and ascended into the sky. And if they did write about such a man it may not have told the same story as the cuts that made the NT. They may have been accurate with no divine help and the reason why they were passed over for more embellished versions.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

I guess it's like the 60's, if you can remember it you weren't there huh?


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Oct 4, 2012)

Outside of attacking the Bible or religion, can science provide a single speck of proof that God does not exist? Not looking for opinions or theories or what you believe or attacks on the Bible, just one bit of proof.

Darwin said that life could not begin without "a devine spark".


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 4, 2012)

...not if He's there.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

science is not even capable of proving or disproving God (unless you're talking about greek and roman gods which did supposedly exist within the universe, but not the Christian God). Science deals with the physical universe and depends on the "senses".  Naturalism is confused with science because it is usually projected from a "scientific" angle but in fact the belief that there is no God and that, as Carl Sagan put it, "the universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be" is a philosophical belief, not a scientific statement. Science cannot tell us what is outside the universe which is why it can't tell us what was before the big bang, or what the Greeks called the uncaused cause for the universe. It only measures what is in the box. What's outside the box is religious and philosophical not scientific.


----------



## thedeacon (Oct 4, 2012)

Science will never rule over God, God cannot be ruled over by anyone or anything, anytime or anywhere. 

I wish I worried less about peple that spent so much time trying to disprove God. I pray that you fail in convinceing weaker minds that God does not exist. The time will come when everyone will believe.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Outside of attacking the Bible or religion, can science provide a single speck of proof that God does not exist? Not looking for opinions or theories or what you believe or attacks on the Bible, just one bit of proof.
> 
> Darwin said that life could not begin without "a devine spark".



Looking at it your way science cannot prove that your God does not exist, nor can it prove that any one of a thousand gods do not exist, it cannot prove flying pink wookAlars do not exist,unicorns, elves,hobbits,leprechauns or anything else that have no shred of evidence that they DO exist. If your criteria is because it cannot be proven to not exist because there is no evidence of it for or against in any way then your god is in good company. Make something up....it's gotta be real if no one can prove it's not.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Looking at it your way science cannot prove that your God does not exist...



So the answer to the OP's question is no.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 4, 2012)

Jeff Phillips said:


> So the answer to the OP's question is no.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

You make a great point. It's not up to science to prove or disprove anything that is nonphysical. You can't prove that something "invisible" exists or doesn't exist just by saying " I can't see it so it  is/isn't there". The problem then becomes what is the best explanation for our questions, since knowledge is more than just scientific findings. How will we explain the existence of the universe, moral laws (assuming know one tries to justify that all morals are relative, and then tells me I am absolutely "wrong" to believe otherwise), gravity, magnetic fields, etc.  Using ockhams razor, the simplest way to explain all of this is usually the best. To rule out nonphysical possibilities simply because I don't want to believe them is irrational. Best to probe all possibilities and not resort to name calling because I don't like someone else's particular hypothesis.

‘Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.’  Albert Einstein.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

Jeff Phillips said:


> So the answer to the OP's question is no.



One side cannot prove it does exist and the other side cannot prove it doesn't exist. That is what happens in the world of make believe.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> You make a great point. It's not up to science to prove or disprove anything that is nonphysical. You can't prove that something "invisible" exists or doesn't exist just by saying " I can't see it so it  is/isn't there". The problem then becomes what is the best explanation for our questions, since knowledge is more than just scientific findings. How will we explain the existence of the universe, moral laws (assuming know one tries to justify that all morals are relative, and then tells me I am absolutely "wrong" to believe otherwise), gravity, magnetic fields, etc.  Using ockhams razor, the simplest way to explain all of this is usually the best. To rule out nonphysical possibilities simply because I don't want to believe them is irrational. Best to probe all possibilities and not resort to name calling because I don't like a particular hypothesis.
> 
> ‘Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.’  Albert Einstein.



Can you quote the reply you are responding to so that we know who and what you are talking about? It gets a little confusing otherwise.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

So we are all just a scene from The Matrix.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Can you quote the reply you are responding to so that we know who and what you are talking about? It gets a little confusing otherwise.



Thanks, I was referring to several comments that seem to go for and against both science and religion. See Einstein quote.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks, I was referring to several comments that seem to go for and against both science and religion. See Einstein quote.



Understood.

I sit kind of in the middle myself. Everything I was ever taught when I was younger was geared toward the Christian God and creator. As I got older and really checked into things I found that what I learned previously made less and less sense. I want to prove the existence of "our" God. I have tried myself to do it and I ask on here and other places for someone to come up with something concrete. I understand science can only go so far into our physical world and that only leads me to further believe that if One God is above and beyond all that, well maybe a few hundred other Gods might be right in the mix also. An excuse for one of them is also a one size fits all excuse for the rest. Saying one exists because I can't prove he/it doesn't just muddies the waters because the rest of the gods are jumping in the pond saying " hey, by those standards, I exist too!!!"

PS: good Einstein quote, I have pages of pro/con/indifferent religious quotes and they all sort of make sense depending on the view.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 4, 2012)

This should be Bullet's verse.    lol

John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he (Bullet, as would most of us, too) said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> This should be Bullet's verse.    lol
> 
> John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he (Bullet, as would most of us, too) said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.



I don't want a verse. All I ask for is the truth.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 4, 2012)

as did I


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Understood.
> 
> I sit kind of in the middle myself. Everything I was ever taught when I was younger was geared toward the Christian God and creator. As I got older and really checked into things I found that what I learned previously made less and less sense. I want to prove the existence of "our" God. I have tried myself to do it and I ask on here and other places for someone to come with something concrete. I understand science can only go so far into our physical world and that only leads me to further believe that if One God is above and beyond all that, well maybe a few hundred other Gods might be right in the mix also. An excuse for one of them is also a one size fits all excuse for the rest. Saying one exists because I can't prove he/it doesn't just muddies the waters because the rest of the gods are jumping in the pond saying " hey, by those standards, I exist too!!!"
> 
> PS: good Einstein quote, I have pages of pro/con/indifferent religious quotes and they all sort of make sense depending on the view.



I really appreciate what your saying and appreciate when either side discusses this like adults. I grew up with certain beliefs shoved down my throat. Went to a large state university and got several degrees in science fields and chased things in another direction. Finally, I sat down and realized my questions transcend science and what religious leaders had pushed on me to believe without question. So I asked my own questions. Why am I or anyone here, why does the universe exist, how could the complexity of life which seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics exist, is there absolute morality/right and wrong. I came to the decision that I and the universe do exist (a good start I guess), and whether I like it or not morals exist (some say if you don't like something don't do it but my question was there are things I do like, is it ok to just do whatever I like). So I had to find a source. There are several possibilities for each of my questions but God seemed to be in the circle of possibilities for each question and when I take all my questions in total he seems to be the only choice that answers each question or at least provides a source. That doesn't "prove" him but it sure makes it reasonable to consider him. The only other option I can find is to say "I don't know" or "it just is" as my answer, not very satisfying. It seems my main objections to God are more about me not wanting to be held to morals (I want my own way) or not wanting to really believe there may be an intellect higher than mine. With God there are some tough issue such as why inhumanities happen but there certainly is no satisfying answer to that if there is no God postulated  either. Therefore, I'm left with God but wishing I could understand the "why's" to certain things. I guess that's the only point where I would say "faith" comes in for me. As to the existence of God, that conclusion comes from rational thought, a search for answers, but not superstition, culture, or emotional experience. Anyway, its been a lot of fun to hash out these topics and always great when people give well thought out answers instead of verbally abusing each other.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> I really appreciate what your saying and appreciate when either side discusses this like adults. I grew up with certain beliefs shoved down my throat. Went to a large state university and got several degrees in science fields and chased things in another direction. Finally, I sat down and realized my questions transcend science and what religious leaders had pushed on me to believe without question. So I asked my own questions. Why am I or anyone here, why does the universe exist, how could the complexity of life which seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics exist, is there absolute morality/right and wrong. I came to the decision that I and the universe do exist (a good start I guess), and whether I like it or not morals exist (some say if you don't like something don't do it but my question was there are things I do like, is it ok to just do whatever I like). So I had to find a source. There are several possibilities for each of my questions but God seemed to be in the circle of possibilities for each question and when I take all my questions in total he seems to be the only choice that answers each question or at least provides a source. That doesn't "prove" him but it sure makes it reasonable to consider him. The only other option I can find is to say "I don't know" or "it just is" to my answer, not very satisfying. It seems my main objections to God are more about me not wanting to be held to morals (I want my own way) or not wanting to really believe there may be an intellect higher than mine. With God there are some tough issue such as why inhumanities happen but there certainly is no satisfying answer to that if there is no God postulated  either. Therefore, I'm left with God but wishing I could understand the "why's" to certain things. I guess that's the only point where I would say "faith" comes in for me. As to the existence of God, that conclusion comes from rational thought, a search for answers, but not superstition, culture, or emotional experience. Anyway, its been a lot of fun to hash out these topics and always great when people give well thought out answers instead of verbally abusing each other.



I was once where you are now and thought "OK....but WHICH God???" and yet another can of worms was opened.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I was once where you are now and thought "OK....but WHICH God???" and yet another can of worms was opened.



Good point. Greek and Roman gods are out because of their existence in the physical universe, therefore still left looking for a creative source for the universe. Eastern religions are out because I don't feel the eastern concepts of logic and reason work and with pantheism I'm still left with God/Gods inside the universe, the same for certain native american and other pantheistic or nature Gods. I believe in an orderly universe which is why science can develop. I believe in logic and reason existing absolutely and externally, can't buy that we created these. Rather we need mathematics to exist a priori before we can start "doing" science, and we need logic to rule before we can have these conversations. Finally, I believe in absolute morals such as that its wrong to grab an infant from his mother's arm and murder him for pleasure (not just distasteful but wrong). I'm left with a God who is external to the universe, logical, rational, orderly, and moral. The Christian God seems to be the only concept I find that meets these criteria I discover through science and reason.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Good point. Greek and Roman gods are out because of there existence in the physical universe, therefore still left looking for a creative source for the universe. Eastern religions are out because I don't feel the eastern concepts of logic and reason work and with pantheism I'm still left with God/Gods inside the universe, the same for certain native american and other pantheistic or nature Gods. I believe in an orderly universe which is why science can develop. I believe in logic and reason existing absolutely and externally, can't buy that we created these. Rather we need mathematics to exist a priori before we can start "doing" science, and we need logic to rule before we can have these conversations. Finally, I believe in absolute morals such as that its wrong to grab an infant from his mother's arm and murder him for pleasure (not just distasteful but wrong). I'm left with a God who is external to the universe, logical, rational, orderly, and moral. The Christian God seems to be the only concept I find that meets these criteria I discover through science and reason.



Well thought. I can see why you chose your choice.  Again I was following those lines myself for a while. Then I read the Bible. Not like in church or sunday school but I would read the Bible daily to get a better insight of the creator of creation. Logic, rationality,order and morals do not coincide with what is consistently written in that book. I don't believe a God of such qualities and power had anything to do with what is written and portrayed in the book that is supposed to define him.
Didn't Jesus (and God)exist in the physical universe?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 4, 2012)

Science cannot disprove anything. That is not how it works.

For example: Scientifically disprove that there are no black panthers in Georgia. Nope, can't do it.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well thought. I can see why you chose your choice.  Again I was following those lines myself for a while. Then I read the Bible. Not like in church or sunday school but I would read the Bible daily to get a better insight of the creator of creation. Logic, rationality,order and morals do not coincide with what is consistently written in that book. I don't believe a God of such qualities and power had anything to do with what is written and portrayed in the book that is supposed to define him.
> Didn't Jesus (and God)exist in the physical universe?



The God described in the bible exists outside the physical universe and created the universe as in Gen 1:1 which appears to make the point to those that worshiped the sun, moon, and stars that these were physical objects not gods. That point and the point that the universe had a beginning are unique claims, the universe had been viewed as eternal. Science reached that conclusion more recently with the findings of a universe that is expanding and cooling off from a creation point. Jesus is the physical manifestation of God and another unique item because you just don't find other gods suffering and dying at the hands of their creation. It would be on the surface a very ridiculous story of a suffering god if created as a myth.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> The God described in the bible exists outside the physical universe and created the universe as in Gen 1:1 which appears to make the point to those that worshiped the sun, moon, and stars that these were physical objects not gods. That point and the point that the universe had a beginning are unique claims, the universe had been viewed as eternal. Science reached that conclusion more recently with the findings of a universe that is expanding and cooling off from a creation point. Jesus is the physical manifestation of God and another unique item because you just don't find other gods suffering and dying at the hands of their creation. It would be on the surface a very ridiculous story of a suffering god if created as a myth.



Didn't the same Bible say the Sun revolved around the Earth? I believe Horus and Krishna were also crucified.
I think you nailed it with the ridiculous story suggestion.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

After a quick search, a case could be made for 16 other saviors that were crucified.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Didn't the same Bible say the Sun revolved around the Earth? I believe Horus and Krishna were also crucified.
> I think you nailed it with the ridiculous story suggestion.



Krishna isn't exactly "God coming down to die for his subjects" nor is Horus and Egyptian gods fighting each other while existing within the universe some great salvation story.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Didn't the same Bible say the Sun revolved around the Earth? I believe Horus and Krishna were also crucified.
> I think you nailed it with the ridiculous story suggestion.



Couldn't find the verse that says that God proclaimed "the sun orbits the earth" but while I was looking for it I stumbled across my old chemistry notes where the teacher drew nice circles of electrons orbiting the nucleus (but that's not really how it works you know). Did the physics teacher say light was a wave or a particle? I guess it all depends on the point and perspective you are trying to make during conversation. Doubt the bible was trying to lay out planetary orbit theory. That's why I don't buy the 6- literal 24 hour day creation belief that some hold. The point of Genesis wasn't to tell us how long the universe took to create any more than some old testament reference to the sun standing still meant that the sun orbits the earth. What's next, God should have outlined subatomic particles, quarks and string theory to the shepherds?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Couldn't find the verse that says that God proclaimed "the sun orbits the earth" but while I was looking for it I stumbled across my old chemistry notes where the teacher drew nice circles of electrons orbiting the nucleus (but that's not really how it works you know). Did the physics teacher say light was a wave or a particle? I guess it all depends on the point and perspective you are trying to make during conversation. Doubt the bible was trying to lay out planetary orbit theory. That's why I don't buy the 6- literal 24 hour day creation belief that some hold. The point of Genesis wasn't to tell us how long the universe took to create any more than some old testament reference to the sun standing still meant that the sun orbits the earth. What's next, God should have outlined subatomic particles, quarks and string theory to the sheppards?



Well, yes. Surely God would know that his work would be read by many people other than shepherds, the high standards it would have to maintain and the scrutiny it would receive. All easily taken care of by a God.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

Joshua 10:13 has the Sun stopped from moving AND states that the Sun stood still in the midst of Heaven......is Heaven and God in our Universe???


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

Psalm 19:6.
I don't think they knew about the universe back then. The Sun is in Heaven


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Joshua 10:13 has the Sun stopped from moving AND states that the Sun stood still in the midst of Heaven......is Heaven and God in our Universe???



I'm surprised you seriously propose that if God knows his creation then the bible should reference subatomic theory, quarks, gravitational motion or string theory to the people of that era. In interpreting the bible or anything else written, you always start with who the immediate audience is  and what is trying to be imparted to them. Was my science teacher evil or wrong for portraying electrons as orbiting the nucleus? Neither. As I already stated, some reference to the earth standing still in the sky is such a stretch for claiming God said the Sun orbits the earth. How many claim to see lightning strike from the sky? Seeing the sun still in the sky or moving across the sky would be exactly what you see from the vantage point of the earth. Light- wave or particle? PPPPPleaseeeee.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> I'm surprised you seriously propose that if God knows his creation then the bible should reference subatomic theory, quarks, gravitational motion or string theory to the people of that era. In interpreting the bible or anything else written, you always start with who the immediate audience is  and what is trying to be imparted to them. Was my science teacher evil or wrong for portraying electrons as orbiting the nucleus? Neither. As I already stated, some reference to the earth standing still in the sky is such a stretch for claiming God said the Sun orbits the earth. How many claim to see lightning strike from the sky? Seeing the sun still in the sky or moving across the sky would be exactly what you see from the vantage point of the earth. PPPPPleaseeeee.



I'm surprised that a God limited his attempt to give us his story to an ancient civilization in one small part of a giant world. Being that God sent HIS knowledge through the pens of these authors there would be no mistakes, errors, inaccuracies or perceived notions about how the Sun or Earth or lightening moves. It would be more credible had it been written "Wrong" by God according to what man thought at the time and then later found out to be correct...instead of the other way around. I would think God's vantage point would put him in a great spot to see it how it is.....especially because it is written numerous times that the Sun is in Heaven.

"The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved." Psalm 93:1


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm surprised that a God limited his attempt to give us his story to an ancient civilization in one small part of a giant world. Being that God sent HIS knowledge through the pens of these authors there would be no mistakes, errors, inaccuracies or perceived notions about how the Sun or Earth or lightening moves. It would be more credible had it been written "Wrong" by God according to what man thought at the time and then later found out to be correct...instead of the other way around. I would think God's vantage point would put him in a great spot to see it how it is.....especially because it is written numerous times that the Sun is in Heaven.
> 
> 
> "The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved." Psalm 93:1



To say that God doesn’t outline present theories of quantum physics and therefore must not be real because this proves he doesn’t understand the universe so “begs the question”.  First are you really claiming that if God just laid out present scientific theory on rotations of the planets ” then I would believe”. We both know that isn’t true. Second, scientific theory like archeological theory is constantly changing. How many times have skeptics held up “inconsistencies” in the bible on historic events only to excavate and find out the bible was correct but the present understanding was what was wrong. Has science completed its description of the physical universe? Call me a skeptic. How silly to propose that the bible should describe quantum mechanics just for you and me and now, knowing 100 years ago or in the future everyone may have a completely different understanding of what is scientifically true. Third, as someone once  put it the important questions, as proposed by the Greeks, are on origin, destiny, meaning and morality, and therefore science must not tell us anything important (that’s meant as humor). But science has no answers for this (unless” I have no idea on origin, there is no meaning or morality just trust me, and destiny is dirt because I said so”-is considered an answer) so why suddenly claim the only real answers we "need" from the bible are scientific? Its so narrow minded and contemporarily focused to think that is all the bible should focus on. That certainly wasn't the questions they were asking 100 years ago and probably not 100 years from now. 1000 years ago the were arguing about why the bible proposed there being a creation point when everybody "knows" the universe is eternal and had no starting point. Oops.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> To say that God doesn’t outline present theories of quantum physics and therefore must not be real because this proves he doesn’t understand the universe so “begs the question”.  First are you really claiming that if God just laid out scientific theory on rotations of the planets ” then I would believe”. We both know that isn’t true. Second, scientific theory like archeological theory is constantly changing. How many times have skeptics held up “inconsistencies” in the bible on historic events only to excavate and find out the bible was correct but the present understanding was what was wrong. Has science completed its description of the physical universe? Call me a skeptic. How silly to propose that the bible should describe quantum mechanics just for you and me and now, knowing 100 years ago or in the future everyone may have a completely different understanding of what is scientifically true. Third, as someone once  put it the important questions as proposed by the Greeks were on origin, destiny, meaning and morality, and therefore science must not tell us anything important (that’s meant as humor). But science has no answers for this (unless” I have no idea on origin, there is no meaning or morality just trust me, and destiny is dirt because I said so”-is considered an answer) so why suddenly claim the only real answers we should look for in the bible are scientific?



I'd be satisfied that the answers in the Bible were true.

Here is a heck of a read if your interested.
http://geocentricbible.com/
It has some of the verses that talk about how the earth, stars, sun etc are in heaven or layers of heaven......and as a bonus how the author explains them!!

Main page here:http://www.geocentricbible.com/index.htm I have not had a chance to browse through this yet but it sure looks as good as the link above...


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> To say that God doesn’t outline present theories of quantum physics and therefore must not be real because this proves he doesn’t understand the universe so “begs the question”.  First are you really claiming that if God just laid out present scientific theory on rotations of the planets ” then I would believe”. We both know that isn’t true. Second, scientific theory like archeological theory is constantly changing. How many times have skeptics held up “inconsistencies” in the bible on historic events only to excavate and find out the bible was correct but the present understanding was what was wrong. Has science completed its description of the physical universe? Call me a skeptic. How silly to propose that the bible should describe quantum mechanics just for you and me and now, knowing 100 years ago or in the future everyone may have a completely different understanding of what is scientifically true. Third, as someone once  put it the important questions as proposed by the Greeks were on origin, destiny, meaning and morality, and therefore science must not tell us anything important (that’s meant as humor). But science has no answers for this (unless” I have no idea on origin, there is no meaning or morality just trust me, and destiny is dirt because I said so”-is considered an answer) so why suddenly claim the only real answers we "need" from the bible are scientific? Its so narrow minded and contemporarily focused to think that is all the bible should focus on. That certainly wasn't the questions they were asking 100 years ago and probably not 100 years from now. 1000 years ago the were arguing about why the bible proposed there being creation point when everybody "knows" the universe is eternal and had no starting point. Oops.



For a God anything and everything is possible to get the message needed to each individual that seeks the answers. I know what I need and cannot find it. Is it so impossible for me to open my Bible and find exactly what I need if God indeed wanted me to know it? Those limitations are confined to man. One of the many reasons I am 1000% convinced man was and is solely responsible for the writings, not a God.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

Thanks and here's a few great resources:

http://www.rzim.org/
http://www.veritas.org
http://www.str.org/site
http://www.reasons.org/
http://www.arn.org


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks and here's a few great resources:
> 
> http://www.rzim.org/
> http://www.veritas.org
> ...



I've bookmarked them and will check them out. Thanks


----------



## panfried0419 (Oct 4, 2012)

Am I the only Christian that believes in evolutionary creationism?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

panfried0419 said:


> Am I the only Christian that believes in evolutionary creationism?



Your just not afraid to admit it.


----------



## panfried0419 (Oct 4, 2012)

I am close to those that believe in a 6000 year old world and militant atheist. I just believe we are living in God's 7th day. He has rested and the world evolves in his eyes. The evil that occurs are his tests of our faith in Him. Jesus was placed on this Earth to remind those there is a way to salvation. Trust me I have tried to explain my beliefs but neither side listens they just judge. I know who my savior is.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Your just not afraid to admit it.



I gotta admit that's funny


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

panfried0419 said:


> I am close to those that believe in a 6000 year old world and militant atheist. I just believe we are living in God's 7th day. He has rested and the world evolves in his eyes. The evil that occurs are his tests of our faith in Him. Jesus was placed on this Earth to remind those there is a way to salvation. Trust me I have tried to explain my beliefs but neither side listens they just judge. I know who my savior is.



Ya gotta go with what works for you.


----------



## panfried0419 (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> I gotta admit that's funny



I'm confused why is that funny. I'm not afraid to admit my faith.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

I think I'm similarly aligned with you About God (perhaps not evolution)I just thought he had a witty comment. Don't get me wrong humor is no way to get around logic but it did make me chuckle.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> I think I'm similarly aligned with you About God (perhaps not evolution)I just thought he had a witty comment. Don't get me wrong humor is no way to get around logic but it did make me chuckle.



Yes Dean Werner.........


----------



## Asath (Oct 4, 2012)

Science doesn’t need to bother proving that God does not exist.  Several thousand years of True Believers have already done that, by going through New and Improved Gods like Kleenex --  oppressing, controlling, and slaughtering in the name of that God, then abandoning it and moving on to the next one.

Now we have this relatively new-fangled God of Abraham, and we have the Jews (who thought it up), and the Christians (who took the idea and updated it to their own ends), and the Islamics (who took the updated version and both reversed it and re-imagined it), all trying to oppress and control and slaughter one another . . . But THAT isn’t enough all alone – so each of THOSE factions has broken into hundreds of competing factions internally, to the point that if the NHL merged with Professional Wrestling it would actually make more sense than organized religion does.  Nice going.

When each and all of you make yourselves into strident fools, and each and all violently insist that it is the OTHERS who are actually the strident fools, and each and all of you have exactly the same PROOF of your claim – NOTHING – it might be time to wise up.  We don’t have to prove that you are wrong.  You’ve already done that.

Every single innocent person who has been tortured and killed under the flag of religious belief, of any stripe – and there have been tens of millions, and remain thousands and thousands every year even today – give the lie to any claims by any religion.  NO GOD, no matter how cruel and no matter how psychotic, would declare a small part of His creation to be Chosen, and instruct them to convert, oppress, rule, tithe, wage war against, and kill the rest.

Apparently THIS God, Abraham’s God, has done just that.  The Book says so.

End of Belief in God.  Sorry folks – you killed your own God.  The rest of us never had to lift a finger.  Get over yourselves.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

Fat drunk and stupid, that's me


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yes Dean Werner.........




Fat drunk and stupid, that's me


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Fat drunk and stupid, that's me



Now THAT is funny!
I pegged you for a movie enthusiast when you made the Matrix reference!


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 4, 2012)

Asath said:


> Science doesn’t need to bother proving that God does not exist.  Several thousand years of True Believers have already done that, by going through New and Improved Gods like Kleenex --  oppressing, controlling, and slaughtering in the name of that God, then abandoning it and moving on to the next one.
> 
> Now we have this relatively new-fangled God of Abraham, and we have the Jews (who thought it up), and the Christians (who took the idea and updated it to their own ends), and the Islamics (who took the updated version and both reversed it and re-imagined it), all trying to oppress and control and slaughter one another . . . But THAT isn’t enough all alone – so each of THOSE factions has broken into hundreds of competing factions internally, to the point that if the NHL merged with Professional Wrestling it would actually make more sense than organized religion does.  Nice going.
> 
> ...



I guess you'll just have to read my prior posts. Thanks to the horrors of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot you'll find you are going to have to give up on atheism also.


----------



## pnome (Oct 4, 2012)

Science can answer many questions. But it can't answer the question "Why science?"


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2012)

panfried0419 said:


> Am I the only Christian that believes in evolutionary creationism?



Could you define that?

I believe in evolution and God.  But I don't know if that lines up with your later comments about everything evolving in his eyes, and the 7th day stuff.

I believe God created the heavens and the Earth, and science explains "how," and the Bible explains "why."


----------



## bullethead (Oct 5, 2012)

pnome said:


> Science can answer many questions. But it can't answer the question "Why science?"



Why Science?  by James Trefil

James Trefil coherently presents an argument that a basic understanding of science is necessary for individuals to take part intelligently in modern social & political discourse.

I would add religious discourse into the mix also.


----------



## panfried0419 (Oct 5, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Could you define that?
> 
> I believe in evolution and God.  But I don't know if that lines up with your later comments about everything evolving in his eyes, and the 7th day stuff.
> 
> I believe God created the heavens and the Earth, and science explains "how," and the Bible explains "why."



You answered it! That's what I believe. Science defines Gods creation. It's just that there are some that cannot accept Science as part of everyday life. Our world is perfectly aligned in this solar system to provide life. Out of 8 planets this one. Why? Because of Him. The carbon element is the fingerprint of God. IMO. It seems that some Christians forget to think of the how and why. Christianity is based on accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior. Which I do believe. But  His creation is also the most intelligent design.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 5, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> You bring up an excellent and most difficult question for the Christian. Why does God allow evil in the world or those that are morally wrong to exist. Why doesn’t He annihilate people at the first lie or when they cheat on a test (although I suspect this wouldn’t allow many to reach reproductive age and carry on the species)? Even more troubling, why does he allow a child to die of cancer? These are difficult questions for the Christian in my opinion. However, there is no point here for the atheist. If there is no God then there is no basis for right and wrong, only personal opinion. If there is no God then there is no evil. A child dying of cancer should be a point of rejoicing for the evolutionist who is happy to see the gene pool cleansed of inferior genetic material. The atheist is happy to see Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot kill millions because they serve their “father”, survival of the fittest. However since most atheists I know are “good” people, they don’t rejoice over these facts, they are saddened and know its “wrong”, they just can’t explain why. The atheist has a much more difficult problem than the Christian with this.
> 
> The Christian struggles with evil in the world, but the Christian God is not what the Muslim sees as God. The Christian God died on a cross to save the infidel while Muslims believe that the infidel should be destroyed. The infidel includes the Christian and the Jew, so I don’t think saying that they are all the same God makes sense propositionally. For two things to be the same, what is true of one must be true of the other. While people have killed in the name of Christianity, they violate the Christian beliefs. When one kills in the name of Islam, apparently they aren’t violating their moral code, and when an atheist kills they aren’t violating any rules, simply acting out evolutionary process.



Killing "in the name of God" doesn't make it consistent with christianity, it violates christian beliefs. Killing in the name of atheism however is just fine Asath! Why do you find killing anyone wrong, or is it just distasteful to you?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 5, 2012)

What men do with the idea of God has nothing to do with if He actually exists.   Like I heard somewhere before...men building nuclear bombs has nothing to do with whether E=mc2.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 5, 2012)

Here's my problem. If we claim God is only a social construct to help a society survive, then why do we complain when we perceive that it killed to advance a society/culture/beliefs survival. I don't think christianity does that but I'm not the one arguing against the killing.

If I am to believe that through a process of random events and survival advantage man evolved to such a high state of being that he can sit down at the pinnacle of success only to say "Science doesn’t need to bother proving that God does not exist" and " each and all of you make yourselves into strident fools" and use emotional babble and name calling instead of reason, and calm adult rational discourse, then I can only hope evolution has not reached the pinnacle but is only taking a rest stop. But hey, there's no reason to search for truth anyway because thoughts are mere random physical states and the ones that live on do so because of survival advantage, not truth. 

There is no TRUTH! Is that true?


----------



## Four (Oct 5, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Here's my problem. If we claim God is only a social construct to help a society survive, then why do we complain when we perceive that it killed to advance a society/culture/beliefs survival. I don't think christianity does that but I'm not the one arguing against the killing.
> 
> If I am to believe that through a process of random events and survival advantage man evolved to such a high state of being that he can sit down at the pinnacle of success only to say "Science doesn’t need to bother proving that God does not exist" and " each and all of you make yourselves into strident fools" and use emotional babble and name calling instead of reason, and calm adult rational discourse, then I can only hope evolution has not reached the pinnacle but is only taking a rest stop. But hey, there's reason to search for truth anyway because thoughts are mere random physical states and the ones that live on do so because of survival advantage, not truth.
> 
> There is no TRUTH! Is that true?



God is generally a non-scientific question... most talk of god is outside of time, outside of the universe, undetectable, etc. it's Russell's Teapot.

From a scientific position, there isn't any real evidence.

It's a answer that causes more problems than it solves, and you can only really suggest it from a quasi-philosophical position.

Science doesnt really "rule out" god so much as discover so much that it's harder and harder to find a hiding space for God... before we built airplanes and space ships god was "in the clouds" or "in the sky" now god has had to change to be "outside the universe" etc...


----------



## pnome (Oct 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Why Science?  by James Trefil
> 
> James Trefil coherently presents an argument that a basic understanding of science is necessary for individuals to take part intelligently in modern social & political discourse.
> 
> I would add religious discourse into the mix also.



I think you slightly misunderstood my easily misunderstood post.

I'm not asking "Why science?" as in "Why do we bother with science?"   But rather "Why science?" as in "Why is the universe ordered in such a way that science is useful, or even possible?"


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 5, 2012)

Four said:


> God is generally a non-scientific question... most talk of god is outside of time, outside of the universe, undetectable, etc. it's Russell's Teapot.
> 
> From a scientific position, there isn't any real evidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 5, 2012)

I'm a Christian who believes in evolution and don't have a problem with science explaning Biblical events such as the rainbow. People use to think the Earth was flat and under some type of "firmament". Where or what is this firmament? Is it the crust of the Earth? Is He!! below us as once believed? As science progresses we answer these questions. I don't see it as making it harder for God to hide. At what point do we use science to explain things(rainbow as example) or just the Bible? (Great Flood will never happen again guarantee)


----------



## panfried0419 (Oct 5, 2012)

artfuldodger said:


> i'm a christian who believes in evolution and don't have a problem with science explaning biblical events such as the rainbow. People use to think the earth was flat and under some type of "firmament". Where or what is this firmament? Is it the crust of the earth? Is he!! Below us as once believed? As science progresses we answer these questions. I don't see it as making it harder for god to hide. At what point do we use science to explain things(rainbow as example) or just the bible? (great flood will never happen again guarantee)



amen!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 5, 2012)

The firmament use to be thought of like this and some peole still believe it is. I don't believe the earth is flat anymore. The firmament might be a layer of our atmosphere or the Earth's crust.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 5, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Totally agree that a god who created the universe is outside of it. I was commenting on anyone else who claims only science gives us knowledge and then claims it shouldn't even search. I disagree that religion causes more problems. I don't know isn't where I want to stop in a search for answers.



So then if you use what the Bible tells us for answers/explanations and pick certain ones to show me why are you dismissing the verses that tell us the Sun,stars,moon, even the earth are all in Heaven? It tells us there are layers of heaven and if all these things are in heaven, including the universe and God, how is God outside of it?


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So then if you use what the Bible tells us for answers/explanations and pick certain ones to show me why are you dismissing the verses that tell us the Sun,stars,moon, even the earth are all in Heaven? It tells us there are layers of heaven and if all these things are in heaven, including the universe and God, how is God outside of it?



Thanks, that's an easy one. There are at least 3 uses of the word heaven in the bible-where the birds fly (atmospheric), where the stars exist (universe) and where God exist (external to the universe). Trying to use one definition to argue against another commits the fallacy of equivocation. It would be like me arguing against what an evolutionist says the fossil record "tells us" by saying fossils can't speak they're dead so they can't tell us anything so evolution must be wrong.

Addendum- sorry originally responded from an Iphone and didn't see the diagram above, point was already made.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 5, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks, that's an easy one. There are at least 3 uses of the word heaven in the bible-where the birds fly (atmospheric), where the stars exist (universe) and where God exist (external to the universe). Trying to use one definition to argue against another commits the fallacy of equivocation. It would be like me arguing against what an evolutionist says the fossil record "tells us" by saying fossils can't speak they're dead so they can't tell us anything so evolution must be wrong.



I understand. It is like the Trinity, the same when wanted to be, different when needed to be. 3 different heavens.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 5, 2012)

There really have been some very good discussions and it has helped me think. Unfortunately, here's what i've learned.

Religion is a belief system about god and spiritual matters. 
Religion is bad.
Atheism is a belief system about god and spiritual matters.
Atheists blog on god and spiritual matters
Atheism is a religion
Atheism is good
Christianity is a religion.
All religions are the same (what is true of one is identical with what is true of another).
Atheism is good.
There is no good or bad.
Christians are bad because they have killed in the name of christianity
Christianity is bad because people have the ability to violate the laws
Christians are not bad, the christian laws are bad
Christian rules about showing love or not committing murder are bad.
Religion is false
Atheism is religion (a philosophical view of the spiritual)
Killing is bad (christian perspective)
killing is good (evolutionary model)
There is no good or bad (atheistic model)
Atheists believe killing is bad
Atheist kill christians, Jews, gays, etc for there beliefs/behaviour/genetics/culture (Hitler, Stalin)
Atheists kill professionals and intellectuals (Pol Pot, killing fields, Stalin)

Therefore, atheism is good

Clear as mud


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 5, 2012)

The three Heavens:


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I understand. It is like the Trinity, the same when wanted to be, different when needed to be. 3 different heavens.



Or maybe light, particle when you need it, wave when you need it.

Love my wife, love these discussion, love cheeseburgers. The context helps clarify which definition applies.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2012)

pnome said:


> I think you slightly misunderstood my easily misunderstood post.
> 
> I'm not asking "Why science?" as in "Why do we bother with science?"   But rather "Why science?" as in "Why is the universe ordered in such a way that science is useful, or even possible?"



Welcome back!  

Because given the parameters this is what happened?

Why these parameters and not some others?  Is the best answer to this REALLY because a god creature was lonely or bored?  

Have you picked a 'team' yet now that you're on the deist side of the field?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 6, 2012)

panfried0419 said:


> I am close to those that believe in a 6000 year old world and militant atheist. I just believe we are living in God's 7th day. He has rested and the world evolves in his eyes. The evil that occurs are his tests of our faith in Him. Jesus was placed on this Earth to remind those there is a way to salvation. Trust me I have tried to explain my beliefs but neither side listens they just judge. I know who my savior is.



Awesome!!! The rest is just what it is.

Out of curiosity, how would you define evolution?


----------



## Asath (Oct 6, 2012)

“Religion is a belief system about god and spiritual matters.”

(Forgive me, fellas – I don’t use this technique a lot, but here it seems called for.)

Um.  No.  Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  That is the actual definition.  Please recognize here the deliberate use of the word ‘belief.’  A belief, by the nature of such a thing, is separated from a fact, again by definition – a fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true, over and over, no matter who is doing the testing (we call this process of learning and experimenting and verifying by the odd word ‘science’) – whereas a belief is simply something that one feels, but cannot prove.  

“Religion is bad.”  I cannot disagree.  

“Atheism is a belief system about god and spiritual matters.”  

Um. No.  Atheism is the complete absence of such belief, and the rejection of superstitious ‘feelings’ in favor of actual facts.  I do not ‘believe’ what is said simply because it is said over and over again – I wait and see what can be proven to be true.  Belief is the lazy, uneducated person’s easy way out, relieving them of the patience and rigor required to prove that they know what they have said.

“Atheists blog on god and spiritual matters.”  Only to refute them as ridiculous.

“Atheism is a religion.”  This statement is one of those ridiculous things.

“Atheism is good.”  No.  Atheism is neutral.  Nothing much is ‘Good,’ unless or until it is ratified by a majority of humans living in the same society, and often much of what THEY deem to be ‘Good’ is patent, self-serving nonsense.  Human sacrifice on a grand scale was once deemed ‘good,’ by the Aztecs and Mayans, and burning ‘witches’ and ‘heretics’ was once all the rage among the Christians, so if it is all the same to you folks we’ll reserve judgment on just what y’all NOW deem Good, as opposed to what you folks once deemed to be the same.  This definition seems to change quite a lot.

“Christianity is a religion.
All religions are the same (what is true of one is identical with what is true of another).”

In a general sense, um, yeah.  Aside from some minor details in the various practice books (HOLY BOOKS you folks insist on calling them), the major religions tend to rely entirely on the same tactics, myths, legends, rituals, and control mechanisms, and tend as a group to have fear of the majority opinion front and center in their enforcement.  They also count on the (formerly) closed and tight-knit nature of tribally based societies to oppose all others, and a ‘keep it in the family’ sort of isolationism and demonization of opposing thought to keep themselves vital.  Widespread progress, discovery, accumulated and tested knowledge, and modern communication has racked religion back on its heels.  

“Atheism is good.”  Nobody said that.

“There is no good or bad.”  Nobody said that except those who don’t need to care, because if they do ‘Bad’ they will automatically be ‘Forgiven,’ simply by believing the right things.


“Christians are bad because they have killed in the name of Christianity.”  Yes.  This is true.  Can killing someone for not ‘believing’ as you do ever be considered ‘Good’?  

“Christianity is bad because people have the ability to violate the laws
Christians are not bad, the christian laws are bad.”

Had to group these two together.  There are no ‘Christian’ laws.  The entire code of human conduct, as codified in what is now known as ‘law,’ is a concept that predated Christianity by so many centuries that it is rather absurd to even attempt to co-opt it as originating with your own Book.  Y’all are Johnny-come-lately on the idea of making a set of civil rules for folks to live by, and have no claim to righteousness in this regard, having consistently violated even the ones you handed yourselves.


“Christian rules about showing love or not committing murder are bad.
Religion is false”

Another perfect pair.  Which part of the history of your religion didn’t you read?  If your religion teaches you NOT to commit murder, then encourages the forcible torture, rape, terrorization, and killing of heretics (who stubbornly refused to see things your way), then which of these two diametrically opposed thoughts is false?  We say it is the religious thought – which ought to be obvious.

“Atheism is religion (a philosophical view of the spiritual).”  False.  

“Killing is bad (christian perspective).”  False.  Christians kill with the same frequency as anyone else in the modern world, and seem to have killed for sport previously.

“killing is good (evolutionary model).”  Also false.  Killing is often necessary, and is often unavoidable, but it is seldom the preference.

“There is no good or bad (atheistic model).”  Already covered that – you have no “atheistic model” to rely upon, since there isn’t one.  Disbelief has no accepted texts of endlessly revised dogma – there is the situation at hand, and the need to act – someone else’s idea of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ do little to inform immediacy.  Morality is an entirely personal construct, and each person is tasked with the decision, simply and only their own, as to the actions they fel they must take, or refrain from.

“Atheists believe killing is bad.”  False.  But I believe killing for purely ideological reasons (You are not a ‘Believer,’ and so must die) is worse than bad, and the daily acts in that name indict all Believers as hypocritical frauds. 
“Atheist kill christians, Jews, gays, etc for there beliefs/behaviour/genetics/culture (Hitler, Stalin)
Atheists kill professionals and intellectuals (Pol Pot, killing fields, Stalin)”

Again, knee-jerk, uninformed dogma tends to work against your case.  Reading the first page of the History Book, and forgetting to read anything else won’t help here.  Even a cursory understanding of human history would reveal that EVERY power-mad control freak who has risen to power has sought the extermination of ALL opposition.  EVERY movement seeks total conquest, no matter how small and odd the movement, and it is hardly surprising that in the long history of MOST of these movements being attributed to one ‘religious’ belief or another, a few mad-men arose who had NO ‘Religious’ basis, and simply called it what it is – totalitarian aggression.  Crazy people demand that EVERYONE think as they do, and obey them and pay with either their money or their life, and often both.  Picking out a few non-believers who are as bad as you guys doesn’t absolve you, and makes no case against the ungodly.  And it certainly makes no case in favor of your ‘God.’    

“Therefore, atheism is good.”  Nobody said that.  We said that religion is crazy, control-freak, conversion-minded, totalitarian, intolerant, greedy, rent-seeking, excuse-making, illogical, exclusionary, empire-building, intellectually lazy, ancient, uninformed, superstitious, bullying nonsense – and has always been in all forms and at all times.

We never said that we were ‘good,’ or ‘bad,’ – only that you have no idea what you’re talking about when you use such words.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 6, 2012)

Asath said:


> Science doesn’t need to bother proving that God does not exist.  Several thousand years of True Believers have already done that, by going through New and Improved Gods like Kleenex --  oppressing, controlling, and slaughtering in the name of that God, then abandoning it and moving on to the next one.
> 
> Now we have this relatively new-fangled God of Abraham, and we have the Jews (who thought it up), and the Christians (who took the idea and updated it to their own ends), and the Islamics (who took the updated version and both reversed it and re-imagined it), all trying to oppress and control and slaughter one another . . . But THAT isn’t enough all alone – so each of THOSE factions has broken into hundreds of competing factions internally, to the point that if the NHL merged with Professional Wrestling it would actually make more sense than organized religion does.  Nice going.
> 
> ...



Dude, you are sooooo mad. I am glad I am not angry like you are. I hope you find some peace.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 6, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Religion is a belief system about god and spiritual matters.”
> 
> (Forgive me, fellas – I don’t use this technique a lot, but here it seems called for.)
> 
> ...



Wow. Just an angry guy I guess. I sure don't want to push my beliefs on you Asath. I hope that makes you a little bit happier.


----------



## Asath (Oct 6, 2012)

Oddly enough, Ted, I mostly think that I’m the happiest person I know, if only because I long ago tossed off the handcuffs that dogmatic and irrational conformists tried to restrain me with.

Breathing the pure air of intellectual freedom, unpolluted by the demands of ancient and long-discredited and easily transcended nonsense, teamed up with the formidable resources of actual education available to anyone who honestly seeks them, turns out to be such a powerful formula for genuine, unrestrained happiness, that I often think I ought to start selling it . . .

Maybe I could start a Church.  No.  Forget that.  Science already has that covered.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 6, 2012)

Asath said:


> Oddly enough, Ted, I mostly think that I’m the happiest person I know, if only because I long ago tossed off the handcuffs that dogmatic and irrational conformists tried to restrain me with.
> 
> Breathing the pure air of intellectual freedom, unpolluted by the demands of ancient and long-discredited and easily transcended nonsense, teamed up with the formidable resources of actual education available to anyone who honestly seeks them, turns out to be such a powerful formula for genuine, unrestrained happiness, that I often think I ought to start selling it . . .
> 
> Maybe I could start a Church.  No.  Forget that.  Science already has that covered.



Then I am pleased for you.

I hope it works out for you, but why do you waste your time on this forum with hard headed, uneducated, discredited, nonsensical, recalcitrant, irrational, theists restrained by ridiculous dogmatic beliefs like myself?

That does not compute into happiness.

It sounds more like purgatory, unless you ARE selling something.

What are you selling?


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Wow. Just an angry guy I guess. I sure don't want to push my beliefs on you Asath. I hope that makes you a little bit happier.



Thanks, knew that was coming, had the adjustments ready.

Religion is a belief system about god and spiritual matters. 
Religion is bad.
Atheism is good
Atheism is a belief system about god and spiritual matters.
Atheists blog on god and spiritual matters 
Atheism is NOT a religion 
Religion requires worship 
Worship is an act of religious devotion toward something or someone. 
Worship is a word is derived from the Old English worthscipe meaning worthiness or worth-ship — to give, at its simplest, worth to something.
Atheist do not give worth to their views.
Atheist do not know why they blog on god and spiritual matters 
Christianity is a religion.
All religions are the same (what is true of one is identical with what is true of another).
Atheism is good.
There is no good or bad.
Christians are bad because they have killed in the name of christianity 
Christianity is bad because people have the ability to violate the laws 
Christians are not bad, the christian laws are bad 
Christian rules about showing love or not committing murder are bad.
Religion is false
Atheism is religion if religion is a philosophical view of the spiritual 
Killing is bad (christian perspective) 
killing is good (evolutionary model) 
There is no good or bad (atheistic model) 
Atheists believe killing is bad 
Atheist kill christians, Jews, gays, etc for their beliefs/behaviour/genetics/culture (Hitler, Stalin) 
Atheists kill professionals and intellectuals (Pol Pot, killing fields, Stalin)

Therefore, atheism is good


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 6, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Religion is a belief system about god and spiritual matters.”
> 
> (Forgive me, fellas – I don’t use this technique a lot, but here it seems called for.)
> 
> ...


 
Not quite

beliefs are concepts that are held by the individual, knowledge is when that belief corresponds to what is true

Atheism is not a complete absence of beliefs about God, that's just a ridiculous statement.

See my "correction" when you try to remove atheism from the realm of religion/ philosophy. Doesn't work. The atheists have already made their point that they aren't doing "science" so I guess they're doing nothing. But does nothing exist?

Atheism is NEUTRAL, read your own "superstition" comments, etc. Please. And all this labeling and name calling, ad hominem fallacy, detracts from actually using a logical approach, or does logic exist? Agnosticism is closer to neutral and wouldn't go name calling with such religious fervor like the atheist. If atheists have no beliefs/opinions then where have all the blogs come from?

Differences in "minor" details means 2 things can't be the same. Now we are moving into the realm of logic and reason.

Define where good and bad come from. You guys certainly throw "bad" around a lot in your opinions about religion, including your very comments here. Using terms and then saying you have no idea what your talking about seems ridiculous and contradictory.

Since the rebuttals to my statements of contradiction actually seem to contradict themselves, I will leave original post as it stands. I prepared the "religion" correction in the second statement because I expected the complaint to be on religion and worship, that's what I would have attacked. Surprised at the other points for the reasons described above because they are so logically inconsistent and self defeating (no room for me to argue).

What's the difference between agnosticism, apathy and ambivalence? I don't know and I don't care either way!


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 6, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Not quite
> 
> beliefs are concepts that are held by the individual, knowledge is when that belief corresponds to what is true
> 
> ...



By the way, my graduate and post graduate doctorate degrees are in science, not religion. I suspect any bias I have then is in the direction of science. The "religion" came after when it became obvious that "science" can only go where science goes- the physical realm. It doesn't explain why the physical realm exists. The philosophy of scientific method requires me to consider all possibilities and not be so closed minded as to rule out certain possibilities because they are distasteful to me. I want answers, I want truth, I really don't care about the emotional feelings about religion and God. I want to consider things from a much deeper level.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 6, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Define where good and bad come from. You guys certainly throw "bad" around a lot in your opinions about religion, including your very comments here. Using terms and then saying you have no idea what your talking about seems ridiculous and contradictory.



This sums it up pretty well for me:
http://logical-critical-thinking.co...s-morality-and-where-does-morality-come-from/

""Morality is the belief or recognition that certain behaviors are either “good” or “bad”. Some morals are very easy to accept and only the fringes of society might question or reject them. These people on the fringes may be good or bad, the mere act of rejecting a socially accepted moral of the time is in no way an  indicator of the persons goodness.""

""From what I can best gather through my experience and sense data is that morality is a complex structure to maintain social cohesion and enhance survivability among social creatures. It is present in wolf packs and even among savage reptilian crocodiles. Really most anywhere you find social orders of animals you will find acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. For example it is unacceptable for a small crocodile to take food from a larger one, or it is unacceptable for a subordinate wolf to mate over the Alpha wolf. If these things happen then there will be consequences, the smaller crocodile or subordinate wolf will be physically attacked. As with humans if you steal something other humans will try to give you consequences.""


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> This sums it up pretty well for me:
> http://logical-critical-thinking.co...s-morality-and-where-does-morality-come-from/
> 
> ""Morality is the belief or recognition that certain behaviors are either “good” or “bad”. Some morals are very easy to accept and only the fringes of society might question or reject them. These people on the fringes may be good or bad, the mere act of rejecting a socially accepted moral of the time is in no way an  indicator of the persons goodness.""
> ...



Oh no, now we've opened up a topic that's just as difficult as God and I'll never get off the computer. 

Just a few points to ponder. I agree that some morals are easy to accept and most will agree but that begs the question. Where do morals come from if they are absolute? 

Maybe they aren't absolute but decided by each culture, your appeal to laws and stealing. Then do we go after the people in another culture because they killed our ambassador which we say is "wrong" or do we leave them alone because in their culture, killing Americans seems "right". You have to rise above the cultures especially when you can see they don't agree but it begs a source. Hitler's and Saddam's henchmen both appealed to the laws of the land for justification of the "rightness" of killing the "innocent" so that doesn't seem to be the source for right and wrong, good and bad. It has been said that in some cultures they love thy neighbor and in others they eat them.

The evolutionary wolf pack process is always appealing. However, evolution at its most basic level is a process of random events that, by conferring a survival and reproductive advantage in an environment, select those random events over others. The closest I can get to morals would be "if it helps you survive it is 'good' and if not it is 'bad'" However, survival may mean kill thy neighbor, not love him.  The survival of children with cystic fibrosis over the past 30 years had moved them from dying in childhood to surviving into their 20s+(and now reproductive). Is that good to save these children or bad in polluting the gene pool? 

Finally, tolerance of all "opinions" on morality never works and I will give you the hilarious product of that great moral conservative, Gun rights advocate, and Gay bashing Guru Jon Stewart and the Daily show. This you gotta see.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-5-2012/hope-and-change-2---the-party-of-inclusion


----------



## bullethead (Oct 6, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Oh no, now we've opened up a topic that's just as difficult as God and I'll never get off the computer.
> 
> Just a few points to ponder. I agree that some morals are easy to accept and most will agree but that begs the question. Where do morals come from if they are absolute?
> 
> ...



OK. So then where/how does GOD fit in with this Good/Bad thing called morals?
I can overlook the point  that 2 people chose to sin and "WE" have to pay for it. You insert an invisible being into the mix as the only solution to where we get these things called morals and bring up children with cystic fibrosis and the advancements that have given them a longer life span. HOW does a God make a difference in any of it? WHY then does that same God create beings with self destructing internal time bombs like diseases and cancer, birth defects and abnormalities? Are these the products of evolution due to inferior genes and genetic imperfections from random events OR is the same God that is responsible for all these wonderful morals give these horrific abnormalities to test our morals?
It just doesn't add up.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 6, 2012)

Please read again, I never mentioned God other than to say moral topics are as difficult as God topics. I didn't propose that he was the only absolute source for morals. I think by your statement, you proposed that and then argued against it.

I think you're really saying since there is a God, why does he allow these horrible things. If you are saying there is no God and these things are bad, you are right back to your original problem, defining the source.

However, since you brought it up God does seem a possible source for many questions, existence/morality/life and 2nd law of thermodynamics/logic/reason/mathematics/etc, and since so far he is the only singular source that crosses into each of these arenas, he is a rational possibility to consider.

My poor attempt at a Venn diagram:


----------



## bullethead (Oct 6, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> Please read again, I never mentioned God other than to say moral topics are as difficult as God topics. I didn't propose that he was the only absolute source for morals. I think by your statement, you proposed that and then argued against it.
> 
> I think you're really saying since there is a God, why does he allow these horrible things. If you are saying there is no God and these things are bad, you are right back to your original problem, defining the source.
> 
> ...



Then I'll ask you directly, Where do YOU think Good and Bad come from?

The source is US, humans, and society dictates the advances,regression and changes in morals. Animals have their own set of rules and humans are not much different. What works "here" doesn't necessarily work in other countries/cultures and societies....and what is considered moral/good/bad in one part of a state might not be exactly as it is in another part of the same state. Every individual has his or her own sense of right and wrong but it differs from someone else's. Society holds those differences accountable to the individual. We certainly do not have the same sense of morals as "we" did 50 years ago or 100,1000, or 10,000 years ago.

The diagram is a good one but there are many things that can be inserted in place of "god" in the center for an individual to get the same conclusion. Anything worshiped can take that place. The "Universe" can take that place. If I worship a tree and truly believe THAT tree is responsible for all those things throwing "God" in there would mean diddly squat.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 6, 2012)

_"Maybe they aren't absolute but decided by each culture, your appeal to laws and stealing. Then do we go after the people in another culture because they killed our ambassador which we say is "wrong" or do we leave them alone because in their culture, killing Americans seems "right". You have to rise above the cultures especially when you can see they don't agree but it begs a source. Hitler's and Saddam's henchmen both appealed to the laws of the land for justification of the "rightness" of killing the "innocent" so that doesn't seem to be the source for right and wrong, good and bad. It has been said that in some cultures they love thy neighbor and in others they eat them.

The evolutionary wolf pack process is always appealing. However, evolution at its most basic level is a process of random events that, by conferring a survival and reproductive advantage in an environment, select those random events over others. The closest I can get to morals would be "if it helps you survive it is 'good' and if not it is 'bad'" However, survival may mean kill thy neighbor, not love him. The survival of children with cystic fibrosis over the past 30 years had moved them from dying in childhood to surviving into their 20s+(and now reproductive). Is that good to save these children or bad in polluting the gene pool? 

Finally, tolerance of all "opinions" on morality never works......"_


I don't think you clarified the dilemmas with morality, so maybe I didn't state them well.

Tell me if we go after ambassador Stevens' murderers or not. Should we have stopped the Nazis or not? How are cultures to interact, and if you have an answer is it also true somewhere else?

We typically hold the same morals throughout time, just that what behavior justifies violating that moral, such as dress codes, seems to change. Immodesty is still held to be wrong by those who believe modesty is a moral, they just don't feel the same about what constitutes immodesty.

When the strong (wolf) kill the weak are they "right"?

By the way I stuck tree, money, sex, Ra, Zeus, and chevy silverado in the diagram and couldn't get a coherent singular explanation for all things. God-moral, rational, logical, omnipotent still works. Not saying that proves his existence only that nothing else works. I couldn't even make tree work for one of them-tried morals, existence, logic. Let me know how you did it.

I don't remember your prior posts mentioning you had any clear moral views or a problem overall with stealing, rape or murder so perhaps you do have a relativist point of view, but I still don't see how you make that work with the issues I described above and I think that most people feel these behavior truly are immoral they just can't come up with why, outside of God. All of these behaviors would actually be beneficial evolutionarily, in fact.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 6, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> I don't think you clarified the dilemmas with morality, so maybe I didn't state them well.





outdooraddict said:


> Tell me if we go after ambassador Stevens' murderers or not.


"WE" will. "They" won't. Painfully obvious that there is an incredible amount of difference in human morals.





outdooraddict said:


> Should we have stopped the Nazis or not?


I say yes. Betcha a quarter someone somewhere thinks differently and wouldn't have stopped them and could provide reasons why.



outdooraddict said:


> How are cultures to interact, and if you have an answer is it also true somewhere else?


Cultures will never live in total harmony. It is too easy to destroy someone be it with a stick 100,000 years ago or a Cruise Missile today for no other reason than those differences in morals. What you see is what you get with cultures interacting.



outdooraddict said:


> We typically hold the same morals throughout time, just that what behavior justifies violating that moral, such as dress codes, seems to change. Immodesty is still held to be wrong by those who believe modesty is a moral, they just don't feel the same about what constitutes immodesty.


You're not thinking hard enough on that one.



outdooraddict said:


> When the strong (wolf) kill the weak are they "right"?


If I were a strong wolf I would agree whole heartedly.



outdooraddict said:


> By the way I stuck tree, money, sex, Ra, Zeus, and chevy silverado in the diagram and couldn't get a coherent singular explanation for all things. God-moral, rational, logical, omnipotent still works. Not saying that proves his existence only that nothing else works. I couldn't even make tree work for one of them-tried morals, existence, logic. Let me know how you did it.


What would someone insert there if they never ever heard of God? Someone or something will get the credit. If you were born in India, Iran, the Congo or maybe even deep in the Amazon jungle your diagram would look different .



outdooraddict said:


> I don't remember your prior posts mentioning you had any clear moral views or a problem overall with stealing, rape or murder so perhaps you do have a relativist point of view, but I still don't see how you make that work with the issues I described above and I think that most people feel these behavior truly are immoral they just can't come up with why outside of God. All of these behaviors would actually be beneficial evolutionarily, in fact.



I was taught by my parents,family, friends and society, plus have a personal sense of what I would do. The people I learned from were taught by the people before them and so on.  I don't know exactly what influenced the first humans as they left the trees. Trial and error, survival, personal feelings,experience, like/dislike all could have and probably did influence our earliest ancestors but whatever they passed on has been tweaked twisted and adapted to where we each are as individuals now.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 6, 2012)

Actually my points were well thought out, perhaps not well expressed. I'm not saying culture doesn't play a role in the behavior, culture may decide whether the dress above or below the ankle or even wearing a dress vs pants is modest or not but the absolute moral  " immodesty is wrong" still stands and would not be cultural.

Differences in cultural behavior, us vs Libya, certainly doesn't mean no one is right, it means somebody must be wrong. If 5 kids get different answers on the math test it doesn't mean that nobody is right it just means at least 4 must be wrong. We will go after Stephens killers because we know it was absolutely wrong, we will not say "well in Libya it's ok to kill Americans its just their culture".

Obviously you are a moral relativist, considering all the "we" "they" "if I was the wolf" points of view. Moral relativism always does seem the nicest at first, but it doesn't work. We and they becomes us and Libya but then it becomes FL vs Ga and finally it becomes what my house thinks vs my neighbor. Laws then have no meaning, I can rob my neighbor because in my house the moral that stealing is wrong isn't held and the moral that I must obey the law isn't held so then in the end you end up with anarchy. 

If there aren't any absolutes then anarchy is ok but as they say, if you can't get anywhere with a relativist about absolute right and wrong, steal his stereo. Then he'll believe in right and wrong.

If morals are absolute as I proposed then it doesn't matter where you were born or what you know or how you fill in my diagram. 2+2 still equals 4 no matter where you were born or whether or not you know it or believe it. That's the point of the absolute truths. When Hitler's henchmen at the Nuremberg trials said "who are you to judge us, we followed the laws of our land and culture" they were still found guilty for Nazi atrocities and the prevailing opinion was that there are absolute morals that supersede the laws of the land/culture.

Fnally, even if you somehow come up with list A "things that are right" and list B " things that are wrong" outside of an authority, you can't explain why I should pick from list A vs B in what I choose to do. Where is the compulsion to do what is right, that comes from a submission to authority- God or whatever source for absolute morality you can come up with. The wolf has no idea whether he should choose to kill or protect the weaker wolf. Evolutionary morals never help us choose how to behave, the ones who argue for an evolutionary moral explanation seem to play the worst card trick I know. They say show me your card and then I'll tell you what card you picked from the deck. They look at the behavior then try to explain why it helped evolutionary process. If the strongest man stays in the village and mates with the women and has strong children we say that's evolution, he's the strongest and he bred strong genes. If instead he leaves the village and fights the competing village and dies we say see that's evolution look how his "behavior" help the society survive. If he deserts and runs back home we say look how smart, he didn't stay and fight but instead took care of himself that's evolution. That doesn't give moral direction it just takes whatever happens and then claims the behavior proves evolutionary morals, NO MATTER what behavior is chosen. 

I wish I could be a relativist, on the surface it seems so tolerant, but as I said it doesn't work, doesn't help us decide on what behavior to perform and is a self defeating argument-"it is absolutely wrong not to let every culture decide their own morals because there is no such thing as absolute morals"


----------



## bullethead (Oct 6, 2012)

I am actually not a moral relativist but I play one HECK of a devils advocate  I am not tolerant. I tend to be a realist. Things are the way they are. I do everything possible to change the things I can, but like everyone else in the world, it is usually to benefit me/family. People in other parts of the world are no different as they are doing the things that benefit them. I would not lose a wink of sleep if our anti-American enemies were wiped off the planet tomm, the lights flickered every night until the violent repeat criminals were disposed of and we boot our elected officials out of office and started over. But being realistic, I gotta do what I can and deal with the others the best I can.

WHO tried the Nazi's at Nuremberg? The victor makes the rules. If they were judged by Nazi's they would have been found not guilty.

Why is it that our morals seem to always be the better ones when compared to everywhere else in the world? Similarly it never ceases to amaze that our God hates the same people we do.

I cannot find fault with an ultimate authority...I just do not see any evidence that one stands out more than another. It is easy for the Christian to use God as their default ultimate authority, the Jews Yahweh, the Muslims Allah, and so it goes for each and every religion.

I pray every night to give thanks for my family's safety and for our health. I say what I need to in hopes that someone is listening....must be a holdover from my early years I guess...but I don't dare to tell anyone that the God I am praying to is the right God. I am just hoping that if there is one that rules the roost he hears me. Not looking for brownie points. Whatever happens when I am gone happens.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am actually not a moral relativist but I play one HECK of a devils advocate  I am not tolerant. I tend to be a realist. Things are the way they are. I do everything possible to change the things I can, but like everyone else in the world, it is usually to benefit me/family. People in other parts of the world are no different as they are doing the things that benefit them. I would not lose a wink of sleep if our anti-American enemies were wiped off the planet tomm, the lights flickered every night until the violent repeat criminals were disposed of and we boot our elected officials out of office and started over. But being realistic, I gotta do what I can and deal with the others the best I can.
> 
> WHO tried the Nazi's at Nuremberg? The victor makes the rules. If they were judged by Nazi's they would have been found not guilty.
> 
> ...


 

The victor makes the rules seems to boil down to survival of the fittest and subject to all the problems I've already framed for "evolution does morality". You must be a relativist to propose this as truth, that's all it could be! But from whence comes truth in a relativist world.

You and I must be pretty boring to still be debating this on a Saturday night. What the heck, I'll be a relativists too and go find some "fun" the way I want it tonight, the heck with right and wrong LOL.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 6, 2012)

outdooraddict said:


> The victor makes the rules seems to boil down to survival of the fittest and subject to all the problems I've already framed for "evolution does morality". You must be a relativist to propose this as truth, that's all it could be! But from whence comes truth in a relativist world.
> 
> You and I must be pretty boring to still be debating this on a Saturday night. What the heck, I'll be a relativists too and go find some "fun" the way I want it tonight, the heck with right and wrong LOL.



REAList. I don't live my life any way I want it. I don't make excuses for anyone else. The whole "do unto others" thing is not bad advice. But neither is "Be nice until it's time to not be nice".

I enjoy the mental workout. It beats reality shows. Between wiping down some firearms and watching college football this conversation was not a waste for me.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 7, 2012)

Me either I have enjoyed the discussion, and I had to clean 2 muzzleloaders. I don't know what a realist is. Are your morals absolute or relative to the person, culture, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 7, 2012)

I think we each have to live according to both absolute and relative morals with the goal of respecting our own integrity and the integrity of others. Neither choice is a One size fits all solution.


----------



## panfried0419 (Oct 7, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Awesome!!! The rest is just what it is.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how would you define evolution?



Change over time that involves adaptation. Gods unique plan.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 7, 2012)

panfried0419 said:


> change over time that involves adaptation. Gods unique plan.



100%!!!


----------



## pnome (Oct 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Welcome back!
> 
> Because given the parameters this is what happened?
> 
> ...



I don't know if that's the best answer or not.  The best answer is the correct one.  We will likely never know.  But I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that whatever created this something we find ourselves in, doesn't ever get bored.

No 'team'  still an "agnostic theist"


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 11, 2012)

pnome said:


> No 'team'  still an "agnostic theist"





attaboy, P.    almost, but not quite, an oxymoron.


----------

