# Where did God come from?



## SkeeterEater (May 26, 2009)

This little article sums it up........not!

http://www.carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/where-did-god-come


----------



## Jeffriesw (May 26, 2009)

Why so much enmity?


----------



## pnome (May 26, 2009)




----------



## SkeeterEater (May 26, 2009)

Don't like the question?


----------



## gtparts (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> Don't like the question?



It is one everyone gets around to sooner or later. The explanation provided by you in the link does a very good job of expressing the truth in a manner that almost anyone can grasp, given our finite understanding and human short-comings.

Thanks.


----------



## crackerdave (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> This little article sums it up........not!
> 
> http://www.carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/where-did-god-come



Since you obviously have access to such websites - how is it you know so little about Christianity? Not attacking - just wondering.


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 26, 2009)

It didn't take long, after skipping around through the bible I realized it was written by archaic men, not there fault but back then they just were not as scientifically educated as we are in this day and age, had they been I believe the bible would read a whole lot differently.


----------



## gtparts (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> It didn't take long, after skipping around through the bible I realized it was written by archaic men, not there fault but back then they just were not as scientifically educated as we are in this day and age, had they been I believe the bible would read a whole lot differently.



So, you are a skipper by your own admission. What you fail to realize is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, not the uninspired word of scientific knowledge.


----------



## crackerdave (May 26, 2009)

Also,people are exactly the same now as they were then.Basically - evil.
Science and education will not save your eternal soul from h e l l.
Neither will anything or anybody else,but Jesus Christ.


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 26, 2009)

So you have studied evolution in it's entirety?


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 26, 2009)

I'll give it a rest now, thanks for listening to my childish drivel.


----------



## gtparts (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> So you have studied evolution in it's entirety?




Didn't know that the final chapter on evolution had been written. Is it complete now or are they still working feverishly to find sufficient support for their speculations?


----------



## crackerdave (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> So you have studied evolution in it's entirety?



Yes - I've "studied" evolution.But only up to the point where I read that we are descended from monkeys.They lost me,then.

The" Latest Big Thing" from science sez my grandaddy was some kinda lemur-lookin' dude.  Don't think so.


----------



## Madman (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> I'll give it a rest now, thanks for listening to my childish drivel.



Run Away!   Run Away!


----------



## WTM45 (May 26, 2009)

SE,
Gods come and go.  They are created in man's attempt to answer the hard questions.
The concept of one BIG god kinda condenses it all into a package that is sellable to some.


----------



## jroberts1968 (May 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> SE,
> Gods come and go.  They are created in man's attempt to answer the hard questions.
> The concept of one BIG god kinda condenses it all into a package that is sellable to some.



Hmm very interesting take. 
I asked my father many years ago about our faith at the time. He was a Southern Babtist, After sunday school i asked him what about all the people before Jesus Dad? What or were did they go? I mean there are a lot of people in the world and there all not Christians and well what happens to them? Are they all burning in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- Now I was 10 at the time. I am 40 now.  Now what about them?


----------



## WTM45 (May 26, 2009)

jroberts1968 said:


> Hmm very interesting take.
> I asked my father many years ago about our faith at the time. He was a Southern Babtist, After sunday school i asked him what about all the people before Jesus Dad? What or were did they go? I mean there are a lot of people in the world and there all not Christians and well what happens to them? Are they all burning in (hades) (sic) Now I was 10 at the time. I am 40 now.  Now what about them?




You will get different takes on Old Covenent/New Covenent doctrine, depending on the denomination that is answering the question.
It is a valid question.
But hard for some to open their mind and think about, as they are so blinded by their particular brand of exclusivity.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> It didn't take long, after skipping around through the bible I realized it was written by archaic men, not there fault but back then they just were not as scientifically educated as we are in this day and age, had they been I believe the bible would read a whole lot differently.




It's been proven again and again that scientific study goes in circles.  A lot of scientific research is undertaken to continually prove and disprove the same things over and over again.  They're like a prosecuting attorney, they decide what they want, then they set out to prove it.  And the circle continues.
I'll stick with God.
But, if you believe otherwise, you should stick with it.


----------



## Tim L (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> It didn't take long, after skipping around through the bible I realized it was written by archaic men, not there fault but back then they just were not as scientifically educated as we are in this day and age, had they been I believe the bible would read a whole lot differently.



Alright...if there is not a God, how would you explain this.....whether you believe the biblical story of creation, evolution, that we were "seeded" (intentionally established here from an outside higher intelligence), or are simply the result of a wayward comet that deposited higher elements on a young earth, ALL of these have something in common......each had to have a beginning.....whether the Genesis story of creation or the big bang; there WAS a beginning.....something had to be there in the beginning....even if you accept the big bang theory, something had to create that matter, that energy that started it all.....it is ilogical to say that something comes from nothing....if the universe was ever truly a totally empty void, then nothing would exist today....Some higher power (i.e. God) had to set things in motion in the beginning...remember nothing can result from a truly empty void that has no outside stimulus (and in a truly empty void, there could have been no outside stimulus)...

Now, it would be real easy to evade the question and say, well... even if that is true, then God had to have a beginning; but try not to do that, don't fall into that trap....just explain how, without a "God", how did the very, very, very, very, VERY first "matter", the very first spark of energy, come into existance.............you can't, it is impossible to imagine the scenario because it simply can't be....no one can....If you only rely on logic and reason, just the fact that anything at all exists, is 100% proof there is a God.


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 26, 2009)

"just explain how, without a "God", how did the very, very, very, very, VERY first "matter", the very first spark of energy, come into existance"

That's what I'm asking and I know no one can answer the question. Wouldn't god be considered the very first spark of energy?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> "just explain how, without a "God", how did the very, very, very, very, VERY first "matter", the very first spark of energy, come into existance"
> 
> That's what I'm asking and I know no one can answer the question. Wouldn't god be considered the very first spark of energy?


 

If God had a beginning... but He doesn't... It really isn't that hard a concept to grasp... 

DB BB


----------



## pnome (May 26, 2009)

Rouster said:


> Alright...if there is not a God, how would you explain this.....whether you believe the biblical story of creation, evolution, that we were "seeded" (intentionally established here from an outside higher intelligence), or are simply the result of a wayward comet that deposited higher elements on a young earth, ALL of these have something in common......each had to have a beginning.....whether the Genesis story of creation or the big bang; there WAS a beginning.....something had to be there in the beginning....even if you accept the big bang theory, something had to create that matter, that energy that started it all.....it is ilogical to say that something comes from nothing....if the universe was ever truly a totally empty void, then nothing would exist today....Some higher power (i.e. God) had to set things in motion in the beginning...remember nothing can result from a truly empty void that has no outside stimulus (and in a truly empty void, there could have been no outside stimulus)...
> 
> Now, it would be real easy to evade the question and say, well... even if that is true, then God had to have a beginning;



It's a trap for you to answer.   Not anyone else.  You posit that this "God" was the cause of creation.  If everything must have a cause, then what caused God?   

You wanting to avoid this little problem is understandable, but it's your problem to deal with.   



> but try not to do that, don't fall into that trap....just explain how, without a "God", how did the very, very, very, very, VERY first "matter", the very first spark of energy, come into existance.............you can't, it is impossible to imagine the scenario because it simply can't be....no one can....If you only rely on logic and reason, just the fact that anything at all exists, is 100% proof there is a God.



This may be a little difficult for you to grasp, but here goes:

Causality is part of our universe and need not exist outside of it.  In order to invoke cause and effect you need time.  Time itself is part of our universe. 

Let me explain further.  Our universe began several billion years ago.  That fact is almost indisputable.  However, our universe has existed _at every point in time_.  This is not the same as saying that our universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.  It certainly has not.   Do you understand the difference?

Now, what you might be thinking here is, well if our universe is not bound by causality than certainly God is not either.  That's true.  However, there is no need for a God in the equation anymore.  He is superfluous and can be rightly disregarded.

(see my little animated gif)


----------



## pnome (May 26, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> It's been proven again and again that scientific study goes in circles.



You're sort of right there RT







Religious study, on the other hand, goes only in one direction: "The bible says it, I believe it, end of story"



P.S.  You might want to consider changing your sig.  It's basically one big fallacy.  (see also: http://www.geocities.com/xenu_rules/misc-burden-of-proof.html )


----------



## Double Barrel BB (May 26, 2009)

pnome said:


> Now, what you might be thinking here is, well if our universe is not bound by causality than certainly God is not either. That's true. However, there is no need for a God in the equation anymore. He is superfluous and can be rightly disregarded.


 
I Hope and Pray that God will touch your Heart, and then you will know who really is superfluous...

DB BB


----------



## ToLog (May 26, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> "just explain how, without a "God", how did the very, very, very, very, VERY first "matter", the very first spark of energy, come into existance"
> 
> That's what I'm asking and I know no one can answer the question. Wouldn't god be considered the very first spark of energy?



when one gets down to the 17 decimal point level or thereabouts, things become pretty detailed. 

lot's of views on here that would likely help us all to contemplate.  for me, your comment as to whether God is the Original Spark or not, of course i can't be sure. but could be, in my limited understanding.

that kinda causes me to be "classified" as an individual that has no problem with "monotheistic panentheism."  say what?   basically, it roughly translates as "God in All, and All in God."  

lot's of other views out there too, don't rule'em out till ya feel satisfied to do so.


----------



## widowmaker1 (May 26, 2009)

why???? even as a christian i cant explain God. the bible tells us to not even try-the mystery of God will be revealed when we die... i dont completely throw out evolution , i believe that God may very well be the energy of the universe- we are created of the same matter-water ,salt ,vinegar etc.. and we are evolving still,you cant argue with that .even the bible speaks of esaw-a red hairy man. i do believe that adam and eve are representations of primitive people (ie-neandertaw)and the bible says that 1 day to God is 1000 of our years, wich puts the 7 day creation in line with the 7000 years it supposedly took for the big bang to occur.people get 1 thing in there head and lock down on it- i myself am a christian that believes in evolution but all that matters is that i do believe that Jesus lived and died for me (millions of years after creation). there is too much proof that evolution is real and there is also too much archeological proof that the bible is accurate.


----------



## WTM45 (May 26, 2009)

If you can understand the concept of a deity that has always been, it's not that hard to understand the concept of a universe that has always been.

Christians are atheists when it comes to anything other than their deity.  Similiar to Muslims and many other religious belief systems.
True Atheists just go one god further.


----------



## Lowjack (May 26, 2009)

Eiyeh Asher Eiyeh , God didn't come From Anywhere, God is.


----------



## formula1 (May 26, 2009)

*Re:*



Lowjack said:


> Eiyeh Asher Eiyeh , God didn't come From Anywhere, God is.



Yes, God Is!  I AM THAT I AM (ex 3:14).


----------



## Tim L (May 27, 2009)

pnome said:


> It's a trap for you to answer.   Not anyone else.  You posit that this "God" was the cause of creation.  If everything must have a cause, then what caused God?
> 
> You wanting to avoid this little problem is understandable, but it's your problem to deal with.
> 
> ...





Thank you, it's hard to imagine a response that admits that nothing could exist without God, than that which you just gave....I don't mean to be sarcastic here, but you took the bait hook, line, and sinker and proved my point.

I intentionally inserted the part about do not factor in whether or not there is a "beginning" of God; just the universe itself.....how everything originally was set into motion in the beginning.....not when was that beginning, not what was the format in which the beginning took place, just how could there be a beginning in the first place, without a power to set it in motion....

However, instead of trying to answer how could the universe originally have been set into motion without a creator, you just jumped on how did God come into existance..your failure to even attempt to answer the question that was answered speaks for itself (was similar to the old Pee Wee Herman line "I know you are but what am I"...Well, I think I know why you didn't attempt an answer, you can't....no one can.

Think of it as an equation; if "A (the original moment of the creation of the universe or the forces that set the universe in motion) x B = C (the universe), then what is B"...

Try as you will, you just can't come up with a scenaro that goes from A to C without including B....B, by the way, after eliminating all other varibles is GOD.   There had to be a B in the very beginning to set things in motion...Now, trying to come back with the old tired humanist excuse, that I don't believe in a God I can't explain is sad, but telling.  

Consider (quotes from Elliott) If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark"........ Dark would be without meaning", I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else" and finally......I gave in, and admitted that God was God.


----------



## pnome (May 27, 2009)

Rouster said:


> Thank you, it's hard to imagine a response that admits that nothing could exist without God, than that which you just gave....I don't mean to be sarcastic here, but you took the bait hook, line, and sinker and proved my point.
> 
> I intentionally inserted the part about do not factor in whether or not there is a "beginning" of God; just the universe itself.....how everything originally was set into motion in the beginning.....not when was that beginning, not what was the format in which the beginning took place, just how could there be a beginning in the first place, without a power to set it in motion....
> 
> ...




I think you missed my point.

You speak of causality:   A x B = C   First A then a B which causes C.  

What I am trying to tell you is there is no "=" without C.  "=" is a part of C.   

I know it's hard to grasp.  It took me a long time before I finally got it.  Our universe is not bound by causality.  To put it another way: there was never a time when our Universe did not exist, because time is part of our Universe. There was not time "before" it.

Now, for the sake of argument, lets take another look at A X B = C.

What is B?  

My answer: I don't know.  
Your Answer: God of Abraham

Do you see the leap you've made?  You said, because I don't know the answer, it must be my God.  (AKA the God of the Gaps)

How do you know it was your God and not some other?  If I told you it was Quetzalcoatl.  Could you "Prove me wrong!!"?


----------



## SkeeterEater (May 27, 2009)

All hail Quetzalcoatl


----------



## Tim L (May 27, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think you missed my point.
> 
> You speak of causality:   A x B = C   First A then a B which causes C.
> 
> ...




Notice I kept it simple; I just said "God" or a higher power....for the sake of this discussion, I did not define "God"....also, please define " Causality" and the source of your definition.


----------



## pnome (May 28, 2009)

Rouster said:


> Notice I kept it simple; I just said "God" or a higher power....for the sake of this discussion, I did not define "God"....also, please define " Causality" and the source of your definition.




This definition works just fine:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/causality

cau·sal·i·ty <script>play_w2("C0172600")</script><object style="margin: 1px;" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="13" height="21">



<embed src="http://img.tfd.com/m/sound.swf" flashvars="sound_src=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/C0172600.mp3" menu="false" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" width="13" height="21"></object> (kô-z
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




l
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







-t
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)_n._ _pl._ *cau·sal·i·ties* *1. * The principle of or relationship between cause and effect.
*2. * A causal agency, force, or quality

We'll take #1.  

Now, on to this nameless "God" creator of yours.  You were going to tell me what it was that created him?


----------



## gtparts (May 28, 2009)

pnome said:


> Now, for the sake of argument, lets take another look at A X B = C.
> 
> What is B?
> 
> ...



You make an assumption that Christians "leap", that they start out with "I don't know." and teleport to "God did it." That is a gross over-simplification of a thought process that runs something akin to the following:

Where did everthing come from?

I don't know.

Everything must have an origin, the terminus from which everthing came into being. If the universe is constantly changing then something is actively manipulating or instigating these changes. Whatever brought the universe into existence must be external to that instant of beginning, must necessarily be independent of time and matter and space. Further more, the order of things cannot be the result of chaos, but rather the antithesis of chaos. The so-called laws that govern all aspects of matter and energy must originate out of that same source that brought everything into being. A random, chaotic event would not generate a most singular puzzle whose every piece fits perfectly together, balanced and yet dynamic.

Without an intellect far beyond our own, all that is..could not be. For example: Consider the problem of man creating a simple drinking glass out of billions and billions of individually hand-crafted shards of glass or taking a chemistry set and making a living chipmunk,like the one I saw this morning. If man cannot do it, do you really think something as random, as non-sentient as matter or energy could "stumble" such a creature into existence? The world in which we live and even the physical construct we identify as our individual selves begs......... no, demands an intelligent creator.

I'll leave it there, but the next obvious question is "Why?"

And at some point, you will arrive at this one. "What is my purpose for being?"

Trust me in this one thing. Science will never be able to answer those last two questions.


----------



## pnome (May 28, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You make an assumption that Christians "leap", that they start out with "I don't know." and teleport to "God did it." That is a gross over-simplification of a thought process that runs something akin to the following:
> 
> Where did everthing come from?
> 
> ...



As I've explained, if God does not need a creator, than neither does our Universe.  

You've only gotten to the idea of an "intelligent creator"  not the God of Abraham that you worship.


----------



## DCHunter (May 28, 2009)

pnome said:


> To put it another way: there was never a time when our Universe did not exist



Can you provide a link to support that claim?


----------



## Israel (May 28, 2009)

If I had nothing to face but the endless expanse of eternity ahead of me...without me in it...I'd be going bug looney, too.
I used to be bug looney, and some may even say I invented God to get rid of the bug lunacy...or that he is a product of it.
That's ok...
I'm glad he broke through...man am I glad he broke through.


----------



## gtparts (May 28, 2009)

pnome said:


> As I've explained, if God does not need a creator, than neither does our Universe.
> 
> You've only gotten to the idea of an "intelligent creator"  not the God of Abraham that you worship.



The dynamics within the universe show order and balance, a ballet of sorts yet no intelligence of it's own. You can't have it both ways. Either the universe has no beginning ( which throws the "big bang" out the window and science is wrong)  or it does have one, and therefore, a cause to account for that beginning. Which is it?

If anything has a beginning, it has a cause. 

God, by definition, has no cause. He quite magnificently has always been; is in all eternity past, is today, and is in all eternity future. He transcends time completely.

The universe, according to many scientists, has a beginning. It has a cause.

Noticed you side-stepped the other two questions .


----------



## pnome (May 28, 2009)

DCHunter said:


> Can you provide a link to support that claim?



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

It is well established science that our universe contains a dimension we call "time".   SO, time is part of our universe.  

Now, it might be that time and thus causality might exist outside of our universe, but there is no evidence to suggest that is so.


----------



## pnome (May 28, 2009)

gtparts said:


> The dynamics within the universe show order and balance



If you are saying that the Universe seems to follow certain laws then I agree.  I'm not sure what you mean by "order" or "balance".



> a ballet of sorts yet no intelligence of it's own.



If you want to suggest that bodies following laws of gravity is a "ballet" then ok I agree.



> You can't have it both ways. Either the universe has no beginning ( which throws the "big bang" out the window and science is wrong)  or it does have one, and therefore, a cause to account for that beginning. Which is it?



The universe has a very definite "beginning".  However, there was no time "before" it.  Because, time itself shares that same beginning.  I realize it's hard to grasp.  This is not the same thing as saying that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. 



> If anything has a beginning, it has a cause.
> 
> God, by definition, has no cause.



This is called "special pleading"



> He quite magnificently has always been; is in all eternity past, is today, and is in all eternity future. *He transcends time completely.*



Ok stop there.  The exact same thing can be said of the Universe.  Which is the point I am trying to make.   So, inserting "God" into the equation is superfluous and can be Occam's razored away.  



> The universe, according to many scientists, has a beginning. It has a cause.



Scientists can only get to the singularity that started the big bang.  They have not answered, nor have they made an effort to AFAIK, what caused that.  Because, once you get to that singularity, you are no longer bound by causality. 



> Noticed you side-stepped the other two questions .



#1:Why?

The most powerful telescopes that humans have created have thus far seen no meaning to the universe.  I don't know why.  You don't know either.  No one on this forums knows.  And I can assure you, the people who wrote your bible didn't know either.  They guessed.  You just happen to believe that guess because you've been indoctrinated to believe it.  Myself, I am satisfied with "I don't know"



#2: What is my purpose for being?

Again, no idea.  There may not be any purpose at all.  We may be just a small part of a much grander scheme.  Pawns in something we will never fully understand.   However, it takes a massive amount of hubris to think that you do know the answer.  

Hubris of epic proportions to say that the only answers to those question are to be found in one book written by people who lived in mud huts and thought the Earth was flat.


----------



## Lowjack (May 28, 2009)

Many different answers have been offered to this question and I think that the real answer is a composite of biblical themes revolving around love, sacrifice, and fellowship. Certainly, God is self-sufficient so there is no lack in Him, no void that must be filled. In 1 John 4:8 it says that God is love. In John 3:16 it says that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." We can see that the nature of love is to give. Furthermore, in John 15:13 Jesus said, "No greater love has anyone than that he lay his life down for a friend." In addition, 1 Cor. 1:9 states that we are called into fellowship with the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Quite simply, it seems that God desired to create us in order that He might be able to simply love us. I think this is evidence in the way creation was begun. God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden. We see that after their sin, it was the Lord who came looking for them (Gen. 3). They are the ones who hid themselves. God sought them out. He desired to be with them and love them. Therefore, He set up the sacrificial system by covering Adam and Eve with animal skins. Of course, this was a representation of the sacrifice of Christ to come by while Christians are covered and redeemed. God's desire to fellowship and love us is not a weakness in Him, but a manifestation of His character of love.

Love does not focus on itself, but on others. God merely created the universe as a natural manifestation of His love and populated it with us for whom He could express the greatest act of love, which is self-sacrifice, and with whom He could give the greatest thing in the universe: fellowship with Him. In this, He is glorified.

If God had never created us, it would not lessen Him at all. He didn't need to create us due to any lack in Him. Rather, He merely desires to love us and fellowship with us.


----------



## Lowjack (May 28, 2009)

Now Comes the Shock, Scientist discover Invisible matter.
When The Bible for thousands of Years has said it ?
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/72/darkmatter.html

Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"). 


For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Hebrews 11;3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Acts 4;24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:Romans 4;17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Psalm 90, 2 ;Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. NEh-9:6 ; You are Yahweh, even you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them, and you preserve them all; and the host of heaven worships you. 

John 1:3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made".

RV -4:11  "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, the Holy One, to receive the glory, the honor, and the power, for you created all things, and because of your desire they existed, and were created!"

HE HOLDS ALL THINGS TOGETHER BY HIS POWER>
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


----------



## Lowjack (May 28, 2009)

What Holds the Universe Together?
This article was originally published in the
January 1997 Personal Update NewsJournal.
For a FREE 1-Year Subscription, click here.
by Lambert Dolphin Lambert Dolphin, Physicist Website 


Is our universe expanding or static? If it is expanding, is there sufficient mass to cause it all to collapse back in upon itself under gravity’s influence? If the universe is static and not now expanding, is it stable?

What holds it all together-if anything?

These are questions gaining more attention these days as our knowledge data base in astronomy and astrophysics increases, and old theories are brought into question. There is much that can be said about these questions from the Biblical revelation.

New Testament References

Several separate passages in the New Testament make reference to the creation of the universe. For example, John’s gospel speaks of an earlier state of existence than is described in Verse 1 of Genesis:

“In the beginning was the Word, [logos] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; [i.e., before creation] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:1-3

This passage teaches that Jesus was eternally existent with God the Father prior to the creation of “all things.” There was a time when our material and spiritual universe did not exist. It had a definite beginning. But before that, God was. In fact, God is-because time itself was created by God.

Chapter One of Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians gives a further description of the role of Jesus in creation, consistent with that of John’s gospel:

[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born [prototokos] of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities [these words in Greek refer to the hierarchical angelic powers]-all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17

The Holy Spirit, in giving us this inspired passage of Scripture, explains that all things (both visible and invisible) in the entire universe were created through this same Jesus, the eternal Word. We may think of the universe and its intricate design as being conceived in the mind of the Father, then spoken into existence by the Son (who makes the invisible, visible). The Holy Spirit is the One who energizes and supplies life to the creation, not only at the time of creation but also moment by moment after that.

We are also told that all things were created for Jesus. He is “the heir of all things.” That means that we are house guests in Someone Else’s universe! This implies a future accountability for all of us-history is headed somewhere-at the end of the road stands Jesus, to whom all power and authority has already been given (see John 5:22-29).

A. W. Tozer, Pastor at Moody Bible Church in Chicago some 50 years ago, once wrote of this as follows:

The teaching of the New Testament is that now, at this very moment, there is a Man in heaven appearing in the presence of God for us. He is as certainly a man as was Adam or Moses or Paul; he is a man glorified, but his glorification did not de-humanize him. Today he is a real man, of the race of mankind, bearing our lineaments and dimensions, a visible and audible man, whom any other man would recognize instantly as one of us.

But more than this, he is the heir of all things, Lord of all lords, head of the church, firstborn of the new creation. He is the way to God, the life of the believer, the hope of Israel, and the high priest of every true worshiper. He holds the keys of death and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, and stands as advocate and surety for everyone who believes on him in truth. Salvation comes not by accepting the finished work, or deciding for Christ; it comes by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the whole, living, victorious Lord who, as God and man, fought our fight and won it, accepted our debt as his own and paid it, took our sins and died under them, and rose again to set us free. This is the true Christ; nothing less will do.

All Things “Hold Together”

One of the key words in the Colossians passage above (”…and in Christ all things hold together”) is the Greek word sunistemi which means “to stand-together,” “to be compacted together,” “to cohere,” “to be constituted with.”

This passage can be applied to the structure of the atom, for example. The nucleus of every atom is held together by what physicists call “weak” and “strong” forces.

[Physicists today are familiar with four basic forces in the natural world: gravity and electrical forces, plus a "strong" and a "weak" nuclear force. The first two forces decrease in strength inversely with the square of the distance between two objects; the latter two forces act only at very short ranges.]

The nucleus of the atom contains positively charged and neutral particles-to use a simplistic model. Mutual electrostatic repulsion between the like-positive protons would drive the nucleus apart if it were not for the “strong force” which binds the nucleus together.

There is thus an active force imposed on the universe, which actively holds the very atoms of the material world together moment by moment, day by day, century by century.

Similarly, accelerated electrons circling the nucleus should quickly radiate all their energy away and fall into the nucleus unless there exists an invisible energy source to counteract this.

The third New Testament creation-related passage which talks about atomic structure and physics is found in the Apostle Peter’s Second Epistle:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise [rhoizedon, a rushing roar] and the elements [stoicheion, atoms] will be dissolved with fire and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10 The Greek word translated “elements” in the above mentioned passage from Colossians (and in 2 Peter also) is stoicheion, which can mean “the building blocks of the universe,” or “the ordered arrangement of things.” It can also mean the “atomic elements.” The word translated “dissolved” in 2 Peter 3:10 is literally (in Greek) luo, meaning “unloosed.” This language suggests that there will come a time in the future when God lets go of the nuclear forces which hold the atom together. This passage, like the one in Colossians, strongly suggests that the active power of God is behind the mysterious strong force that holds every atomic nucleus together. If this is so, all the other fundamental forces of nature are likewise forces that originate with Christ and His sustaining direction of the old creation.

Sustaining the Universe

If God “sustains the universe by His mighty word of power,” moment by moment, were He to merely relax His grasp on the universe, every atom would come apart “by fire” (that is, by nuclear fire). It is inescapable that the Bible claims that God dynamically sustains the universe, including the very atoms themselves. Atoms, it would seem, are “stable” only because force and energy are being supplied into their physical nuclear binding fields from “outside” the system.

Whatever we may think of God and physics, the Bible leaves us with no room to doubt that God does care about the sparrow that falls to the ground, the widow, the orphan, and the homeless. He does not lose track of His children and watches over them with infinite, patient, intimate Fatherly care. Not only does He sustain the universe by His mighty word of power, God also alters the status quo from time to time and, in response to prayer, frequently changes the course of entire nations. In a future day his intrusive reinterven-tion will be very radical indeed.

Another important claim of Scripture about the old creation is that God is the present Sustainer of the universe. That is, He is not uninvolved, remote, detached and impersonal-leaving things to run by themselves by any means.

Among secular scientists today there are many who acknowledge that God exists. But He is usually considered as only a First Cause-the One who brought the universe into existence and set it into motion. But most of these same scientists assume God was not involved after the initial act of creation.

This is contrary to clear statements in the Bible that God is very much involved in every event that takes place in the ongoing history of the entire universe. Causality links everything together, because God “works (Gr: energizes) all things according to the counsel of His will.” (Ephesians 1:11.)

The opening verses of the Letter to the Hebrews give us another New Testament picture of God’s role in the creation:

[But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time-[that is] [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order]. He is the sole expression of the glory of God-[the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine],-and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God's] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power…” Hebrews 1:2-3 (Amplified Bible)

A fifth great New Testament passage concerning Jesus and His place in creation is found in Revelation Chapter 1:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet… When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” Revelation 1:8-10,17-18

Here Jesus is called “the Alpha and Omega,” “the First and the Last.” Not only is Jesus the Son of God to be found at the beginning of history, He also stands at the end of history and at the end of every life. He is the Judge of all, and He is the heir of all things.

Science and the Bible

Truth from science must in the long run agree with Biblical revelation-if the Bible is true. If the Bible “says what it means and means what it says” (to quote Chuck Missler) then it is Jesus who holds the universe in his hands just as the old American folk spiritual says.

Our moment-by-moment existence depends on His gracious sustenance of every electron, every atom, every molecule and every spiritual entity as well. We are safe when we place our trust in Him and put our whole lives into His hands! Can we not then stand in awe of our great God and Creator, along with the Psalmist who wrote:

“O come, let us sing to the LORD; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation! Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise! For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods. In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. The sea is his, for he made it; for his hands formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. O that today you would hearken to his voice!” Psalm 95:1-7

Next month, God willing, we’ll look further at this subject in a discussion of theories of the vacuum, and the interaction between the material creation and the invisible, intangible (but very real) spiritual world which God has also created around us and within which the material world is embedded.


I see it as wrong to try to draw out scientific data about the creation of the universe from Genesis one. Both young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists are guilty of pouring modern scientific terms back into Genesis. God could have written in scientific terms like E=mc2 , but He did not. I believe God had to accommodate himself to our limited knowledge, and limited language to communicate with us. God did not choose to use technical scientific terms to communicate with us. God used the common language, and familiar phrases of their day. God could have told us that the sun does not rise nor set, but that the earth is spinning around the sun. God instead used the common language of sunrise and sunset which was literal to the writers back then, but which modern concordists excuse as phenomenal language that we still use today. God is trying to communicate absolute spiritual truths, not shifting scientific theories.

God’s purpose of inspiration is clearly stated in II Timothy 3:16 which says that the Bible is inspired by God so that it is profitable for instruction in righteousness not instruction in science. To take a poem and use it as a scientific text is wrong. It is like trying to use a hammer as a screwdriver. It does not work. One must understand the historical context and meaning of the original language that the Bible was written in.


----------



## gtparts (May 28, 2009)

pnome said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
> 
> It is well established science that our universe contains a dimension we call "time".   SO, time is part of our universe.
> 
> Now, it might be that time and thus causality might exist outside of our universe, but there is no evidence to suggest that is so.





pnome said:


> If you are saying that the Universe seems to follow certain laws then I agree.  I'm not sure what you mean by "order" or "balance".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I fully understand what you have written here, but the one point that you seem do reject  is the simple truth that God transcends time. 

Before time, God was. He was, when nothing else was. He is not bounded by time or space. 

He moves and is part of the universe and also is outside of the universe as He chooses. 

As soon as you place any restrictions upon Him, as you do with the universe, you are no longer talking about the same god as the Christian God, the one true God. He is not subject to the laws He has created for time or matter or energy. He TRANSCENDS everything, as He is the creator of everything.


----------



## Lowjack (May 28, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I fully understand what you have written here, but the one point that you seem do reject  is the simple truth that God transcends time.
> 
> Before time, God was. He was, when nothing else was. He is not bounded by time or space.
> 
> ...



Furthermore God created things with his science, the science which is used to measure all things on this earth is created by man.
God could have chosen to give Moses a book of science with formulas, but first that would have being a very confusing thing to the people of the time in which most were illiterate, given men a formula as to how things were created would bring even more evil and perhaps spread evil to other planets, in his infinite Knowledge or Omniscience , he saw man turning his back on him, so he limited knowledge, what was that he did first when man sinned ? he took away the tree of life and the tree of knowledge.


----------



## ToLog (May 28, 2009)

Heh, LJ, your and GT Parts comments make some sense. 

however, it seems like God might actually be trying to slow us down in our development of the Science rather than "speed us up?"

what i'm thinking is that, off the wall of course,   that the US, France?, China, S.Africa?, Israel?, Russia, etc. etc. have the nuclear capacity to turn sand into glass.

then, Pakistan, India, and now N.Korea, and maybe Iran? wants the same capacity. maybe the Saudi's do too?  

anyways, here's my point. why/when do we ever get together "at the roundtable" to discuss future conditions that could end the game for everyone, whether we still wanted to play awhile longer or not?

yep, this is a passivist post. if we could just "learn" faster, everyone could learn how to build, (or buy), their own bomb. we ought be giving serious attention to shutting that beast down, for good.


----------



## pnome (May 28, 2009)

gtparts said:


> As soon as you place any restrictions upon Him, as you do with the universe, you are no longer talking about the same god as the Christian God, the one true God. He is not subject to the laws He has created for time or matter or energy. He TRANSCENDS everything, as He is the creator of everything.




You are Special Pleading.


----------



## gtparts (May 28, 2009)

pnome said:


> You are Special Pleading.



You can call it whatever you want. I ain't pleading with anybody. A God that is bound by anything, absolutely anything other than His own will and character is not a god at all. If that is not the starting point, the very definition of God, then you've been arguing apples to Christians who only know oranges. You can keep your lesser god. He sure isn't the one that I worship!


----------



## Lowjack (May 28, 2009)

ToLog said:


> Heh, LJ, your and GT Parts comments make some sense.
> 
> however, it seems like God might actually be trying to slow us down in our development of the Science rather than "speed us up?"
> 
> ...


That's Illogical thinking, you are telling me the people of Iran think the same way as the Israelis and so forth, your Idea will be proved incorrect once the Iranians who bowed to exterminate Israel and all infidels acquire THE BOMB !
Israel has had the Neutron Bomb For years and never threatened anyone.


----------



## pnome (May 28, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You can call it whatever you want. I ain't pleading with anybody. A God that is bound by anything, absolutely anything other than His own will and character is not a god at all. If that is not the starting point, the very definition of God, then you've been arguing apples to Christians who only know oranges. You can keep your lesser god. He sure isn't the one that I worship!




I keep no gods.

If god is not bound by causality, then neither is our universe.  Which, at that point, obviates any need for a god.  

Now, you didn't say how you get from "intelligent creator" to the interventionist God of Abraham.


----------



## jason4445 (May 28, 2009)

With all of Low Jacks endless copying and pasting he has come up with the second best answer to the question in one simple sentence.

Eiyeh Asher Eiyeh , God didn't come From Anywhere, God is. 

The best and only real answer is "We don't know."  

It always makes me laugh when people try to explain God - Why God does this and doesn't do that - where even in the Bible, they claim to believe in and study so much,  they can't pay attention to Jesus's own words when he say that you will never know my Father's ways.

And Ranger-LaGrange-Cracker Dave - you state:

"Yes - I've "studied" evolution.But only up to the point where I read that we are descended from monkeys.They lost me,then."

Since you have "studied" you must have the books. Man - go back  and find  one place (page and paragraph) where Darwin states that man descended from Monkeys.   

People, I can see someone believing or not believing certain things about any religion no matter how ill founded or supported because that makes them feel better or some how supports something they want to think is true.

But in all sincerity, and my humbled advise - nothing makes a fundamentalist Christian and/or "born againer" look more like a ignorant fool than hopping up and down laughing at the fact that Darwin or evolution says that man came from, or descended from monkeys.

Laugh at, denounce and debunk evolution all you want if it makes you feel better, or some how strengthens your belief, but at least in doing so get the facts right to start with.


----------



## Rays123 (May 28, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I Hope and Pray that God will touch your Heart, and then you will know who really is superfluous...
> 
> DB BB



this may be a sin all in its self i hope god doesnt bc i dont wanna be in heaven  with Dumb-A's like him


----------



## pnome (May 28, 2009)

Rays123 said:


> this may be a sin all in its self i hope god doesnt bc i dont wanna be in heaven  with Dumb-A's like him




<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PeQUbtmJkSo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PeQUbtmJkSo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Ronnie T (May 28, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> With all of Low Jacks endless copying and pasting he has come up with the second best answer to the question in one simple sentence.
> 
> Eiyeh Asher Eiyeh , God didn't come From Anywhere, God is.
> 
> ...



*Here's a quote from the following site:   http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...ml+darwin+man+monkey&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

""DARWIN, in his "Descent of Man", specifically states that man is,
descended from "Old World monkeys". 
You will find the statement in next to the last Paragraph of Chapter Six. 
His precise language is worth remembering :

"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, 
the New World and Old World Monkeys; 
and from the latter at a remote period, Man, 
the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded."

In spite of this, there are those who will deliberately misrepresent 
Darwin by stating that he never claimed we are descended from monkeys.""

*jason4455, I guess you feel like an ignorant fool now don't cha?


----------



## earl (May 28, 2009)

Rays123 said:


> this may be a sin all in its self i hope god doesnt bc i dont wanna be in heaven  with Dumb-A's like him



With that you win christian of the year.


----------



## jason4445 (May 29, 2009)

All your site does is cause my spy ware to block it and give me a warning about going to it.

I don't need a silly parasitic say all - lie all  web site.  The below is an exact copy of the wording of the Decent of Man chapter 6, second to the last paragraph.

The inhabitants of the seashore must be greatly affected by the
tides; animals living either about the mean high-water mark, or
about the mean low-water mark, pass through a complete cycle of
tidal changes in a fortnight. Consequently, their food supply will
undergo marked changes week by week. The vital functions of such
animals, living under these conditions for many generations, can
hardly fail to run their course in regular weekly periods. Now it is a
mysterious fact that in the higher and now terrestrial Vertebrata,
as well as in other classes, many normal and abnormal processes one or more whole weeks as their periods; this would be rendered intelligible if the Vertebrata are descended from an animal allied to the existing tidal ascidians. Many instances of such periodic processes might be given, as the gestation of mammals, the duration of fevers, &c. The hatching of eggs affords also a good example, for, according to Mr. Bartlett (Land and Water, Jan. 7, 1871), the eggs of the pigeon are hatched in two weeks; those of the fowl in three; those of the duck in four; those of the goose in five; and those of the ostrich in seven weeks. As far as we can judge, a recurrent period, if approximately of the right duration for any process or function, would not, when once gained, be liable to change; consequently it might be thus transmitted through almost any number of generations. But if the function changed, the period would have to change, and would be apt to change almost abruptly by a whole week. This conclusion, if sound, is highly remarkable; for the period of gestation in each mammal, and the hatching of each bird's eggs, and many other vital processes, thus betray to us the primordial birthplace of these animals.

No monkey business in there.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 29, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> All your site does is cause my spy ware to block it and give me a warning about going to it.
> 
> I don't need a silly parasitic say all - lie all  web site.  The below is an exact copy of the wording of the Decent of Man chapter 6, second to the last paragraph.
> 
> ...




Well, you're right.  The website didn't accurately give the location of that statement.

The subject statement can be found in the paragraph that preceeds the paragraph that you posted.  Look at the last two sentences of that paragraph.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-06.html

Third para from bottom.

Last three sentences:     *In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.*


----------



## jason4445 (May 29, 2009)

Darwin does speak of old world monkeys, those from Africa, and new world monkeys, those from the Americas, and how they are similar.  But if you read the whole thing he says that through things like bone and muscle structure  that monkey are not directly descended to apes and apes not directly descended to the ape like creatures that are similar to modern man.  Darwin was trying to prove that old and new world monkeys were not directly related to modern man.  Although Darwin believed that all plants and animals on earth did have a distant common ancestor.

So did Darwin ever say man was evolved from Monkeys - No.  And any born againer that dances around laughing and repeating that Darwin said man evolved from monkeys still looks like an ignorant fool.


----------



## jason4445 (May 29, 2009)

Darwin does speak of old world monkeys, those from Africa, and new world monkeys, those from the Americas, and how they are similar.  But if you read the whole thing he says that through things like bone and muscle structure  that monkey are not directly descended to apes and apes not directly descended to the ape like creatures that are similar to modern man.  Darwin was trying to prove that old and new world monkeys were not directly related to modern man.  Although Darwin believed that all plants and animals on earth did have a distant common ancestor.

So did Darwin ever say man was evolved from Monkeys - No.  And any born againer that dances around laughing and repeating that Darwin said man evolved from monkeys still looks like an ignorant fool.


----------



## gtparts (May 29, 2009)

pnome said:


> I keep no gods.
> 
> If god is not bound by causality, then neither is our universe.  Which, at that point, obviates any need for a god.
> 
> Now, you didn't say how you get from "intelligent creator" to the interventionist God of Abraham.



Just because God is not bound by causality, it does not follow that the universe is also not bounded.  Pray tell how one draws that conclusion? 

As to getting you from "intelligent creator" to the interventionist God of Abraham, if you had read and retained the points of my post, you would see I had no intention of walking you through the complete process. 



> I'll leave it there, but the next obvious question is "Why?"
> 
> And at some point, you will arrive at this one. "What is my purpose for being?"
> 
> Trust me in this one thing. Science will never be able to answer those last two questions.



If you really want to know for sure, you must pursue it yourself, with an open heart.


----------



## pnome (May 29, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Just because God is not bound by causality, it does not follow that the universe is also not bounded.  Pray tell how one draws that conclusion?




Allow me to reiterate my point:


----------



## reformedpastor (May 29, 2009)

I see God is still in the dock.


----------



## gtparts (May 29, 2009)

pnome said:


> Allow me to reiterate my point:



I continue to find it amazing that you and others find it to be a simpler, less complex scenario to believe in millions and billions of chance occurrences so randomly linked in order to arrive at the world we now live in.

My reasoning tells me that if the single stipulation is that God does exist, then everything else is a "cake walk". The millions and billions of random happenings vanish. Seems like the far simpler explanation than yours.

The razor cuts both ways, perhaps?


----------



## pnome (May 29, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I continue to find it amazing that you and others find it to be a simpler, less complex scenario to believe in millions and billions of chance occurrences so randomly linked in order to arrive at the world we now live in.
> 
> My reasoning tells me that if the single stipulation is that God does exist, then everything else is a "cake walk". The millions and billions of random happenings vanish. Seems like the far simpler explanation than yours.
> 
> The razor cuts both ways, perhaps?




It's easier to understand when you accept your own cosmic insignificance.   For you, "The world we now live in" or our universe,  was made especially for us.  There is no evidence to support that notion.


----------



## Lowjack (May 29, 2009)

pnome said:


> It's easier to understand when you accept your own cosmic insignificance.   For you, "The world we now live in" or our universe,  was made especially for us.  There is no evidence to support that notion.




You Exist don't you ? Everything is prepared for you to exist isn't it, like a man prepares an aquarium, yet everything created itself ? Laughable.


----------



## StriperAddict (May 29, 2009)

ToLog said:


> Heh, LJ, your and GT Parts comments make some sense.
> 
> however, it seems like God might actually be trying to slow us down in our development of the Science rather than "speed us up?"
> 
> ...


 

Woodswalker, is that you?


----------



## pnome (May 29, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> You Exist don't you ? Everything is prepared for you to exist isn't it, like a man prepares an aquarium, yet everything created itself ? Laughable.



That's the way it may look to some algae growing on the side of the aquarium, even though the aquarium was prepared for the goldfish.


----------



## DCHunter (May 29, 2009)

Pnome, it's pointless to argue about this stuff. But you base everything on the idea that the universe is all there is. You should look into quantum and string theory. It's a well known fact that general relativity doesn't explain it all.


----------



## pnome (May 29, 2009)

DCHunter said:


> Pnome, it's pointless to argue about this stuff. But you base everything on the idea that the universe is all there is. You should look into quantum and string theory. It's a well known fact that general relativity doesn't explain it all.



Your bring up a good point.  There may be more out there.  Scientists are making new discoveries every day.   

But there is a huge gap between "I don't know" and "God of Abraham"


----------



## Lowjack (May 29, 2009)

For you only <LOL


----------



## reformedpastor (May 29, 2009)

Its already been asked, but, once more. Where and when was the Christian Triune God created? 

The greatest conspiracy ever must have a beginning- a group, a place, a plan?????????

Again, the book "The Atheist Manifesto" was designed to help weak minded folk like me to over come any religious influences by family or others; it taught me that God was invented by men who aren't strong enough to accept the "plain fact" there is nothing else. 

You have the perfect opportunity to live it according to your philosophy. Why Not? 

That seems the better question is why does the someone who rejects the "myth" of God live like there is? Liberate yourself. 

Don't worry about saving us Christians from our simple ways- free yourselves, go eat your neighbor or something.


----------



## StriperAddict (May 29, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> free yourselves, go eat your neighbor or something.


 


my sides are hurtin',

but thanks, I needed that


----------



## pnome (May 29, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Its already been asked, but, once more. Where and when was the Christian Triune God created?
> 
> The greatest conspiracy ever must have a beginning- a group, a place, a plan?????????
> 
> ...




You continue to harp on this idea of yours that Atheists have no morals.  You couldn't be more wrong and I think we've explained that to you many times.


----------



## ToLog (May 29, 2009)

in all due respect, in my interpretation of the post by the Reformedpastor, he was referring to the "option" of being a part of the Law of the Jungle, or else held to a higher level, whether Atheistic, Bahai, Christian, Dowist, Ethiopian Jew, etc.etc.  i could have misunderstood the post, too.

but, at least below the humans, the law of the jungle seems to rule?  Life eats life, in order to sustain, and to survive.  it's Ecology 101 if anyone is interested. 

but, for humans, we mask our biological side. we purchase our food from the major and minor grocery stores, and a lot of it (the food) is wrapped in plastic. Neat, clean, well-structured lay-outs of gov't inspected food for our physical selves. it fuels our very existence on earth.

Now, the mental, conscious awareness, the Spiritual, that's a step further down the road, seems like? 

anyways, this isn't necessarily a Christian versus Atheist discussion, doesn't seem like, -although it's being centered between the two.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 29, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> Darwin does speak of old world monkeys, those from Africa, and new world monkeys, those from the Americas, and how they are similar.  But if you read the whole thing he says that through things like bone and muscle structure  that monkey are not directly descended to apes and apes not directly descended to the ape like creatures that are similar to modern man.  Darwin was trying to prove that old and new world monkeys were not directly related to modern man.  Although Darwin believed that all plants and animals on earth did have a distant common ancestor.
> 
> So did Darwin ever say man was evolved from Monkeys - No.  And any born againer that dances around laughing and repeating that Darwin said man evolved from monkeys still looks like an ignorant fool.



Well Well. You said it wasn't there.  You said he didn't say it.  I found it.  I provided it to you.  Now you're backtracking.  Try to keep you feet in the prints made as you walked yourself into this.
Darwin said it.
Do you need me to post it again?

*"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, 
the New World and Old World Monkeys; 
and from the latter at a remote period, Man, 
the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded."

Doesn't matter anyway.  The man was wrong.
God created man.


----------



## deermeat270 (May 29, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> Why so much enmity?



I had to look the word up   Thanks for adding to my vocabulary.


----------



## Israel (May 29, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Its already been asked, but, once more. Where and when was the Christian Triune God created?
> 
> The greatest conspiracy ever must have a beginning- a group, a place, a plan?????????
> 
> ...



I think that happened.
Ezekiel 5: 10 Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds.

But I don't think it was due to liberation.


----------



## pigpen1 (May 29, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Its already been asked, but, once more. Where and when was the Christian Triune God created?
> 
> The greatest conspiracy ever must have a beginning- a group, a place, a plan?????????
> 
> ...



   AMEN..........


----------



## Jighead (May 29, 2009)

I'm no good at debating, just know what the Bible tells me. But as I read these threads you atheists keep coming up with, I just can't understand why you put so much effort into trying to disprove the existence of a God that you say does not exist. I don't believe in UFOs, but I don't spend every free minute I have trying to argue with anyone who will argue back that they don't exist. If I don't believe in something, then usually that thing is the furthest thing from my mind. Yet you guys seem to be obsessed with  this atheist thing. Are you sure that you are sure of what you know.Why else would you keep beating this dead horse,are you trying to find some life in it? I'm not trying to vent, just trying to understand.


----------



## Lowjack (May 29, 2009)

Israel said:


> I think that happened.
> Ezekiel 5: 10 Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds.
> 
> But I don't think it was due to liberation.



Fulfilled in 70 AD


----------



## Israel (May 30, 2009)

Jighead said:


> I'm no good at debating, just know what the Bible tells me. But as I read these threads you atheists keep coming up with, I just can't understand why you put so much effort into trying to disprove the existence of a God that you say does not exist. I don't believe in UFOs, but I don't spend every free minute I have trying to argue with anyone who will argue back that they don't exist. If I don't believe in something, then usually that thing is the furthest thing from my mind. Yet you guys seem to be obsessed with  this atheist thing. Are you sure that you are sure of what you know.Why else would you keep beating this dead horse,are you trying to find some life in it? I'm not trying to vent, just trying to understand.



Even the atheist understands the concept of eternity.
And even the atheist is not comfortable considering this vast expanse of the unrelenting tick tock ahead without him in it. For he knows, even in his heart, that trying to comprehend it still has him viewing it in his imagination, even as an outside observer...but even the atheist cannot imagine what not being means.
He cannot think of "no thought", for even as he considers eternity he injects himself into it as a watcher.
It is a terrifying abyss... this place where "you are not".
It is there that all insanity is bred, or all insanity banished.
So, atheists, like moths to a flame, like flies to honey, must seek out believers hoping to steal their reality, hoping against hope that fundamentally they are wrong and that God will show up to prove himself.
Insulting God's being is well worth it if you can get him to smack you...and know finally, of a certainty, that smack is his.
I don't blame them at all...I'm glad they're here poking as many holes as they believe they can, as they believe they must, all the while in the poking hoping, like Thomas, they might touch Christ on the inside.
Hoping something is real, and that they are not alone in the unending cave of darkness that they perceive as all there is.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 30, 2009)

For us, God comes from man's capasity to know Him. We cannot say our knowledge or relationship with God is complete. He was a creator before man was.Today, for us He is a Spirit, unless someone got a recent revelation that I don't know about.

If I recall correctly King David was a man for most seasons. He was a musician. I believe that today there is serious academic study that says the story of King David was written by a women.

I like to think that this bit has its roots in David prayers and like David I find the wemin pretty:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g_bBRhaN6v8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g_bBRhaN6v8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Lowjack (May 30, 2009)

Is There Internet Monkeys in that Darwin's theory ?
I think I found one fossilized,LOL


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> It's easier to understand when you accept your own cosmic insignificance.   For you, "The world we now live in" or our universe,  was made especially for us.  There is no evidence to support that notion.



You just announced your ignorance with this silly statement. There is a HUGE amount of information and data supporting that earth is in a special place and special TIME for humans to thrive and discover SPACETIME and how "insignificant" we are in the universe. There are so many laws of physics that had to be NEAR PERFECT for our earth to have been created and sustain intelligent life that the probability of it happening on its own is very, very slim. Please buy the book Privileged Planet if you want to be an informed objective atheist  (http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The authors work for NASA btw). Or, you can troll around this board and make sure every one knows you are the "smartest guy" on the hunting forums when it comes to religion etc.

If you want to say you dont know what God to believe that's fine. But there is a LOT of scientific facts that support a greater power at work in our universe.


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> You just announced your ignorance with this silly statement. There is a HUGE amount of information and data supporting that earth is in a special place and special TIME for humans to thrive and discover SPACETIME and how "insignificant" we are in the universe. There are so many laws of physics that had to be NEAR PERFECT for our earth to have been created and sustain intelligent life that the probability of it happening on its own is very, very slim. Please buy the book Privileged Planet if you want to be an informed objective atheist  (http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The authors work for NASA btw). Or, you can troll around this board and make sure every one knows you are the "smartest guy" on the hunting forums when it comes to religion etc.
> 
> If you want to say you dont know what God to believe that's fine. But there is a LOT of scientific facts that support a greater power at work in our universe.



You are basically restating "Anthropic Principle"  I will agree with you that our planet is in what it known as a "Goldilocks" zone.  I can understand that it certainly seems like this Universe was created for us.  

However, consider a few things.

It could be that our universe was created for an entirely different, unknown purpose and that we are simply by products, or a precursor, or some side-effect..etc.  Think, algae growing on the side of the aquarium or barnacles growing on the side of ships.

Also consider that when you boil it all down, you are basically saying "if things had been different, they would have been different"  

Imagine I had a deck of cards and told you to choose one at random.  You pick a card and it's the ace of spades.  Now, from the point in time where you have already drawn the card, and looked at it, it seems like there was no other card for you to draw.  You know now that the ace of spades was the card on top, so there was no other card you could have drawn, even though the choice was at random.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> You are basically restating "Anthropic Principle"  I will agree with you that our planet is in what it known as a "Goldilocks" zone.  I can understand that it certainly seems like this Universe was created for us.
> 
> However, consider a few things.
> 
> ...



So we examine the deck. Are they all aces of spades?

 Now suppose, unknown to us, a billion decks are prepared,from which all aces of spades have been removed save one. We pull the only ace of spades at random. We can not know exactly what that means in terms of probability until we have also randomly examined a statistically significant number of cards from the 51,000,000,000 remaining cards, and this assumes we have a reasonably accurate count of the total number of cards. And the examination must be statistically random, not taking the sample cards from a single area of the mega-deck.

All this to say, when we guess, when we pull "educated" numbers from our collective posterior orifices, we introduce margins of error and when we do this repeatedly, the accuracy goes completely in the toilet. Such speculation is worthless.


Better to choose another line of argument.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> You are basically restating "Anthropic Principle"  I will agree with you that our planet is in what it known as a "Goldilocks" zone.  I can understand that it certainly seems like this Universe was created for us.
> 
> However, consider a few things.
> 
> ...




"It could be that our universe was created for an entirely different, unknown purpose and that we are simply by products, or a precursor, or some side-effect..etc."


Yikes P (may I call you P?) once you start flirting with words like "purpose"...
Could it be that you don't entirely dismiss the possibility of purpose, but simply the christian notion ascribed to it?

I'm willing to be God's algae...because I couldn't resist (except in my own mind) for long anyway...could I?
Ultimately the squeegee would silence all protestations anyway.
(Till then would I be protestant algae?)
With (almost) heartfelt apologies to those who still love to think of themselves as protestants.


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2009)

Israel said:


> Yikes P (may I call you P?) once you start flirting with words like "purpose"...
> Could it be that you don't entirely dismiss the possibility of purpose, but simply the christian notion ascribed to it?




It's funny.  That sentence had "If you believe that our universe was created for some purpose," at the start but I edited that part out because I thought it made too much of a run-on sentence.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2009)

My faith is informed by this very simple but singular and irrefutable truth...I cannot bear the thought of being alone.
I perhaps too readily ascribe it as a truism for others, but when I encounter it, even in the most basic snippets of protein we don't quite describe as life...viruses...the desire to express "self" either by reproduction, or, in our more sophisticated endeavors at communication...I see something not easily dismissed as truly universal.
As you can plainly see, the introduction by you, into me, of the concept of purpose has had a stimulating effect.
Is there more resonance of which we are yet unaware?
Is there a "universal" reality to which we are both created to resonate?
I believe so.


----------



## reformedpastor (Jun 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> You continue to harp on this idea of yours that Atheists have no morals.  You couldn't be more wrong and I think we've explained that to you many times.



Wrong again! What I have said is "you can't account for your morals," so please explain for us why an evolutionist harps about right and wrong in a world that really could care less. Who's absurd here?


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2009)

Where does empathy come from?
Does it not account for morals?


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Wrong again! What I have said is "you can't account for your morals," so please explain for us why an evolutionist harps about right and wrong in a world that really could care less. Who's absurd here?



First off:








I can account for my morals.  Empathy and survival are the roots of all morals.   That is difficult for you to accept so you have to put some sort of authoritarian construct over them and call it "God's will"  

Can you think of a single moral you have that does not (at least in your own estimation) better your chances of survival or of those with whom you empathize?  I'll bet you can't.


----------



## thedeacon (Jun 1, 2009)

I am 64 years old and have worked with young people in the Church for the past 40 years, I still attend bible camp at least one week out of the year. I tell you that to say this.

I have found that in today's youth that question comes up many times more than it did 20 or 30 years ago. I guess the kids are smarter and have access to more information, I don't know.

It is a hard question to answer to a young person just starting to understand how to put things togather. (hope you understand what I mean) However its much easier with them than it is to explain where God came from than it is to an unbeliever. 

In short, I tell people that God has always been, he is now, and will always be. 

I believe what the bible says. Even though I believe every word in the bible and have faith in God I am not so closed minded that I can believe that there are some things that God has chosen not to reveal to us. 

Maybe God is still revealing through the holy spirit, science, evolution "yes I said it evolution" etc. Man has evolved and sometimes I think in the wrong direction but that is another thread.

It's very hard to explain to an unbeliever about God. To truly know about God you have to have faith, something absent from their life.

The chances of the big bang theory working to form the earth is like me blowing up a 1957 chevy with nitro and when it falls to the earth I get 1957 timex watches working perfectly. To me that takes more faith in happenstance that faith in God.

The earth, the universe, human beings, plants, animals, and the perfection of the natural habitat of humans, animals and plants is just to precise to attribute it to anything other than a greater, perfect higher power (God).

I have never doubted the existance of God. Even when I wasn't a Christian, but, unlike it did years ago I don't have the anger when someone tells me they don't believe in God. I just get there name and I pray for them and hope the Holy Spirit touches their heart.

Sorry for the long post, I don't usually post this much.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> First off:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If one had infinite care, could he truly care less?
I think his only choices would be 
A. To remain infinitely careful or
B. To care not at all.

What page of the text is the derivative of the care curve found?



Will the final be based on the graph or just notes from class?


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2009)

Israel said:


> What page of the text is the derivative of the care curve found?



http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html

No final,  just my attempt to lighten things up.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 1, 2009)

gtparts said:


> So we examine the deck. Are they all aces of spades?
> 
> Now suppose, unknown to us, a billion decks are prepared,from which all aces of spades have been removed save one. We pull the only ace of spades at random. We can not know exactly what that means in terms of probability until we have also randomly examined a statistically significant number of cards from the 51,000,000,000 remaining cards, and this assumes we have a reasonably accurate count of the total number of cards. And the examination must be statistically random, not taking the sample cards from a single area of the mega-deck.
> 
> ...



To beat this dead horse some more let us look at the other dimension that makes it even more believable that we have a greater power at work. 

The person that picked that card out of those billions of cards would have to have picked earths card at that exact second in time. No earlier, or later. If they did it would have been a different card and not earths card. If we tried to evolve a hundred thousands years earlier or later our sun would have been to hot or to cold to sustain life. Not only do we get a perfect oasis to ourselves we got it at just the right time. 

Another point is that earths atmosphere is perfect for us to study the cosmos. If we had a different atmosphere then we could not see the light from many stars in our own galaxy let alone different galaxies. Our world was made habitable for us AND it was made perfect for us to look up and see where we are in the universe. 

Pnome you seem like a smart guy, but don't let the fact you cant see God fool you. He is all around us in many unique and miraculous  processes that humans do not have the ability to understand nor fathom. Please read the book above. I think a smart guy like yourself would like it.


----------



## pnome (Jun 2, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> To beat this dead horse some more let us look at the other dimension that makes it even more believable that we have a greater power at work.
> 
> The person that picked that card out of those billions of cards would have to have picked earths card at that exact second in time. No earlier, or later. If they did it would have been a different card and not earths card. If we tried to evolve a hundred thousands years earlier or later our sun would have been to hot or to cold to sustain life. Not only do we get a perfect oasis to ourselves we got it at just the right time.
> 
> ...



I think you guys missed the point of the ace of spades metaphor.  

We are here.  It only stands to reason that the universe had to be the way that it is (all of it) for us to be here.  That does not imply that the universe was created _for us_.

Now, here is another dimension for you:


> A God that is bound by anything, absolutely anything other than His own will and character is not a god at all.



Is it possible for God to create a universe that is different from ours, but that humans still exist in?


----------



## redwards (Jun 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> .......
> I can account for my morals. Empathy and survival are the roots of all morals. That is difficult for you to accept so you have to put some sort of authoritarian construct over them and call it "God's will"
> 
> Can you think of a single moral you have that does not (at least in your own estimation) better your chances of survival or of those with whom you empathize? I'll bet you can't.


pnome,
This uneducated mind of mine will not even attempt to disagree with your statement here, but just Google four simple words...
"socialist" and "roots of morals"....
and you will find many who have very different views on the "roots of all morals".

Truth be known of my view on your definition, I find it simply amazing at how God, the Creator of the Universe, has embodied two (2) simple qualities...empathy and survival...qualities that describe Him... into every human being who is born on this earth!

Even so, many persons in this world neglect to allow one bit of either quality show forth in her/his life.
But then in His infinite Wisdom, God has provided a Way, The Way, (namely the power of Jesus Christ through indwelling of the Holy Spirit) through which those qualities may burst forth in our lives to affect others in a positive way.

Not to say that a Non-Believer cannot display either or both qualities that make positive differences, but there is a difference for the Christian Believer...an everlasting difference...called Hope (namely, Jesus Christ)!

Just a question...At the end of the day, what hope (other than some temporary hope) for tomorrow (or even the next minute) does a Non-Believer have to offer anyone?

And, as I committed to you over a year ago, I am continuing to pray that God, through the Holy Spirit will speak to you in a recognizable and life transforming way!!!
In the Love of Christ,
Ralph


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> Is it possible for God to create a universe that is different from ours, but that humans still exist in?



If there is another universe that God created that he made with a different set of scientific rules and laws then that just adds to how truly powerful and omnipotent he is. 

Yes. I believe there are multiple universes and even alternate universes. 

I understand the anthropic principal. But, you seriously have no idea how many laws of science have to be perfect in order for us to be here.


----------



## pnome (Jun 2, 2009)

redwards said:


> Just a question...At the end of the day, what hope (other than some temporary hope) for tomorrow (or even the next minute) does a Non-Believer have to offer anyone?



Atheism does not offer any false comfort.  It never says "Everything's gonna be alright."  

I think that's a good thing though.   The realization that there is no one out there looking out for you can be a powerful motivating force in one's life.

Thoughts of heaven and a father-like deity ensuring justice may be soothing, but that doesn't make them true.


----------



## pnome (Jun 2, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> If there is another universe that God created that he made with a different set of scientific rules and laws then that just adds to how truly powerful and omnipotent he is.



So, our universe is not so finely tuned for human existence as you may have first thought?  If it's possible for there to be another universe where humans exist that is unlike ours.




> Yes. I believe there are multiple universes and even alternate universes.
> 
> I understand the anthropic principal. But, you seriously have no idea how many laws of science have to be perfect in order for us to be here.


Man, you need to read this book.  
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036724

I think you'd like it.  It's pretty good reading.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> So, our universe is not so finely tuned for human existence as you may have first thought?  If it's possible for there to be another universe where humans exist that is unlike ours.
> 
> 
> Man, you need to read this book.
> ...



I will look for that book at Barnes and Noble next time I go. I hope it is not to deep. My small brain can only comprehend so much. 

With "our" universal laws in place, my opinion is that it could not happen by chance. No way. If God wanted to make another universe with a different set of rules and life could thrive easier there then so be it. All i know is this universe right here before us. 

Pnome do you believe in gravity? You can not see it, but we have lots of evidence that it is the mortar that holds the building blocks of life together. Do you get where im headed with this? You have faith in gravity dont you? You dont know if it will be holding every thing together tomorrow, but you have a pretty good hunch that it will. Does that make sense or is this a bad example?


----------



## redwards (Jun 3, 2009)

pnome said:


> Atheism does not offer any false comfort. It never says "Everything's gonna be alright."


I would venture to state that Atheism offers no comfort....


> I think that's a good thing though. The realization that there is no one out there looking out for you can be a powerful motivating force in one's life.


As it can also be a very dangerous force in one's life....


> Thoughts of heaven and a father-like deity ensuring justice may be soothing, but that doesn't make them true.


Nor do thoughts that God does not exist make them necessarily true.....


----------



## pnome (Jun 3, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> Pnome do you believe in gravity? You can not see it, but we have lots of evidence that it is the mortar that holds the building blocks of life together. Do you get where im headed with this? You have faith in gravity dont you? You dont know if it will be holding every thing together tomorrow, but you have a pretty good hunch that it will. Does that make sense or is this a bad example?




I think that's a bad example.  Gravity is testable.  God, unfortunately, is not.


----------



## redwards (Jun 3, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think that's a bad example. Gravity is testable. God, unfortunately, is not.


Do you know for a certainty, 100% verified true, that He is not testable? Have you tested Him? If not, maybe you should rethink your statement.....


----------



## pnome (Jun 3, 2009)

redwards said:


> Do you know for a certainty, 100% verified true, that He is not testable? Have you tested Him? If not, maybe you should rethink your statement.....




Nope.  I don't think I've even come up with an adequate test.

Would that be "tempting" him?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 3, 2009)

SkeeterEater said:


> So you have studied evolution in it's entirety?



I skipped around it and didn't like it....I like the creation story better than hairy things turning into men who turn back into hairy things....


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 3, 2009)

What difference will it make if I'm wrong for believing in God? I live my life thinking I will see my parents again and my brother and my mamaw. That gives me joy and peace and hope.  If I'm wrong I'll never know the difference when I die. I'll just die and that will be it...nothing gained, nothing lost.

If I'm right then I'll get to live in a fairy tale life...right?
That's about as close as I can come to explaining why it should matter and be thought thru...seriously, thought thru.


Win...win.  

Knowing the Holy Spirit makes it all real to me, but that's totally on another 'wave length'.


----------



## pnome (Jun 3, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> What difference will it make if I'm wrong for believing in God? I live my life thinking I will see my parents again and my brother and my mamaw. That gives me joy and peace and hope.  If I'm wrong I'll never know the difference when I die. I'll just die and that will be it...nothing gained, nothing lost.
> 
> If I'm right then I'll get to live in a fairy tale life...right?
> That's about as close as I can come to explaining why it should matter and be thought thru...seriously, thought thru.
> ...



Pascal's Wager is not as sure a bet as it may first seem.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 3, 2009)

pnome said:


> Pascal's Wager is not as sure a bet as it may first seem.



For real?


----------



## pnome (Jun 3, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> For real?



Yes.  First off, what if you believe in the wrong god? 

You spend all your life worshiping the God of Abraham, but it turns out Vishnu really is the lord of all creation.   Or any other random god, take your pick.  When you think of all the possible gods out there, your odds start to look pretty long.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 3, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think that's a good thing though.   The realization that there is no one out there looking out for you can be a powerful motivating force in one's life.



But the thought of having to answer to someone greater than you are might be a powerful motivating force in one's life.....like Ted Bundy, Jeffry Dahmer, Scott Peterson, etc etc....nothing or no one greater than themselves...delusions/illusions of grandeur...I am my own god, I am smarter than anyone, I have to answer to no one, it only matters what I want and I need and if I slide by then good on me.

Perhaps H.E doublehockeysticks just might be a good deterent while we are here on earth living amongst evil.  It's stopped me from doing a thing or two. Sort of like avoiding things you might get a whipping for when you are a kid. You don't not do them because you are such a good, kind child, you don't do them to save yourself from a beatin'...and that's another good reason I'm a Christian...I don't want to be punished...I think that's a great reason...at least it was a good starting place.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 3, 2009)

pnome said:


> Yes.  First off, what if you believe in the wrong god?
> 
> You spend all your life worshiping the God of Abraham, but it turns out Vishnu really is the lord of all creation.   Or any other random god, take your pick.  When you think of all the possible gods out there, your odds start to look pretty long.



So you do believe there are gods?...I thought you were coming from the viewpoint that there wasn't a god.

Now I'm confused...are we (you and me) talking gods or no gods. Let me know because I have some answers.


----------



## pnome (Jun 3, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> So you do believe there are gods?...I thought you were coming from the viewpoint that there wasn't a god.
> 
> Now I'm confused...are we (you and me) talking gods or no gods. Let me know because I have some answers.



No I do not believe in any gods.

We're talking about you. What you believe and the implications of Pascal's Wager.


----------



## redwards (Jun 3, 2009)

pnome said:


> Nope. I don't think I've even come up with an adequate test.
> 
> Would that be "tempting" him?


I don't know....but you could do a study right here...
BibleGateway
...and find out.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 3, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think that's a bad example.  Gravity is testable.  God, unfortunately, is not.



This is where we part ways. I understand your statement. But, all the reasons that I have discussed about our luck in this vast universe is the test I used to measure his existence. Is it sound scientifically? No, but not all scientific theories proposed can be tested. 

Maybe I am a sheep, but I am happy and proud to be one. 

BAAHHHH! BAAHHHH!


----------

