# Where do you anticipate spending 'eternity,' if at all?



## RegularJoe (Aug 13, 2022)

Where do you anticipate spending 'eternity,' if at all?  
Thanks.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2022)

In a garden with 50 miles of elbow room.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2022)

My ashes will be scattered in the surf to mix with the ocean and sand at a special to me place I have picked out.
So I guess you could say I will spend eternity at the beach.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> My ashes will be scattered in the surf to mix with the ocean and sand at a special to me place I have picked out.
> So I guess you could say I will spend eternity at the beach.


I think I'm gonna have mine dumped into the Alapaha River. I guess I might eventually make it to the gulf.
Even better, I might have them wait until the low water of summer and have them put me in the suck hole. That way I get to go underground and pop back up next to the Suwannee River.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think I'm gonna have mine dumped into the Alapaha River. I guess I might eventually make it to the gulf.
> Even better, I might have them wait until the low water of summer and have them put me in the suck hole. That way I get to go underground and pop back up next to the Suwannee River.


That sounds good!
Dont know if this would actually happen but.... I like the idea of maybe some minnows or crabs or whatever will feed on my ashes, In turn those minnows etc will get eaten by bigger fish or crabs or whatever. Basically I would become part of the circle of life.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 13, 2022)

I never really thought about it. My family - meaning my parents/grandparents/aunts & uncles and my wife's family meaning parents/grandparents/aunts & uncles - doesn't have a church or family cemetery where the members are buried. Nobody can afford fancy funerals & burials, so everyone is cremated, I guess. Regardless I won't exist, so what people do with my remains doesn't matter.

Technically I could be buried at Arlington since I did my full 20 years, but it's not uncommon for mistakes to be made at Arlington and your body will not match up to your tombstone. I mean it is the government, so I am well aware of the almost complete lack of accountability that exists at any given time.
I've never been interested in ceremony & rituals anyway. 

I have "term" life insurance so if I die before I'm 70 my family will have 10K or so to bury or cremate me however they want to.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2022)

I will be ashes and slowly die as the people who knew me die.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 15, 2022)

660griz said:


> I will be ashes and slowly die as the people who knew me die.



But wait, it gets better! Eventually ALL the people will be gone, because our species will inevitably be extinct. Option "B" the planet itself is destroyed while our species is still around, but the result will still be no more humans. Hey, that's life!


----------



## earlthegoat2 (Aug 15, 2022)

Pine box and not embalmed but buried in a municipal cemetery on the edge of the edge of the Wilmington river. Got the spots already.

I figure this is the best way to return to dust.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 15, 2022)

earlthegoat2 said:


> Pine box and not embalmed but buried in a municipal cemetery on the edge of the edge of the Wilmington river. Got the spots already.
> 
> I figure this is the best way to return to dust.



Not embalmed? That makes sense, why poison all the microbes that will be chowing down on your remains? 

Speaking of no embalming, is it legal to be mummified (like the ancient Egyptians) these days? * That would provide Halloween fun for many generations to come! 

* that's what I call "thinking outside the box" am I right?


----------



## earlthegoat2 (Aug 15, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Not embalmed? That makes sense, why poison all the microbes that will be chowing down on your remains?:



My wife is a funeral director and that is how Jewish folks and Muslims do it. I liked the idea ever since watching old cowboy movies.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2022)

I like this idea the best but doubt could get away with it these days.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I never really thought about it. My family - meaning my parents/grandparents/aunts & uncles and my wife's family meaning parents/grandparents/aunts & uncles - doesn't have a church or family cemetery where the members are buried. Nobody can afford fancy funerals & burials, so everyone is cremated, I guess. Regardless I won't exist, so what people do with my remains doesn't matter.
> 
> Technically I could be buried at Arlington since I did my full 20 years, but it's not uncommon for mistakes to be made at Arlington and your body will not match up to your tombstone. I mean it is the government, so I am well aware of the almost complete lack of accountability that exists at any given time.
> I've never been interested in ceremony & rituals anyway.
> ...





> Technically I could be buried at Arlington


Possible government mistakes aside, you certainly would be sharing eternity with some honorable folks.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 15, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I like this idea the best but doubt could get away with it these days.
> View attachment 1170136



It depends. Is your house in a HOA neighborhood?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 15, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Possible government mistakes aside, you certainly would be sharing eternity with some honorable folks.



I don't like the idea of my body (live or dead) being anywhere near D.C.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> It depends. Is your house in a HOA neighborhood?


Ha!
Nope Ive seen enough HOA nightmares to know they aint for me!


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 16, 2022)

Told my bunch to burn me, take 1/3 to Cades Cove, mix it with a can of dog food and chunk it in the field. Take another 1/3 to Mexico Beach. Put the remaining in a bottle, take a cruise and pitch the bottle overboard when they could no longer see land. 

The main thing I told them is I don’t really care what you do with me just make sure I’m dead before you do it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Told my bunch to burn me, take 1/3 to Cades Cove, mix it with a can of dog food and chunk it in the field. Take another 1/3 to Mexico Beach. Put the remaining in a bottle, take a cruise and pitch the bottle overboard when they could no longer see land.
> 
> The main thing I told them is I don’t really care what you do with me just make sure I’m dead before you do it.


I know you get a kick out of some of the Catholic wacky rules so heres a few more -
Up until the early 60s, cremation was a sin and forbidden because it was considered a Pagan thing.
Even now ashes must be buried in a "holy place" (cemetary etc). Cant put GrandPa's ashes on your fireplace mantel, cant spread them out anywhere (No Cades Cove, no Mexico Beach) etc.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 16, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I know you get a kick out of some of the Catholic wacky rules so heres a few more -
> Up until the early 60s, cremation was a sin and forbidden because it was considered a Pagan thing.
> Even now ashes must be buried in a "holy place" (cemetary etc). Cant put GrandPa's ashes on your fireplace mantel, cant spread them out anywhere (No Cades Cove, no Mexico Beach) etc.


Not even being Catholic it’s been taught to many that cremation was a sin in general.

I told them f I’m cremated, someone else did it to me lol ?


----------



## formula1 (Aug 16, 2022)

My spirit will return to God who gave it!

I guess I need to do some planning for the body which I haven’t done yet. But it doesn’t matter I won’t need it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2022)

formula1 said:


> My spirit will return to God who gave it!
> 
> I guess I need to do some planning for the body which I haven’t done yet. But it doesn’t matter I won’t need it.


I just hate seeing those big beautiful pieces of land being used up by...dead folks. So, if your belief allows, cremate.


----------



## tr21 (Aug 16, 2022)

half of my ashes will be spread on my favorite cove on west point lake and the other half will be spread out at my favorite turkey hunting spot on Blanton Creek WMA !!!! that way I can fish and turkey hunt forever !


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 16, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I know you get a kick out of some of the Catholic wacky rules so heres a few more -
> Up until the early 60s, cremation was a sin and forbidden because it was considered a Pagan thing.
> Even now ashes must be buried in a "holy place" (cemetary etc). Cant put GrandPa's ashes on your fireplace mantel, cant spread them out anywhere (No Cades Cove, no Mexico Beach) etc.



"Up until the early 60s, cremation was a sin and forbidden because it was considered a Pagan thing." 

  That broke my irony meter! Cremation is pagan but burning souls in eternal fire is perfectly legit. You can't make this stuff up! Oh wait, you CAN make it up - my mistake.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2022)

formula1 said:


> My spirit will return to God who gave it!
> 
> I guess I need to do some planning for the body which I haven’t done yet. But it doesn’t matter I won’t need it.


Not really any of my business but...... yes the less loved ones have to decide/deal with at a time like that, the easier it will be on them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> "Up until the early 60s, cremation was a sin and forbidden because it was considered a Pagan thing."
> 
> That broke my irony meter! Cremation is pagan but burning souls in eternal fire is perfectly legit. You can't make this stuff up! Oh wait, you CAN make it up - my mistake.



When it comes to religion you arent supposed to compare things.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 16, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Not really any of my business but...... yes the less loved ones have to decide/deal with at a time like that, the easier it will be on them.



You know it! My mother-in-law really left her family in the lurch at every level when she committed suicide about seven months ago.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 16, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I never really thought about it. My family - meaning my parents/grandparents/aunts & uncles and my wife's family meaning parents/grandparents/aunts & uncles - doesn't have a church or family cemetery where the members are buried. Nobody can afford fancy funerals & burials, so everyone is cremated, I guess. Regardless I won't exist, so what people do with my remains doesn't matter.
> 
> Technically I could be buried at Arlington since I did my full 20 years, but it's not uncommon for mistakes to be made at Arlington and your body will not match up to your tombstone. I mean it is the government, so I am well aware of the almost complete lack of accountability that exists at any given time.
> I've never been interested in ceremony & rituals anyway.
> ...





> Technically I could be buried at Arlington since I did my full 20 years


Almost missed this…..THANK YOU, SIR!! I’m very grateful for your service!


----------



## 1gr8buildit (Aug 16, 2022)

Fun fact... there was a time when the early church was punished by burning their bodies. Reason is that  it was considered  extra cruel punishment because they believed that they could not be raised to life if they were cremated. Thus this was robbing them of their cherished belief in Christianity. Apparently this was not a long time period but it was so for a period


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 16, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Almost missed this…..THANK YOU, SIR!! I’m very grateful for your service!



Thanks! Serving the country was a real privilege IMHO. A little off topic but the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is not at all true.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 16, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Thanks! Serving the country was a real privilege IMHO. A little off topic but the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is not at all true.


Lol yea I’ve heard that slogan before. Regardless of where you put your trust, I’m glad you made it back home!


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 17, 2022)

My Dad's ashes went to Paris with us. Some of them are in the Seinne, at the Arc de Triomphe, and sprinkled from the Eiffel tower. He didn't really have a connection to Paris but my wife and daughter thought it might be nice. The rest of his remains are to spread on the beach in the Philippines where he met my Mom, with hers, when she passes.  I just got misty.......


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2022)

660griz said:


> I just hate seeing those big beautiful pieces of land being used up by...dead folks. So, if your belief allows, cremate.


Plus you have to wonder if at some point in the future its not going to be determined that that land needs to be used for other purposes. Bodies out, futuristic WalMart in.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 17, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> My Dad's ashes went to Paris with us. Some of them are in the Seinne, at the Arc de Triomphe, and sprinkled from the Eiffel tower. He didn't really have a connection to Paris but my wife and daughter thought it might be nice. The rest of his remains are to spread on the beach in the Philippines where he met my Mom, with hers, when she passes.  I just got misty.......



interesting - I didn't know you were allowed to transport ashes to other countries!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 17, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Plus you have to wonder if at some point in the future its not going to be determined that that land needs to be used for other purposes. Bodies out, futuristic WalMart in.



Maybe the futuristic Walmart will offer cremation services!   If any store starts doing that, my money's on COSTCO!


----------



## Ruger#3 (Aug 17, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Plus you have to wonder if at some point in the future its not going to be determined that that land needs to be used for other purposes. Bodies out, futuristic WalMart in.



Actually happen with my sister, she died a few days after birth. Buried in a wooden casket in a family cemetery. Highway took the family farm. All those graves were exhumed and reinterned. Huge scoop grabbed the earth of the entire gravesite. Moved it to a new grave. I have no idea what really remained after 50 years.


----------



## tr21 (Aug 17, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Maybe the futuristic Walmart will offer cremation services!   If any store starts doing that, my money's on COSTCO!


No sir it will be a AMAZON same day service


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Actually happen with my sister, she died a few days after birth. Buried in a wooden casket in a family cemetery. Highway took the family farm. All those graves were exhumed and reinterned. Huge scoop grabbed the earth of the entire gravesite. Moved it to a new grave. I have no idea what really remained after 50 years.


It just seems so disrespectful to me. A highway takes precedence over someones final resting place. Its just wrong.


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Aug 17, 2022)

Burn and scattered on a high dike overlooking my duck ponds...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2022)

I hope to be cremated and loaded as buffer into some shotshells to be a part of a few more hunts and distrubuted over some good hunting land. After that I'll be wherever the next transformation of energy takes me.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 17, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I hope to be cremated and loaded as buffer into some shotshells to be a part of a few more hunts and distrubuted over some good hunting land. After that I'll be wherever the next transformation of energy takes me.


Now that would be cool!! And, suits you perfectly.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 18, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> interesting - I didn't know you were allowed to transport ashes to other countries!



I don't think they declared them.  I think they were in a baggie in their check in bags.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 18, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think they declared them.  I think they were in a baggie in their check in bags.



Or they flew on Spirit Airlines. Anything goes with that outfit!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 21, 2022)

Israel said:


> It's kinda interesting how many equate the "I" to mortal remains. If so, _I am already _in every corner of this doublewide, on countertops and behind every nook and cranny untouched by my wife's duster. (Hey, look, I'm probably on the duster, too.)
> 
> In my garage, pieces littering the garden...and probably to be found on my tractor seat.
> 
> ...



Where am I?  President Biden, stand by, help is in the way! Try to find an adult to keep you safe for now.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 21, 2022)

As for my carcass, it will probably rest here on this hilltop with a lot of my people who have been occupying it for the last hundred-plus years:



As for the spiritual part, if there is one, I have no idea. I doubt if it has to do much with Hebrew folklore though. I'm not Jewish. And to paraphrase Huck Finn, I never much liked milk and honey anyway. I would greatly prefer a Native American Happy Hunting Ground or a Nordic Valhalla to sitting around in a crowded gold-plated city doing nothing 24/7 but praising the Lord for the next few million years, to be honest. Maybe I'll be a crispy critter as most in this forum would predict. Maybe I'll just fade to black. I have absolutely no idea, and nobody else does either, even if they think they have it all figured out.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 21, 2022)

Israel said:


> I haven't figured anything out, but there are things I know.
> 
> I know that if the God of Creation is not able to be found in a crowd...He's not able to be found on mountaintops either.
> 
> ...


I have no idea at all what you're trying to say, except that it's probably degrading to me?

And I also think that it is none of your job to supervise my personal relationship with my creator. Maybe he reveals himself to me differently than he does to you.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 21, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> As for my carcass, it will probably rest here on this hilltop with a lot of my people who have been occupying it for the last hundred-plus years:
> 
> View attachment 1171283
> 
> As for the spiritual part, if there is one, I have no idea. I doubt if it has to do much with Hebrew folklore though. I'm not Jewish. And to paraphrase Huck Finn, I never much liked milk and honey anyway. I would greatly prefer a Native American Happy Hunting Ground or a Nordic Valhalla to sitting around in a crowded gold-plated city doing nothing 24/7 but praising the Lord for the next few million years, to be honest. Maybe I'll be a crispy critter as most in this forum would predict. Maybe I'll just fade to black. I have absolutely no idea, and nobody else does either, even if they think they have it all figured out.


Now that’s a peaceful view for the visiting family when they’re out there!!


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 21, 2022)

Israel said:


> _Son, I ain't sayin' what's right or wrong, I'm just sayin' how it is.....Black Oak Arkansas_


You're just saying how you're brainwashed to believe it is. That may not be how it is at all.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2022)

Israel said:


> But I've seen my Creator on the mountaintop and in the urine stained stairwells of public housing when held at gunpoint. I'm glad the choice wasn't left up to me. Where to either seek, or find.


What did he look like?
6ft Blue Eye'd flowing hair White Guy version that speaks in Shakespearian dialect or Shorter close cropped hair brown eyes olive skin version that speaks in Aramaic with a touch of Hebrew?


----------



## snooker1 (Aug 21, 2022)

Where ever they dump my ashes.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2022)

Israel said:


> Why would he be limited to those appearances?


I was asking if it was either of those two and if not I also was sure to ask ,WHAT DID HE LOOK LIKE?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 21, 2022)

"But I've seen my Creator on the mountaintop and *in the urine stained stairwells of public housing when held at gunpoint."  *- Israel

urine stained public housing holding a gun would indicate his creator looks something like this!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2022)

Israel said:


> No mask


So you claim to have seen God or Jesus at least twice and you will not give a detailed explanation of what he looks like.
I do realize that you feel that you would be ashamed to fib up a description thinking both are "watching". Why not just admit that you are figuratively speaking for effect rather than literally speaking? If you literally saw God what did he look like? Tell us all about the interactions.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2022)

Israel said:


> That's a good question.
> 
> Consequent to this particular one...(experience) as I returned to the hallway to take the elevator down and thought to myself of the comfort and safety of my own living room as opposed to these now hollow seeming hallways, these apartments that housed strangers, this building that seemed so foreign to me in those moments...I was suddenly struck with this thought "what makes you think you are safer in your living room or less safe here?"
> 
> ...


Inclinations = God
Then I too, am Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2022)

Israel said:


> There's a help for that.
> So that you will know you are _not alone._


I'll catch a ride with you


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 22, 2022)

Saw Jesus play with flames in a lake of fire that I was standing in
Met the Devil in Seattle, spent nine months inside the lion's den
Met Buddha yet another time, and he showed me a glowing light within
But I swear that God is there every time I stare in the eyes of my best friend......Simpson, Sturgill.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 22, 2022)

There’s more than one devil. She’s here, local - my mother in law.

She’s a dawg fan with its deepest roots, born in Athens - I mean ordered a truck decked out in dawg.

Hates Auburn so much she will sit in the car if you pull into a restaurant in Auburn, she will not give one cent to anything that’s connected with Auburn.

We live on the state line so it’s just a skip and hop over, I bought her a cold Pepsi in Auburn and she refused to drink it.

She wants to be cremated and ashes spread at the UGA stadium. I told her I was flushing her down a toilet at the Auburn campus. Yup she blew a fuse and promised to haunt me. I told her she already does lol


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Not embalmed? That makes sense, why poison all the microbes that will be chowing down on your remains?
> 
> Speaking of no embalming, is it legal to be mummified (like the ancient Egyptians) these days? * That would provide Halloween fun for many generations to come!
> 
> * that's what I call "thinking outside the box" am I right?



Does seem like an ungrateful act to resist even in death returning to nature the raw materials that made your life possible.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 23, 2022)

Where is every other organism that has ever lived and died on this planet spending eternity?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 23, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Where is every other organism that has ever lived and died on this planet spending eternity?



Think about how HUUUUUUUUUUGE that place would have to be! 
If at any given time in the world's history it takes an entire planet to house all the living things, if you add up billions of years of living things living/dying then going to an afterlife that's an insane number!


----------



## Madman (Oct 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Think about how HUUUUUUUUUUGE that place would have to be!
> If at any given time in the world's history it takes an entire planet to house all the living things, if you add up billions of years of living things living/dying then going to an afterlife that's an insane number!


I know!! Isn’t it magnificent.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Think about how HUUUUUUUUUUGE that place would have to be!
> If at any given time in the world's history it takes an entire planet to house all the living things, if you add up billions of years of living things living/dying then going to an afterlife that's an insane number!


And yet we are but a speck of dust in the universe. We cant even measure the size of it all, and these are the things that are know to us and we can see right now. Imagine all the stuff that is beyond.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2022)

Heaven cannot be that crowded if the requirement to get in is accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Not sure what the club rules were before Jesus got on the Condo Board but it is argued that Abraham didn't qualify to get a place in Heaven.
It's an exclusive club and most will never have the password despite wearing the STAFF t-shirt around casually now.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 23, 2022)

The possibilities of what happens after death are endless. To close that off as nothing seems to lack creativity in my opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> The possibilities of what happens after death are endless. To close that off as nothing seems to lack creativity in my opinion.


The possibilities are endless, the actual truth is finite.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The possibilities are endless, the actual truth is finite.


And you will never know till ya know


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> I know!! Isn’t it magnificent.



IMHO it's "magnificent" as an idea for a science fiction story. The actual reality of a place where every single thing that ever lived will live again is ridiculous and can only be a product of the *human imagination *which - no doubt about it - truly deserves to be called "magnificent". 

Humans are animals and we will become worm food just like every animal on this planet. While we are alive our human brains are capable of an almost infinite number of ideas and creativity, but we are still subject to the same laws of physics & science as are our fellow animals.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 23, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> The possibilities of what happens after death are endless. To close that off as nothing seems to lack creativity in my opinion.



I would say the possibilities COULD be endless but considering twenty different religions give twenty different concepts of these possibilities that indicates to me that either every religion has it right (impossible) every religion has it wrong (most likely) or one religion has it right (not likely). 

Agree though it does take a great deal of creativity to consider all the possibilities of what happens when we die, but these are all IDEAS which is what the human brain does - it explores ideas - but ideas only exist within the parameters of the human experience so far as humans understand the human experience.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 23, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> And you will never know till ya know



But no human knows. No human has ever come back from the dead to tell us the absolute truth. Religious books and other books of fiction make claims to the contrary, but these books are written by humans for humans.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> But no human knows. No human has ever come back from the dead to tell us the absolute truth. Religious books and other books of fiction make claims to the contrary, but these books are written by humans for humans.


And yet you build a wall where there should be a door.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 23, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> The possibilities of what happens after death are endless. To close that off as nothing seems to lack creativity in my opinion.



Not after death, after life. I’m not sure why any more creativity is required than to consider what happened before life.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 23, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Not after death, after life. I’m not sure why any more creativity is required than to consider what happened before life.


Well some dont seem to want to consider at all


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 23, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> And yet you build a wall where there should be a door.



I'm not building a wall, I just want evidence that there_ is _an actual door.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 23, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Not after death, after life. I’m not sure why any more creativity is required than to consider what happened before life.



Interesting point! I don't remember what I did before I was born, but it must not have been very interesting, or I would have remembered even a little bit of it.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm not building a wall, I just want evidence that there_ is _an actual door.


Why do you deserve proof over all others who consider what might be?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Why do you deserve proof over all others who consider what might be?



I don't quite understand your question. I'm not getting the "over all others who consider what might be" part. Are you asking why I deserve proof when others do not need proof? 

If this is your question, I think it's fair that everything that's CLAIMED AS FACT should be questioned if it sounds incredible. However, if things/ideas are presented as FICTION - or ART - or other products of the human imagination, then all information presented is valid because these subjective things hold different "takeaways" for different people.

As for deserving proof_ in general_ not many people take everything they encounter at face value - healthy skepticism is absolutely necessary so you don't purchase the Brooklyn Bridge. In other words, most people want some proof - or at least an explanation as to where they can get the proof or fully understand the truth - yet when it comes to religion people draw a line in the sand where facts cannot invade their "faith space."

If you meant something else by your question (nuance is not my strong suit) then steer me in the right direction please, so I'm not putting words in your mouth or anything.


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Not after death, after life. I’m not sure why any more creativity is required than to consider what happened before life.



That brings up a thought.
1) Did you exist before you existed?
     Or have you always existed?


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I don't quite understand your question. I'm not getting the "over all others who consider what might be" part. Are you asking why I deserve proof when others do not need proof?
> 
> If this is your question, I think it's fair that everything that's CLAIMED AS FACT should be questioned if it sounds incredible. However, if things/ideas are presented as FICTION - or ART - or other products of the human imagination, then all information presented is valid because these subjective things hold different "takeaways" for different people.
> 
> ...


I can agree with a lot of that.

i.e. Atheist's claim there is no god.  While that may be true, they are making a claim of omniscience, which I do not believe is possible for a human, therefore, I need more evidence from them.  If they claim to be agnostic we have a starting point.

Sometimes personal beliefs are a long time in coming and fleshing them out to determine their validity or even a possibility that they may be valid.  

i.e. for me I know that nothing can come from nothing, therefore where did what we see come from? What is the unmoved mover? I don't care what ones calls it, what started what we see?

As science shows us more it is evident chance is not involved in what exists.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> I can agree with a lot of that.
> 
> i.e. Atheist's claim there is no god.  While that may be true, they are making a claim of omniscience, which I do not believe is possible for a human, therefore, I need more evidence from them.  If they claim to be agnostic we have a starting point.
> 
> ...


When was there a time that there was "nothing"?
Edited to add: Do you know of anyone (besides theists asserting and assigning atheists beleive it) that claims that something came from nothing?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I don't quite understand your question. I'm not getting the "over all others who consider what might be" part. Are you asking why I deserve proof when others do not need proof?
> 
> If this is your question, I think it's fair that everything that's CLAIMED AS FACT should be questioned if it sounds incredible. However, if things/ideas are presented as FICTION - or ART - or other products of the human imagination, then all information presented is valid because these subjective things hold different "takeaways" for different people.
> 
> ...


I guess it was a nice way of sayin the universe, god, the creator, whoever doesnt owe you an answer. There are those that seek truth, and those that demand some sort of explenation. Atheists kinda strike me as the "show me the money" crowd. Not sayin just buy whatevers bein sold either.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

Ask yourselves this question and see if you can find an answer.
Most things in nature have a purpose. A role in the ecosystem. Some we can see plain. Others it takes effort. Now lets look at this, if there is no creator. No grand design. What purpose would the random universe have for us? Are we needed? Would the world not function without our minds? Our ability to see, understand, and create things far beyond any other animal. Why would nature need such a thing?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> That brings up a thought.
> 1) Did you exist before you existed?
> Or have you always existed?



Have you given this much thought?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Ask yourselves this question and see if you can find an answer.
> Most things in nature have a purpose. A role in the ecosystem. Some we can see plain. Others it takes effort. Now lets look at this, if there is no creator. No grand design. What purpose would the random universe have for us? Are we needed? Would the world not function without our minds? Our ability to see, understand, and create things far beyond any other animal. Why would nature need such a thing?


Why is it about "us" when comparatively speaking we are on earth for an extremely short period of time? We exist for as long as we have and will because conditions allow it. We did not exist earlier because we couldn't. Human types are a few million years old. Modern humans are 50,000 to 70,000 years old. Modernized humans are 10,000ish years old. The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. The Universe as we have come to understand it is 13.7 Billion years old. How did either survive without us for so long? Why do you think the Earth/Universe needs us? What do you think our purpose is? Why do individual humans get about 70yrs+/- to make an impact?

Personally I do not think Nature "needs" such a thing as humans. We exist and thrive because it is our time. Conditions allow it.
How brilliant are we that in 30 mins we could destroy all life as we know it and send the times back to pre-stone age?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Most things in nature have a purpose.



Faulty premise.




livinoutdoors said:


> What purpose would the random universe have for us?



None




livinoutdoors said:


> Are we needed? Would the world not function without our minds? Our ability to see, understand, and create things far beyond any other animal. Why would nature need such a thing?



Who says it does need such a thing? The universe was doing it's thing long before we came along and will still be doing it's thing long after we are gone.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

Right, so if a complex being such as ourselves is not needed then why are we here? I agree from a non creation based outlook we seem almost silly. What a waste of effort to make something like us.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Faulty premise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are right. All things in nature have a purpose.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Right, so if a complex being such as ourselves is not needed then why are we here? I agree from a non creation based outlook we seem almost silly. What a waste of effort to make something like us.


Because Conditions allow our existence. We evolved to this current form out of necessity for OURSELVES. We are probably the most selfish  species to have ever evolved. Productively Detrimental to our own existence and to everything else's also.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> You are right. All things in nature have a purpose.


Those that didn't are all gone or have ceased to exist after their usefulness was over.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Right, so if a complex being such as ourselves is not needed then why are we here? I agree from a non creation based outlook we seem almost silly. What a waste of effort to make something like us.


Over time a relative handful of "us" have been beneficial to the advancement of the species. The rest are cannon fodder.
I wouldn't put a dime on any modern man and woman combo regardless of education,  brilliance or creativity  being beamed back a million years with only their birthday suits as baggage and thriving let alone repopulating the earth with the more modern species.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> I can agree with a lot of that.
> 
> i.e. Atheist's claim there is no god.  While that may be true, they are making a claim of omniscience, which I do not believe is possible for a human, therefore, I need more evidence from them.  If they claim to be agnostic we have a starting point.
> 
> ...



If we go down the list of deities that humans have at one point or another asserted to exist your answer to the question "does this deity exist?" will be the same as the atheists in every single case, except one. In one case you'll engage in special pleading that an exception be made to the standard that was applied to all others. And it just so happens you'll do that for the god that you most likely were indoctrinated from childhood to believe and taught that you get a reward for believing and a punishment for not believing. The atheist is being consistent in how they reach an answer to the question. The same cannot be said for the believer. I think it's the atheist who deserves to know why the christian who does this should be considered any more credible than the hindu or pagan who does this. What warrants belief in certain deities more than others?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Right, so if a complex being such as ourselves is not needed then why are we here? I agree from a non creation based outlook we seem almost silly. What a waste of effort to make something like us.



Why was that fly that got caught in amber a few million years ago here? What purpose did it serve? How has the universe managed without it? Seems to me it has managed just fine and little different than if that fly hadn't ever existed at all.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> You are right. All things in nature have a purpose.



Still a faulty premise.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> That brings up a thought.
> 1) Did you exist before you existed?
> Or have you always existed?



good question! I definitely agree with the idea of "I think, therefore I am". The concept of "me" - really only exists in my mind, in my own consciousness, which defines "always existed" because the vast, endless (maybe) universe might as well have never existed - and might as well cease to exist - once my concept of my tiny part of the universe that I know as "me" ceases to exist.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> I can agree with a lot of that.
> 
> i.e. Atheist's claim there is no god.  While that may be true, they are making a claim of omniscience, which I do not believe is possible for a human, therefore, I need more evidence from them.  If they claim to be agnostic we have a starting point.
> 
> ...



Not all atheists claim there is no god. Generally, atheist_ don't believe in a god _because they have never seen any proof sufficient to convince them. And as far as "faith" is concerned I don't think it's morally right to trick myself/lie to myself into ignoring what I do believe in and accepting an alternate reality based on the concept of "faith".

IMHO belief in god is like belief in bigfoot. I don't claim that there is no bigfoot, but I don't_ believe_ there is a bigfoot because I personally haven't been presented with enough evidence.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Why was that fly that got caught in amber a few million years ago here? What purpose did it serve? How has the universe managed without it? Seems to me it has managed just fine and little different than if that fly hadn't ever existed at all.


You are making my point for me.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Because Conditions allow our existence. We evolved to this current form out of necessity for OURSELVES. We are probably the most selfish  species to have ever evolved. Productively Detrimental to our own existence and to everything else's also.


None of that makes sense as it relates to my question i asked in post #89


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> None of that makes sense as it relates to my question i asked in post #89


Of course everything has a purpose. But for who or what? The purpose differs depending upon the positive benefit or negative effect. Not everything is beneficial for humans.
We applaud the flies when they are on a dead animal carcass but not when they are laying eggs in underprivileged kids eyes, noses and mouths. Each act serves a purpose. The flies are benefitting nature moreso than you or that Ethiopian Kid.

Your #89 post is vague and open to a lot of interpretation.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Of course everything has a purpose. But for who or what? The purpose differs depending upon the positive benefit or negative effect. Not everything is beneficial for humans.
> We applaud the flies when they are on a dead animal carcass but not when they are laying eggs in underprivileged kids eyes, noses and mouths. Each act serves a purpose. The flies are benefitting nature moreso than you or that Ethiopian Kid.
> 
> Your #89 post is vague and open to a lot of interpretation.


Well lets boil it down some to the last part,
Why would nature need such a thing as us?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Well lets boil it down some to the last part,
> Why would nature need such a thing as us?


First, my reply above that you say doesn't make sense for post #89 is because it was directed at your post #93.

Regarding your why would nature need such a thing as us. It Doesn't. Nature doesn't create things to benefit itself.
We are products of the available conditions and are much different than our earliest examples. Some would argue that modern humans are the largest threat to Nature/Planet.
What do you say that the reason is for Nature needing something, specifically humans? What in fact is our purpose?

Basically the things that live are able to survive off of what nature provides. Adapt or Die. Survival of the Fittest.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> You are making my point for me.



There's a Twilight Zone episode called "A Sound of Thunder" (or something similar) about changing one thing way back in time, and it snowballs onto other things being affected and when the guy comes back to the present time, the world is different!


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> There's a Twilight Zone episode called "A Sound of Thunder" (or something similar) about changing one thing way back in time, and it snowballs onto other things being affected and when the guy comes back to the present time, the world is different!


Interesting


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> First, my reply above that you say doesn't make sense for post #89 is because it was directed at your post #93.
> 
> Regarding your why would nature need such a thing as us. It Doesn't. Nature doesn't create things to benefit itself.
> We are products of the available conditions and are much different than our earliest examples. Some would argue that modern humans are the largest threat to Nature/Planet.
> ...


Still seems unlike the rest of the natural world though doesnt it? Our level of thought. Our ability to create and destroy. Why have we alone evolved to that path. With no place in the natural order.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

"Because Conditions allow our existence. We evolved to this current form out of necessity for OURSELVES. We are probably the most selfish species to have ever evolved. Productively Detrimental to our own existence and to everything else's also."
-bullet head

So true! Some humans (not the majority or we would be extinct by now) don't even have basic survival instincts. Suicide - really? Mothers & fathers starving & murdering their own kids - are you kidding me?   And nuclear war capability? Are we insane?  Our human brains are too fragile & complicated for their own good sometimes. 

And as for being created "in god's image" bear in mind that god himself flooded the entire earth killing 99.9999999 of all living things just to set the tone for the violence & bloodshed in the rest of the "good book".


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Still seems unlike the rest of the natural world though doesnt it? Our level of thought. Our ability to create and destroy. Why have we alone evolved to that path. With no place in the natural order.


Fire. Agriculture. Society


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Still seems unlike the rest of the natural world though doesnt it? Our level of thought. Our ability to create and destroy. Why have we alone evolved to that path. With no place in the natural order.


Think about this.
Your dog understands 50 human words. What is your dog saying when it barks?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Think about this.
> Your dog understands 50 human words. What is your dog saying when it barks?


Depends on the bark. Sometimes its COYOTE IM BOUT TO KILL YOU GET OUTTA MY PASTURE.
sometimes its PERSON I DONT KNOW
sometimes its HOWDY
Sometimes its CAT


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Depends on the bark. Sometimes its COYOTE IM BOUT TO KILL YOU GET OUTTA MY PASTURE.
> sometimes its PERSON I DONT KNOW
> sometimes its HOWDY
> Sometimes its CAT


Right, but humans have domesticated dogs for thousands of years. What are they saying to each other at the dog park? We are smart with lots of limits.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Right, but humans have domesticated dogs for thousands of years. What are they saying to each other at the dog park? We are smart with lots of limits.


But not even close to the same level. Not even remotely ballpark


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> But not even close to the same level. Not even remotely ballpark


?
I am not saying that dogs and humans are in equal brain capacities. 
Each has their wheelhouse though.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors, what do you think our purpose is? Why are we here? Who/how/what designed us and programmed us?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> ?
> I am not saying that dogs and humans are in equal brain capacities.
> Each has their wheelhouse though.


A dog seems natural. It fits. We do not.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> livinoutdoors, what do you think our purpose is? Why are we here? Who/how/what designed us and programmed us?


Probably not what you think?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Still seems unlike the rest of the natural world though doesnt it? Our level of thought. Our ability to create and destroy. Why have we alone evolved to that path. With no place in the natural order.



You could ask that question about any species really. Every species has evolved (is evolving) unique traits. Some seem trivial and are so slight that they can naturally hybridize, and their differences don't seem to give them any advantage. Ape brains got more & more advanced and one branch eventually developed the ability for abstract thought, tool making, detailed strategy planning, etc. while losing other abilities like speed, strength, etc. all in response to changing conditions. Every environment in nature (desert, arctic, tropic, woodland, etc.etc.) is a niche that will be exploited by a species of some sort. "Creation" is ongoing, it wasn't a one-n-done event. All species come and go and evolution is messy, random, and not linear. It loops back into itself here & there, goes off into dead-end tailspins, and sometimes long lines of very successful species go on for many millions of years. But every single species will eventually be extinct, and humans are no exception to the rule. Of course we are the only species at this point in time that have the ability to ponder this - just one of our unique traits.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> livinoutdoors, what do you think our purpose is? Why are we here? Who/how/what designed us and programmed us?


I cant say i know for certain on all fronts.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> You could ask that question about any species really. Every species has evolved (is evolving) unique traits. Some seem trivial and are so slight that they can naturally hybridize, and their differences don't seem to give them any advantage. Ape brains got more & more advanced and one branch eventually developed the ability for abstract thought, tool making, detailed strategy planning, etc. while losing other abilities like speed, strength, etc. all in response to changing conditions. Every environment in nature (desert, arctic, tropic, woodland, etc.etc.) is a niche that will be exploited by a species of some sort. "Creation" is ongoing, it wasn't a one-n-done event. All species come and go and evolution is messy, random, and not linear. It loops back into itself here & there, goes off into dead-end tailspins, and sometimes long lines of very successful species go on for many millions of years. But every single species will eventually be extinct, and humans are no exception to the rule. Of course we are the only species at this point in time that have the ability to ponder this - just one of our unique traits.


The ability to ponder. Beyond just unique i would say. Down right crazy.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> I cant say i know for certain on all fronts.


None of us do. What is your theory, best guess or hope?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> You are making my point for me.



Then either I misunderstood your point or you misunderstand mine.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> A dog seems natural. It fits. We do not.


If you follow te evolution of humans, we couldn't fit any better to benefit ourselves.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> None of us do. What is your theory, best guess or hope?


That there is a creator, creation was a gift to the living. Our role is caretaker and we fail and ignore that role to our own destruction.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> A dog seems natural. It fits. We do not.



A dog doesn't fit in a wolf pack. They instinctively know they are not the same species. They do share a common ancestor, now extinct.

A homo sapiens doesn't fit in a chimp community. They instinctively know they are not the same species. They do share a common ancestor, now extinct.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Still seems unlike the rest of the natural world though doesnt it? Our level of thought. Our ability to create and destroy. Why have we alone evolved to that path. With no place in the natural order.



No place in the natural order? How do you figure that?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> The ability to ponder. Beyond just unique i would say. Down right crazy.


Watch Koko the gorilla. She could ponder, communicate, express feelings, make decisions, understand, show emotions  etc etc.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> No place in the natural order? How do you figure that?


We seem a bit removed from the other systems of nature in my opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> That there is a creator, creation was a gift to the living. Our role is caretaker and we fail and ignore that role to our own destruction.


What then would you say that we are so late to the Earthly party?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> What then would you say that we are so late to the Earthly party?


Dunno.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> That there is a creator, creation was a gift to the living. Our role is caretaker and we fail and ignore that role to our own destruction.



Being the role of caretaker (of all life) makes the assumption that we are superior to all other life. IMHO that attitude will ensure our destruction.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Being the role of caretaker (of all life) makes the assumption that we are superior to all other life. IMHO that attitude will ensure our destruction.


Dont put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. To care for a thing is not to be better than.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> That there is a creator, creation was a gift to the living. Our role is caretaker and we fail and ignore that role to our own destruction.


I can see your reasoning but wouldn't a designer, especially an all powerful and all knowing designer, make the best product to do the job correctly?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I can see your reasoning but wouldn't a designer, especially an all powerful and all knowing designer, make the best product to do the job correctly?


Dont know that one either. Could be the choice was ours and we decided wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> We seem a bit removed from the other systems of nature in my opinion.



Oh I don’t know about that. You go without food for a while, or enter the lions den, step off a cliff, catch a terminal disease, you won’t seem so disconnected from the natural order.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Oh I don’t know about that. You go without food for a while, or enter the lions den, step off a cliff, catch a terminal disease, you won’t seem so disconnected from the natural order.


You are absolutely correct. Lets debate this more over these computers powered by electricity.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Dont know that one either. Could be the choice was ours and we decided wrong.


That just opens up more questions about the abilities of a diety


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> That just opens up more questions about the abilities of a diety


And?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> You are absolutely correct. Lets debate this more over these computers powered by electricity.



All part of the natural order. You seem to assume that if something is complex it can’t be natural. Don’t know why you assume that.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> You are absolutely correct. Lets debate this more over these computers powered by electricity.


Products of necessity.
What other creature would be driven to need such things?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> All part of the natural order. You seem to assume that if something is complex it can’t be natural. Don’t know why you assume that.


I dont, but we do stand out just a bit.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Products of necessity.
> What other creature would be driven to need such things?


Hardly. We were fine before them. Maybe even better off.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> And?


Well wouldn't an all knowing diety KNOW that we would choose to fail at the task we were designed to do?
You wouldn't build a boat designed to sink and set out to fish the ocean.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Well wouldn't an all knowing diety KNOW that we would choose to fail at the task we were designed to do?
> You wouldn't build a boat designed to sink and set out to fish the ocean.


Who said all knowing?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Hardly. We were fine before them. Maybe even better off.


Apparently someone was not fine and needed to power things and chat with someone else 800mi away. 
If you weren't happy with electricity or computers we'd have to have this conversation as we accidentally bumped into each other while I was lost in the mountains and stumbled upon your 1700s style cabin and life....unless of course we were doing just fine in caves.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Who said all knowing?


Lol, then why call it god?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> I dont, but we do stand out just a bit.



That’s true but it doesn’t follow from that the universe is all about us.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Lol, then why call it god?


Dunno


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> That’s true but it doesn’t follow from that the universe is all about us.


Didnt say it was all about us.


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> When was there a time that there was "nothing"?
> Edited to add: Do you know of anyone (besides theists asserting and assigning atheists beleive it) that claims that something came from nothing?


So your claim is, there always was something?


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> If we go down the list of deities that humans have at one point or another asserted to exist your answer to the question "does this deity exist?" will be the same as the atheists in every single case, except one. In one case you'll engage in special pleading that an exception be made to the standard that was applied to all others. And it just so happens you'll do that for the god that you most likely were indoctrinated from childhood to believe and taught that you get a reward for believing and a punishment for not believing. The atheist is being consistent in how they reach an answer to the question. The same cannot be said for the believer. I think it's the atheist who deserves to know why the christian who does this should be considered any more credible than the hindu or pagan who does this. What warrants belief in certain deities more than others?


We can speak of any deity you choose.  My question is simply philosophical and scientific.


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Not all atheists claim there is no god. Generally, atheist_ don't believe in a god _because they have never seen any proof sufficient to convince them. And as far as "faith" is concerned I don't think it's morally right to trick myself/lie to myself into ignoring what I do believe in and accepting an alternate reality based on the concept of "faith".
> 
> IMHO belief in god is like belief in bigfoot. I don't claim that there is no bigfoot, but I don't_ believe_ there is a bigfoot because I personally haven't been presented with enough evidence.


A- without
Theist - diety

A - without
Gnostic- knowledge


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> So your claim is, there always was something?


Best guess would be yes although particles appear and disappear in complete vacuums..

If the Universe encompasses everything and it is constantly expanding, what is it expanding into? Did it get it's start from wherever it is expanding into?

I don't know of anyone who claims that something comes from nothing. Do you?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> If we go down the list of deities that humans have at one point or another asserted to exist your answer to the question "does this deity exist?" will be the same as the atheists in every single case, except one. In one case you'll engage in special pleading that an exception be made to the standard that was applied to all others. And it just so happens you'll do that for the god that you most likely were indoctrinated from childhood to believe and taught that you get a reward for believing and a punishment for not believing. The atheist is being consistent in how they reach an answer to the question. The same cannot be said for the believer. I think it's the atheist who deserves to know why the christian who does this should be considered any more credible than the hindu or pagan who does this. What warrants belief in certain deities more than others?


Not exactly true.

1. The Atheist claim is “we took it one God further”. The fallacy of that claim is you are not 100% certain that the God the Christian believes in isn’t there. In other words, all the deities have a .0009% chance of existence since you’ve “equally” evaluated them. 

2. The Christian hadn’t applied any “standard” other than what we believe and what we do not believe to be true.

3. The Christian doesn’t care what the Atheist thinks he deserves. The credibility doesn’t depend upon your approval.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

Madman said:


> We can speak of any deity you choose.  My question is simply philosophical and scientific.



Sure, and our answers on any of them existing would be the same in every case except for the one you happened to be taught to believe in. You’re not claiming omniscience by denying the existence of Odin but you accuse atheists of claiming omniscience if they deny the existence of Yahweh. Where is the logic in that?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Not exactly true.
> 
> 1. The Atheist claim is “we took it one God further”. The fallacy of that claim is you are not 100% certain that the God the Christian believes in isn’t there. In other words, all the deities have a .0009% chance of existence since you’ve “equally” evaluated them.
> 
> ...



They all have an equal absence of evidence just as one would expect of all mythical figures that don’t exist. That’s the same standard theists apply to all other gods than their own. Some of you seem to forget in these discussions your deity isn’t the only one asserted to exist. You reject the others on lack of evidence just as the atheist does. You don’t have to offer an answer for why you make an exception for your god if you don’t want to. Nor does the Hindu or pagan. Just don’t expect us to take your claims as anything more than baseless assertions when that’s all you’ve got.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 24, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> They all have an equal absence of evidence just as one would expect of all mythical figures that don’t exist. That’s the same standard theists apply to all other gods than their own. Some of you seem to forget in these discussions your deity isn’t the only one asserted to exist. You reject the others on lack of evidence just as the atheist does. You don’t have to offer an answer for why you make an exception for your god if you don’t want to. Nor does the Hindu or pagan. Just don’t expect us to take your claims as anything more than baseless assertions when that’s all you’ve got.


That’s where you’re mistaken, we don’t dismiss because of lack of evidence. The evidence in the one we believe in is something felt, not tangible. I don’t believe any of us expect anything other than discussion.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That’s where you’re mistaken, we don’t dismiss because of lack of evidence. The evidence in the one we believe in is something felt, not tangible. I don’t believe any of us expect anything other than discussion.


Is it possible that believers in other religions feel their god/evidence also?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Is it possible that believers in other religions feel their god/evidence also?


Most definitely. I don’t think they’d believe in their god unless they felt something.

For the Christian, that doesn’t mean their god exist. We believe there is Satan, we see those others as a work of darkness. I’m sure they view the Christian God the same way.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Is it possible that believers in other religions feel their god/evidence also?


Most definitely. I don’t think they’d believe in their god unless they felt something.

For the Christian, that doesn’t mean their god exist. We believe there is Satan, we see those others as a work of darkness. I’m sure they view the Christian God the same way.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Most definitely. I don’t think they’d believe in their god unless they felt something.
> 
> For the Christian, that doesn’t mean their god exist. We believe there is Satan, we see those others as a work of darkness. I’m sure they view the Christian God the same way.


I appreciate the answer but when you say "we" I am not confident that it includes all Christians as many that I've talked to over the years have varying different replies. It would be an interesting question in the spiritual discussion forum.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That’s where you’re mistaken, we don’t dismiss because of lack of evidence. The evidence in the one we believe in is something felt, not tangible. I don’t believe any of us expect anything other than discussion.



If your evidence is a feeling and you only have it for one deity but not the others it’s still an absence of what you consider convincing evidence in those other cases. I doubt though that you would be sold on other gods just based on a feeling. I wonder if @Madman has any more to justify his faith than feelings?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Best guess would be yes although particles appear and disappear in complete vacuums..
> 
> If the Universe encompasses everything and it is constantly expanding, what is it expanding into? Did it get it's start from wherever it is expanding into?
> 
> I don't know of anyone who claims that something comes from nothing. Do you?


I also don’t know any serious scientist who believe there has always been “something”.

Every effect must have a cause, but that is a different topic.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Sure, and our answers on any of them existing would be the same in every case except for the one you happened to be taught to believe in. You’re not claiming omniscience by denying the existence of Odin but you accuse atheists of claiming omniscience if they deny the existence of Yahweh. Where is the logic in that?



You claim omniscience when you claim there is “no evidence anywhere of ANY unmoved mover”.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> If your evidence is a feeling and you only have it for one deity but not the others it’s still an absence of what you consider convincing evidence in those other cases. I doubt though that you would be sold on other gods just based on a feeling. I wonder if @Madman has any more to justify his faith than feelings?


My evidence is not a feeling, the evidence is everywhere.

The more science learns the more evidence is revealed.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Most definitely. I don’t think they’d believe in their god unless they felt something.
> 
> For the Christian, that doesn’t mean their god exist. We believe there is Satan, we see those others as a work of darkness. I’m sure they view the Christian God the same way.



Why do you suppose you happen to feel something only for the deity of the culture you happened to be born into and others feel something for the deities of their culture? Doesn’t this demonstrate feelings are not a reliable pathway to discovering the truth of the matter?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> You claim omniscience when you claim there is “no evidence anywhere of ANY unmoved mover”.



When did I make that claim?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

Because I, like the vast majority of mankind, believes we are eternal beings, I hope to spend eternity in the beatific vision.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> When did I make that claim?


You see evidence?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> My evidence is not a feeling, the evidence is everywhere.
> 
> The more science learns the more evidence is revealed.



Can you be more specific? This sounds like a “trees, therefore Yahweh” claim but I don’t want to put words in your mouth if that’s not what you are saying.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> You see evidence?



I don’t but that’s not the same thing as what you said. Someone asserts a truth claim without any evidence. You reject the claim accordingly. Then they accuse you of claiming omniscience by way of claiming that nowhere in any remote corner of the universe does evidence exist to support the claim. See the difference? How wide are you leaving the door open that somewhere out there might be evidence of Thor or Poseidon?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

We have began to understand the planets. I.e. Saturn and Jupiter, are the “linebackers” that protect Earth from most meteor collisions.  Comets “magically” ensure the water lost out of the atmosphere is replenished in the right amount.  Study water itself, why does it’s density increase until it reaches 34F, and then it decreases.

Volumes of literature, such as the “Privileged Planet” reveal so much that is being learned.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> I don’t but that’s not the same thing as what you said. Someone asserts a truth claim without any evidence. You reject the claim accordingly. Then they accuse you of claiming omniscience by way of claiming that nowhere in any remote corner of the universe does evidence exist to support the claim. See the difference? How wide are you leaving the door open that somewhere out there might be evidence of Thor or Poseidon?


As I said, I see evidence everywhere.  Philosophy and science make claims that atheism cannot support.

The very existence of anything brings out the need for an unmoved mover.

Every effect must have a cause, nothing comes from nothing.

The claim is made by the atheist, that there is NO evidence anywhere, perhaps the better claim is that of the agnostic, “I see no evidence”.

If we are to continue to beat this horse it needs its own thread.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Because I, like the vast majority of mankind, believes we are eternal beings, I hope to spend eternity in the beatific vision.



1. Do you believe that quality extends to other species or just your own?

2. What facts lead you to this conclusion?

3. This hope and belief isn’t unique to followers of your religion which means you can hold this belief and even be right about it but still be wrong in the details. How can we sort out the fact from the fiction here? @Spotlite says it’s a feeling yet feelings are clearly not reliable.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> 1. Do you believe that quality extends to other species or just your own?
> 
> 2. What facts lead you to this conclusion?
> 
> 3. This hope and belief isn’t unique to followers of your religion which means you can hold this belief and even be right about it but still be wrong in the details. How can we sort out the fact from the fiction here? @Spotlite says it’s a feeling yet feelings are clearly not reliable.


You keep going to “my religion”.  I am speaking of an uncaused cause.  Some call it the “flying spaghetti monster”.

BTW I am not spotlite. He has his way of presenting his beliefs, experiences, etc. all of which are different than mine.

Do you fall in the atheist camp or the agnostic camp, or some other camp?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> As I said, I see evidence everywhere.  Philosophy and science make claims that atheism cannot support.
> 
> The very existence of anything brings out the need for an unmoved mover.
> 
> ...



The claim that there must be something eternal may or may not be true. That’s something we simply don’t know but assuming it is true why must that eternal thing be a a conscious being in the form of a deity?

Atheism and agnosticism are not at odds. One term concerns belief. The other concerns knowledge. We are both atheistic and agnostic on the existence of Asherah. You are theistic on the existence of Yahweh. If believers are being honest they are agnostic on all deities but few are honest to that degree.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> You keep going to “my religion”.  I am speaking of an uncaused cause.  Some call it the “flying spaghetti monster”.
> 
> BTW I am not spotlite. He has his way of presenting his beliefs, experiences, etc. all of which are different than mine.
> 
> Do you fall in the atheist camp or the agnostic camp, or some other camp?



If you look at what I was responding to in that post it was your claim that we are eternal. I’m interested in your answer to those first two questions. If you want to answer them without invoking religion, even better.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> The claim that there must be something eternal may or may not be true. That’s something we simply don’t know but assuming it is true why must that eternal thing be a a conscious being in the form of a deity?
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism are not at odds. One term concerns belief. The other concerns knowledge. We are both atheistic and agnostic on the existence of Asherah. You are theistic on the existence of Yahweh. If believers are being honest they are agnostic on all deities but few are honest to that degree.


They are very much at odds just unwilling to admit it. 

The belief that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is only the beginning at the most fundamental level.  Once one sees that there are too many coincidences to be coincidences then one must begin to asK more questions and seek more answers.

Do they lead one to Buddhism? Perhaps. 

We have moved so from Darwin it is amazing.  The more science finds the more we see evidence of an uncaused cause.

Once asked what is the most difficult thing to explain away in his argument against a Theos, Dawkins said the appearance of design.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> If you look at what I was responding to in that post it was your claim that we are eternal. I’m interested in your answer to those first two questions. If you want to answer them without invoking religion, even better.


There are so many hurdles to pass before we get there.  Observations, Beliefs, thesis, religion, dogmas, are developed over time, with much study.

Why would anyone who believes, and sees evidence for, an unmoved mover, who created everything, think otherwise?

To be created for annihilation is foreign to most of humanity.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> They are very much at odds just unwilling to admit it.
> 
> The belief that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is only the beginning at the most fundamental level.  Once one sees that there are too many coincidences to be coincidences then one must begin to asK more questions and seek more answers.
> 
> ...



If science leads one to the conclusions you are suggesting how do you explain theism being so underrepresented among scientists?

Are you saying once the odds of a particular outcome shrink to a certain point we can safely assume getting that outcome proves something supernatural?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> There are so many hurdles to pass before we get there.  Observations, Beliefs, thesis, religion, dogmas, are developed over time, with much study.
> 
> Why would anyone who believes, and sees evidence for, an unmoved mover, who created everything, think otherwise?
> 
> To be created for annihilation is foreign to most of humanity.



Ok so just to be clear, all organisms are eternal? Because they were created by something eternal?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> If science leads one to the conclusions you are suggesting how do you explain theism being so underrepresented among scientists?
> 
> Are you saying once the odds of a particular outcome shrink to a certain point we can safely assume getting that outcome proves something supernatural?



Their education, they are trained to deny the very rules they know govern nature.  
The more they find the more of them return.

It is their educational environment, pot meet kettle.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Ok so just to be clear, all organisms are eternal? Because they were created by something eternal?


Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Are you atheist, agnostic, or other?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Ok so just to be clear, all organisms are eternal? Because they were created by something eternal?


So your claim is something comes from nothing?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> If your evidence is a feeling and you only have it for one deity but not the others it’s still an absence of what you consider convincing evidence in those other cases. I doubt though that you would be sold on other gods just based on a feeling. I wonder if @Madman has any more to justify his faith than feelings?


I hear what you’re saying. I’m just saying there’s no “standard”, or at least a standard in the terms you’re thinking with tangible evidence.

This is simply faith. You either believe it or you do not. After you believe and your faith is established then yes there is plenty more than “feelings” but it’s all still resting on faith. The reason I used the term feelings is because it’s not the tangible you’re needing for yourself. 

We (Christians) are all one body through the spirit. When we hear other Christians talk about their “experience” we can connect and we know what they’re saying. When we hear the Muslim talk about their “experience” we can’t connect to that. It’s not of a god we are familiar with. For the Atheist, there’s no god / God that you’re familiar with so yes Christians dismiss and view all the other gods the same as the Atheist dismiss them all.

The misunderstanding is that we somehow have to have a standard of dismissal.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Ok so just to be clear, all organisms are eternal? Because they were created by something eternal?


So do you believe a body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I hear what you’re saying. I’m just saying there’s no “standard”, or at least a standard in the terms you’re thinking with tangible evidence.
> 
> This is simply faith. You either believe it or you do not. After you believe and your faith is established then yes there is plenty more.
> 
> ...


I would add to “simple faith” that it is not an unreasonable faith.

What is seen cry’s out for an unmoved mover.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Their education, they are trained to deny the very rules they know govern nature.
> The more they find the more of them return.
> 
> It is their educational environment, pot meet kettle.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> So your claim is something comes from nothing?



You said you believe we are eternal. I’m asking you does that apply to all living organisms. Still waiting for your answer.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Why do you suppose you happen to feel something only for the deity of the culture you happened to be born into and others feel something for the deities of their culture? Doesn’t this demonstrate feelings are not a reliable pathway to discovering the truth of the matter?


The term feelings is used because it’s not tangible. You require tangible evidence.

Make no mistake about it, this culture thing isn’t accurate. Every form of religion is in every country. I live in the sticks and there’s Hinduism practiced within 2 miles of here.  I’m not Christian because my Mom was.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


>


I see you disagree.  I would also add that many in academia, are either liberal products of the 60s, 70s, 80s, or were trained by them.  We see a resurgence of what higher education can do as students destroy campuses and cities because they want no rules, no restrictions, no accountability.

But that is another topic.  Of what you speak is one more example of what leads many to Christianity.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> You said you believe we are eternal. I’m asking you does that apply to all living organisms. Still waiting for your answer.


I answered.

Still waiting on your answers that will never come.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I hear what you’re saying. I’m just saying there’s no “standard”, or at least a standard in the terms you’re thinking with tangible evidence.
> 
> This is simply faith. You either believe it or you do not. After you believe and your faith is established then yes there is plenty more than “feelings” but it’s all still resting on faith. The reason I used the term feelings is because it’s not the tangible you’re needing for yourself.
> 
> ...



That’s fine if you want to stay in the arena of faith and feelings. One of your brethren here is trying to venture out of that lane.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I see you disagree.  I would also add that many in academia, are either liberal products of the 60s, 70s, 80s, or were trained by them.  We see a resurgence of what higher education can do as students destroy campuses and cities because they want no rules, no restrictions, no accountability.
> 
> But that is another topic.  Of what you speak is one more example of what leads many to Christianity.



I’m just surprised you didn’t go full bore with the they reject god so they can avoid accountability line. Pretty sure I’ve heard that one from Ken Ham too.

Maybe the facts don’t actually lead to the conclusions you claim. Maybe unlike them you’re starting with your presupposition and then trying to plug certain facts in to support it. For example the planets absorbing meteor hits. We’ve already had a mass extinction due to a meteor hit without which we wouldn’t be here so it’s a failure of those “linebackers” which paved the way for us to be here. All part of the perfect plan I suppose you might respond? And when the inevitable next major hit occurs that threatens our extinction? How does that science square with the idea everything has been perfectly aligned with us in mind?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I answered.
> 
> Still waiting on your answers that will never come.



Did you? Which post number? Maybe I missed it. Don’t recall seeing a yes all living organisms are eternal or no only some eternal. It’s a simple question with a simple answer one way or the other. You seem to be avoiding it but my apologies if you answered and I missed it.

What question have I not answered?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> That’s fine if you want to stay in the arena of faith and feelings. One of your brethren here is trying to venture out of that lane.


Lol you’re not going to turn us against one another.


See, you’re not reading. I said there’s more after you’re established in faith.

We’re in 5th gear, you’re stuck in park.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Did you? Which post number? Maybe I missed it. Don’t recall seeing a yes all living organisms are eternal or no only some eternal. It’s a simple question with a simple answer one way or the other. You seem to be avoiding it but my apologies if you answered and I missed it.
> 
> What question have I not answered?


Go back and look.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> The term feelings is used because it’s not tangible. You require tangible evidence.
> 
> Make no mistake about it, this culture thing isn’t accurate. Every form of religion is in every country. I live in the sticks and there’s Hinduism practiced within 2 miles of here.  I’m not Christian because my Mom was.



There is a massive correlation between the religion one adopts and the religion held by the family one is born into. Were you born into a family of Hindus?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Lol you’re not going to turn us against one another.
> 
> 
> See, you’re not reading. I said there’s more after you’re established in faith.
> ...


They don’t understand that faith and feelings are in their views also.  

We have faith, but we also have science and reason and philosophy and logic on our side.

The theist has the complete toolbox full.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Go back and look.



I did. I see you talking about unmoved movers and responding with questions of your own. I don’t see an answer.

So let’s try this again. Are all living organisms eternal in your view? A simple yes or no will suffice. Let’s see if you answer or keep dodging. My money is on the latter.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 25, 2022)

Do you have to state a specific answer to see that there is a question to be asked?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 25, 2022)

The atheist uses science as their religion as they point the finger at believers of other faiths and call them ignorant.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> They don’t understand that faith and feelings are in their views also.
> 
> We have faith, but we also have science and reason and philosophy and logic on our side.
> 
> The theist has the complete toolbox full.





Spotlite said:


> That’s where you’re mistaken, we don’t dismiss because of lack of evidence. *The evidence in the one we believe in is something felt, not tangible.* I don’t believe any of us expect anything other than discussion.



I'll wait while you fellas get yourselves on the same script.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> They don’t understand that faith and feelings are in their views also.
> 
> We have faith, but we also have science and reason and philosophy and logic on our side.
> 
> The theist has the complete toolbox full.


Agreed!!!!


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> There is a massive correlation between the religion one adopts and the religion held by the family one is born into. Were you born into a family of Hindus?


No and neither was the guy that attends this one. 


I don’t doubt the influence and availability, but I still don’t know anyone outside of the prisons and handcuffs being Christian out of “availability”.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> I'll wait while you fellas get yourselves on the same script.



Lol just because you’re 50 Laps behind comprehending what’s said…….doesn’t mean we’re not on the same page. 

Your first step is faith. After that you’ll find what you’re looking for. You’re going to dictate how the revelation of God for you comes to. You’re not that big.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I would add to “simple faith” that it is not an unreasonable faith.
> 
> What is seen cry’s out for an unmoved mover.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Lol just because you’re 50 Laps behind comprehending what’s said…….doesn’t mean we’re not on the same page.
> 
> Your first step is faith. After that you’ll find what you’re looking for. You’re going to dictate how the revelation of God for you comes to. You’re not that big.



You said the evidence is something felt, not tangible. Got anything else?

There was a time when I had faith but I eventually realized it's a better pathway to falsehood than to truth.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I also don’t know any serious scientist who believe there has always been “something”.
> 
> Every effect must have a cause, but that is a different topic.


What do your serious scientists that you know say happened?

You mean every effect must have a cause except the god you worship. Then absolute statements are overlooked in favor of the absurd.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> My evidence is not a feeling, the evidence is everywhere.
> 
> The more science learns the more evidence is revealed.


Give a few examples


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Most definitely. I don’t think they’d believe in their god unless they felt something.
> 
> For the Christian, that doesn’t mean their god exist. We believe there is Satan, we see those others as a work of darkness. I’m sure they view the Christian God the same way.



So if both religions (remember there are MANY religions) see the other religion as a "work of darkness" then this leaves us with three scenarios by my primitive thinking:

1) only one of these religions is the real deal
2) both of these religions are false/nonexistent
3) both are indeed true, and there are multiple realities

Allow me to expound on this sentence:
 "I don’t think they’d believe in their god *unless they felt something*."

Humans "feel" a lot of things. All day, every day, functioning & cognizant humans have countless opinions, emotions, "deep thoughts", silly thoughts, and reactions in general to a wide variety of situations. This is how the human brain evolved over tens/hundreds of thousands of years thus religious "feelings" have been with our species for at least tens of thousands of years. But religious feelings aren't facts, they are strong opinions. 

That said religion does serve a purpose (more than one purpose) and here is one MAJOR purpose of nearly all religions across the planet:
*religion is like a glue that binds a society together* with shared values, shared morals & behavior, shared common goals, and a shared history through the "origin story" of how their society came into existence. Obviously this is just a jumping off point, because religions are all over the map when it comes to how they operate.
But since I am well aware that our world has THOUSANDS of different societies it would stand to reason that our world has thousands of different religions just like there are thousands of different languages. So fat at least, I see no tangible proof that any of these religions are the "real deal" or better than any other religion.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


>


Carl needs to return to Logic 101


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> What do your serious scientists that you know say happened?
> 
> You mean every effect must have a cause except the god you worship. Then absolute statements are overlooked in favor of the absurd.


an unmoved mover is not an effect.

Logic 101


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Give a few examples


Look higher in the thread.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Look higher in the thread.


I've read the thread.
You stated the more science learns the more evidence is revealed. 
I am asking you what the evidence is.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> an unmoved mover is not an effect.
> 
> Logic 101



He addresses that claim at the 1:21 mark.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> You said the evidence is something felt, not tangible. Got anything else?
> 
> There was a time when I had faith but I eventually realized it's a better pathway to falsehood than to truth.


The evidence isn’t tangible without faith. Faith isn’t tangible. 

I’m familiar with your history, at least what’s been told here. I respect your position.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I've read the thread.
> You stated the more science learns the more evidence is revealed.
> I am asking you what the evidence is.


Start at #174


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> an unmoved mover is not an effect.
> 
> Logic 101


Aristotle coined that phrase only to have it rebranded as a False Cause


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

"My evidence is not a feeling, the evidence is everywhere.
The more science learns the more evidence is revealed." - mad man

I respectfully disagree. The more science learns the more evidence is revealed that they still have much to learn.   Science is never "finished" because to say "these are the FACTS and they will always remain the facts" isn't real science. Science is all about the pursuit of more exploration, more learning, more experimenting until they find something that goes beyond what they thought they knew. *Science BEGS to be* *debunked *so they can move past what was only partially accurate or true to an improved & expanded body of knowledge. Here's one of my favorite sayings:

Science has questions that must be answered - religions has answers that must not be questioned.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> So if both religions (remember there are MANY religions) see the other religion as a "work of darkness" then this leaves us with three scenarios by my primitive thinking:
> 
> 1) only one of these religions is the real deal
> 2) both of these religions are false/nonexistent
> ...



Agree with all of this except for that very last bit. Some religions are better than others.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> So if both religions (remember there are MANY religions) see the other religion as a "work of darkness" then this leaves us with three scenarios by my primitive thinking:
> 
> 1) only one of these religions is the real deal
> 2) both of these religions are false/nonexistent
> ...


Yes, of course, someone is right and someone is wrong. But sitting on the bench and not playing because of that isn’t an option. Sitting on the bench because you believe all are wrong - that’s a valid option.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Start at #174


None of that is proof of anything except that people will assign a false cause to things that they do not understand.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> He addresses that claim at the 1:21 mark.



I know, I have listened to Carl for years, he is very intelligent and very capable of glossing over what does not fit his view.

Something from nothing, movement without a mover, etc. are not investigated. Dawkins is in the same camp, very intelligent but approaches each question with a presupposition.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> None of that is proof of anything except that people will assign a false cause to things that they do not understand.


I see you have not read the literature.  The evidence is overwhelming.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Earth's conditions are what they are because of the alignment of certain planets. In other words The Conditions Allow It. Assigning something other than that is inserting a false cause to muddy the waters of what already is.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> The evidence isn’t tangible without faith. Faith isn’t tangible.
> 
> I’m familiar with your history, at least what’s been told here. I respect your position.



“Tangible”


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I see you have not read the literature.  The evidence is overwhelming.


People have extremely different opinions about what is evidence and how they interpret it. We are reading the same stuff and getting different results.  Is that your example of overwhelming?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I know, I have listened to Carl for years, he is very intelligent and very capable of glossing over what does not fit his view.
> 
> Something from nothing, movement without a mover, etc. are not investigated. Dawkins is in the same camp, very intelligent but approaches each question with a presupposition.



He allows for the possibility of an eternal “it” and simply posits the question why can’t that “it” be nature itself. You’re the one approaching the question with a presupposition.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

I Borrowed this...
"Even if we accept the argument from first cause, the conclusion is still problematic: the word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random vacuum fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be misleading. It also can be noted that if for some reason there did have to be a first cause, we currently do not currently know what which leads to the "God of the gaps" idea."


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> I did. I see you talking about unmoved movers and responding with questions of your own. I don’t see an answer.
> 
> So let’s try this again. Are all living organisms eternal in your view? A simple yes or no will suffice. Let’s see if you answer or keep dodging. My money is on the latter.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> “Tangible”


Noun
a thing that is perceptible by touch.

As many conversations as we’ve had on this, stop playing games. You know you’re looking for some scientific proven evidence you can “touch”, specifically anything that’s outside of “felt” or “experience”.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Pairs of virtual particles are created and annihilated all of the time, in vacuum, out of literally nothing, with no prior cause. This contradicts Thomas Aquinas's premise.

People seem to have no problem with infinity when looking forward after their deaths but cannot grasp the concept of infinity when looking back to what has been before .


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> View attachment 1185171


There hits a point where referring us back to a previous post that didn't answer the questions is realized.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Earth's conditions are what they are because of the alignment of certain planets. In other words The Conditions Allow It. Assigning something other than that is inserting a false cause to muddy the waters of what already is.



It’s in our nature to assign it. Otherwise, we’d be hypocrites about it. We’re either all in or all out.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> He allows for the possibility of an eternal “it” and simply posits the question why can’t that “it” be nature itself. You’re the one approaching the question with a presupposition.


Call it nature, call it flying spaghetti monster, is nature the unmoved mover?  He is never honest enough to delve into the question of an eternal effect.  Can there be an eternal effect? Can there be an uncaused cause, those are the the real questions?

If there is no uncaused cause then matter is eternal or it creates itself.  We really need to think deeper.

Enjoyed this folks but this dead horse has been kicked again.

My answer to the OP, I hope to be in the beatific vision.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Noun
> a thing that is perceptible by touch.
> 
> As many conversations as we’ve had on this, stop playing games. You know you’re looking for some scientific proven evidence you can “touch”, specifically anything that’s outside of “felt” or “experience”.


Madman says the alignment of Planets IS that physical touchable evidence that proves an Unmoved Mover and Uncaused Cause. That is quite a leap, No?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Noun
> a thing that is perceptible by touch.
> 
> As many conversations as we’ve had on this, stop playing games. You know you’re looking for some scientific proven evidence you can “touch”, specifically anything that’s outside of “felt” or “experience”.



Things that are perceptible by touch don't require you to first have faith. That's kind of the point.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Call it nature, call it flying spaghetti monster, is nature the unmoved mover?  He is never honest enough to delve into the question of an eternal effect.  Can there be an eternal effect? Can there be an uncaused cause, those are the the real questions?
> 
> If there is no uncaused cause then matter is eternal or it creates itself.  We really need to think deeper.
> 
> ...


There is a new horse in the corral. No need to bow out yet.
How do particles spontaneously appear and disappear in a vacuum?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Pairs of virtual particles are created and annihilated all of the time, in vacuum, out of literally nothing, with no prior cause. This contradicts Thomas Aquinas's premise.
> 
> People seem to have no problem with infinity when looking forward after their deaths but cannot grasp the concept of infinity when looking back to what has been before .



I didn't bother going there because they will just say that the empty space is not really nothing.




bullethead said:


> There hits a point where referring us back to a previous post that didn't answer the questions is realized.



Simple question. Simple answer. What do you reckon he's afraid of?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> There is a new horse in the corral. No need to bow out yet.
> How do particles spontaneously appear and disappear in a vacuum?


New horse, drops the same dung.

No one knows the answer to your question nor do they even know the real question, that is why it is called "uncertainty".

Get back to us when the proof appears.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> New horse, drops the same dung.
> 
> No one knows the answer to your question nor do they even know the real question, that is why it is called "uncertainty".
> 
> Get back to us when the proof appears.


At least you were honest and did not blame it on the Flying Unmoved Causer Monster.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Madman says the alignment of Planets IS that physical touchable evidence that proves an Unmoved Mover and Uncaused Cause. That is quite a leap, No?


Madman is not wrong. My post stated there is more after your faith is established. The alignment of the planets is physical, touchable evidence...............but it is not the revelation of God that a lost soul finds. He starts with faith.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

https://atheism.fandom.com/wiki/Cosmological_Argument


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Things that are perceptible by touch don't require you to first have faith. That's kind of the point.


We are not talking about "things"...........we are talking about something that does require faith.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Madman is not wrong. My post stated there is more after your faith is established. The alignment of the planets is physical, touchable evidence...............but it is not the revelation of God that a lost soul finds. He starts with faith.


Madman is not wrong that planets align...showing how that is a result of anything more is simply inserting something without any proof to fill in the gaps.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> I didn't bother going there because they will just say that the empty space is not really nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"They".  You mean scientists?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Call it nature, call it flying spaghetti monster, is nature the unmoved mover?  He is never honest enough to delve into the question of an eternal effect.  Can there be an eternal effect? Can there be an uncaused cause, those are the the real questions?
> 
> If there is no uncaused cause then matter is eternal or it creates itself.  We really need to think deeper.
> 
> ...



He doesn't argue for or against an eternal something but leaves the question open which is appropriate given we simply don't know the answer. You're making an assumption that there must be an uncaused cause, which may or may not be true, then you're making the massive non sequitur that this uncaused cause must be a deity for which we have zero evidence even exists. It's a god of the gaps argument. At least we know nature exists so it's less of a leap to say it has just always existed.

The bottom line is we can grant for the sake of discussion your claim that there must be an uncaused cause and it still doesn't logically get you where you're trying to go.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> "They".  You mean scientists?


Science defines a vacuum as a space devoid of matter. So no I don't think he means scientists.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> "They".  You mean scientists?



Well not Lawrence Krauss at least. He calls it nothing but it's not nothing in the sense theists mean nothing.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I Borrowed this...
> "Even if we accept the argument from first cause, the conclusion is still problematic: the word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random vacuum fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be misleading. It also can be noted that if for some reason there did have to be a first cause, we currently do not currently know what which leads to the "God of the gaps" idea."



This is the biggest objection I have to the notion of God.  The worst thing I have seen the notion produce is Divine Revelation.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Science defines a vacuum as a space devoid of matter. So no I don't think he means scientists.




https://bigthink.com/surprising-sci...hing-as-nothing-according-to-quantum-physics/

There's plenty more.  Just look.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Well not Lawrence Krauss at least. He calls it nothing but it's not nothing in the sense theists mean nothing.



Beat me to it.  But Krauss is not the only one.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/

https://scitechdaily.com/the-big-bang-how-could-something-come-from-nothing/

Plenty more......


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Madman is not wrong that planets align...showing how that is a result of anything more is simply inserting something without any proof to fill in the gaps.


That is where we will continue to debate.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That is where we will continue to debate.



Did you ever feel like God had spoken directly to you and instructed you upon a direction for your life?  Were you absolutely certain it was God?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> We are not talking about "things"...........we are talking about something that does require faith.



If it's tangible, it's a "thing". First you said your evidence is a feeling, not tangible. That's a retreat to the challenge for evidence and that's fine. I accepted that. Then @Madman says "don't retreat, charge! we have more than just feelings" and you switched over to "the evidence isn't tangible without faith" and "first you must have faith". That's not how it works with things that are perceptible to touch. You should have just left it with the initial retreat to your unverifiable and unfalsifiable feelings. Now you're all over the place.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Did you ever feel like God had spoken directly to you and instructed you upon a direction for your life?  Were you absolutely certain it was God?



I do. More than once.

I am not one that thinks I should hear an audible voice. "Inspired" or "impressed" is more accurate.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> If it's tangible, it's a "thing". First you said your evidence is a feeling, not tangible. That's a retreat to the challenge for evidence and that's fine. I accepted that. Then @Madman says "don't retreat, charge! we have more than just feelings" and you switched over to "the evidence isn't tangible without faith" and "first you must have faith". That's not how it works with things that are perceptible to touch. You should have just left it with the initial retreat to your unverifiable and unfalsifiable feelings. Now you're all over the place.


I realize how analytical you are and I know that you`ve stated more than once that emotions (feelings) and experiences do not count.

So, if now they do count as "tangible" evidence, then yes, there is tangible evidence there. I stand firm on the fact that you will not find it or God without faith.

You can continue to switch back and forth between myself and Madman if you chose, but if you slow down..............as he stated, he has his way of presenting, I have mine. I don`t disagree with Madman. He is reading something different in your questions than I am. I am just considering the cow trails we`ve traveled before and not rehashing all of that. I can spend pages of trying to prove to you only to ultimately hear "that don`t count, it has to be a scientifically proven for it to be fact" - something you can physically touch and see.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I realize how analytical you are and I know that you`ve stated more than once that emotions (feelings) and experiences do not count.
> 
> So, if now they do count as "tangible" evidence, then yes, there is tangible evidence there. I stand firm on the fact that you will not find it or God without faith.
> 
> You can continue to switch back and forth between myself and Madman if you chose, but if you slow down..............as he stated, he has his way of presenting, I have mine. I don`t disagree with Madman. He is reading something different in your questions than I am. I am just considering the cow trails we`ve traveled before and not rehashing all of that. I can spend pages of trying to prove to you only to ultimately hear "that don`t count, it has to be a scientifically proven for it to be fact" - something you can physically touch and see.



Madman isn't arguing on the basis of faith. Like I said before, he stepped out of that lane and that was something actually worth exploring. You initially avoided going where he went and I'm happy to leave it at that. You know as well as I do that faith is problematic because billions of people on this planet have come to what you and I would both agree are false conclusions by way of faith. We can go down a long list of questions about the nature of reality none of which require any faith to answer except for this one question which you say requires faith. Bit odd that should be the case especially when the answer happens to be so self serving. I wonder, how many would still have that faith absent the promise of an escape from their own mortality? Not many I suspect, which would explain why the promise is made.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Going back to the original question, I wonder if an eternal existence is even something really worth wishing for?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Did you ever feel like God had spoken directly to you and instructed you upon a direction for your life?  Were you absolutely certain it was God?





Spotlite said:


> I do. More than once.
> 
> I am not one that thinks I should hear an audible voice. "Inspired" or "impressed" is more accurate.



You should be wary of anyone that says they receive direct instruction from God.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That is where we will continue to debate.


Agreed but anyone that inserts any extra cause based off of feelings is in no better position than the next.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> https://bigthink.com/surprising-sci...hing-as-nothing-according-to-quantum-physics/
> 
> There's plenty more.  Just look.


I agree and am familiar with it. But I cant just lay the big one down without building up to it.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> At least you were honest and did not blame it on the Flying Unmoved Causer Monster.


I try.  Thanks


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> The bottom line is we can grant for the sake of discussion your claim that there must be an uncaused cause and it still doesn't logically get you where you're trying to go.


Where would that be?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/
> 
> https://scitechdaily.com/the-big-bang-how-could-something-come-from-nothing/
> 
> Plenty more......


I love reading this information and have for years, however just as some hold the flying spaghettis monster at arms length and view him with suspicion, some wait for science to firm up their thesis.  I wait with baited breath as to how it pans out.

"By now, we are well into the realm of speculative physics, as we can’t produce enough energy in our experiments to probe the sort of processes that were going on at the time. But a plausible hypothesis is  ......."

OR

"Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss explains how, over the last hundred or so years, trying to nail down the existence of nothingness has become surprisingly complicated."

Much has changed in the last hundred years and much more will change in the next hundred, but so far I have not seen how it negates the belief of the theist.

There is a lot that is theoretical and subjective, we all want proof.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> Where would that be?



A divine creator. It doesn't even get you to deism let alone theism.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I love reading this information and have for years, however just as some hold the flying spaghettis monster at arms length and view him with suspicion, some wait for science to firm up their thesis.  I wait with baited breath as to how it pans out.
> 
> "By now, we are well into the realm of speculative physics, as we can’t produce enough energy in our experiments to probe the sort of processes that were going on at the time. But a plausible hypothesis is  ......."
> 
> ...



We may never get the proof we want. I have nothing but respect for people who believe in God that can say "I might be wrong" and allow the resulting humility of that statement to order their lives and their sphere of influence on the rest of us.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> He doesn't argue for or against an eternal something but leaves the question open which is appropriate given we simply don't know the answer. You're making an assumption that there must be an uncaused cause, which may or may not be true, then you're making the massive non sequitur that this uncaused cause must be a deity for which we have zero evidence even exists. It's a god of the gaps argument. At least we know nature exists so it's less of a leap to say it has just always existed.
> 
> The bottom line is we can grant for the sake of discussion your claim that there must be an uncaused cause and it still doesn't logically get you where you're trying to go.



It's uncaused causes all the way down


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I love reading this information and have for years, however just as some hold the flying spaghettis monster at arms length and view him with suspicion, some wait for science to firm up their thesis.  I wait with baited breath as to how it pans out.
> 
> "By now, we are well into the realm of speculative physics, as we can’t produce enough energy in our experiments to probe the sort of processes that were going on at the time. But a plausible hypothesis is  ......."
> 
> ...




This woman is interesting to listen to.






I was piqued by her statement that the physics within a black hole might be completely foreign to our current understandings.  It may be like Sagan proposed "You're looking at it here and now", or it might be Heaven.  God could even be in there.

Dr. Becky is her youtube channel.  She dumbs things down just right for me.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> You should be wary of anyone that says they receive direct instruction from God.


Why? That sounds like my adversary talking.

One thing you should know, God confirms things also ?

There’s no “I received” and it wasn’t confirmed situation.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Why? That sounds like my adversary talking.
> 
> One thing you should know, God confirms things also ?
> 
> There’s no “I received” and it wasn’t confirmed situation.



I am the adversary of Divine Revelation, not any one person in particular.   Action informed by Divine Revelation is dangerous.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I am the adversary of Divine Revelation, not any one person in particular.   Action informed by Divine Revelation is dangerous.



Reminds me of when Hitchens would ask if you're on a train and a fellow passenger says they have God whispering in their ear do you move closer to them or do you take a step back?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I love reading this information and have for years, however just as some hold the flying spaghettis monster at arms length and view him with suspicion, some wait for science to firm up their thesis.  I wait with baited breath as to how it pans out.
> 
> "By now, we are well into the realm of speculative physics, as we can’t produce enough energy in our experiments to probe the sort of processes that were going on at the time. But a plausible hypothesis is  ......."
> 
> ...


Science admits that there is always more to learn and what is available now is based off of the best information available to make a more likely that not scenario. 
Science is open to change and welcomes it.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> You should be wary of anyone that says they receive direct instruction from God.


Have you ever heard of the bicameral mind hypothesis?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I am the adversary of Divine Revelation, not any one person in particular.   Action informed by Divine Revelation is dangerous.


Of course it is, if God isn’t in it. If it’s Godly it’s always confirmed and has nothing to do with “God told me to cut my arm off” type of stuff.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Of course it is, if God isn’t in it. If it’s Godly it’s always confirmed and has nothing to do with “God told me to cut my arm off” type of stuff.



Or kill your kid type of stuff.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Or kill your kid type of stuff.



I know what you’re getting at ??

Not in todays world. 2,500 years ago in another country there were many things that were different than what we are accustomed to here in the U.S.A. A lot of things changed at the cross.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> Have you ever heard of the bicameral mind hypothesis?



Looking it up......


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Reminds me of when Hitchens would ask if you're on a train and a fellow passenger says they have God whispering in their ear do you move closer to them or do you take a step back?



Context is king.  What are they wearing?

My first reaction would be to take careful notice of my surroundings.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> Have you ever heard of the bicameral mind hypothesis?



Interesting.  Reminds me of what Jonathan Haidt suggested in *The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. * He says that we make decisions intuitively first and then justify them with our intellect.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Madman said:


> I see you disagree.  I would also add that many in academia, are either liberal products of the 60s, 70s, 80s, or were trained by them.  We see a resurgence of what higher education can do as students destroy campuses and cities because they want no rules, no restrictions, no accountability.
> 
> But that is another topic.  Of what you speak is one more example of what leads many to Christianity.


 
As for "higher education" producing radicals who burn down cities how many of these collegiates are on the path of "hard science" and are destined for being rocket scientists/doctors/chemists/etc? I would venture to say not many. I would think that the violently conflicted city burners & rioters are 14th Century French underwater basket-weaving majors or oppressed gay Central African mime advocates or things like that.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> The atheist uses science as their religion as they point the finger at believers of other faiths and call them ignorant.



In some cases, just as in some cases* theists *point their fingers at_ believers of other_ _religions_ and call them ignorant and even evil. 

*That said science is not a religion, it's a process* of examining & exploring ideas and validating or rejecting these ideas based on the best knowledge & testing procedures available to them. It's a completely different worldview than religion for the most part. Among legit scientists who are also Christian very few are Creationists these days. Even the Catholics have resigned themselves to the facts of evolution for example, and Jews are treating much of the Torah as metaphor because archeology/geology/historians/biology/etc. have pretty much debunked almost everything as not being literally true or folklore. Even Moses was almost certainly a fictional "composite" character.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Did you ever feel like God had spoken directly to you and instructed you upon a direction for your life?  Were you absolutely certain it was God?



A little "off topic" but not really: when somebody says "god talked directly to me" it's always the god they believe in. Does anybody say a god from a different religion talked to them? Maybe a different god is trying to trick you, or even the devil? When this happens, ask "god" a question only he would know the answer to!


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> In some cases, just as in some cases* theists *point their fingers at_ believers of other_ _religions_ and call them ignorant and even evil.
> 
> *That said science is not a religion, it's a process* of examining & exploring ideas and validating or rejecting these ideas based on the best knowledge & testing procedures available to them. It's a completely different worldview than religion for the most part. Among legit scientists who are also Christian very few are Creationists these days. Even the Catholics have resigned themselves to the facts of evolution for example, and Jews are treating much of the Torah as metaphor because archeology/geology/historians/biology/etc. have pretty much debunked almost everything as not being literally true or folklore. Even Moses was almost certainly a fictional "composite" character.


There is that faith i was talkin bout. The religion of science. You are right now telling me the why i should believe what others believe instead of asking a question of the world.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 25, 2022)

Scientists say.....
So i believe.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Scientists say.....
> So i believe.


I don't think that is entirely accurate. 
Scientists say....and here is the evidence that backs up their findings  of why they say it...is more accurate.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I don't think that is entirely accurate.
> Scientists say....and here is the evidence that backs up their findings  of why they say it...is more accurate.


But unless you yourself can do the experiment or hold the research then you are taking their findings on faith. The faith that they are telling you truths.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> But unless you yourself can do the experiment or hold the research then you are taking their findings on faith. The faith that they are telling you truths.


Trust, not faith.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Trust, not faith.


Same


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Same


No it really isn't.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Going back to the original question, I wonder if an eternal existence is even something really worth wishing for?



I don't find the proposition very appealing. I think some Christians don't wish for an eternity in heaven, they are just figuring it's better than eternal torture.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Of course it is, if God isn’t in it. If it’s Godly it’s always confirmed and has nothing to do with “God told me to cut my arm off” type of stuff.


 
So who confirms what "god" told you?  Do other flawed humans confirm it? I don't get it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> So who confirms what "god" told you?  Do other flawed humans confirm it? I don't get it.


Does God always say positive things or might he talk to me and tell me that I have it all wrong, I have not been chosen, I will never be part of the elect?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Does God always say positive things or might he talk to me and tell me that I have it all wrong, I have not been chosen, I will never be part of the elect?


He’ll most certainly correct you. I find no biblical teaching for God telling you you’re not chosen.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> He’ll most certainly correct you. I find no biblical teaching for God telling you you’re not chosen.


Is God bound within the pages of the Bible or can he go off script?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> So who confirms what "god" told you?  Do other flawed humans confirm it? I don't get it.


You’ll hear it in preaching most often.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Is God bound within the pages of the Bible or can he go off script?


He isn’t bound to anything except His word.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> He isn’t bound to anything except His word.


So then it is a yes, he is bound within the pages of the Bible.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> So then it is a yes, he is bound within the pages of the Bible.


Without men’s interpretation of what that word is, then yes.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> You’ll hear it in preaching most often.



Let me get this straight: you think god might be telling you things or guiding you into things or whatever, so if the preacher covers subjects related to the types of things that god has been telling you - and these things might be on your mind as you listen - would this be reliable validation for what god told you? In other words, if we are searching for something then we will subconsciously think we found it because we could misinterpret or "read into" what we hear. I am not saying this is your experience, I'm just saying it's common human psychology at play.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> But unless you yourself can do the experiment or hold the research then you are taking their findings on faith. The faith that they are telling you truths.



It's not like we have faith in the results when Norman the shoeshine boy runs the experiment. If credentialled, experienced legit scientists respected by their peers * run exacting experiments and they all get similar results and publish their results, then I would have "faith" what they are telling me is about as accurate as we are going to get (for now anyway). 

* if the "Answers in Genesis" crew - or any religious narrative crew are involved I would take everything they say with a grain of salt. AIG "scientists" generally have suboptimal educations and worthless degrees, and have to SIGN A STATEMENT/take an oath that their #1 priority is adhering to "biblical truths" above all, and any findings and results of any research/experiments have to adhere to "the narrative" of god first, facts second. Yeah, research Answers in Genesis from non-Christian sources and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Let me get this straight: you think god might be telling you things or guiding you into things or whatever, so if the preacher covers subjects related to the types of things that god has been telling you - and these things might be on your mind as you listen - would this be reliable validation for what god told you? In other words, if we are searching for something then we will subconsciously think we found it because we could misinterpret or "read into" what we hear. I am not saying this is your experience, I'm just saying it's common human psychology at play.


No I didn’t say that. You asked about confirmation.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Scientists say.....
> So i believe.



Or you can ask religious leaders from ten different religions and get ten wildly different answers to the same exact question. But if ten legit scientists are all at least on the same page as each other concerning the same exact question, you can in the vast majority of cases believe them.
IMHO the smart money is on the legit scientists versus religious experts interpreting what was written hundreds of years ago by anonymous authors with a very limited canon of scientific knowledge and procedures. But that's just me.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Or you can ask religious leaders from ten different religions and get ten wildly different answers to the same exact question. But if ten legit scientists are all at least on the same page as each other concerning the same exact question, you can in the vast majority of cases believe them.
> IMHO the smart money is on the legit scientists versus religious experts interpreting what was written hundreds of years ago by anonymous authors with a very limited canon of scientific knowledge and procedures. But that's just me.


Name any scientific finding and you’ll find some other scientists in opposition. You’re still left with believing what you think is right unless you perform those scientific tests yourself.

We got the basics, throw a rock in the air and watch it fall. Now, using your own tests, tell us how old the earth is,


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> No I didn’t say that. You asked about confirmation.
> 
> Confirmation means you specifically. Not “is there anyone here with lower back pain”  or waiting until that subject on my mind is preached.
> 
> ...



It may seem like "confirmation", but it was just good luck. If five other guys were in your shoes they would not "triple their salary" or if you go through a similar experience again you would not triple your salary. Again, basic human psychology is to "count the hits, but not the misses" to match our world view or beliefs. Weird coincidences happen all-the-time to almost everybody I know, including myself, but the reason is just not supernatural.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> It may seem like "confirmation", but it was just good luck. If five other guys were in your shoes they would not "triple their salary" or if you go through a similar experience again you would not triple your salary. Again, basic human psychology is to "count the hits, but not the misses" to match our world view or beliefs. Weird coincidences happen all-the-time to almost everybody I know, including myself, but the reason is just not supernatural.


Of course, good luck. I gotta remind myself you said you don’t get it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Name any scientific finding and you’ll find some other scientists in opposition. You’re still left with believing what you think is right unless you perform those scientific tests yourself.
> 
> We got the basics, throw a rock on the air and watch it fall. Now, using your own tests, tell us how old the earth is,


Scientific Theories are peer reviewed. 
Tested, Tested, Tested, ReTested, Confirmed and then accepted as the best answer. They are then still constantly tested.

I have 100% faith that you believe and trust Science for you and your family as much as I do and you do it without running your own tests to back the overwhelming majority up.
If you are typing on a device that you made from scratch in the barn, with a microchip that you've mined the components for and 1000 other steps needing an untold amount of machinery and resources to achieve....plus you are tapped into your own internet and have somehow programmed your own anti virus software....then I apologize for putting you on the same Scientific dependency and trust as us heathens. ?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Name any scientific finding and you’ll find some other scientists in opposition. You’re still left with believing what you think is right unless you perform those scientific tests yourself.
> 
> We got the basics, throw a rock on the air and watch it fall. Now, using your own tests, tell us how old the earth is,



Apples and oranges!  Anyway, scientists might be in opposition over any subject to a degree, but rarely in total opposition. But if 100 scientists from across the globe - with different religious backgrounds - are in agreement (through several different types of testing) that the earth is somewhere between 4.5 billion and 4.6 billion years old and can explain _why _they think this in layman's terms if necessary, I would say it's a very safe bet that they are correct. 

That said if somebody wants to think that the earth/sun/all other stars/the universe is a few thousand years old, that is their choice.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Name any scientific finding and you’ll find some other scientists in opposition. You’re still left with believing what you think is right unless you perform those scientific tests yourself.
> 
> We got the basics, throw a rock in the air and watch it fall. Now, using your own tests, tell us how old the earth is,


What did your age of the earth tests come up with?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Apples and oranges!  Anyway, scientists might be in opposition over any subject to a degree, but rarely in total opposition. But if 100 scientists from across the globe - with different religious backgrounds - are in agreement (through several different types of testing) that the earth is somewhere between 4.5 billion and 4.6 billion years old and can explain _why _they think this in layman's terms if necessary, I would say it's a very safe bet that they are correct.
> 
> That said if somebody wants to think that the earth/sun/all other stars/the universe is a few thousand years old, that is their choice.


Lol ok fair enough. Personally, I don’t buy the millions of years old because I look at erosion and sediment build up. But, I believe it’s a lot older than the 6 - 7000 years old.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Of course, good luck. I gotta remind myself you said you don’t get it.



No, I said "I don't get it" meaning I don't get what "confirmation" means. You gave an example, but what you consider confirmation of god speaking to you I just consider good luck. Granted if your luck can be replicated and documented you might be on to something!  But so far, nobody has been able to replicate what seems to be supernatural agency operating in our lives. Not saying it isn't possible, but so far it hasn't been done.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Scientific Theories are peer reviewed.
> Tested, Tested, Tested, ReTested, Confirmed and then accepted as the best answer. They are then still constantly tested.
> 
> I have 100% faith that you believe and trust Science for you and your family as much as I do and you do it without running your own tests to back the overwhelming majority up.
> If you are typing on a device that you made from scratch in the barn, with a microchip that you've mined the components for and 1000 other steps needing an untold amount of machinery and resources to achieve....plus you are tapped into your own internet and have somehow programmed your own anti virus software....then I apologize for putting you on the same Scientific dependency and trust as us heathens. ?


Of course I trust science. My point was the appearance of knocking “faith” and relying on basically the same thing as science. These are men that tell us “this is fact”. We rely on that as truth.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> No, I said "I don't get it" meaning I don't get what "confirmation" means. You gave an example, but what you consider confirmation of god speaking to you I just consider good luck. Granted if your luck can be replicated and documented you might be on to something!  But so far, nobody has been able to replicate what seems to be supernatural agency operating in our lives. Not saying it isn't possible, but so far it hasn't been done.





> But so far, nobody has been able to replicate what seems to be supernatural agency operating in our lives. Not saying it isn't possible, but so far it hasn't been done.


That’s because you don’t get it. Not in a demeaning way but you’ve admitted you don’t believe in God so it wouldn’t be expected for you to get how it operates.

Good luck is finding $100. But I do not believe in luck, luck is nothing but where opportunity and preparation meet.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Lol ok fair enough. Personally, I don’t buy the millions of years old because I look at erosion and sediment build up. But, I believe it’s a lot older than the 6 - 7000 years old.



So you are saying that earth isn't even millions of years old, or even one million years old? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't see evolution from single celled microbes to humans playing out that fast.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> What did your age of the earth tests come up with?


Lol I’ve never done one. I’m somewhere between what science tells us and what most Christians believe. 

Biblically, there’s no time frame giving from Genesis 1:1 to Geneses 1:3.

Scientifically, the amount of erosion and sediment build up doesn’t make sense with billions of years old……we’d done flung off our axis out balance if all 3 were accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Of course I trust science. My point was the appearance of knocking “faith” and relying on basically the same thing as science. These are men that tell us “this is fact”. We rely on that as truth.


Because they can show us how they came to the conclusion. They publish their findings. They say that if we do this, that will happen. And then show us. They can explain how they date the age of the Earth by their best means. I don't have that equipment but I do trust the people that do.
They dont just say that they read about it in a book that is very old and cannot test it beause it exists nowhere outside of those pages so they jist go with it anyway.
You are comparing The Space Shuttle to a 2x4 and saying that they are pretty much equal.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> So you are saying that earth isn't even millions of years old, or even one million years old? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't see evolution from single celled microbes to humans playing out that fast.


I don’t think we know enough scientifically to determine that, yet. When you think about it, we are extremely young in the grand scheme of things. We just discovered microorganisms in 1665.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Lol I’ve never done one. I’m somewhere between what science tells us and what most Christians believe.
> 
> Biblically, there’s no time frame giving from Genesis 1:1 to Geneses 1:3.
> 
> Scientifically, the amount of erosion and sediment build up doesn’t make sense with billions of years old……we’d done flung off our axis out balance if all 3 were accurate.


If you take 10 mins to research that you would know why the Earth has not flung off it's axis.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Because they can show us how they came to the conclusion. They publish their findings. They say that if we do this, that will happen. And then show us. They can explain how they date the age of the Earth by their best means. I don't have that equipment but I do trust the people that do.
> They dont just say that they read about it in a book that is very old and cannot test it beause it exists nowhere iutside of those pages so they jist go with it anyway.
> You are comparing The Space Shuttle to a 2x4 and saying that they are pretty much equal.


I get science. I’m just saying “they say” this’ll happen to this rock over a 10,000 year span. It’s an assumption until 10,000 years have passed.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That’s because you don’t get it. Not in a demeaning way but you’ve admitted you don’t believe in God so it wouldn’t be expected for you to get how it operates.
> 
> Good luck is finding $100. But I do t believe in luck, luck is nothing but where opportunity and preparation meet.



What I'm saying is if you strongly believe in something you will interpret things as being the result of what you believe in, rather than examine all other possibilities. 
Bottom line if I made a list "god did it" would not be my first choice for an explanation,
it would be at or near the bottom of possible explanations.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> If you take 10 mins to research that you would know why the Earth has not flung off it's axis.


I’ve researched it a good bit. I’m still with the earth is a lot older than what Christianity believes, and younger than what science believes. I have zero tests to prove it, it’s just what I believe.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> What I'm saying is if you strongly believe in something you will interpret things as being the result of what you believe in, rather than examine all other possibilities.
> Bottom line if I made a list "god did it" would not be my first choice for an explanation,
> it would be at or near the bottom of possible explanations.



Nothing wrong with that. It rains on the just and unjust alike. Everything isn’t spiritual. I just gave an example of confirmation and how it’s specific.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve researched it a good bit. I’m still with the earth is a lot older than what Christianity believes, and younger than what science believes. I have zero tests to prove it, it’s just what I believe.


The Earths axis does wobble and change. It isn't enough to be detected by our simple senses but it constantly has moved. Science follows it by GPS. Unless of course GPS is just a scientific product that is a wild guess by an off the wall scientist with no peer reviews?
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve researched it a good bit. I’m still with the earth is a lot older than what Christianity believes, and younger than what science believes. I have zero tests to prove it, it’s just what I believe.


I think a lot "just what I believe" is used in place of a more likely than not actuality.
I see enough of Science that works on smaller scales that is verifiable by simple tests 100s of times a day to be able to trust Science on the tests that are beyond my capabilities.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The Earths axis does wobble and change. It isn't enough to be detected by our simple senses but it constantly has moved. Science follows it by GPS. Unless of course GPS is just a scientific product that is a wild guess by an off the wall scientist with no peer reviews?
> https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth


Well, GPS has told me I’ve arrived at my location …….and there was nothing there but an empty lot lol.

I’ll read up on the link. I like stuff like that ?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I think a lot "just what I believe" is used in place of a more likely than not actuality.
> I see enough of Science that works on smaller scales that is verifiable by simple tests 100s of times a day to be able to trust Science on the tests that are beyond my capabilities.


With Christianity it’s definitely about believing. But it’s a complex situation because it’s not just “I believe” so it’s gotta be true.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Well, GPS has told me I’ve arrived at my location …….and there was nothing there but an empty lot lol.
> 
> I’ll read up on the link. I like stuff like that ?


Yeah, NASA probably has a dashboard mounted iphone using the Wayze App to monitor the Earths axis, lololol


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, NASA probably has a dashboard mounted iphone using the Wayze App to monitor the Earths axis, lololol


? ? ?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> With Christianity it’s definitely about believing. But it’s a complex situation because it’s not just “I believe” so it’s gotta be true.


If you use "I believe" to guess the age of the Earth I am confident that many use the same method for their truths within Christianity. Like darn near everything that we talk about in here Christianity and all belief systems are certainly more complex than a few things that we all simplify in order to keep the conversations going. Otherwise we'd spend a life's work on one small aspect and still never solve anything .


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2022)

bullethead said:


> If you use "I believe" to guess the age of the Earth I am confident that many use the same method for their truths within Christianity. Like darn near everything that we talk about in here Christianity and all belief systems are certainly more complex than a few things that we all simplify in order to keep the conversations going. Otherwise we'd spend a life's work on one small aspect and still never solve anything .


I get what you’re saying and agree but my “lose” use of believe isn’t really a fair assessment of belief.

I trust science, I think they’re close, I just don’t think they’re “dead on”. It’s mostly because we keep discovering, by default that tells me it’s not concrete, yet.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think we know enough scientifically to determine that, yet. When you think about it, we are extremely young in the grand scheme of things. We just discovered microorganisms in 1665.



By “we” you mean scientists right? That’s more than 300 years after the Black Death wiped out a third of the European population, most of which were Christian. For some reason divine revelation didn’t see fit to inform believers of the germ theory of disease but there were flagellants going around whipping themselves to appease an angry god. That’s what their faith informed them to do. Reckon how long that would have continued absent scientists who didn’t leave it up to faith?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve researched it a good bit. I’m still with the earth is a lot older than what Christianity believes, and younger than what science believes. I have zero tests to prove it, it’s just what I believe.


Dont you go forming your own opinion now!?


----------



## livinoutdoors (Oct 26, 2022)

Many scientists say! How dare you question many scientists!


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Dont you go forming your own opinion now!?


Lol ?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> By “we” you mean scientists right? That’s more than 300 years after the Black Death wiped out a third of the European population, most of which were Christian. For some reason divine revelation didn’t see fit to inform believers of the germ theory of disease but there were flagellants going around whipping themselves to appease an angry god. That’s what their faith informed them to do. Reckon how long that would have continued absent scientists who didn’t leave it up to faith?


Oh yea it’s been top secret for millions of years, even from the really smart guys let’s say………even those from just a few thousand years ago ?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

livinoutdoors said:


> Many scientists say! How dare you question many scientists!


If it’s on the internet and science says……that’s hard evidence you know ?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think we know enough scientifically to determine that, yet. When you think about it, we are extremely young in the grand scheme of things. We just discovered microorganisms in 1665.


If you really think about it, in 1865 Drs were still using the same unsterilized surgical instruments to perform operations on multiple people. They killed more people than the bullets did.
In a relatively short amount of time since then Science has made seemingly impossible leaps and bounds in the advancement of Medicine and Medical Procedures. 
They aren't t tall tales on the internet and it wasn't recipies found in a Holy book.
It never ceases to amaze me how much Science deniers use Science every single minute of every single day in their very own lives and act like Science is a guess or a lucky coincidence while trying to pass of feelings and ancient writings as being superior to the latest Scientific findings.
Spotlite I know you are the first to admit that you use Science but it seems like you disregard it just as quickly when it says something that you cannot grasp.

Science gives us a relative age of the Earth. The Bible does also. Your guess at Earth's age is somewhere in the middle. Why do you not trust the word of God on the age of the Earth but do trust his word on what seems to be most everything else?

On a follow up... what else do you think the Bible has got wrong?


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> If you really think about it, in 1865 Drs were still using the same unsterilized surgical instruments to perform operations on multiple people. They killed more people than the bullets did.



Notable example:  President Garfield

He might have survived, if not for his doctors.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> With Christianity it’s definitely about believing. But it’s a complex situation because it’s not just “I believe” so it’s gotta be true.



But there is a great deal of "this is what has been told/read to me by my ancestors for many generations" that reinforces your belief. Your own family certainly can't be mistaken, right? And the holy book they learned from certainly can't be wrong. And millions of people believe this holy book, so it must be true" going on. No man is an island! We are all part of a culture and religion is part of every culture. If god doesn't exist it really doesn't matter, because *the belief in god *(especially once that belief gains traction and power) is what religion is all about. Once a religion becomes intertwined in the fabric of a society it's most likely going to be around until that society changes significantly. That's why all religions go extinct just like all societies go extinct - but religion & society don't always go extinct at the same time, but they will go extinct.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I get what you’re saying and agree but my “lose” use of believe isn’t really a fair assessment of belief.
> 
> I trust science, I think they’re close, I just don’t think they’re “dead on”. It’s mostly because we keep discovering, by default that tells me it’s not concrete, yet.



EXACTLY! You hit the nail right on the head. That's the entire point of science. Once you say something is "concrete" you don't do any more investigation into it, while in actuality there is still much to learn about it. 
Science is a process and a work in progress, just like everything in the universe. Creation, change and improvement are constantly ongoing and transforming.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> If you really think about it, in 1865 Drs were still using the same unsterilized surgical instruments to perform operations on multiple people. They killed more people than the bullets did.
> In a relatively short amount of time since then Science has made seemingly impossible leaps and bounds in the advancement of Medicine and Medical Procedures.
> They aren't t tall tales on the internet and it wasn't recipies found in a Holy book.
> It never ceases to amaze me how much Science deniers use Science every single minute of every single day in their very own lives and act like Science is a guess or a lucky coincidence while trying to pass of feelings and ancient writings as being superior to the latest Scientific findings.
> ...


I don’t think the Bible got anything wrong. I think “man” plays a role there.
We’re not science deniers. Science even admits  there are unknowns. The gap filled in between the unknowns to use as “facts” to prove there’s no God is the problem.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> But there is a great deal of "this is what has been told/read to me by my ancestors for many generations" that reinforces your belief. Your own family certainly can't be mistaken, right? And the holy book they learned from certainly can't be wrong. And millions of people believe this holy book, so it must be true" going on. No man is an island! We are all part of a culture and religion is part of every culture. If god doesn't exist it really doesn't matter, because *the belief in god *(especially once that belief gains traction and power) is what religion is all about. Once a religion becomes intertwined in the fabric of a society it's most likely going to be around until that society changes significantly. That's why all religions go extinct just like all societies go extinct - but religion & society don't always go extinct at the same time, but they will go extinct.


Negative. Nothing I have in religion is a “hand me down”. Contrary to what most non believers think, this  isn’t “folk tale”.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> EXACTLY! You hit the nail right on the head. That's the entire point of science. Once you say something is "concrete" you don't do any more investigation into it, while in actuality there is still much to learn about it.
> Science is a process and a work in progress, just like everything in the universe. Creation, change and improvement are constantly ongoing and transforming.


Until it’s concrete then you certainly can’t be sure it will nit find its way back to God?? That’s my point. Don’t be so sure of the uncertain until it’s certain.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t the Bible got anything wrong. I think “man” plays a role there.


Which words are God's and which are man's? How do you differentiate?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Which words are God's and which are man's? How do you differentiate?


If it’s all led if God then they’re all God’s words. 

I’ll catch up later. Just finished in Tuscaloosa and hitting the road home.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> If it’s all led if God then they’re all God’s words.
> 
> I’ll catch up later. Just finished in Tuscaloosa and hitting the road home.


Then please explain your comments about "mans" role.

For instance you come up with a different number for the age of the Earth than God's Word does.
Did man mess up in translation?
Is man and God's math different?
Is your age of the Earth exactly what God says it is but men writing the Bible got it wrong?

You seem to be blaming yourself for not agreeing with scripture and saying scripture is both wrong and right. Very Confusing


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Then please explain your comments about "mans" role.
> 
> For instance you come up with a different number for the age of the Earth than God's Word does.
> Did man mess up in translation?
> ...


I don’t have a number in mind. I just believe it’s older than religion says, and younger than what science says. As I’ve said many times there is no time frame given between Genesis 1 verses 1 & 3. Every theological attempt to age the earth ends at “day 1” in Genesis. How much time is between in the beginning and the end of day 1?

As far as man - it’s both the believer and the non believer that plays the “man’s role” in getting the Bible wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t have a number in mind. I just believe it’s older than religion says, and younger than what science says. As I’ve said many times there is no time frame given between Genesis 1 verses 1 & 3. Every theological attempt to age the earth ends at “day 1” in Genesis. How much time is between in the beginning and the end of day 1?
> 
> As far as man - it’s both the believer and the non believer that plays the “man’s role” in getting the Bible wrong.


If a day does not equal a day then what other terminology and definitions are different than what we use?
Is 500 witnesses 5, .5?
40 days and nights 4 days, 4hrs, 4 minutes?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> If a day does not equal a day then what other terminology and definitions are different than what we use?
> Is 500 witnesses 5, .5?
> 40 days and nights 4 days, 4hrs, 4 minutes?


How much time is between verse 1 and 3 and based on what?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> How much time is between verse 1 and 3 and based on what?


How long is a day?
The Bible talks in days.
The 7th day God rested(why a god would need rest, IDK)


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> How much time is between verse 1 and 3 and based on what?


1 to 5 = 1 Day. The clearly tell what God did each Day. Once the Sun revolved around the Earth (ahem) One time,  that seemed to be a day back then.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> 1 to 5 = 1 Day. The clearly tell what God did each Day. Once the Sun revolved around the Earth (ahem) One time,  that seemed to be a day back then.


In the beginning...............

You can only assume it was part of day 1, I can only assume it was not...................that is how man plays a role in misinterpretations.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> In the beginning...............
> 
> You can only assume it was part of day 1, I can only assume it was not...................that is how man plays a role in misinterpretations.


A day has to start. Is the morning the beginning of a day? 
The verses clearly go 3 or more at a time telling of what God did and then mentions that was the end of Day X.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2022)

1. In the beginning my Son and I started across our usual spot where we have had luck hunting Pheasants. 
2. We flushed 2 hens another hen ran and wouldn't fly then we saw a rooster along a thicket about 100yds away.
3. We turned around and brought the ground back towards the way we came about 10yds down from our original position. We flushed a Rooster and killed him.
4. We got to the end and bumped down another 20yds and brought the bottom section back. 2 more roosters and a hen flushed. We killed them all. We had gotten our limit. That was the end of Day 1.

If that is taken to be any longer than a 24hr time period (or less as there was no more hunting that day) I dont know what to tell you.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

bullethead said:


> 1. In the beginning my Son and I started across our usual spot where we have had luck hunting Pheasants.
> 2. We flushed 2 hens another hen ran and wouldn't fly then we saw a rooster along a thicket about 100yds away.
> 3. We turned around and brought the ground back towards the way we came about 10yds down from our original position. We flushed a Rooster and killed him.
> 4. We got to the end and bumped down another 20yds and brought the bottom section back. 2 more roosters and a hen flushed. We killed them all. We had gotten our limit. That was the end of Day 1.
> ...


Not disagreeing but I am only pointing out how man plays a role in misinterpretations. 

Me personally, I do not care if the earth is 6,000 years old or 6 billion. God created it in the beginning, whenever that was.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Oct 26, 2022)

I anticipate spending eternity in heaven. I have no idea as to what heaven will be like other than how it is described in the Bible.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Until it’s concrete then you certainly can’t be sure it will nit find its way back to God?? That’s my point. Don’t be so sure of the uncertain until it’s certain.



Things may "find their way back to god" someday, but so far nothing has. Not everything has been explained, but when things are eventually explained the answer is never god, so far at least. Granted some believers refuse to accept the scientific answer, and that is their opinion, but opinions are not facts of course.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Things may "find their way back to god" someday, but so far nothing has. Not everything has been explained, but when things are eventually explained the answer is never god, so far at least. Granted some believers refuse to accept the scientific answer, and that is their opinion, but opinions are not facts of course.


I think there’s a mix of refusal from both sides.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 26, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I think there’s a mix of refusal from both sides.



I don't think it's a refusal so much as two different world views. Two different lenses through which things are interpreted.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Oh yea it’s been top secret for millions of years, even from the really smart guys let’s say………even those from just a few thousand years ago ?


I expect ignorance from men who have nothing but themselves and each other to rely on. For those claiming divine revelation the bar is higher. It was you who claimed access to evidence available only to those with faith. The flagellants weren’t short on faith. How could they get it so wrong? They supposedly have a direct pathway to communicate with a loving omniscient creator and yet they remained ignorant to the causes and remedy to a disease killing millions of fellow believers. Instead they went around whipping their flesh as if that would motivate god to spare them. Why is that? Does that strike you as any less ignorant than pagans making a sacrifice to a god that doesn’t exist?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> I expect ignorance from men who have nothing but themselves and each other to rely on. For those claiming divine revelation the bar is higher. It was you who claimed access to evidence available only to those with faith. The flagellants weren’t short on faith. How could they get it so wrong? They supposedly have a direct pathway to communicate with a loving omniscient creator and yet they remained ignorant to the causes and remedy to a disease killing millions of fellow believers. Instead they went around whipping their flesh as if that would motivate god to spare them. Why is that? Does that strike you as any less ignorant than pagans making a sacrifice to a god that doesn’t exist?


1. Be it fact or fiction; you claim to know the Bible story so well, yet you question the very elementary element of its core teaching of “through faith” in a manner of “not understanding”………..I have no comment. 

2. As far as ignorance……I’m going to go with this definition and give you the benefit of the doubt -  “lack of knowledge or information. he acted in *ignorance of* basic procedures"  

Based on folks actions being ignorant or any less ignorant……..since I’ve ruled out Allah, I think I’d feel ignorant to debate a Muslim on the existence of Allah unless I still had reservations that he’s actually out there.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> 1. Be it fact or fiction; you claim to know the Bible story so well, yet you question the very elementary element of its core teaching of “through faith” in a manner of “not understanding”………..I have no comment.
> 
> 2. As far as ignorance……I’m going to go with this definition and give you the benefit of the doubt -  “lack of knowledge or information. he acted in *ignorance of* basic procedures"
> 
> Based on folks actions being ignorant or any less ignorant……..since I’ve ruled out Allah, I think I’d feel ignorant to debate a Muslim on the existence of Allah unless I still had reservations that he’s actually out there.


You still haven’t answered the questions. Knowledge is acquired through observation and reason. If divine revelation really came from an omniscient source it should be the best and most reliable method of acquiring knowledge but it’s not. It has an awful track record.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> You still haven’t answered the questions. Knowledge is acquired through observation and reason. If divine revelation really came from an omniscient source it should be the best and most reliable method of acquiring knowledge but it’s not. It has an awful track record.


Based on who and what? (A deeper dive into that will be “those that have no knowledge of God”)?


You’re the pizza guy trying to explain jets. ?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Based on who and what? (A deeper dive into that will be “those that have no knowledge of God”)?
> 
> 
> You’re the pizza guy trying to explain jets. ?


Based on history and real world results.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Based on history and real world results.


That’s fair but I’m just saying if there’a a “Creator” such as the God of the Bible and it’s explained in the story of how you’ll receive knowledge of the divine…….then history and world results won’t do it.

It’s just back to the matter of if you believe in God or not. Now; knowledge of how to build a boat, I’m with you, history and results.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That’s fair but I’m just saying if there’a a “Creator” such as the God of the Bible and it’s explained in the story of how you’ll receive knowledge of the divine…….then history and world results won’t do it.
> 
> It’s just back to the matter of if you believe in God or not. Now; knowledge of how to build a boat, I’m with you, history and results.


I’m not just talking about knowledge of the divine but knowledge from the divine. Those who claim to have knowledge from a divine all knowing source have a long track record befitting charlatans.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That’s fair but I’m just saying if there’a a “Creator” such as the God of the Bible and it’s explained in the story of how you’ll receive knowledge of the divine…….then history and world results won’t do it.
> 
> It’s just back to the matter of if you believe in God or not. Now; knowledge of how to build a boat, I’m with you, history and results.



Good example! If we built boats as described in Genesis, they would not be seaworthy for forty minutes let alone forty+ days.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Good example! If we built boats as described in Genesis, they would not be seaworthy for forty minutes let alone forty+ days.


I think you better research that again. I’ll give you time. It’s been posted here before.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> I’m not just talking about knowledge of the divine but knowledge from the divine. Those who claim to have knowledge from a divine all knowing source have a long track record befitting charlatans.


It’s hard to separate your disdain for religious people and your lack of understanding. They’re intertwining and feeding on one another.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I think you better research that again. I’ll give you time. It’s been posted here before.


 Debunking the Noah's Ark fable is like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> It’s hard to separate your disdain for religious people and your lack of understanding. They’re intertwining and feeding on one another.


When you fall ill do you go to a doctor for treatment? Or do you break out the whip?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Debunking the Noah's Ark fable is like shooting fish in a barrel.


Really? You haven’t done much research at all on it. I’ll give you a hint - The Ark was basically “perfectly designed “, your non belief buddies on here countered with “of course there were Egyptian ships already in play and it was easy to steal the design for the story”. 









						Noah's Ark 'could have happened', scientists say
					

New study shows giant boat could have carried all world's species of animal without sinking




					www.independent.co.uk
				




According to science, you’re not seaworthy claim has already been debunked. According to history the Egyptians already floated ships of that magnitude. 

As far as scientists, out of the hundreds and thousands that disagree and all claim they’re right……..heard that before????










						Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
					

In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief




					www.scientificamerican.com
				












						Evidence for a Flood
					

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea




					www.smithsonianmag.com
				




So many we rely on for “sound reasoning and logic” in multiple areas of our lives 





__





						25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
					

How did the universe begin? How did life arise on Earth? These have been humanity's most important questions through the ages. In the last century, we have learned more about science and the creation of the universe than everything known before the twentieth century. What is more notable, the...




					www.famousscientists.org
				




And, sone of y’all have fooled yourselves into thinking science is your answer to prove no God









						What Can Science Say about God? - Robert John Russell - Closer to Truth
					






					www.closertotruth.com
				





We can do this all night but we’re right back to what you believe or do not believe.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> When you fall ill do you go to a doctor for treatment? Or do you break out the whip?


I’m not sure of your fantasy for whips, maybe you can enlighten us.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not sure of your fantasy for whips, maybe you can enlighten us.


The idea of self flagellation only seems crazy now because we were led away from it by reason. Just wondering if you roll with that deviation or if you stick with the understanding men gain by way of faith.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Really? You haven’t done much research at all on it. I’ll give you a hint - The Ark was basically “perfectly designed “, your non belief buddies on here countered with “of course there were Egyptian ships already in play and it was easy to steal the design for the story”.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let's be honest, With nothing of the Ark to study nobody knows what it would do , could do, or what it may have actually looked like if it in fact ever existed.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> The idea of self flagellation only seems crazy now because we were led away from it by reason. Just wondering if you roll with that deviation or if you stick with the understanding men gain by way of faith.


I go the way of faith. I also use common sense and realize I have access to doctors. Just because I’m claiming faith doesn’t mean you’re to ignorant to “let nature teach you some things”. 

If going to the doctor makes me faithless in your opinion, then I’m just faithless.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Let's be honest, With nothing of the Ark to study nobody knows what it would do , could do, or what it may have actually looked like if it in fact ever existed.


The biblical dimensions given for the size of it can be compared to Egyptian ships already on the water. That same concept is used by science all the time for probability.

Edited to add: I’m a realist; my human imagination can’t see the flood story happening, but if it can and did, there’s only one way it could have.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I go the way of faith. I also use common sense and realize I have access to doctors. Just because I’m claiming faith doesn’t mean you’re to ignorant to “let nature teach you some things”.
> 
> If going to the doctor makes me faithless in your opinion, then I’m just faithless.


Good to see you make the distinction between faith and common sense.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Good to see you make the distinction between faith and common sense.


And the use of both….. You won’t admit it but you have faith that science is right.


Ok tell me how to select emojis. I had a good one in mind lol.

Never mind I found it but not the one I wanted.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> The biblical dimensions given for the size of it can be compared to Egyptian ships already on the water. That same concept is used by science all the time for probability.
> 
> Edited to add: I’m a realist; my human imagination can’t see the flood story happening, but if it can and did, there’s only one way it could have.


The Ark Encounter doesn't think so except for Chinese Trade ships in the 1400s








						How Big Was Noah’s Ark?
					

Few wooden ships have ever come close to the size of Noah’s Ark: almost one and a half football fields long and higher than a modern four-story house!




					arkencounter.com


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The Ark Encounter doesn't think so except for Chinese Trade ships in the 1400s
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All that money and they built a modern building in the shape of a boat rather than a functional replica of the Ark.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The Ark Encounter doesn't think so except for Chinese Trade ships in the 1400s
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty cool place. We went there this past summer.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Pretty cool place. We went there this past summer.


Did they mention why they seem to think that there were no other boats that size until the 1400s?

The Sumerians had Reed Boats. They were long but a completely different design.

Master Boat Craftsman can build a large sea worthy boat. Not sure about 8 people doing it in their backyard.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Pretty cool place. We went there this past summer.


Whenever I see that picture of the ark I cant help but think of this  -


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Did they mention why they seem to think that there were no other boats that size until the 1400s?
> 
> The Sumerians had Reed Boats. They were long but a completely different design.
> 
> Master Boat Craftsman can build a large sea worthy boat. Not sure about 8 people doing it in their backyard.


On site they did mention the ancient Egyptian ships, and other similar ships. The differences there mentioned were wooden ships and wooden ships with sails, oars or both. The only thing I can think of is if they’re comparing it to a ship that size without sails, powered with oar only or neither. But that’s just a guess.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Whenever I see that picture of the ark I cant help but think of this  -


Lol


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Did they mention why they seem to think that there were no other boats that size until the 1400s?
> 
> The Sumerians had Reed Boats. They were long but a completely different design.
> 
> Master Boat Craftsman can build a large sea worthy boat. Not sure about 8 people doing it in their backyard.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentuc...ues-insurance-company-over-heavy-rain-damage/


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentuc...ues-insurance-company-over-heavy-rain-damage/


Talk about Irony


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> All that money and they built a modern building in the shape of a boat rather than a functional replica of the Ark.



they had to meet all the building codes, since it was to be used as a museum/attraction, even the ADA codes for elevators and the angle of the ramps.  You ought to go see it.  It is a marvelous display of woodworking skill.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentuc...ues-insurance-company-over-heavy-rain-damage/


good grief... the road washed away.  What does that have to do with the soundness of design or structure of the Ark?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2022)

NE GA Pappy said:


> they had to meet all the building codes, since it was to be used as a museum/attraction, even the ADA codes for elevators and the angle of the ramps.  You ought to go see it.  It is a marvelous display of woodworking skill.


That’s logic to most folks. Some claim to use it, then display the opposite lol


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 27, 2022)

NE GA Pappy said:


> they had to meet all the building codes, since it was to be used as a museum/attraction, even the ADA codes for elevators and the angle of the ramps.  You ought to go see it.  It is a marvelous display of woodworking skill.


Right. It was planned to be a building from the start, not a reconstruction of the ship described in Genesis. Which is fine as long as they don’t represent it as something it’s not.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That’s logic to most folks. Some claim to use it, then display the opposite lol


Wait a minute.....are you telling me that thing isn't floating around the Great Sea of Kentucky?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 27, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> When you fall ill do you go to a doctor for treatment? Or do you break out the whip?


The whip? Only after I've seen the bill!


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Wait a minute.....are you telling me that thing isn't floating around the Great Sea of Kentucky?


All the ocean front property is in Arizona, they even wrote a song about it. Everyone knows that……..lol


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Really? You haven’t done much research at all on it. I’ll give you a hint - The Ark was basically “perfectly designed “, your non belief buddies on here countered with “of course there were Egyptian ships already in play and it was easy to steal the design for the story”.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've done plenty of research, but even if I hadn't, I do have basic math skills and I know the basics of biology, evolution, geography and the basic laws of physics. Anybody reading the biblical flood account that has these five things under their belt will probably come to one or more of these conclusions:

1) the account is a fictional story based on older fictional stories
2) the account is not meant to be taken literally
3) the physical world - and math - operated in & under completely different principles and laws when the bible was written compared to the year 2022


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I've done plenty of research, but even if I hadn't, I do have basic math skills and I know the basics of biology, evolution, geography and the basic laws of physics. Anybody reading the biblical flood account that has these five things under their belt will probably come to one or more of these conclusions:
> 
> 1) the account is a fictional story based on older fictional stories
> 2) the account is not meant to be taken literally
> 3) the physical world - and math - operated in & under completely different principles and laws when the bible was written compared to the year 2022


A multitude of “educated” research will disagree with your basic math and physics on the likelihood of the Ark being seaworthy - which is what your argument was.

The rest is just a matter of what you believe or do not believe based on research you're biased to.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 28, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentuc...ues-insurance-company-over-heavy-rain-damage/


I haven't believed one word from CBS since THE GUNS OF AUTUMN.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 28, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentuc...ues-insurance-company-over-heavy-rain-damage/


I have not believed a word from CBS since THE GUNS OF AUTUMN.  If your don't remember it, or are too lazy to look it up, and watch it all, that's on you.

There are so many things wrong with this program I was thinking it was based on meteralogy






whatnot all that's on you.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> A multitude of “educated” research will disagree with your basic math and physics on the likelihood of the Ark being seaworthy - which is what your argument was.
> 
> The rest is just a matter of what you believe or do not believe based on research you're biased to.


I'm not biased to any research. The proof of the pudding would be to build
an actual full-sized ark (or a few, of different shapes but still sticking to the biblical description/size just varying shapes) and stick eight people on it and pack it with thousands of animals like elephants, koalas, polar bears, penguins, kangaroos, cows, thirteen striped reticulated chipmunks, etc (though there are millions of species on Earth) - and the FOOD based on specific dietary needs - and let it drift around for a few months. One ventilation hole (as per the bible) and all that methane from the animals would probably end the experiments quickly, but you get the idea.

Also I didn't bring into question ONLY the seaworthiness of the ark. I said the flood event/story meaning the whole shebang. Building the ark, fitting six million species from several continents on the ark, adequate food, the spread of diseases, lack of ventilation (a single one cubit/18 inches window?) the olive trees sprouting at higher elevations than they can possibly grow AND surviving complete water immersion since all the mountaintops were covered for a significantly long period.

Thus "a multitude of research" from legit scientists esteemed by their legit scientist peers will thoroughly debunk the ark. If you'd like, I'll give you a multitude of links explaining this, to include why the ark wouldn't be seaworthy. Please let me know if you are interested in these links.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 28, 2022)

hummerpoo said:


> I haven't believed one word from CBS since THE GUNS OF AUTUMN.


That was just one of the first links to the story. Not hard to verify the story.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 28, 2022)

A Koala Bear's main diet is Eucalyptus leaves. It would be more of a story to hear how two Koala bears swam from Australia carrying enough Eucalyptus leaves with them to survive the swim and subsequent land travel to the Ark and BACK to Australia after the flood since the only food left is on the boat.. than the Flood story itself.

But I know the answer...suspend reality, insert a God of the gaps, and everything is easily explained.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm not biased to any research. The proof of the pudding would be to build
> an actual full-sized ark (or a few, of different shapes but still sticking to the biblical description/size just varying shapes) and stick eight people on it and pack it with thousands of animals like elephants, koalas, polar bears, penguins, kangaroos, cows, thirteen striped reticulated chipmunks, etc (though there are millions of species on Earth) - and the FOOD based on specific dietary needs - and let it drift around for a few months. One ventilation hole (as per the bible) and all that methane from the animals would probably end the experiments quickly, but you get the idea.
> 
> Also I didn't bring into question ONLY the seaworthiness of the ark. I said the flood event/story meaning the whole shebang. Building the ark, fitting six million species from several continents on the ark, adequate food, the spread of diseases, lack of ventilation (a single one cubit/18 inches window?) the olive trees sprouting at higher elevations than they can possibly grow AND surviving complete water immersion since all the mountaintops were covered for a significantly long period.
> ...


They claim it wasn't animals of every species but animals of every "kind", whatever that means.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm not biased to any research. The proof of the pudding would be to build
> an actual full-sized ark (or a few, of different shapes but still sticking to the biblical description/size just varying shapes) and stick eight people on it and pack it with thousands of animals like elephants, koalas, polar bears, penguins, kangaroos, cows, thirteen striped reticulated chipmunks, etc (though there are millions of species on Earth) - and the FOOD based on specific dietary needs - and let it drift around for a few months. One ventilation hole (as per the bible) and all that methane from the animals would probably end the experiments quickly, but you get the idea.
> 
> Also I didn't bring into question ONLY the seaworthiness of the ark. I said the flood event/story meaning the whole shebang. Building the ark, fitting six million species from several continents on the ark, adequate food, the spread of diseases, lack of ventilation (a single one cubit/18 inches window?) the olive trees sprouting at higher elevations than they can possibly grow AND surviving complete water immersion since all the mountaintops were covered for a significantly long period.
> ...


Ok I stand corrected on this - "I didn't bring into question ONLY the seaworthiness of the ark. I said the flood event/story meaning the whole shebang."

For research, there is research to indicate that it would float carrying all of that .

For the actual story itself, yeah it is a "hard to believe" one. I get that, as I cannot visualize it myself. The only way I see it happening is through a deity such as God.

As far as links - I think you get my point. For every pro, there is a con. Which one to believe will be biased on what you and I believe is truth. Just like Christianity, they are not all right, they are not all wrong, just because they are not 100% in agreement does not make them all wrong, either.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> They claim it wasn't animals of every species but animals of every "kind", whatever that means.



"Kind" meaning nothing. "Kind" is a word made up by apologetics. 
The order of march is:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

But using Genus or Family as a jumping off point equal to "kind" it still wouldn't make sense because if there were not millions but instead only hundreds of species, when the flood was over all six million different species alive in the year 2022 would have to undergo HYPER-EVOLUTION 
and evolve at an incredibly fast rate. So the irony is most creationists don't believe in natural evolution over millions of years, but they accept that godly "adaptations" occurred over a few thousand years.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Ok I stand corrected on this - "I didn't bring into question ONLY the seaworthiness of the ark. I said the flood event/story meaning the whole shebang."
> 
> For research, there is research to indicate that it would float carrying all of that .
> 
> ...



True that not all scientists are 100 percent right, but when 99 out of 100 scientists say "the flood story as it's presented has fifteen claims that are physically impossible according to the scientific laws of the universe in which we currently live" IMHO that is a "slam dunk" for reality. But when you start out with "god can do anything" as a foregone conclusion then there is no limit to how outrageous the bible stories can get. 

But to put things into perspective 3,000 or so years ago the flood story would not seem outrageous because people had no idea that the world was 8,000 miles in diameter, the earth orbited the sun, stars can't fall out of the sky and rain down on earth, or that there are millions of different species of animals/birds/insects/plants and thousands of different cultures. People didn't know how the universe really works so to them the bible stories don't read like fiction.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> A Koala Bear's main diet is Eucalyptus leaves. It would be more of a story to hear how two Koala bears swam from Australia carrying enough Eucalyptus leaves with them to survive the swim and subsequent land travel to the Ark and BACK to Australia after the flood since the only food left is on the boat.. than the Flood story itself.
> 
> But I know the answer...suspend reality, insert a God of the gaps, and everything is easily explained.


In hindsight (the year 2022) it's obvious that the entire flood story package 
has so many holes in it all the pitch in the world couldn't seal them. 
But when the writers thought the whole world and all the animals living in it were whatever they would encounter within their lifetimes (maybe a few hundred miles distance and centered in the near east/north African/middle east region) who is going to call them out on their fanciful fictional tales? 
Everything seemed at lease feasible/plausible to the people of that time & place.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> "Kind" meaning nothing. "Kind" is a word made up by apologetics.
> The order of march is:
> 
> Kingdom
> ...


Would be interesting to see a coherent storyline of what they think happened. Was there a mass extinction event at the flood and then everything we have now arose from those "kinds" of animals rescued? Or was there not all these species prior to the flood so no mass extinction?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> True that not all scientists are 100 percent right, but when 99 out of 100 scientists say "the flood story as it's presented has fifteen claims that are physically impossible according to the scientific laws of the universe in which we currently live" IMHO that is a "slam dunk" for reality. But when you start out with "god can do anything" as a foregone conclusion then there is no limit to how outrageous the bible stories can get.
> 
> But to put things into perspective 3,000 or so years ago the flood story would not seem outrageous because people had no idea that the world was 8,000 miles in diameter, the earth orbited the sun, stars can't fall out of the sky and rain down on earth, or that there are millions of different species of animals/birds/insects/plants and thousands of different cultures. People didn't know how the universe really works so to them the bible stories don't read like fiction.


Ooooooooh so if the majority is right - its fact? What are the odds that the ones you consider right just happen to align with your thoughts?

I see "shooting stars" all the time. I have access to the internet now and believe it or not, there are those that do not and did not even finish school that still believe to this day they are seeing shooting stars.

I think you will find this interesting - "The Leonid meteor shower is back this month and poised to hit its peak next week. But there's a long history associated with the annual sky watching event. It all began on the night of* Nov. 12, 1833*, when the Western Hemisphere unexpectedly came under attack by a firestorm of shooting stars that were reportedly silent, but overwhelming filled the sky."

And in perspective - correct, they did not know what the whole world was. The whole world was all they knew right around them. So a Kaoloa bear did not really have to be on the boat as a species but a "bear kind" was there. Sometimes "critical thinking" is selective, depending on what answer you want. An honest answer would let you consider all things.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Would be interesting to see a coherent storyline of what they think happened. Was there a mass extinction event at the flood and then everything we have now arose from those "kinds" of animals rescued? Or was there not all these species prior to the flood so no mass extinction?


There are you tube videos covering both of these theories. But hats off to apologetics! Once they posit that the worldwide flood was a real event, they have the task of twisting all known & proven science into pretzels which of course opens them up to *massive* debunking & mockery. But you will learn a lot about actual legit science when reality-based scientists explain & prove why the biblical accounts are wrong and how things really work.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Ooooooooh so if the majority is right - its fact? What are the odds that the ones you consider right just happen to align with your thoughts?
> 
> I see "shooting stars" all the time. I have access to the internet now and believe it or not, there are those that do not and did not even finish school that still believe to this day they are seeing shooting stars.
> 
> ...


Remember, there are no "kinds". That's not a scientific term. But more importantly the koala isn't a bear, it's a marsupial (a pouch not a placenta) meaning a koala is more closely related to a kangaroo. So let's say all marsupials came from one koala "kind". There are 335 different species of marsupials spread out over four continents to include the opossum that we all know and love. 
Pretty fast evolution & dispersion in a few thousand years!


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Remember, there are no "kinds". That's not a scientific term. But more importantly the koala isn't a bear, it's a marsupial (a pouch not a placenta) meaning a koala is more closely related to a kangaroo. So let's say all marsupials came from one koala "kind". There are 335 different species of marsupials spread out over four continents to include the opossum that we all know and love.
> Pretty fast evolution & dispersion in a few thousand years!


Oh I forgot, I remember it being said on here “in a world where no one took notes and if they did maybe only 600 could actually read”…….., they just happen to have a book of scientific terms laying around……..


I think you’re overlooking the important stuff - “And in perspective”. Their small world to them. Honest thinking on possibilities.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Remember, there are no "kinds". That's not a scientific term. But more importantly the koala isn't a bear, it's a marsupial (a pouch not a placenta) meaning a koala is more closely related to a kangaroo. So let's say all marsupials came from one koala "kind". There are 335 different species of marsupials spread out over four continents to include the opossum that we all know and love.
> Pretty fast evolution & dispersion in a few thousand years!


But I am calling “uncle”. I don’t have anything else productive to add and all my kids / grandkids are on the way. Low country boil time and an outside fire with hot chocolate, coffee and smores. Always enjoy the convo with you .


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Oh I forgot, I remember it being said on here “in a world where no one took notes and if they did maybe only 600 could actually read”…….., they just happen to have a book of scientific terms laying around……..
> 
> 
> I think you’re overlooking the important stuff - “And in perspective”. Their small world to them. Honest thinking on possibilities.


"Oh I forgot, I remember it being said on here “in a world where no one took notes and if they did maybe only 600 could actually read”…….., they just happen to have a book of scientific terms laying around…….."

you missed my point. In the year 2022 apologetics still use the word "kind" to show how there didn't have to be six million different species on the ark - the "kinds" could have "adapted" into six million species in a few thousand years. To their credit, the apologists are correct, adaptation does create new species, but it occurs over many thousands/millions of years in most cases. 

"I think you’re overlooking the important stuff - “And in perspective”. Their small world to them. Honest thinking on possibilities."

I don't understand that last sentence. Regardless, so the people who only understand their small world are free to let their imaginations run rampant and make up - or pass along - obviously embellished/fabricated stories and claim that it's "god inspired?" The humans had no idea how vast the world was but.....wait for it....god did! Why would god add exacting details that he knew were wrong into a story? God didn't literally write the stories in the bible, but he allegedly oversaw & inspired the whole project. Did he skip out on the proofreading & editing? I seriously want to hear some opinions about that.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Ooooooooh so if the majority is right - its fact? What are the odds that the ones you consider right just happen to align with your thoughts?
> 
> I see "shooting stars" all the time. I have access to the internet now and believe it or not, there are those that do not and did not even finish school that still believe to this day they are seeing shooting stars.
> 
> ...


Those are good explanations that some might accept.
I can full well expect that people might think a meteor shower was falling stars, but would God? It comes back to who's words are in the Bible.
Koala Bears are not bears. There isn't enough time from the supposed flood for a kind to turn into dozens if not hundreds or thousands of offshoots.

Edited to add: oldfella1962 beat me to it.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Those are good explanations that some might accept.
> I can full well expect that people might think a meteor shower was falling stars, but would God? It comes back to who's words are in the Bible.
> Koala Bears are not bears. There isn't enough time from the supposed flood for a kind to turn into dozens if not hundreds or thousands of offshoots.
> 
> Edited to add: oldfella1962 beat me to it.


It's kind of a "can't have it both ways" situation to me:
if anybody says "people didn't understand how the world worked back then" as a reason for why every character in the bible seems clueless about what is now common knowledge yet say everything in the bible is inspired & dictated by god himself. 

Maybe since science was so primitive back then that god wouldn't explain things accurately because the bible writers and common folk couldn't understand it anyway. But IMHO that's a copout. Would it take that much more effort to say that a star (our sun) is the center of our galaxy and the world orbits around it, and spins as it orbits? Perhaps a simple diagram would help. Humans knew how to draw since before they could even write, so that would make perfect sense. Or maybe there is no information that only god would know and we discover many centuries later.

If anything, the more inaccuracies/inconsistencies/contradictions/plot holes/embellishments/etc. that we find in the bible, the more it seems to indicate (to me) that the bible has no mysterious, hidden knowledge and was written, edited, compiled & distributed by human beings with no supernatural guidance, just like every other religious book. 

Or maybe the whole shebang - while inspired & dictated by god - is all metaphor, myth, fable, etc. and was never ever meant to be taken literally. The bible is just meant to teach people how god thinks they should live. 

If this is the case, god pulled the greatest prank on record, and he is also the biggest jerk on record. I already can't wrap my mind around god sending humans to eternal torture just for having the wrong opinion and imagining god inspiring people to write a book that is* complete but well-intentioned *fiction and almost TOTALLY at odds with reality as we know it and discover it is even more mind-boggling. 

That said the scale seems to tip towards the bible being MANMADE FICTION, just one of many in a long list of other religious books.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> It's kind of a "can't have it both ways" situation to me:
> if anybody says "people didn't understand how the world worked back then" as a reason for why every character in the bible seems clueless about what is now common knowledge yet say everything in the bible is inspired & dictated by god himself.
> 
> Maybe since science was so primitive back then that god wouldn't explain things accurately because the bible writers and common folk couldn't understand it anyway. But IMHO that's a copout. Would it take that much more effort to say that a star (our sun) is the center of our galaxy and the world orbits around it, and spins as it orbits? Perhaps a simple diagram would help. Humans knew how to draw since before they could even write, so that would make perfect sense. Or maybe there is no information that only god would know and we discover many centuries later.
> ...


It seems to me that the writings were done by very intelligent people of their time. They tell a history timeline embellished with tales of their God mixed in because that is what all the cultures around the planet did during those times. These writings were all written apart from each other and it seems on the surface that all of these people were all telling the same story with continuous add ons which all meshed together. And that is EXACTLY what happened but not because of some divine intervention.  These were stories told for a thousand years already and as time advanced writers included their God in with their cultures history. They wrote with the information that was accepted as truth, to the best of their knowledge at the time. It sounds outdated and ancient because it is. God wouldn't need to dumb it down because a God by it's very nature supposedly is complex and says and does things those same people questioned but went along with so why wouldn't they believe a God that tells them that the Earth revolves around the Sun???Everybody across their culture knew the previous stories. It isn't hard to add to them. Just like now Christians know the OT and NT and could easily write new stories that tell the tales of Christianity through the years and include embellished interactions with their God and some would Ooh and Ahh over how well these stories mesh with the old stories even though they were written 2000yrs later and in another Nation. It isn't miraculous or spectacular at all. It is what talented writers and story tellers do every day. Definitely impressive. Absolutely worthy of praise and respect for their talents. But every cuture has done it and continues to do it except that as time advanced other entertainment besides Gods captured the people's interests.
Who knows what has been written in the last thousand years as a continuation on Christianity.  Some day it may be found and people might flock to it IF that is what the masses want.


----------

