# Just curious.



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 5, 2013)

I'm rather dismayed by the fact that while it seems many Atheist reject God on the basis of 'lack of evidence' it seems the majority either accept, or at the very least, are optimistic about the notion of extraterrestrial intelligence.   I can not fathom that if it is in fact an evidence' issue with regards to Christianity, that the evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial life is stronger than that of the claims of Christianity regarding Christ.  This begs the question in my mind "Why then is this the case?"


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 5, 2013)

Why does this dismay you?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 5, 2013)

The world would be a boring place if we all thought alike, if nobody asked, "What if?"


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm rather dismayed by the fact that while it seems many Atheist reject God on the basis of 'lack of evidence' it seems the majority either accept, or at the very least, are optimistic about the notion of extraterrestrial intelligence.   I can not fathom that if it is in fact an evidence' issue with regards to Christianity, that the evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial life is stronger than that of the claims of Christianity regarding Christ.  This begs the question in my mind "Why then is this the case?"



It is known that there are billions of other stars in the Universe and along with those stars there are hundreds of billions of planets. These things are known. Being that there is life on our planet the odds are realistic that there is life on another planet. We know what conditions it takes for life to exist here so conditions could be right for life elsewhere, whether it is life as we know it or very different. All these things are plausible. None of it centers around invisible supernatural beings, any ONE religion, or the following of a man that really has never been shown to be anything more than a man.

There is a great series on the science channel. "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman is a fantastic series that covers many topics from God to Life to the making of planets, stars and the Universe. If nothing else they are phenomenal shows that make a brain hurt in a good way. Right now they are talking about life coming from "nothing". it is worth a view.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is known that there are billions of other stars in the Universe and along with those stars there are hundreds of billions of planets. These things are known. Being that there is life on our planet the odds are realistic that there is life on another planet. We know what conditions it takes for life to exist here so conditions could be right for life elsewhere, whether it is life as we know it or very different. All these things are plausible. None of it centers around invisible supernatural beings, any ONE religion, or the following of a man that really has never been shown to be anything more than a man.
> 
> There is a great series on the science channel. "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman is a fantastic series that covers many topics from God to Life to the making of planets, stars and the Universe. If nothing else they are phenomenal shows that make a brain hurt in a good way. Right now they are talking about life coming from "nothing". it is worth a view.



These things are hypothesized. No doubt that belief in God is just as questionable for science. But when you state that these things are "known", you are taking a mighty big leap too.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 5, 2013)

Because many believe in extraterrestrial life because we see intelligent beings on a planet who can travel through space everyday.....called humans. It's not hard to wrap your mind around the concept that we humans would be considered "extraterrestrial life" to another planet. That and the fact that there are billions of galaxies with billions of planets (and more planets being created through the same processes that formed Earth) stacks the odds greatly against Earth being the only planet with intelligent life. 

Thus the "evidence" for intelligent life on planets is right here on our own planet - one of many. 

Yet there can never be evidence that is accepted by all societies and cultures of anything spiritual because you have to be dead to experience it - and can't come back to present your evidence. Faith and beliefs can be interpreted differently by different cultures, or else there wouldn't be so many religions.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> These things are hypothesized. No doubt that belief in God is just as questionable for science. But when you state that these things are "known", you are taking a mighty big leap too.



Ted, You are right, the number is a guess based off of luminosity. But there are actually stars that we can see with our eyes and many more that are seen by telescopes and many more seen by spacecraft sent out with telescopes. The numbers that we can see are in the hundreds of thousands and that is just within our Galaxy with over 100 Billion estimated. That is just stars. We do know there are stars and we do know there are planets. We can look up right now and see that.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Right now they are talking about life coming from "nothing". it is worth a view.



Now there's an interesting topic, something from nothing - Some Thing from No Thing.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 5, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> The world would be a boring place if we all thought alike, if nobody asked, "What if?"



Not to speak for SemperFiDawg but, looking at his post, I don't think he's against people saying "what if". I think he's curious why Atheists cannot say "what if" when it comes to God. One answer, Naturalism. People are cutting knowledge down to what is physically testable through the scientific method. A view which, in the thread "Scientism" on this forum, has been shown to be self-refuting. It's a personal philosophy on knowledge that cannot be physically tested and therefore fails its own standards of truth.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ted, You are right, the number is a guess based off of luminosity. But there are actually stars that we can see with our eyes and many more that are seen by telescopes and many more seen by spacecraft sent out with telescopes. The numbers that we can see are in the hundreds of thousands and that is just within our Galaxy with over 100 Billion estimated. That is just stars. We do know there are stars and we do know there are planets. We can look up right now and see that.



Yes BH. We agree. I want to make the point that by scientific standards, we are likely seeing light from many stars that no longer exist.

There is so much that is unknown.


----------



## Four (Jun 6, 2013)

I think there is a mixture between belief, and probability. 

The statement "I think it's likely there is other life in the universe" Is a pretty reasonable statement. We have at least one example of life existing in the universe (life on earth) and don't have any good reasons why it couldn't happen on a different planet given similar circumstances.

The statement "There IS other life in the universe" Is less justifiable... Because at that point we say "were? what does it look like? How do you know?

Being religious is more like the second statement than the first.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 6, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Now there's an interesting topic, something from nothing - Some Thing from No Thing.



Interesting to is that both Christianity AND science say this - in the beginning there was nothing then POW everything begins. The Christian view speeds things along from that point, science takes billions of years. But still, the same idea.


----------



## hunter rich (Jun 6, 2013)

oldfella1962 said:


> Interesting to is that both Christianity AND science say this - in the beginning there was nothing then POW everything begins. The Christian view speeds things along from that point, science takes billions of years. But still, the same idea.



This backs up the theory that religion is a way to explain the unexplainable(at the time). Someone asks how did the earth get here? On the first day.... etc., etc., etc.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Now there's an interesting topic, something from nothing - Some Thing from No Thing.



Yes, and I'll leave it up to you to watch the episode and get the full explanation instead of sitting back and scoffing at an answer you predetermined in your mind.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes BH. We agree. I want to make the point that by scientific standards, we are likely seeing light from many stars that no longer exist.
> 
> There is so much that is unknown.



Ted you and I both know that there are still stars that we see that still exist. We also know there are planets around those stars that still exist.

If you want to use scientific standards for stars and planets then lets use it for Gods too. The actual stars and planets that we do know exist are already far ahead of any God in any sort of comparison of existing.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The actual stars and planets that we do know exist are already far ahead of any God in any sort of comparison of existing.



We know the stars and planets have origins, and life-spans.  We speculate on how they got there.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> We know the stars and planets have origins, and life-spans.  We speculate on how they got there.



Much of it is past speculation.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Much of it is past speculation.



Yes.  But, many of the stars we see probably don't exist anymore either.  It's just light in the darkness.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 6, 2013)

Statistical Odds.


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Much of it is past speculation.



Not really.  There has never been a witness to their creation and only a few instances of witnessing their destruction.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> Not really.  There has never been a witness to their creation and only a few instances of witnessing their destruction.



Don't be content with that answer. There is a lot more out there on the subject.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 6, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Statistical Odds.



Ever looked up statistical odds for life beginning?
That is the crux of the alien theory. Scientists say aliens seeded our planet because even Dawkins knew there were not enough billions of years before life showed up on earth to allow for time and chance to combine. It is statistically impossible for life to pop up here by chance.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Ever looked up statistical odds for life beginning?
> That is the crux of the alien theory. Scientists say aliens seeded our planet because even Dawkins knew there were not enough billions of years before life showed up on earth to allow for time and chance to combine. It is statistically impossible for life to pop up here by chance.



Gotta watch the "Through the Wormhole" series on the science channel.
search for the episode "What Is Nothing" and any/all others. 
http://www.sidereel.com/Through_the_Wormhole


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ted you and I both know that there are still stars that we see that still exist. We also know there are planets around those stars that still exist.
> 
> If you want to use scientific standards for stars and planets then lets use it for Gods too. The actual stars and planets that we do know exist are already far ahead of any God in any sort of comparison of existing.



No, we can't use scientific standards for God. God is way beyond any scientific standard. Science is a construct of humans. God surpasses that by a many parsecs.


----------



## Dominic (Jun 7, 2013)

Nc = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> No, we can't use scientific standards for God. God is way beyond any scientific standard. Science is a construct of humans. God surpasses that by a many parsecs.



As does every other god, figment of our imagination and invisible friend. I'm with ya on that one Ted.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Gotta watch the "Through the Wormhole" series on the science channel.
> search for the episode "What Is Nothing" and any/all others.
> http://www.sidereel.com/Through_the_Wormhole



I have been watching. Point remains the odds for life require more time than science allows without aliens


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2013)

The above posts highlight the point I'm attempting to make.  Each and every theory at some point requires a leap of faith simply due to lack of evidence.  Thats not a supposition or an opinion: Its a fact.  To me it appears that the leap of faith for some of these theories is far greater due to the paucity of evidence than that required by Christianity.  

There is absolutely no evidence at all for extraterrestial intelligence or artificial intelligence seeding this world with life.  None, Nada. Zilch.  They are pipe dreams as far as evidence goes.
Additionally they only push the question of origin further back.  Eventually one has to chose between the "something from nothing" concept or God.  I don't see any other logical choice, and as far as the "something from nothing" concept there is absolutely no evidence for that either.  Yet from Atheist such as Dawkins and Hitchens one would think there is a plethora when in fact THERE IS NONE,....................NONE.  Additionally, with this in mind I'm baffled that Atheist universally spout the lack of evidence as their number one reason for their disbelief in God.

Yet there is ample historical evidence for the personhood of Jesus.
The Bible, the Talmud, Josephus and Tacitus confirm this.  It's a fact.  It's evidence.

Evidence also exist that he performed miracles.  This is confirmed by both friendly and hostile sources in the Bible and Talmud respectively.  This is evidence.  Now stop right there.  If this was all the evidence we could compile on Jesus, it in itself would be infinitely more than all the for mentioned theories combined to the extent of something against nothing.  Buts that's not even the beginning of the evidence that suggests Jesus was exactly who he said he was, God incarnate. 

 There is recorded witnesses of the resurrected Christ from between hundreds to thousands depending on the interpretation of scripture.  We have outcome based evidence of this in that his apostles and family were transformed from a group of disillusioned skeptics hiding in fear of their own lives after his crucifixion to boldly proclaiming the the Gospel in the Tabernacle, directly and openly challenging the government, carrying the Gospel throughout Europe, Asia and Africa, and ultimately laying down their lives for their beliefs after witnessing Christ post resurrection.  There is Paul who went from Christian persecutioner to persecuted Christian after seeing the resurrected, glorified Christ.  He was eventually beheaded in Rome for preaching the Gospel he once was so vehemently opposed to.  

There is the immeasurable impact that Jesus has had on the history of the world.  W.E.H. Lecky, a noted skeptic said this regarding Jesus, 
"The simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists.  "

There are the hundreds of thousands since then who have given their one and only life, their very life, because they could not forsake what they knew in their heart to be true.

And finally there are the millions upon millions down through the ages and through today who based solely on their calling to follow Jesus have given selflessly of themselves to others.  

I offer all these as evidence for the fact that Jesus is in fact exactly who he claims to be, and it is because of this evidence that when I hear someone propose something as evidently gaunt as extraterrestrial intelligence, or something from nothing as their justification for mankind's existance I shake my head in bewilderment.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2013)

Only flaw is that there may, and probably, has never been just nothing.

There are as many people, no actually many many more people who have lived for and died for other gods besides Jesus. Either that makes them and their gods just as credible or it lumps Jesus in with them as being just another god in the pile.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Only flaw is that there may, and probably, has never been just nothing.
> 
> There are as many people, no actually many many more people who have lived for and died for other gods besides Jesus. Either that makes them and their gods just as credible or it lumps Jesus in with them as being just another god in the pile.


 
Christ is not just 'another' god, but the One Lord who fulfilled many past written prophecies to the letter.
Them other guys don't have that resume.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jun 7, 2013)

Some are gonna believe in the God of the bible and some ain't. It's that simple


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jun 7, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> Some are gonna believe in the God of the bible and some ain't. It's that simple



This ^.


----------



## David Parker (Jun 7, 2013)

It isn't an "evidence issue" but an issue with selective Grace.  If you live a life of virtue but don't have faith, you are condemned, however if you live a murderous life but repent in that last moment, you achieve Grace.   Nah, that's just not enough.  You can't will yourself to believe something, you either do or you don't or you will either be convinced one way or the other.  So throw the idea that it's a free will decision out the window.  And if you can't will yourself to believe, no matter how much you want to achieve Grace, you are punished with condemnation for being what He created.  Just too convenient for me.  Life is more difficult than that and it is not up anybody but the individual to account for themselves.  Get that much accomplished and the world would run a lot smoother.


God i need a drink.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jun 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The above posts highlight the point I'm attempting to make.  Each and every theory at some point requires a leap of faith simply due to lack of evidence.  Thats not a supposition or an opinion: Its a fact.  To me it appears that the leap of faith for some of these theories is far greater due to the paucity of evidence than that required by Christianity.
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence at all for extraterrestial intelligence or artificial intelligence seeding this world with life.  None, Nada. Zilch.  They are pipe dreams as far as evidence goes.
> Additionally they only push the question of origin further back.  Eventually one has to chose between the "something from nothing" concept or God.  I don't see any other logical choice, and as far as the "something from nothing" concept there is absolutely no evidence for that either.  Yet from Atheist such as Dawkins and Hitchens one would think there is a plethora when in fact THERE IS NONE,....................NONE.  Additionally, with this in mind I'm baffled that Atheist universally spout the lack of evidence as their number one reason for their disbelief in God.
> ...



Ah, no.  There is absolutely no "proof" for the existence of miracles.  The towns, countries and people mentioned in the bible existed, sure.  There are archaeological records, census records, etc.

If "faith" is your only argument for miracles, I'm not buying it.

I realize that aliens could land their spaceship in your backyard, tell you "You know that whole Jesus thing? Fraternity prank, bunch of got drunk and thought it would be fun.  Sorry 'bout that.  We really put you guys here as an experiment.  Here's the cure for all diseases"... and you still wouldn't change your beliefs.

You believe, I get that, no matter that there is no evidence to back it up besides faith, which is not an argument.  You can believe something as strongly as you want, it doesn't make it true.

I can call my cat a beagle, take him rabbit hunting, spread the word to every stranger a meet that he is a beagle, and believe it in my heart of hearts, but in the end, he's still a cat.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2013)

StriperAddict said:


> Christ is not just 'another' god, but the One Lord who fulfilled many past written prophecies to the letter.
> Them other guys don't have that resume.







Christians are fond of claiming that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament messianic prophecies.  But as mentioned above in the Fulfilled Prophecies section, the writers of the New Testament books often twisted verses from the Old Testament that had nothing to do with messianic prophecies, to try to make them fit into Jesus’ story. (In my opinion, that was very disrespectful to the Old Testament writers.)  It was as though the Gospel advocates of the New Testament were desperate to look for anything in the Old Testament to try to fit their concept of Jesus as the messiah into it.  In effect, it was a sort of “forced sequel.”  Anyone who merely looks at the alleged Old Testament prophecies can see this.  It’s quite obvious.



However, not only does Jesus not fit the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament scriptures, but what most Christians don’t know and are never told, is that Jesus also did not fulfill the actual intended messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and Torah!  You see, Old Testament prophesized a messiah (or “moshiach” as modern Jews like to call it) who would re-establish the national kingdom of Israel as a nation, making it the powerful center of the world.  This leader would live and thrive in the world, not die on the cross for our sins.  That was never part of the plan!  On the other hand, the concept of a messiah as savior and redeemer of the world is a Christian concept.  This is explained by a section from a Judaism website:



http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm



“The word "moshiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "moshiach" will be used throughout this page.”



In that same site, the prophecies about what the “moshiach” will do are explained:



“The moshiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The moshiach is often referred to as "moshiach ben David" (moshiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5) He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being………….



The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).”



And according to that site on Jewish tradition, here is what this “moshiach” will bring to the world when he arrives:


“Olam Ha-Ba: The Messianic Age

The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically to the time of the messiah.

Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people. (Isaiah 2:4) Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity.

All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated.

In the Olam Ha-Ba, the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9). There will be no murder, robbery, competition or jealousy. There will be no sin (Zephaniah 3:13). Sacrifices will continue to be brought in the Temple, but these will be limited to thanksgiving offerings, because there will be no further need for expiatory offerings.”



Obviously the Jesus of Christianity did not fulfill these requirements, contrary to what the church teaches.  Instead, what the Christians do is take the prophecies that Jesus didn’t fulfill and try to claim that he will fulfill them in his future Second Coming.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The Judaism site addresses Jesus:


“What About Jesus?

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the moshiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the moshiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kochba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kochba was the moshiach. Bar Kochba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a moshiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kochba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the moshiach.”



For more detailed answers, see the site Jews for Judaism which explains what the real Jewish messiah was about and why the Jesus story didn’t fit the criteria. Their article The Jewish Concept of Messiah explains why the Christian messianic prophecies are not even Biblically supported. They also have a handbook The Jewish Response to Missionaries that you can download in different languages. In it, the criteria for the Jewish messiah are given:



“THE CRITERIA TO BE FULFILLED BY THE JEWISH MESSIAH

In an accurate translation of the Jewish Scriptures, the word "Moshiach" is never translated as "Messiah," but as "anointed."1Nevertheless, Judaism has always maintained a fundamental belief in a Messianic figure. Since the concept of a Messiah is one that was given by G-d to the Jews, Jewish tradition is best qualified to describe and recognize the expected Messiah. This tradition has its foundation in numerous biblical references, many of which are cited below. Judaism understands the Messiah to be a human being (with no connotation of deity or divinity) who will bring about certain changes in the world and who must fulfill certain specific criteria before being acknowledged as the Messiah.

These specific criteria are as follows:

1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy 17:15, Numbers 24:17)

2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendent of both King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)

4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)

6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

All of these criteria for the Messiah are best stated in the book of Ezekiel chapter 37:24-28:

"And My servant David will be a king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them, and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant...and I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their G-d and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever."

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, he cannot be the Messiah.”



In the next section of the handbook, a funny story is given that illustrates how the New Testament writers “created” Jesus’ fulfilled prophecies.



“While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bull's-eye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes, and I'll leave it up to you to watch the episode and get the full explanation instead of sitting back and scoffing at an answer you predetermined in your mind.



Wow, I was just saying it's a great topic. It's something I've been studying recently. As it turns out, the series you are watching doesn't posit a theory of something from nothing. When they say nothing, they don't mean "no thing", but rather "some thing". Be careful to watch for scientists who redefine terms to avoid answering where the physical world came from. Nothing doesn't mean a quantum vacuum, gas, energy, etc. When philosophers say something from nothing, nothing is used as a universal negation. It means no-thing. 

Naturalistic scientists have to either believe matter and energy have been around forever (current science strongly shows this to be false), or believe they popped into existence from nothing. The latter has been described as "worse than magic". At least the magician has a hat to pull a rabbit from, and there is a magician.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 9, 2013)

Four said:


> I think there is a mixture between belief, and probability.
> 
> The statement "I think it's likely there is other life in the universe" Is a pretty reasonable statement. We have at least one example of life existing in the universe (life on earth) and don't have any good reasons why it couldn't happen on a different planet given similar circumstances.
> 
> ...



The Fine-Tuning argument for God's existence should be considered here. Given what we know of our universe, it is far from likely that any life would exist in a randomly assembled universe. The fine-tuning of our universe is well documented and there is no debate that the conditions for life to exist are extremely precise.

The atheist has turned to a multiverse that would produce a near infinite number of universes. Given an infinite number of universes an atheist can say it is by random chance that the parameters are so precise in our universe. What the atheist has failed to do is account for the rules of the multiverse, A very complex thing that churns out an infinite number of universes. He's back at square one, how did the multiverse come about and how is it tuned to churn out infinite universes?

For these reasons I don't feel your conclusion is accurate. Considering we have examples of life, it is probable there is a God. 

Great stuff on the Fine-Tuning of the universe is cited in this article. 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/probability-of-fine-tuning


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Wow, I was just saying it's a great topic. It's something I've been studying recently. As it turns out, the series you are watching doesn't posit a theory of something from nothing. When they say nothing, they don't mean "no thing", but rather "some thing". Be careful to watch for scientists who redefine terms to avoid answering where the physical world came from. Nothing doesn't mean a quantum vacuum, gas, energy, etc. When philosophers say something from nothing, nothing is used as a universal negation. It means no-thing.
> 
> Naturalistic scientists have to either believe matter and energy have been around forever (current science strongly shows this to be false), or believe they popped into existence from nothing. The latter has been described as "worse than magic". At least the magician has a hat to pull a rabbit from, and there is a magician.



Then you understand what "nothing" really is so you must understand that not even the spiritual magician was around.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Then you understand what "nothing" really is so you must understand that not even the spiritual magician was around.



Science seems to confirm exactly what one would expect from reading the Bible.  Currently science states that if something existed prior to the singularity it must be independent of mass/energy, space/time and not governed by any natural laws, hence an eternal, supernatural, spirit being(God) fits each and every one of those criteria and is exactly how the Bible describes God.  At the very least science makes the proposition of God a logical choice.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Ah, no.  There is absolutely no "proof" for the existence of miracles.



Never said there is proof.  I said there is evidence, and there is.



Dr. Strangelove said:


> If "faith" is your only argument for miracles, I'm not buying it.



I have faith tomorrow is Monday though there is no evidence of it yet.   I have faith that there exists a Moscow, Russia though I've never seen it.  I have faith my children love me, but there's not enough physical evidence for that to fill up a thimble.  My question to you is, If you totally disregard faith, how do you even reason your very existence.




Dr. Strangelove said:


> You believe, I get that, no matter that there is no evidence to back it up besides faith, which is not an argument.



Patently false and ill informed statement.



Dr. Strangelove said:


> You can believe something as strongly as you want, it doesn't make it true.



I totally agree.  No more so than your disbelief makes it untrue.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2013)

David Parker said:


> It isn't an "evidence issue" but an issue with selective Grace.  If you live a life of virtue but don't have faith, you are condemned, however if you live a murderous life but repent in that last moment, you achieve Grace.



This is true and it doesn't sound just if you look at it through our eyes, but God sees things differently.  In his eyes we are all sinners.  On the Sermon on the Mount Jesus addresses this very issue when he equates murder with anger, and adultery with lust.  The former is the fruit of the latter.  The sin is the anger and lust regardless of if they ever culminate in a visible deed.  This makes us equally guilty and puts us all on the same footing with regards to God: He is Holy, and we are not.  We are all equally in need of redemption and we all get it the same way; by accepting the free gift of Christ's atonement for our sins.  It has to be that way.  It cannot be merit based.  I'll give you an example why.  It's very easy to say I should go to Heaven before X because X is a so and so, or X does this or done that.  In fact if you look at the very worst prisoners they can justify their deeds based on the fact they at least they didn't do something else.  Hence the mass murderer will say they never raped anyone, the rapist will say at least they aren't a child molester and the child molester will say he never killed anyone.  The point is we can always justify ourselves based on the depravity of someone else.  So if that's the case and salvation is relative based on your ones position relative to someone else then everyone gets in.  In that case what's the point of Heaven in the first place, because its gonna be just like it is here with all the murders, rapist and child molesters.  The only people not going to be there is who?  Who's the worst of the worst?  A mass murdering, rapist, child molesters, arsonist maybe?  It's easy to spot the depravity in others; In ourselves, not so much so. 

On a side note, isn't it odd we never say, "Well I shouldn't go to Heaven, because I'm not as good as Mother Theresa."?  

But, God says we're right in thinking in part, our salvation is relative, but its relative to him.  In other words, we should hold ourselves up to him and his exclusive standards and find we are all lacking.   He's holy.  We're not, and this Grace you deem selective is only selective in that we first have to come to that realization before we accept his grace.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Science seems to confirm exactly what one would expect from reading the Bible.  Currently science states that if something existed prior to the singularity it must be independent of mass/energy, space/time and not governed by any natural laws, hence an eternal, supernatural, spirit being(God) fits each and every one of those criteria and is exactly how the Bible describes God.  At the very least science makes the proposition of God a logical choice.



God along with ten thousand+ other "logical" choices.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> God along with ten thousand+ other "logical" choices.



Besides naturalism, what are some of the other choices?


----------



## David Parker (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Besides naturalism, what are some of the other choices?



Existentialism FTW!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm rather dismayed by the fact that while it seems many Atheist reject God on the basis of 'lack of evidence' it seems the majority either accept, or at the very least, are optimistic about the notion of extraterrestrial intelligence.   I can not fathom that if it is in fact an evidence' issue with regards to Christianity, that the evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial life is stronger than that of the claims of Christianity regarding Christ.  This begs the question in my mind "Why then is this the case?"



I support the notion of ET life more than I support the notion of any god.. I completely reject neither. I see more evidence for ET life than any god. I agree, though, none of it is cold, hard evidence. 

To put it in terms of dismayed, you should be, as I think I am, of people who devote their lives to living for and/or worshipping ETs. You'd probably agree with me by saying those people are crazy.  Maybe devoting lives to furthering understanding by studying or looking can be ok on either front.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Existentialism FTW!



I don't think science makes existentialism a logical choice. Seems to be more of a philosophical issue.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I see more evidence for ET life than any god.



What is some of the evidence you see of ET life?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Besides naturalism, what are some of the other choices?



http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm



I understand what you were trying to say now. Your statement came off to me as saying there were 1000's of other choices other than God.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I support the notion of ET life more than I support the notion of any god.. I completely reject neither. I see more evidence for ET life than any god. I agree, though, none of it is cold, hard evidence.



God, from our perspective, would be ET life.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> God, from our perspective, would be ET life.



(Who made the ET's)
(Who do the ET's worship)
(Do the ET's have a Bible and Savior)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I understand what you were trying to say now. Your statement came off to me as saying there were 1000's of other choices other than God.



That statement stands. God does not stand out any more than any of the other Gods on that list. And the Bible's version of creation, along with the other religions versions of creation just do not match what humans have been able to best figure out so far.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> and the bible's version of creation, along with the other religions versions of creation just do not match what humans have been able to best figure out so far.



Falsity alert!!!  Falsity alert!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That statement stands.


I didn't say that it shouldn't. I thought you were implying something else.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> (Who made the ET's)
> (Who do the ET's worship)
> (Do the ET's have a Bible and Savior)



The ET's creator.
God (if they are a created thing).
No clue.

Consider the term ET, and God would fit that definition.  Just saying he is included in that theory.

Now, if it had to be some other biological form, which had to have a beginning, then, no, God wouldn't fit.  I was just speaking in broad terms.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> God does not stand out any more than any of the other Gods on that list.





You might want to clear the hurdle of existence before trying to narrow down the choices.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2013)

jb0704 said:


> You might want to clear the hurdle of existence before trying to narrow down the choices.



rofl


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What is some of the evidence you see of ET life?



I'm not the one who says there is zero evidence of a god. I see it as little, un-convincing evidence, less compelling than say nuclear blast evidence from thousands of years ago. 

Am I convinced that it's little green men beyond a shadow of a doubt? NO. Do I find it necessary to go to these places to speak to ETs in my head and fellowship with other believers every Sunday morning? NO. Just that it is more believable.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> You might want to clear the hurdle of existence before trying to narrow down the choices.



That is exactly my point and what I have been asking/searching for all my life.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not the one who says there is zero evidence of a god. I see it as little, un-convincing evidence, less compelling than say nuclear blast evidence from thousands of years ago.
> 
> Am I convinced that it's little green men beyond a shadow of a doubt? NO. Do I find it necessary to go to these places to speak to ETs in my head and fellowship with other believers every Sunday morning? NO. Just that it is more believable.



What evidence leads you to believe that there is a greater chance that ET beings started life on earth than God starting it?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Falsity alert!!!  Falsity alert!!!



Total of 6 days to create everything and the most powerful god of all gods needed another day to rest.

We have not found that it took 6 days to create all of creation.
If some god needed a day to rest it does not sound all that powerful. Humans work harder and longer than that.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Total of 6 days to create everything and the most powerful god of all gods needed another day to rest.
> 
> We have not found that it took 6 days to create all of creation.
> If some god needed a day to rest it does not sound all that powerful. Humans work harder and longer than that.



"on the seventh day God rested"..... "on the seventh day God needed to rest", two very different implications there, wouldn't you say?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is exactly my point and what I have been asking/searching for all my life.



I don't think anybody will ever give you a satisfactory answer.  All the evidence you ask for is there for you to see, you just interpret it differently the believers of the world (inclusive of all who believe in a creator).

I could view deer track as evidence of a deer being there, but that is my best guess based on the evidence at hand.  If I didn't see the deer make the track, I can't prove a deer was ever there, It could be my son playing tricks on me, it could be a neighboring goat, or whatever.

The logical response is that a deer is something we know to exist.  And, yes, we do know there are deer.  But I don't know a deer is what made that track. There are alternative solutions to the puzzle of "what made that track."

And, I don't know of life coming from nothing.  Neither do you.

So, I view my own existence, and the life all around me, as "God tracks."  You have the same evidence in front of you, but you view it very differently.  You give other possibilities the same weight, as with the billy goats in the above example.  The difference is, I don't disqualify a creator because I didn't witness creation.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "on the seventh day God rested"..... "on the seventh day God needed to rest", two very different implications there, wouldn't you say?



No.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What evidence leads you to believe that there is a greater chance that ET beings started life on earth than God starting it?



Sorry, I wasn't referring to them starting life on Earth. I was only referring to existence.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No.



Why not? It would seem to me one statement implies that God rested, and the other statement would imply God needed to rest. You're asserting the latter of those statements, and you're wrong in doing so, because that is not what the verse says.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Sorry, I wasn't referring to them starting life on Earth. I was only referring to existence.



Ok, what evidence do you have for ET life?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I don't think anybody will ever give you a satisfactory answer.  All the evidence you ask for is there for you to see, you just interpret it differently the believers of the world (inclusive of all who believe in a creator).
> 
> I could view deer track as evidence of a deer being there, but that is my best guess based on the evidence at hand.  If I didn't see the deer make the track, I can't prove a deer was ever there, It could be my son playing tricks on me, it could be a neighboring goat, or whatever.
> 
> ...



Great post


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why not? I would seem to me one statement implies that God rested, and the other statement would imply God needed to rest. You're asserting the latter of those statements, and you're wrong in doing so, because that is not what the verse says.



I agree with you string... If that in fact is what your particular translation says... One small word can definitely completely change the meaning or intent of a verse.. which in this particular case one word can act to detract from his divinity.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, what evidence do you have for ET life?



I told you one thing. I'm not trying to convince you of their existence. I'm not convinced either.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I told you one thing.


I'm not trying to be a jackleg here, but I read back through the thread and I'm not seeing where you put forth an example of evidence for ET. I'm just prying a little on why you think there is more evidence for ET than Christianity.



> I'm not trying to convince you of their existence. I'm not convinced either.


I know, it's all good. I'm just making conversation. Lil slow in here today.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Great post



That is a great post.
It shows that we know deer exist and deer make tracks but we can't believe a deer made the track unless we see the deer do it, yet some of us believe in a God that no one has been able to prove exists, he leaves no tracks and no one has ever seen him...
Yessiree great post.

ohhh, my flaw is that god's tracks are all around, I just am not keen enough to recognize them...10-4.

So:
Deer=Real
See deer walk through mud, go over and observe tracks in mud. Conclusion= Deer made the tracks.
If there are tracks in mud but did not witness a deer making them, then we should be skeptical. We should be smart and not assume.

God=?
Can't see God. Leaves no tracks. Cannot observe tracks. Conclusion= God exists.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not the one who says there is zero evidence of a god. I see it as little, un-convincing evidence, less compelling than say nuclear blast evidence from thousands of years ago.
> 
> Am I convinced that it's little green men beyond a shadow of a doubt? NO. Do I find it necessary to go to these places to speak to ETs in my head and fellowship with other believers every Sunday morning? NO. Just that it is more believable.



Evidence of something... So ET of the gaps


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We have not found that it took 6 days to create all of creation.



Is there a consensus opinion that those days are  six 24 hour days, that they are consecutive, or literal and not allegorical.  I don't think so.  

I stand by my contention that science points to a Genesis account.  Let me add that another voice toward conclusion, Dr Robert Jastrow.  

He was the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, which established the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. At the same time he was also the Chief of the Theoretical Division at NASA (1958–61). He became the founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961, and served until his retirement from NASA in 1981. Concurrently he was also a Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University.
After his NASA career he became a Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College (1981–1992), and was a Member of the NASA Alumni Association. Jastrow was also a Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory and Hale Solar Laboratory.  His expressed views on creation were that although he was an "agnostic, and not a believer.....

In an interview with Christianity Today, Jastrow said "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."[2]

To quote

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."
"Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion."

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

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


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

Who determines what is literal and what is figurative or allegorical in such a book? Each seems to fit as needed.

I find it peculiar how science is a good thing when it is used to back up the things that seem to go along with religion, yet balked at when it goes against religion...being called inaccurate and unsupportable.

So now science IS correct that it all started at one point in time but science is not correct on how stars and planets were formed.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> To quote
> 
> "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same:



The details differ........
How could that happen?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jun 10, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> These things are hypothesized. No doubt that belief in God is just as questionable for science. But when you state that these things are "known", you are taking a mighty big leap too.




This is an image from the Hubble telescope.  It was pointed into a very dark region of the sky, one where no stars were visible.  The image that was captured surprised everyone involved.  These are not stars, these are galaxies, each containing billions of stars (based on how many stars in the milkyway).  Moral of the story, there are billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe (I say "our" because there could be many others universes out there) each containing billion upon billions of stars.  It amazes me that someone could look up into the beautiful starry sky, and not at least entertain the idea the there might be life somewhere out there.  Why would a god create all this space, but only use a tiny, tiny fraction of it?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> This is an image from the Hubble telescope.  It was pointed into a very dark region of the sky, one where no stars were visible.  The image that was captured surprised everyone involved.  These are not stars, these are galaxies, each containing billions of stars (based on how many stars in the milkyway).  Moral of the story, there are billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe (I say "our" because there could be many others universes out there) each containing billion upon billions of stars.  It amazes me that someone could look up into the beautiful starry sky, and not at least entertain the idea the there might be life somewhere out there.  Why would a god create all this space, but only use a tiny, tiny fraction of it?



Science doesn't REALLY know what they are or what is contained within those things, the pic is very vague. The only certain things we know is what invisible being exists that we cannot see beyond all those lighted things that we can see.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jun 10, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes BH. We agree. I want to make the point that by scientific standards, we are likely seeing light from many stars that no longer exist.
> 
> There is so much that is unknown.



True, but wouldn't that mean that there are stars in the universe who's light we are not yet seeing?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Science doesn't REALLY know what they are or what is contained within those things, the pic is very vague. The only certain things we know is what invisible being exists that we cannot see beyond all those lighted things that we can see.




I have to disagree  with you.  Science does actually know that these are galaxies because of their shape, and spectral signatures


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> I have to disagree  with you.  Science does actually know that these are galaxies because of their shape, and spectral signatures



swampstalker, we are in agreement on that....I was being sarcastic in that first reply to you. I did not mean it to be sarcastic specifically towards you.
In here science is only taken seriously when it goes along with religion. When you post a pic that shows something being out there that are not just stars but entire galaxies that contain billions of stars, then the excuses start up about "stars being burned out", "no real hard proof planets even exist near those stars" etc etc etc.
Some people refuse to accept any of that as evidence, yet they believe in things that are beyond proof and also claim to know what these things are all about. Example: God


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The details differ........
> How could that happen?



Guess you'll have to buy the book

http://books.google.com/books?id=1I...CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=robert jastrow&f=false


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> This is an image from the Hubble telescope.  It was pointed into a very dark region of the sky, one where no stars were visible.  The image that was captured surprised everyone involved.  These are not stars, these are galaxies, each containing billions of stars (based on how many stars in the milkyway).  Moral of the story, there are billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe (I say "our" because there could be many others universes out there) each containing billion upon billions of stars.  It amazes me that someone could look up into the beautiful starry sky, and not at least entertain the idea the there might be life somewhere out there.  Why would a god create all this space, but only use a tiny, tiny fraction of it?



As a testimony to his power and glory, and maybe make some of us realize just how special we are.  It's a good a theory as any.  BTW awesome picture.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> swampstalker, we are in agreement on that....I was being sarcastic in that first reply to you. I did not mean it to be sarcastic specifically towards you.
> In here science is only taken seriously when it goes along with religion. When you post a pic that shows something being out there that are not just stars but entire galaxies that contain billions of stars, then the excuses start up about "stars being burned out", "no real hard proof planets even exist near those stars" etc etc etc.
> Some people refuse to accept any of that as evidence, yet they believe in things that are beyond proof and also claim to know what these things are all about. Example: God



Aww, upon a second glance I see the sarcasim.  Not sure how I missed it the first time.  How bout a lil  next time.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So:
> Deer=Real
> See deer walk through mud, go over and observe tracks in mud. Conclusion= Deer made the tracks.
> If there are tracks in mud but did not witness a deer making them, then we should be skeptical. We should be smart and not assume.
> ...



That's the point.  You say he leaves no tracks, and I see them everywhere.  We view the evidence differently. 

It's got nothing to do with how keen you are.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That's the point.  You say he leaves no tracks, and I see them everywhere.  We view the evidence differently.
> 
> It's got nothing to do with how keen you are.





JB0704 said:


> I could view deer track as evidence of a deer being there, but that is my best guess based on the evidence at hand. If I didn't see the deer make the track, I can't prove a deer was ever there, It could be my son playing tricks on me, it could be a neighboring goat, or whatever.
> 
> The logical response is that a deer is something we know to exist. And, yes, we do know there are deer. But I don't know a deer is what made that track. There are alternative solutions to the puzzle of "what made that track."



Unless you see a deer make the track you admit that there are other possibilities of how the track got there and are unsure of who or what else made that track. Mind you, it really looks like a deer track though.
Yet with a god. You do not see him, you do not see him make tracks, I am unsure if you (no disrespect intended) can be certain what a god-track is without a huge assumption. AND, as is the case with only a deer track and no deer, you are at a huge disadvantage having those things you think are tracks from God actually being something made by someone or something else.

About the only point I see here(and time and time again when dealing with religious people) is you use common sense to make a sound judgements based off of the best evidence at hand in dealing with everyday life situations( like hunting for deer/tracks), yet when a God is thrown into the mix those same sound judgements are thrown to the wayside and God is automatically assumed because there 1. Are no tracks that you can be certain of. 2. Cannot be certain who or what made the things you assume are tracks.  3. Have never seen definite tracks(works) of a God to compare anything to. and 4. Unlike watching a deer and going over to see the tracks it made, have not, can not, and will not observe a god do anything. Yet your point to me is "You (me) say he leaves no tracks, and I (you)see them everywhere". You go against your own criteria in order to see what you want.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Guess you'll have to buy the book
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=1I...CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=robert jastrow&f=false



I think I have the answer why the details differ.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jun 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Guess you'll have to buy the book
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=1I...CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=robert jastrow&f=false



If you're only willing to look at things from your own perspective (beliefs), then there is no argument. (Goes both ways)

If you aren't willing to accept that there may not be a "God", then how can you really believe?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Unless you see a deer make the track you admit that there are other possibilities of how the track got there and are unsure of who or what else made that track. Mind you, it really looks like a deer track though.



Yes.  I could be wrong.  No, I don't believe I am.



bullethead said:


> Yet with a god. You do not see him, you do not see him make tracks, I am unsure if you (no disrespect intended) can be certain what a god-track is without a huge assumption.



Which is why I left one sentence in the post seperate.  I have never seen life come from nothing, and neither have you.  It is impossible, and to me, illogical to assume such a thing could ever happen......just as impossible as the idea that some goober is on my property with deer hooves trying to trick me into thinking I got some critters running around.



bullethead said:


> AND, as is the case with only a deer track and no deer, you are at a huge disadvantage having those things you think are tracks from God actually being something made by someone or something else.



See above response.



bullethead said:


> About the only point I see here(and time and time again when dealing with religious people) is you use common sense to make a sound judgements based off of the best evidence at hand in dealing with everyday life situations( like hunting for deer/tracks), yet when a God is thrown into the mix those same sound judgements are thrown to the wayside and God is automatically assumed because there 1. Are no tracks that you can be certain of. 2. Cannot be certain who or what made the things you assume are tracks.  3. Have never seen definite tracks(works) of a God to compare anything to. and 4. Unlike watching a deer and going over to see the tracks it made, have not, can not, and will not observe a god do anything.



......or, we have both seen them every day in our lives.  It's one or the other, really.  I do have a comparison, science.  The tracks I am looking at were either left by God or nature.  One of the two is ultimately responsible for my existence.  Science fails miserably when we are discussing what life is, and how it exists, and why it exists, etc.  Science can help us understand the mechanics of it all, but it cannot help us duplicate it (please no theoretical abiogenisis links, I can post all kinds of theories on some pretty wacked out stuff that seem reasonable as well).

So, that being said, I would conclude you have spent your entire life watching God leave tracks.  Every time the grass grows in your yard, or some turkey is tricked by his natural instincts into walking too close to your shotgun, or in your kids, etc.  All of these things represent life, an impossibly complex thing, which we cannot duplicate with science.

It's either my "god of the gaps," or it's a bunch of God tracks and you just don't want to see it (again, nothing to do with your abilities).  That's my comparison.




bullethead said:


> Yet your point to me is "You (me) say he leaves no tracks, and I (you)see them everywhere". You go against your own criteria in order to see what you want.



I really don't know what criteria you are talking about.  I am talking about interpretting evidence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> If you're only willing to look at things from your own perspective (beliefs), then there is no argument. (Goes both ways)
> 
> If you aren't willing to accept that there may not be a "God", then how can you really believe?



Been there.  Done that.  I have not always been a Christian.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think I have the answer why the details differ.



Really.  I thought I did too until I read this book. 

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-That-Divide-World/dp/0310492173


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."[2]
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really.  I thought I did too until I read this book.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-That-Divide-World/dp/0310492173



The Bible tells us things and then there are things that we know are in the Bible that are not true.
These books/authors try to fill in the discrepancies and somehow connect the two so that they fit.
If the Bible is not exactly as what is written in it, then it is nothing, especially not the works and writings of some god.
I am convinced that the work of any being claiming to be a god could not contain errors, could not contain inaccuracies, could not contain historical and geographical errors, and nothing in it could be disputed. On one hand we have claims of such a being as the creator of creation and responsible for creating every intricate piece and part of the Universe and setting up each species as to how they act,look and live....yet THE work that is supposed to define that god is an absolute mess and constantly needs a human to mesh, mend, explain and flat out make excuses for such shoddy work so that it seems like it works. The reality that there has been so much written by man trying to do those things is testament to how poorly the work in the Bible is.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Been there.  Done that.  I have not always been a Christian.



Born again??


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Primitive man used to think that the sun rising and setting was supernatural. I am fairly certain that one day we will understand enough about it to stop thinking it's supernatural.



Understanding how something works doesn't mean that it's not supernatural.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  I could be wrong.  No, I don't believe I am.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All that posting and it really is just filling in the gaps of what you hope is the truth.
You and I have never seen something come from nothing. So it HAS to come from God? 
Reality is, you do not know that there was a time where  there was nothing. We can only trace the existence of the Universe back to a point. No one knows what was before that. I am content leaving that blank in the hopes we find out someday. You put God in there and paint him with a wide brush. You argue for the Christian God, but are content to say well if it is not that one in particular whatever got us here is our God. God of Abraham, ET's, Nature, Universe, FSM. etc.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Born again??



And re-edumacated to boot.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> All that posting and it really is just filling in the gaps of what you hope is the truth.



Did you read my post?  I pointed out that it is either "my god of the gaps" or nature.



bullethead said:


> You and I have never seen something come from nothing. So it HAS to come from God?



I see one alternative.  God, or nature.



bullethead said:


> Reality is, you do not know that there was a time where  there was nothing.



Now, you are looking at the tracks, and seeing something different than I do.



bullethead said:


> We can only trace the existence of the Universe back to a point.



Science explaining the mechanics of it all, yes.



bullethead said:


> I am content leaving that blank in the hopes we find out someday.



Ok.  I like to ponder these things.



bullethead said:


> You put God in there and paint him with a wide brush. You argue for the Christian God, but are content to say well if it is not that one in particular whatever got us here is our God. God of Abraham, ET's, Nature, Universe, FSM. etc.



Not sure your point here, but, if we are created, then whoever dun it is God.  Whether that thing is my idea of him, or somebody else's.  My perspective is irrelevant to the fact.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Not sure your point here, but, if we are created, then whoever dun it is God.  Whether that thing is my idea of him, or somebody else's.  My perspective is irrelevant to the fact.



That is a fair assessment. What bothers me is how anyone narrows it down from there to a specific God. 

When I see a deer track I do not assume it is a from a bear just because I did not see a deer make it. A deer track is most likely from a deer especially if deer are known to inhabit that area. I have never just found one deer track so the odds increase that multiple deer tracks were not made by a tricky neighbor or two sticks that blew out of the trees and landed just right in the mud and bounced back out. Because deer tracks are there and because I know deer exist it the odds say it is from a deer.
Tracks from a god, no matter how an individual views them, are indistinguishable from tracks from any of the tens of thousands of other gods, and that is making a wild assumption that if one god capable of making tracks all gods can make tracks.......yet no one has seen a god do anything. If two guys are hunting in North America and they happen across a watering hole and there are deer tracks in the mud it is silly of one of the guys to say clearly some of these are from a salt water crocodile because I view these tracks differently.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is a fair assessment. What bothers me is how anyone narrows it down from there to a specific God.
> 
> When I see a deer track I do not assume it is a from a bear just because I did not see a deer make it. A deer track is most likely from a deer especially if deer are known to inhabit that area. I have never just found one deer track so the odds increase that multiple deer tracks were not made by a tricky neighbor or two sticks that blew out of the trees and landed just right in the mud and bounced back out. Because deer tracks are there and because I know deer exist it the odds say it is from a deer.



May I ask from where do you attribute your intelligence and your ability to reason so well came from?




bullethead said:


> Tracks from a god, no matter how an individual views them, are indistinguishable from tracks from any of the tens of thousands of other gods,



How so?



bullethead said:


> and that is making a wild assumption that if one god capable of making tracks all gods can make tracks.......yet no one has seen a god do anything.



Do you limit truth to only what is visibly verifiable?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> May I ask from where do you attribute your intelligence and your ability to reason so well came from?


Hundreds of thousands of years of adaptation and survival of the fittest.






SemperFiDawg said:


> How so?


All religions claim that their gods are responsible for the same things.





SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you limit truth to only what is visibly verifiable?



No


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Hundreds of thousands of years of adaptation and survival of the fittest.


This statement suggests that something has always been able to reason and had some type of intelligence in which to evolve into the reason and intelligence humans have today. 

What do you think existed hundreds of thousands of years ago that had the ability to reason and also had intelligence?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:
			
		

> Do you limit truth to only what is visibly verifiable?





bullethead said:


> No



Can you give some examples of something that you hold as true that you nor anybody else have seen visibly, or been scientifically proven?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This statement suggests that something has always been able to reason and had some type of intelligence in which to evolve into the reason and intelligence humans have today.
> 
> What do you think existed hundreds of thousands of years ago that had the ability to reason and also had intelligence?



Ape like mammals. 
Animals have intelligence and an ability to reason. They are at levels that sometime equal ours or are often less, but in our case ours were refined over hundreds of thousands of years due to diet and need to survive.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Can you give some examples of something that you hold as true that you nor anybody else have seen visibly, or been scientificaly proven?



Are you now adding things in there to suit your line of questioning?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ape like mammals.
> Animals have intelligence and an ability to reason. They are at levels that sometime equal ours or are often less, but in our case ours were refined over hundreds of thousands of years due to diet and need to survive.



Are you implying that ape like mammals have existed forever?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Are you now adding things in there to suit your line of questioning?



I added in "or scientifically" because you answered "no" in the scientism thread.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you implying that ape like mammals have existed forever?



No. You asked me what existed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

They are your questions I am answering directly. They are precise answers. They are to the point exactly as stated. Don't put words in my mouth as I did not imply anything.



stringmusic said:


> This statement suggests that something has always been able to reason and had some type of intelligence in which to evolve into the reason and intelligence humans have today.
> 
> What do you think existed hundreds of thousands of years ago that had the ability to reason and also had intelligence?



Take CAREFUL note of your last sentence/question above and apply my answer directly as stated to THAT question.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I added in "or scientifically" because you answered "no" in the scientism thread.



There are things that I believe in that I have never seen but believe in because of science.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No. You asked me what existed hundreds of thousands of years ago.
> 
> They are your questions I am answering directly. They are precise answers. They are to the point exactly as stated. Don't put words in my mouth as I did not imply anything.
> 
> ...



Since when is asking a question putting words in your mouth? I asked a question to give you the opportunity to clarify the implications of your answers.

Have ape like mammals existed forever?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There are things that I believe in that I have never seen but believe in because of science.



Then why did you answer "no" in the scientism thread?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Since when is asking a question putting words in your mouth? I asked a question to give you the opportunity to clarify the implications of your answers.
> 
> Have ape like mammals existed forever?



No, just energy exists forever.
The ape like mammals are a product of an energy explosion that created elements that combined and created life.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Then why did you answer "no" in the scientism thread?



Because the answer I wanted to convey was a "NO" answer.

No one asked me about scientism


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No, just energy exists forever.
> The ape like mammals are a product of an energy explosion that created elements that combined and created life.



Are you aware of any scientific experiment where it was shown that energy created something that was not energy?


Do you ever wonder what caused the explosion?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Because the answer I wanted to convey was a "NO" answer.


But everything you're suggesting in most threads seems to indicate that you should have answered "yes" in that thread.



> No one asked me about scientism


I have


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you aware of any scientific experiment where it was shown that energy created something that was not energy?
> 
> 
> Do you ever wonder what caused the explosion?



I am aware of theories based on an energy explosion.
I wonder all the time and have heard of some good possibilities.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But everything you're suggesting in most threads seems to indicate that you should have answered "yes" in that thread.
> 
> 
> I have



This thread is "Just Curious"


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you aware of any scientific experiment where it was shown that energy created something that was not energy?
> 
> 
> Do you ever wonder what caused the explosion?





> The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6][7] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[8][9][10][11] After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.
> 
> The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae.[12] The core ideas of the Big Bangâ€”the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxiesâ€”are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures,[13][14][15] and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.



Now what was before that point.....I really don't know. God, Bigfoot passing gas, A previous Universe that shrunk into a single energy filled point....????? Who knows.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

3rd answer down might be as good as it gets so far
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_did_the_material_for_the_Big_Bang_come_from


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2013)

Now we are getting deep:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Then you understand what "nothing" really is so you must understand that not even the spiritual magician was around.



Sorry Bullet, I don't believe in something from nothing. As far as the origin of the universe goes, I believe in physical things coming from a spiritual God. It's some atheists who choose to believe in something from nothing RATHER than a God. Which as I said, is worse than magic.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Now we are getting deep:
> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm



Not really. It's simple. At the moment of singularity time, space, etc, comes into existence. What caused the big bang? Something non-physical, timeless, and spaceless. Perhaps an intelligent supernatural creator?  

Not to mention it came into existence with such amazingly precise, near infinity improbable, conditions that are life permitting. If one hasn't adopted the philosophy of naturalism, it seems that God is a quite rational choice.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am aware of theories based on an energy explosion.
> I wonder all the time and have heard of some good possibilities.



Possibilities???  Hence the OP and what bewilders me; I don't understand why one would chose a something from nothing possibility over that of God, when God as a explanation is a much more cohesive and coherent choice to all of life's questions, not just origin.  You have chose a "scientism of the gaps".


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> .....It's simple. A............
> 
> Something non-physical, timeless, and spaceless.......
> 
> .........




Simply put.... that sounds like NOTHING.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Simply put.... that sounds like NOTHING.



Or, it sounds like something Spiritual.....


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Sorry Bullet, I don't believe in something from nothing. As far as the origin of the universe goes, I believe in physical things coming from a spiritual God. It's some atheists who choose to believe in something from nothing RATHER than a God. Which as I said, is worse than magic.



No one anywhere ever is sure that there was a time when there was "nothing". Why do you think there was a time when there was "nothing"?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No one anywhere ever is sure that there was a time when there was "nothing". Why do you think there was a time when there was "nothing"?



Because something, at least physical, always existing is not logical.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

I don't understand that logic...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Not really. It's simple. At the moment of singularity time, space, etc, comes into existence. What caused the big bang? Something non-physical, timeless, and spaceless. Perhaps an intelligent supernatural creator?
> 
> Not to mention it came into existence with such amazingly precise, near infinity improbable, conditions that are life permitting. If one hasn't adopted the philosophy of naturalism, it seems that God is a quite rational choice.



Perhaps is a great word to use when you want to insert ANY possibility whether or not the possibility is plausible or phony.
Not to mention that it came into existence with such amazingly precise, near infinity improbable, conditions that are life permitting and it took BILLIONS of YEARS to form Earth and for life to form on Earth. If God is such a rational source then God lied about how life started and how man and woman got here. If you want to use science to explain things then use science.
If you want to use science and religion and include a God that got the ball rolling and let evolution take over, fine. But if you want to trust science to take us back to the point of the Big Bang and disregard science when the creation of man is in the mix then that is where religion falls apart. 
No one knows what was there before the big bang. More likely than not something was there, not "nothing". Science just does not know yet. But from the point of the Big Bang on science has some very plausible theories on how things took place and none of them include the God of the Bible making a man out of clay.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't understand that logic...



What logic?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Or, it sounds like something Spiritual.....



Sounds like nothing, smells like nothing, looks like nothing... So we call it spiritual. Our fancy way of saying nothing. I can buy that.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Possibilities???  Hence the OP and what bewilders me; I don't understand why one would chose a something from nothing possibility over that of God, when God as a explanation is a much more cohesive and coherent choice to all of life's questions, not just origin.  You have chose a "scientism of the gaps".



I don't understand why you and others keep on using the "something from nothing" routine. Nobody is claiming something came from nothing. That is the term believers use to try to make things work in their minds. You cannot grasp that there was always something.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What logic?



You have to study your own posts.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Because something, at least physical, always existing is not logical.



That something phyiscal has always existed is not logical.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Because something, at least physical, always existing is not logical.



Not logical to WHO? You?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Sounds like nothing, smells like nothing, looks like nothing... So we call it spiritual. Our fancy way of saying nothing. I can buy that.



No, that is incorrect. Just because something is not physical, doesn't mean it assumes the definition of "nothing".


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That something phyiscal has always existed is not logical.


Start reading at "the argument from stage one...."
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42


bullethead said:


> Not logical to WHO? You?



Not logical according to logic.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No, that is incorrect. Just because something is not physical, doesn't mean it assumes the definition of "nothing".



I said, SIMPLY PUT, it's nothing. Put your way, making it less simple, I'd call it a thought or idea. I can buy that too.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Start reading at "the argument from stage one...."
> http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42
> 
> 
> Not logical according to logic.



I could buy that logic.... If you buy it, you should buy that EVERYTHING is preceded. Since your god is not nothing, then it can't be more special than everything and escape this logic, if you'd like to apply logic like Willard is using.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I could buy that logic.... If you buy it, you should buy that EVERYTHING is preceded. Since your god is not nothing, then it can't be more special than everything and escape this logic, if you'd like to apply logic like Willard is using.



How can you agree that a non physical eternal being is the logical conclusion of that argument and then contend that the non physical eternal being falls to the same problems of finite physical matter?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I could buy that logic.... If you buy it, you should buy that EVERYTHING physical is preceded. Since your God is not physical, then it can be more special than everything and escape this logic, if you'd like to apply logic like Willard is using.



Re-worded your post for you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

I said if I apply all of that logic that way... If I apply the rest of the  logic that I've gotten to so far in this thread then the non physical god is a though or idea. Not able to DO anything by itself.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I said if I apply all of that logic that way.


Then you would be commiting a catagory mistake.




> If I apply the rest of the  logic that I've gotten to so far in this thread then the non physical god is a though or idea. Not able to DO anything by itself.



Ideas and thoughts are non physical, do they exist?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

I'm not saying that they don't exist. They do. And I am good with a god existing like ideas and thoughts exist.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not saying that they don't exist. They do. And I am good with a god existing like ideas and thoughts exist.



So you believe God exists?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

As ideas in the minds of humans, absolutely.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ape like mammals.
> Animals have intelligence and an ability to reason. They are at levels that sometime equal ours



Would you please provide your best example of this,



bullethead said:


> Aor are often less, but in our case ours were refined over hundreds of thousands of years due to diet and need to survive.



and the explain the evolutionary process from there to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiving_Dr._Mengele

or here:

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


or here:

Luke 23:32 "Two others — criminals — were also led away to be executed with Him. 33 When they arrived at the place called The Skull, they crucified Him there, along with the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. [34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.” ] And they divided His clothes and cast lots.”


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Would you please provide your best example of this,


Not even my best example, but more than good enough:






SemperFiDawg said:


> and the explain the evolutionary process from there to here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiving_Dr._Mengele
> 
> ...



I really do not know what you want me to explain there OR what point you are trying to get across.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2013)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110923102213.htm

http://www.ehow.com/info_8003383_information-animal-thinking-reasoning.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Not even my best example, but more than good enough:




You're joking right?  I know you have got to be joking me, because I know you are not suggesting this implies an application of logical thought on the part of the crow.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 14, 2013)

Logical thought? You asked him to provide animals intelligence and the ability to reason. The crow is obviously not developing an iphone app.....

But the logical thought is, I can't reach this with my beak, but if I hold this in my beak, I can.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110923102213.htm



This article has nothing to do with innate reasoning or logic by the monkeys. It only showed monkeys, after extensive training, are able to remember and repeat learned behavior with regard to analogies.  

Excerpt and conclusion from article.
"In other words, the baboon had to detect relations between relations, which is the definition of analogy. After an intensive learning period covering several thousand tests, 6 baboons correctly performed the task, thus demonstrating an ability to resolve analogy problems. Furthermore, the researchers suspended the task for nearly one year before proposing it again to the baboons. The animals re-learnt the task much faster than during the initial training, which shows that they remembered the situation.
This work therefore shows that language is not necessary to analogy. But how can animals use this skill? This adaptive ability, especially useful to the monkey, could in particular serve in the transfer of knowledge from one field to another."




bullethead said:


> http://www.ehow.com/info_8003383_information-animal-thinking-reasoning.html



An unreferenced 5 paragraph article from an EHow writer that doubles as a advertisement?   Really?  Come on!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're joking right?  I know you have got to be joking me, because I know you are not suggesting this implies an application of logical thought on the part of the crow.



Well what exactly does it suggest?

 Crow wants treat, crow cannot reach treat, crow finds piece of wire long enough to reach treat and makes hook to snag treat when straight wire does not work.

It is a verified example of an application of a logical thought and an action taken to complete a task. The crow wanted something and took a logical approach to complete the task. I cannot help that you refuse to accept it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This article has nothing to do with innate reasoning or logic by the monkeys. It only showed monkeys, after extensive training, are able to remember and repeat learned behavior with regard to analogies.
> 
> Excerpt and conclusion from article.
> "In other words, the baboon had to detect relations between relations, which is the definition of analogy. After an intensive learning period covering several thousand tests, 6 baboons correctly performed the task, thus demonstrating an ability to resolve analogy problems. Furthermore, the researchers suspended the task for nearly one year before proposing it again to the baboons. The animals re-learnt the task much faster than during the initial training, which shows that they remembered the situation.
> ...



You asked. You got. If you want more, that incredible GOOGLE you told me about is full of examples. Whine to the authors of the articles and experiments in there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Logical thought? You asked him to provide animals intelligence and the ability to reason. The crow is obviously not developing an iphone app.....
> 
> But the logical thought is, I can't reach this with my beak, but if I hold this in my beak, I can.



Unless I missed the audio suggesting otherwise I guessing this is taught/learned behavior.  In fact I would be willing to bet on it, and if in fact that is the case it's no different than the chickens that used to ring the bell at the fair or a dog rolling over for a treat.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Well what exactly does it suggest?
> 
> Crow wants treat, crow cannot reach treat, crow finds piece of wire long enough to reach treat and makes hook to snag treat when straight wire does not work.
> 
> It is a verified example of an application of a logical thought and an action taken to complete a task. The crow wanted something and took a logical approach to complete the task. I cannot help that you refuse to accept it.



Here's an article from National Geographic on that crow.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0808_020808_crow.html

If you read it you will discover that particular breed of crows are know for the peculiar habit of bending sticks to 
probe for food.  The only difference is this crow used a wire instead of a stick.  I realize that's not as dramatic as what the video is suggesting, but its the truth none the less.  

And again I'm bewildered that people will go to great lengths to attribute human like intelligence to a crow in an attempt to highlight we are nothing more than base animals, but deny the self evident characteristics we all possess that can and does raise us up into being the very imagebearers of God himself.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Unless I missed the audio suggesting otherwise I guessing this is taught/learned behavior.  In fact I would be willing to bet on it, and if in fact that is the case it's no different than the chickens that used to ring the bell at the fair or a dog rolling over for a treat.



My bad.  See post 156.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here's an article from National Geographic on that crow.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0808_020808_crow.html
> 
> ...



Did YOU read the article???? lolololol
The article blatantly and specifically points out how the crow is very different from the other wild crows......





> The New Caledonian crow is one of the few birds that probes for food with twigs, a form of tool use. Now, three Oxford University, England researchers have discovered that one such crow, a captive female, has gone a step further.
> 
> To obtain out-of-reach food, the crow repeatedly took a piece of straight wire and bent it to create a hook. According to the researchers, who report their findings in the August 9, 2002 issue of Science, this behavior suggests that New Caledonian crows "rival nonhuman primates in tool-related cognitive capabilities."
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My bad.  See post 156.



 #157 and #156. Two bads for you


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Did YOU read the article???? lolololol
> The article blatantly and specifically points out how the crow is very different from the other wild crows......



Bullet first of all, even the authors of your article didn't draw the conclusions you are attempting to draw from their data.  They are ecstatic that the bird used a wire (that was provided) instead of a stick.  You seem to be suggesting the bird somehow COLLECTED and CHOSE the wire 

BH 153



> Well what exactly does it suggest?
> 
> Crow wants treat, crow cannot reach treat, crow FINDS piece of wire long enough to reach treat and makes hook to snag treat when straight wire does not work.
> 
> It is a verified example of an APPLICATION OF A LOGICAL THOUGHT AND ACTION TAKEN TO COMPLETE THE TASK. The crow wanted something and took a logical approach to complete the task. I cannot help that you refuse to accept it.



 then in a NOVEL way used it as a means to an end which is simply not correct.  I would suggest even the conductors of the experiment would disagree with the inferences you are drawing.


Here's an actual scientific abstract of an published article which can be found in its entirety here:  

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006471


I think it accurately reflects the conclusions that can be drawn from our current knowledge regarding these crows and their behavior.

Abstract

Background

Using tools to act on non-food objects—for example, to make other tools—is considered to be a hallmark of human intelligence, and may have been a crucial step in our evolution. One form of this behaviour, ‘sequential tool use’, has been observed in a number of non-human primates and even in one bird, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). While sequential tool use has often been interpreted as evidence for advanced cognitive abilities, such as planning and analogical reasoning, *the behaviour itself can be underpinned by a range of different cognitive mechanisms, which have never been explicitly examined.*. Here, we present experiments that not only demonstrate new tool-using capabilities in New Caledonian crows, but allow examination of the extent to which crows understand the physical interactions involved.

Methodology/Principal Findings

In two experiments, we tested seven captive New Caledonian crows in six tasks requiring the use of up to three different tools in a sequence to retrieve food. Our study incorporated several novel features: (i) we tested crows on a three-tool problem (subjects were required to use a tool to retrieve a second tool, then use the second tool to retrieve a third one, and finally use the third one to reach for food); (ii) we presented tasks of different complexity in random rather than progressive order; (iii) we included a number of control conditions to test whether tool retrieval was goal-directed; and (iv) we manipulated the subjects' pre-testing experience. Five subjects successfully used tools in a sequence (four from their first trial), and four subjects repeatedly solved the three-tool condition. Sequential tool use did not require, but was enhanced by, pre-training on each element in the sequence (‘chaining’), an explanation that could not be ruled out in earlier studies. By analyzing tool choice, tool swapping and improvement over time, we show that successful subjects did not use a random probing strategy. However, we find no firm evidence to support previous claims that sequential tool use demonstrates analogical reasoning or human-like planning.

Conclusions/Significance

While the ability of subjects to use three tools in sequence reveals a competence beyond that observed in any other species, our study also emphasises the importance of parsimony in comparative cognitive science: *seemingly intelligent behaviour can be achieved without the involvement of high-level mental faculties, and detailed analyses are necessary before accepting claims for complex cognitive abilities.*

With regards to "parsimony", I think this is what they mean: "In general, parsimony is the principle that the simplest explanation that can explain the data is to be preferred. In the analysis of phylogeny, parsimony means that a hypothesis of relationships that requires the smallest number of character changes is most likely to be correct."
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Parsimony_Analysis.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2013)

All you have to do is read what you have provided. The crows used tools in sequence. That requires an ability to use logic.


The crow made use of what was available. Just like you or I would do in that situation. The crow obviously was not allowed to fly to walmart and buy a wire coat hanger, pair of wire cutters and a set of pliers to make a treat gathering tool. The crow used what was available and modified it (bent) the wire so the wire could be used for the necessary task. It used logic to solve a problem.
If you have something stuck in your garbage disposal and need to fish it out and have a foot long piece of wire on the counter...odds are you are going to use THAT wire and fashion it to however it is needed to retrieve what you need retrieved. If you decide to get fully dressed, slap on a pair of shoes, drive to a remote spot and dig for Iron Ore, bring the Ore back and heat it up in a kiln, take a hammer and pound the now metal into a long slender 3 foot piece of wire and twist that into a coat hanger, then cut the coat hanger into a small piece where the straight piece and curved piece meet in order to have a hooked rod and THEN retrieve the item in your garbage disposal instead of using what was available right on the counter top.........well heck of an effort and I applaud your skills, but I'd say the crow used more logic, you would just be more skillful.

Like was said here already, the crow did not make an App for a phone. It did not solve string theory. It had a problem, thought of a solution, and used what was available and modified what was available in order to complete a task.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> All you have to do is read what you have provided. The crows used tools in sequence. That requires an ability to use logic.



Maybe you missed this in the journal abstract.

"However, we find no firm evidence to support previous claims that sequential tool use demonstrates analogical reasoning or human-like planning."


Again, I'm not concluding anything past what the researchers themselves concluded.  If you want to attribute it to your definition of logic, then by all means......


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 16, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> The world would be a boring place if we all thought alike, if nobody asked, "What if?"



Right on! I agree.

What if there is a God? or
What if God is extraterrestrial? Could that be possible?


----------

