# Question for Believers



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

I can't remember if I've asked this question before, so if I have humor me as we have some new faces around here.


The question is:

Why do you believe in God?   


I'm not talking about any old god, but God with a capitol G.  I.e. The particular god you believe in.  Your God.

Please avoid circular or redundant responses like: "I believe in Him, because I have faith."  Or, "Because that's what the Bible says"

Avoid the kind of responses that do not individualize your God.  Things like, "Everything is just perfect for humans to exist so a god must have created the universe for us"   This kind of argument, though it has it's place, is not what I'm trying to get at.  I don't want to know why you believe in _a_ god, I want to know why you believe in _your_ God.

Honestly answer the question.  Take some time to think it through.


----------



## Cornelia_Hiker (Jun 9, 2009)

Harrrumph

How 'bout you go first pnome?

Or do I recall...I can't remember....humor me if it's come up before...there are so many new faces around here....but aren't you a non-believer?

So why do you care why others believe? What's it to ya? Are you trying to imply that if someone gives a good answer to your liking that you will then believe? Forgive me for not believing that.

Total troll this is mates

Heave-to and prepare to be boarded


----------



## grizzlyblake (Jun 9, 2009)

So, the same question posed from a believer's point of view is a valid thread, but from a non-believer it is a troll.

I will stick to FSMism.


----------



## Cornelia_Hiker (Jun 9, 2009)

You may be right grizzly....seeing as this is a Spiritual Forum, not a non-spiritual forum.


----------



## Lowjack (Jun 9, 2009)

The Evidence I see is overwhelming that there is a creator.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Jun 9, 2009)

I know this won't matter but I'm called to always give a defense (1 Peter 3:15) so therefore; I believe because God made me believe in him.

Heb 11:1-6
_ Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.  For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him._

As you can see the God of the Bible says faith is a necessity to believe in him, so where does it come from?

Romans 10:17 _ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. _

So do all who read the Bible get this faith?

Ephesians 2:8-10  
_For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. _

So faith is a gift given by God to those who He wants to believe 
John 6:35-40  
_Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.  But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.  For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.  And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." 
_ also see John 10; 17; Romans 9; 1 Corinthians 1

Now the immediate response is: must be nice to just leave it to God. 
YES, it is awesome knowing my salvation is fully dependent on a perfect sovereign being. It means I can't mess it up. 

NO, because it means that I must admit that I can't do anything about my standing before God. It attacks my self-worth, my pride that i cling so dearly to. It means that I must admit that i am not the center of my universe but God is.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> The Evidence I see is overwhelming that there is *a creator*.




That's not what I'm asking.   Why do you believe that Yahweh is that creator?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

addictedtodeer said:


> i know this won't matter but i'm called to always give a defense (1 peter 3:15) so therefore; i believe because god made me believe in him.
> 
> Heb 11:1-6
> _now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. for by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of god, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. By faith abel offered to god a more acceptable sacrifice than cain, through which he was commended as righteous, god commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because god had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased god. and without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to god must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him._
> ...


 

*amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 9, 2009)

I believe in the Christian God because my parents were Christians, hence, that is the way I was brought up. Same as if I was born in Israel I would be a Jew, or a Muslim if I was born in Saudi Arabia.  

You have to believe in fate and destiny to understand where I am coming from.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> I believe in the Christian God because my parents were Christians, hence, that is the way I was brought up. Same as if I was born in Israel I would be a Jew, or a Muslim if I was born in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> You have to believe in fate and destiny to understand where I am coming from.




Accidental faith.
At least you are honest with yourself!


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> That's not what I'm asking.   Why do you believe that Yahweh is that creator?



Because I know He points to a creation which is not finished, far from it, and that most of us will never know. His creation is bigger or farther reaching than my reasoning, my ego or  that this generation's aspirations can go. 

In two hundred yrs, we will be their middle ages, but the Lord will be the same as He was ever, The Creator.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 9, 2009)

I refuse to take "de bait!"


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 9, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> I refuse to take "de bait!"




Ya, you are made of iron. I take the bait, knowing well the lines will not hold me for long.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

addictedtodeer said:


> I know this won't matter but I'm called to always give a defense (1 Peter 3:15) so therefore; I believe because God made me believe in him.
> 
> Heb 11:1-6
> _ Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.  For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him._
> ...




Why do you believe what the Bible says?


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> I refuse to take "de bait!"



You don't have to post an answer.  Just think about the question, then answer it for yourself.  If you're satisfied with your answer that is all that really matters.


----------



## Belle (Jun 9, 2009)

The Bible teaches about God so I know about him, but I believe in God not because I can see him, but because I know he is there.  There have been times in my life that I have physically felt God's arms wrapped around me.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Belle said:


> The Bible teaches about God so I know about him, but I believe in God not because I can see him, but because I know he is there.  There have been times in my life that I have physically felt God's arms wrapped around me.



What makes you believe that it was the Christian "God" and not some other deity?  Why do you believe what the bible says?


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Accidental faith.
> At least you are honest with yourself!



There is no accident.


----------



## Belle (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> What makes you believe that it was the Christian "God" and not some other deity?  Why do you believe what the bible says?



Because that is what I know, it is what I have known all my life.  It is my belief (beyond a shadow of a doubt, more than I believe in anything else) that there are no other Gods before Him-so it is also my belief that in those times in my life when I physically felt Him, as with every other day of my life when I spiritually feel him, that there was no one else it could be; no other God, no other deity, no other being that it could/would have been.  Now, I'm not a converted believer, like I said there's never been a question , so I can't say what happened in my life to make me start believing but I also have never had reason to believe otherwise.


----------



## Belle (Jun 9, 2009)

Sorry, I think I started rambling & forgot to answer your second question.  For me it as simple as asking why believe what your text books said in school (because that is what you were taught?) -or- why believe the newspaper -or- why believe your friend's account of something (because you trust him?)?

Now I'm sure some may say that text books have been proven wrong, you can't believe EVERYTHING you read, and friends lie; and I can't totally disagree with that....but the above is just the best way I can answer your question


----------



## post450 (Jun 9, 2009)

Speaking strictly for myself, I believe that God, Yahweh, El Shaddai, or whatever name you choose to refer to Him as because of:

1. The complexity of the universe. 
2. The skewed or faulty natural human nature (existence of evil).
3. The completeness of Jesus Christ's teachings and correlation/fulfillment of older Hebrew scriptures.

If someone goes to the doctor and are told that they have a disease with no known cure, but, there is a new unproven treatment available that is still being developed and tested, who would not be willing to take the unproven treatment if you believe there was a chance, no matter how small? The human race, as a whole, is severely flawed and people suffer from the same character issues regardless of race or ethnicity. I can't accept that life simply ends with death and that there is no purpose for us being here. Searching through religions, I find most have major holes or inconsistencies, ie the Muslims must kill infidels, the Jews suddenly quit making sin offerings after 400 years, etc. I can't find a remedy or hope other than Jesus Christ. I can't see him or touch him or prove to you that he exists, but I find comfort and solace in his teachings and words that must be experienced to understand. 

I have chosen to accept Jesus as a cure for my sins as I believe life here is short compared to eternity. If there is no God, as some say, then what exactly have I lost or what has it cost me? A few hours on Sundays? A peaceful existence???? If I am correct and God does exist in the Biblical form, then what will that cost a non-believer? The bottom line is that we all die and the real question to begin with is what comes after that? 

Not trying to shove my beliefs or convictions down anyones throats. You asked.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 9, 2009)

post450 said:


> I can't accept that life simply ends with death and that there is no purpose for us being here.



Why can't you accept that?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 9, 2009)

Belle said:


> The Bible teaches about God so I know about him, but I believe in God not because I can see him, but because I know he is there.  There have been times in my life that I have physically felt God's arms wrapped around me.



Just the arms or were there sleeves over the arms?  A shroud or robe of some sort perhaps?


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 10, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Just the arms or were there sleeves over the arms?  A shroud or robe of some sort perhaps?



HAHA! Very nice!


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 10, 2009)

post450 said:


> Speaking strictly for myself, I believe that God, Yahweh, El Shaddai, or whatever name you choose to refer to Him as because of:
> 
> 1. The complexity of the universe.
> 2. The skewed or faulty natural human nature (existence of evil).
> ...



This is the best answer I've seen.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jun 10, 2009)

Why wouldn't I believe in the bible? If anyone cares to research with an open mind, there is enough evidence available to convince me that it is a reliable document. 

We KNOW that Jesus was an actual historical figure. So why do I believe? 

I believe that what the bible says is true. I believe that I am a sinner and as a young man, I saw my need for God, and He brought me into a relationship with Him.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 10, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


>



I have to say, that is the first time I've ever seen a picture of a Black Jesus.  Goodness...a Black Santa Claus and now a Black Jesus....what's next?


----------



## donjon25 (Jun 10, 2009)

I've always believed in God (upbringing), but I haven't always lived for God.  Long story short, I went to a Pentecostal church and the conviction I felt was so overwhelming that I just cried and cried and finally quit fighting God and surrendered my life to him.  Since, he has revealed himself to me with such overwhelming evidence that it is literally impossible for me not to believe.

Life is tough enough, can't even imagine living it without Jesus.  I'll put my trust/life in him.

Matthew 11:28-30.


----------



## formula1 (Jun 10, 2009)

*Re:*

Why would I believe in God and more specifically, God who sent His son Jesus Christ?

1) My belief began before I was born, thanks to a Godly Mother.  So God, if you will, planted a seed of belief in me before I was born.
2) My unbelief began the day I was born and continued through many years of my life.  Still the seed of 'belief' had been planted in me.
3) That seed of belief resident in me even before I was born bore witness to the message of Jesus Christ that I heard and was taught as I grew. But it in truth was divine providence that God placed me in life where I might hear and learn and grow in Him.  As someone else said, there are no accidents.
4) The unbelief I had from birth challenged my belief and my life lived out portrayed this challenge.  I became a person in a tug-of-war, tossed between the seed that was planted in me and the unbelief I saw and experienced.  I could not resolve that tug-of-war except by laying down my own preconceptions.  It took repentance unto Jesus Christ to solve that war in me.  Nothing else would satisfy me or bring fulfillment to me.  
5) I did not come to  repentance in Christ through the revelation of the Holy Scriptures as we understand them in the accepted canon of the day.  The scripture  does however bear witness to the truth in me.  I came to Christ because God planted a seed of faith in me before I was born and His Spirit sought me and delivered me from my unbelief in this life, and I found the desire in myself to respond.  I did not fully understand God at the time of repentance, but by the act of repentance I committed to the understanding of Him.  God after that time has indeed bore witness to Himself in me as I follow Him.
6) As a result, the natural world that I was born into became secondary to the Spiritual world that God through a tiny little mustard granted me 'new' birth into.  I am, in fact, now born of the Spirit of God.  The paradox is I am also still alive in the natural world, so I must learn everyday to allow the Spirit to rule over the natural man in me.
7) One day the natural will be no more and I will no longer have to wrestle with the paradox, I will receive from my Saviour eternal life with Him.  The promise of Christ is that we can be redeemed to our Creator through the forgiving work which Christ Himself performed on the Cross.  The is no one else that can grant us that access to God.

Why does a Muslim come to Christ?
Why does an American come to Christ?
Why does a Hindu come to Christ?
Why does a Atheist or Agnostic come to Christ?
Why does a Buddist come to Christ?
Why does a Russian, a European, a Spaniard, an African, or anyone else?

Because God planted a seed, a tiny little mustard seed of faith in their heart before they were even born. They reponded to it in life and received the promise of Christ as a result.

Do all receive it this seed of faith?  I believe yes, but I do not know for certain.  Somewhere in every man's lineage I believe is a seed of faith, tiny as it may be.

Can all respond? Yes, it is possible!

Do all respond? No, because it requires you to completely lay down yourself to receive it, and many simply will not do that.  That is the challenge.

Remember, as a unbeliever, you asked and I gave you my point of view.  It sounds crazy, like complete and utter foolishness, doesn't it. 

And you would be correct, if all you know or all you choose to know is the natural world! But there really is more and I can only be one witness to it.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Jun 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I have to say, that is the first time I've ever seen a picture of a Black Jesus.  Goodness...a Black Santa Claus and now a Black Jesus....what's next?



Ha, ha, well it is definitely a long shot to say Jesus looked like a white hippy dude from the '70's. More than likely he looked like most other Middle Eastern folks in that area during that time. 

Actually, a black Jesus would be more accurate than the Western white Jesus.

In high school we had a group of guys who kept a statue of a black Jesus in the football locker room. Let's just say it sparked a remark or two...

Here is a depiction of what Jesus might have looked like, based on an Israeli skull from the 1st century. However, the markings on the shroud of Turin are very different. Either way, isn't working to portray Jesus the same as creating a likeness, or idol, of him, which is, in essence, a likeness of god? (comma overload)


----------



## Dominic (Jun 10, 2009)

"Have them make a chest of acacia wood-
two and a half cubits long,
a cubit and a half wide,
and a cubit and a half high."

"Build an altar of acacia wood, three cubits high; it is to be square, five cubits long and five cubits wide."

"And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

Why do I believe in God?


I believe he exists because of lots of reasons.  Some have said, "because that's what I was brought up to believe".  That's true.

Some have said because the natural evidence around me leads me to an unmistakable conclusion that a creator does exist.  That's true as well.

Why do I put my faith in him as the One True God?  Because of a personal experience I had in which my world collided with him in a pretty bone jarring manner.  Because he's been pursuing me my entire life and I've always known it...and on that day he got my attention.  I've said this before....the guy I collided with that day was ONLY the God of the Bible.  He fit all of the characteristics and descriptions and what I know about him.  He did not fit any description of Allah or Buddah or any other god....he was Yahweh and, in the way that only he could, he took me to the absolute worst place I would ever want anyone to have to go to.  I saw things, heard things, and experienced things that I would wish on no one....and he did it because he loved me too much to let me continue down the path I was on...and he told me as much in the way that only he can.

I don't ask you to understand it.  But I do ask that you respect it and not try to tell me that I'm just believing what I NEED to believe to ease my poor pathetic mind.

It was as real and he is as real as anything else that I've ever experienced in my life.  I don't pretend to understand why he's not done the same for you.  I wish he would.

Do you believe what you believe with that much of your deepest being?  Or are you still waiting around for someone to "prove the positive" to you?

I don't just believe...I know.  You don't have to buy it for it to be true.


----------



## post450 (Jun 10, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Why can't you accept that?



Because that would relegate us to the status of animals with no absolutes and ultimately no real consequence or purpose for our existence. If there is nothing after death, then it does not matter what we do here. If that's the case, then why do we even have a perception of what is right or wrong (legally, morally, spiritually, etc.) and why does no other animal have that?


----------



## footjunior (Jun 10, 2009)

post450 said:


> Because that would relegate us to the status of animals with no absolutes and ultimately no real consequence or purpose for our existence. If there is nothing after death, then it does not matter what we do here. If that's the case, then why do we even have a perception of what is right or wrong (legally, morally, spiritually, etc.) and why does no other animal have that?



We are animals. There is no absolute purpose for our existence. We have a perception of what's right and wrong because of nature and nurture.

Your question, "Why does no other animal have that?" is a great question. Other animals do indeed have that sense. Evolution explains this through biological altruism. Chimpanzees for example show many of the same emotions that we do. They also have a sort of moral code that they use to maintain order within the group. Many social animals have this. Most unsocial animals (lone wolves) do not.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Jun 10, 2009)

Animals have that, especially pack animals. If an animal does not act "ethically" in it's social group it will be outcast and will most likely die without support from it's group (food, shelter, protection, etc.)

Many physiological responses in humans are based on this principle. When you make a mistake and become embarrassed, your face gets red to signify to the group that you realize what you have done and are admitting that it is not status quo.

The reason for knowing right and wrong is, in a primitive society, to keep you in the group. If you go around stealing, raping, etc., you probably will not be attending the feast of wooly mammoth that the group just killed.

This is just an "evolution", or learned behavior based on trial and error, or survival of the fittest (in this sense, the most moral).

This is not a purely human trait and is not based on any spiritual teachings.


----------



## Belle (Jun 10, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Just the arms or were there sleeves over the arms?  A shroud or robe of some sort perhaps?



Like I said, I did not see him; I felt his presence both spiritually and physically.  An example (y'all can explain it however you choose) is when my son was born.  I developed pre-eclampsia  during my third trimester, my blood pressure was so high that I was on the verge of stroke or seizure & my kidneys were not functioning properly.  My docs made the decision to take my baby 6 wks early and the night before we had a detailed ultra-sound done that showed my doodle weighed only 3 lbs!  His lungs were at risk of not being fully developed and I should have been a wreck with the nervous nature that I have; however I have never felt such peace as I did that day!  My family prayed over me and while it was a very scary & high risk delivery I did not have a worry.  I felt a warmth over my body-which to me felt as if God's arms were wrapped around me, protecting me and my son!  Long story short-the c-section went fine, my doodle weighed 4 lbs (thanks to the steroid shots the night before), he was breathing fine but we did have a 16 day stay in NICU because he was lazy & wanted to sleep through his feedings.  He is now 2, happy, smart, and although he is still smaller than most 2 year olds he is as healthy as can be.  I thank God for him everyday!


----------



## post450 (Jun 10, 2009)

footjunior said:


> We are animals. There is no absolute purpose for our existence. We have a perception of what's right and wrong because of nature and nurture.
> 
> Your question, "Why does no other animal have that?" is a great question. Other animals do indeed have that sense. Evolution explains this through biological altruism. Chimpanzees for example show many of the same emotions that we do. They also have a sort of moral code that they use to maintain order within the group. Many social animals have this. Most unsocial animals (lone wolves) do not.



Every other animal in the world has a purpose and design and follows that until death, that is nature. Humans don't appear fall under every category of natural law. Nurture is typically associated with child rearing and can be applied to social interaction as well, but where does the interpretation of morals or a sense of morals fit in either of those? Survival is the most basic of all animal instincts. Maintaining order within a group can be directly related to survival, not a sense of morals. I have to agree that social animals have a system of interaction, but not many of them have a judicial system and the application of moral code to animals is absurd as there are no standards, just natural law which, according to Darwinism, is survival of the fittest. Do you think an alpha males incessant mating of the lesser animals is morally acceptable? Not by human standards, but self control is one of the things that separates from animals.

I would prefer to leave perceived animal emotions out of this discussion due to the subjectiveness involved. Someone's interpretation of an animal's emotion is as suspect to me as my intepretation of the Bible may be to you. My rat terrier "smiles" at me, but I doubt that smile means the same emotion as my wife's smile, lol. 

My argument remains that if we have no absolute purpose , then we are not truly animals, which conflicts with evolutionary theory and takes us back to square one. I guess it is obvious that we can never agree as your acceptance of evolution requires that you consider the human race as a highly evolved form of animal and my acceptance of creationism requires me to believe we are not. To each his own! I have enjoyed the discussion.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 10, 2009)

post450 said:


> Humans don't appear to fall under every category of natural law.



Could you explain what you mean by this?



			
				post450 said:
			
		

> Nurture is typically associated with child rearing and can be applied to social interaction as well, but where does the interpretation of morals or a sense of morals fit in either of those?



You asked why do we have a sense of what is right and wrong. I answered "nature and nurture". I define nurture as every experience that an animal (human or otherwise) has in it's life. Therefore, nurture can and does provide and mold our sense of right and wrong.

A simple example: A mother tells a child that it's bad to get gum from a store without paying for it. This is an experience for the child, and therefore considered nurture. The child learns from this experience. The child now knows that it is bad to get gum from a store without paying for it. Therefore nurture has molded this child's sense of what is right and wrong.



			
				post450 said:
			
		

> Survival is the most basic of all animal instincts. Maintaining order within a group can be directly related to survival, not a sense of morals.



But that's the point. Morals were formed in social species in order for the group (and therefore the individuals in the group) to survive. Morality is indeed directly linked to survival, and therefore directly linked to natural selection. Morality is just an evolutionary byproduct of social species.



			
				post450 said:
			
		

> I have to agree that social animals have a system of interaction, but not many of them have a judicial system...



There are judicial systems in animals. They may not be easily recognized, but they are there. They are not written down, but they are there and members of the group abide by them for the most part. Not abiding by the "laws" results in being punished.

Consider a pack of wolves. Break a "law" in a pack of wolves and you'll be punished by a fellow wolf who happens to be higher than you on the pecking order, perhaps even the alpha male. The omega male only eats when the alpha male allows him to. Members of the pack can even be kicked out if they have such a negative impact on the pack.

Order within chimpanzees is even easier to see. The alpha male is treated like a god. In fact, some scientists believe that this behavior may help describe the origins of religion. Like wolves, if you do something wrong in a group of chimpanzees you will get punished. And just like wolves, if you continue to break the "law" you will be exiled.



			
				post450 said:
			
		

> ...and the application of moral code to animals is absurd as there are no standards, just natural law which, according to Darwinism, is survival of the fittest.



Yes. It is survival of the fittest, but sometimes that means survival of the group. If the group survives, then you as an individual have a greater chance at survival. And therefore the individual sometimes does things that increases the survival of the group because that in turn increases his or her's chance of survival. This is the origins of altruism.



> Do you think an alpha males incessant mating of the lesser animals is morally acceptable? Not by human standards, but self control is one of the things that separates from animals.



Self-control is definitely not something that separates us from animals. It is a shared attribute. Animals have self-control as well. And like humans, they can only take so much. Sometimes animals "snap" and sometimes humans "snap". 



			
				post450 said:
			
		

> My argument remains that if we have no absolute purpose , then we are not truly animals, which conflicts with evolutionary theory and takes us back to square one.



I think you should give your definition of "absolute purpose" as you are using it here.



			
				post450 said:
			
		

> I guess it is obvious that we can never agree as your acceptance of evolution requires that you consider the human race as a highly evolved form of animal and my acceptance of creationism requires me to believe we are not.



I didn't know evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

> But that's the point. Morals were formed in social species in order for the group (and therefore the individuals in the group) to survive. Morality is indeed directly linked to survival, and therefore directly linked to natural selection. Morality is just an evolutionary byproduct of social species.



Uh....FJ.....if that were true, then morals would be fairly universal among a species, wouldn't they?  There would be "absolutes" in morality or at least near absolutes.  If morals were evolved to "keep the peace" so to speak, then they would need to be fairly universal.

But morals are "local" aren't they?    You've said as much many times on here. 

If they were a product of evolutionary forces, then we would all have the same set of morals and ethics wouldn't we?


----------



## pnome (Jun 10, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Uh....FJ.....if that were true, then morals would be fairly universal among a species, wouldn't they?  There would be "absolutes" in morality or at least near absolutes.  If morals were evolved to "keep the peace" so to speak, then they would need to be fairly universal.
> 
> But morals are "local" aren't they?    You've said as much many times on here.
> 
> If they were a product of evolutionary forces, then we would all have the same set of morals and ethics wouldn't we?




Ok guys, try to stick on topic.   If you want to debate morals make a new thread.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

Nah....this is too much fun.


Has a thread in here ever stayed on topic for more than 3 posts?


----------



## jmharris23 (Jun 10, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Has a thread in here ever stayed on topic for more than 3 posts?



Rarely!


----------



## pnome (Jun 10, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Nah....this is too much fun.
> 
> 
> Has a thread in here ever stayed on topic for more than 3 posts?



  I shouldn't be casting stones here huh?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

You got THAT right buddy!


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 10, 2009)

pnome said:


> You don't have to post an answer. Just think about the question, then answer it for yourself. If you're satisfied with your answer that is all that really matters.


 
I for one, am.

But since in times past you have misjudged my intent, perspective and even my humor, I'll answer this face to face.

Hope to see you at a future luncheon.


----------



## redwards (Jun 11, 2009)

*Why I believe in Jehovah God*

Why do I believe in God?
Quite simply put, I believe in God because His Word, the Holy Bible,is Truth…….
Just a small sample of facts found in God’s Word….

How did early cultures believe the earth was supported, and where did they fit in the History of the World timeline?....
Seems Job knew the answer to that question…. 



> Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing


.……I’ll allow you to trace back to Job’s time, as to whether he pre-dates the Egyptian and Greek 
culture’s beliefs about how the earth was supported…..

When did science (astronomers, etc.) begin to believe the earth was round or spherical in shape, and not flat or square?....
Here is God’s answer to the question….


> Isaiah 40:22
> It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
> Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.


… I’m sure you can find the dates when early cultures began to believe what Isaiah already knew from God……

How many stars did the early astronomer Hipparchus believe were in the Heavens and what was the date of his catalogue? 
Here is a hint for you….[URL]http://www.phys.lsu.edu/farnese/pressFarnesetextonly.pdf[/URL]
Yet it seems the prophet Jeremiah knew the answer much earlier than Hipparchus…


> Jeremiah 33:22
> `As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured,
> so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.' "


Those are just a few historically true scientific facts that are found in God’s Word….. 

Now, here are just a few historically true statements about the 
Savior Jesus Christ that were made by some of God’s prophets many, many years before He was even born…..
Where was He to be born?.....


> Micah 5:2
> "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
> His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."


Compare…


> Matt 2:1-5
> Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying,
> *<SUP>2</SUP>* "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."
> *<SUP>3</SUP>* When Herod the king heard _this,_ he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
> ...


How would He be put to death?....
See Psalm 22……
Consider….At the date this Psalm was written, what was the form of capital punishment practiced by Jews? 
Was it death by stoning? 
What culture used crucifixion as the method of capital punishment? 
Was it the Roman Empire? 
Was the Roman Empire even in existence when this Psalm was written by David?.....
Just some historical facts for you to ponder…. 
I could go on and on because God’s Word is full of nothing but Truth from cover to cover. 
However, it would be much more meaningful for you to study it and allow The Holy Spirit to woo your heart as He did mine years ago. 
If you ever allow The Holy Spirit to break through the shell that covers your heart, believe me, you will not be able to resist Him.
In the Love of Christ,
Ralph


----------



## wholenotem (Jun 12, 2009)

How do I know God exisits? It's kind of hard to ignore someone when they take up residence inside Ya. and no I didn't have pizza late last night either, also if you think your ancestry comes from monkeys... well you need more help than you can find through these friends.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 15, 2009)

Huntinfool states: ” Uh....FJ.....if that were true, then morals would be fairly universal among a species, wouldn't they? There would be "absolutes" in morality or at least near absolutes. If morals were evolved to "keep the peace" so to speak, then they would need to be fairly universal.
But morals are "local" aren't they? You've said as much many times on here. 
If they were a product of evolutionary forces, then we would all have the same set of morals and ethics wouldn't we?”

Quite the opposite, and it would be the observation that we do not all share a common moral ethos that proves the evolutionary basis, and argues against a deistic basis.  

Only if morality was handed down as a divine ethic by a singular deity would all of the humans asserted to have been commonly created by that singular God share that set of rules.  The fact, which you acknowledge, that ‘morals’ are not universal in their codification argues for the evolution of those differing standards amongst differing societies of men, each to their own reasons and conditions. (And arguing that some ‘get it’ by your measure, and the vast majority do not is ridiculous hubris, and is rejected out of hand.)

Some conditions are shared between all societies of men, and as a result of grouping together into societies some commonality is to be expected simply as a result of that.  Killing of your fellow tribesmen is commonly proscribed.  Killing of the other tribe is not.  Raping your own women, and taking the wife of another within your group (coveting, in more civil terms) is proscribed.  Raping outsiders is not.  Stealing within your society is proscribed.  Stealing in conquest of others is not (to the victor go the spoils).  And it goes on . . . 

You argue against yourself here.  Clearly if moral standards were uniformly imposed from above, and had no man-made derivation, we would certainly all share the same views and standards.  But we just as clearly do not.  In some societies women are revered and protected; in others they are treated as chattel and prohibited from revealing their faces or even their ankles in public.  In some societies children are protected, encouraged, and taught; in others they are exploited, rented out, and prostituted.  In some societies the poor are cared for, the elderly and infirm are respected and kept comfortable, and the mentally ill are treated; in others they are cast off or left to die.  These are but a few examples, and are drawn from the modern world we all inhabit.

So do you make the argument that the clear and demonstrable evolutionary and situational and societal differences in morality throughout humanity as it exists, as well as historically, advocates in favor of belief?  

Remember, here, that as recently as a hundred years ago, even in this country, a fourteen year old girl who did not have a husband was considered to be unmarriageable, and was often shipped off to a convent.  In ‘Biblical’ times that standard was even less stringent.  Today, you can be jailed for even considering a girl of that age as a potential wife.  So what has changed?  The standards of God, or the standards of men? (And be doubly careful in thinking – I am being nice here, in not writing hundreds of pages of true examples drawn from thousands of years of easily demonstrated truth concerning the behavior of humans, both ‘believers,’ as your incredibly narrow view would classify them, and ‘non-believers.’)


----------



## Israel (Jun 15, 2009)

I believe because Jesus has made himself known to me. I have gone deeper in that faith because I trust the reports of men whose writings I have learned are faithful.
Just as I have formulated opinions about people on this board, having never met any, I have read the letters of men who in every way are very much like myself, flawed. Yet with hope.
They have told me where they have pinned their hope, and with an uncanny consistency they testify of the same results. They have told me ways to test the reality of which they speak, and they have proved to be reliable.
That I have submitted to their tutelage some find silly. But that is merely envy of their tutor.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 15, 2009)

Israel said:


> I have gone deeper in that faith because I trust the reports of men whose writings I have learned are faithful.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 15, 2009)

You still need to learn how to use this button  .  The fact that you can't furthers an argument that evolution may be working in reverse these days! 





> Quite the opposite, and it would be the observation that we do not all share a common moral ethos that proves the evolutionary basis, and argues against a deistic basis.
> 
> Only if morality was handed down as a divine ethic by a singular deity would all of the humans asserted to have been commonly created by that singular God share that set of rules.



That makes absolutely no sense....not because I'm not smart enough to understand it...but because it actually makes absolutely no sense at all.



> The fact, which you acknowledge, that ‘morals’ are not universal in their codification



Actually, I acknowledged no such thing.  Try re-reading.



> ridiculous hubris, and is rejected out of hand.



Are you the only one that gets to do this?  You balk pretty hard when others do it to your arguments.




> So do you make the argument that the clear and demonstrable evolutionary and situational and societal differences in morality throughout humanity as it exists, as well as historically, advocates in favor of belief?



Well, I don't argue that they are evolutionary.  But what I argue is that all humans have instilled in them a sense of right and wrong or a moral code which was given them by God.  I ascribe the "situational and societal differences" to the sin nature that we are born with.  We reject that which we know to be true....as you are with God.

If your theory held water all people in geographical regions would hold similar views of morality.  But they do not.  We can't even agree on what's "moral" in one single state (heck, I can't even get the person in the office next to me to agree sometimes!) in the U.S., much less the entire region or country.  If morals were evolutionary, then at least there would be some "pockets" of similarity...and there are not.



> Remember, here, that as recently as a hundred years ago, even in this country, a fourteen year old girl who did not have a husband was considered to be unmarriageable, and was often shipped off to a convent.  In ‘Biblical’ times that standard was even less stringent.  Today, you can be jailed for even considering a girl of that age as a potential wife.  So what has changed?  The standards of God, or the standards of men?



The standards of men...see above.




I know you fancy yourself a top shelf debater....but...


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> If your theory held water all people in geographical regions would hold similar views of morality.  But they do not.  We can't even agree on what's "moral" in one single state (heck, I can't even get the person in the office next to me to agree sometimes!) in the U.S., much less the entire region or country.  If morals were evolutionary, then at least there would be some "pockets" of similarity...and there are not.
> 
> 
> 
> The standards of men...see above.



Honestly, I think you just shot yourself in the foot here.  I think you supported Dio's position that there is no "standard" imprinted on our bones.  You can't agree on what's right or wrong with your office mate anymore than you can agree with a seemingly homogenous  population of believers here on this forum.   

I imagine you will blame our collective inability to "discern" the message due to our sinful nature and continue to contend that there is a moral absolute that we intrinsically understand.  You will have concede that we will never be able to discern this moral absolute precisely because of our sinful nature.  

In essence you are saying that the moral absolute is out there, in the mystic ether, but one can never touch it, see it, smell it or understand it because people are unworthy, after all, if one were capable of perfect discernment and perfect understanding of God's will they would be on par with God.  Tsk Tsk.

Don't trust God to tell you what is right and wrong.  Figure it out by the arduous method of thought.


----------



## pnome (Jun 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Honestly, I think you just shot yourself in the foot here.  I think you supported Dio's position that there is no "standard" imprinted on our bones.  You can't agree on what's right or wrong with your office mate anymore than you can agree with a seemingly homogenous  population of believers here on this forum.
> 
> I imagine you will blame our collective inability to "discern" the message due to our sinful nature and continue to contend that there is a moral absolute that we intrinsically understand.  You will have concede that we will never be able to discern this moral absolute precisely because of our sinful nature.
> 
> In essence you are saying that the moral absolute is out there, in the mystic ether, but one can never touch it, see it, smell it or understand it because people are unworthy, after all, if one were capable of perfect discernment and perfect understanding of God's will they would be on par with God.  Tsk Tsk.




Ahh, but there is a moral absolute (sort of).  We all want to survive and we want those with whom we empathize to survive.   That is the moral absolute.   Everything else we consider our morals are based on that.  Our instinct for survival is indeed "imprinted on our bones".

To every moral decision there is one answer that is "right" One answer that will best enhance our and our herd's chances for survival.  We don't "know" that answer because our information is not complete.  So, we develop strategies to help us discern the "right" answer.  One of those strategies is Religion.


----------



## redwards (Jun 15, 2009)

> Quote = Diogenes
> .......Remember, here, that as recently as a hundred years ago, even in this country, a fourteen year old girl who did not have a husband was considered to be unmarriageable, and was often shipped off to a convent. In ‘Biblical’ times that standard was even less stringent. Today, you can be jailed for even considering a girl of that age as a potential wife. So what has changed? The standards of God, or the standards of men? (And be doubly careful in thinking – I am being nice here, in not writing hundreds of pages of true examples drawn from thousands of years of easily demonstrated truth concerning the behavior of humans, both ‘believers,’ as your incredibly narrow view would classify them, and ‘non-believers.’)


Well, the U.S. Census Bureau just might disagree with you on that statement.
So maybe you should verify your source of information.



> Table MS-2. Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to Present​
> Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
> Internet release date: September 15, 2004
> Year Men Women
> ...


 
Source: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabMS-2.pdf


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 15, 2009)

> Honestly, I think you just shot yourself in the foot here.  I think you supported Dio's position that there is no "standard" imprinted on our bones.  You can't agree on what's right or wrong with your office mate anymore than you can agree with a seemingly homogenous  population of believers here on this forum.



I don't think so at all.  We all have a God given sense of right and wrong.  Many have either, 1) made the choice to reject it, or 2) are so out of touch with the creator that they have lost touch with that as well.  I know you don't buy that....that's cool.  You don't have to.



> I imagine you will blame our collective inability to "discern" the message due to our sinful nature and continue to contend that there is a moral absolute that we intrinsically understand.  You will have concede that we will never be able to discern this moral absolute precisely because of our sinful nature.



Absolutely dead on accurate.  Let me add the following to the end of your last sentence though.



> You will have concede that we will never be able to discern this moral absolute precisely because of our sinful nature.


...without a relationship with Jesus Christ and the renewing of that knowledge through the Holy Spirit and revelation from his word.  

Just wanted to be clear on that.



> In essence you are saying that the moral absolute is out there, in the mystic ether, but one can never touch it, see it, smell it or understand it because people are unworthy, after all, if one were capable of perfect discernment and perfect understanding of God's will they would be on par with God.  Tsk Tsk.



Not even close.  There is no mystic ether.  You CAN touch it, see it, smell it and understand it.  But you likely will not (note I did not say cannot) without a relationship with the one who created those absolutes.



> Don't trust God to tell you what is right and wrong.  Figure it out by the arduous method of thought.



Nah...I'll stick with God on this one.  He's a lot bigger and smarter than you or me.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ahh, but there is a moral absolute (sort of).  We all want to survive and we want those with whom we empathize to survive.   That is the moral absolute.   Everything else we consider our morals are based on that.  Our instinct for survival is indeed "imprinted on our bones".
> 
> To every moral decision there is one answer that is "right" One answer that will best enhance our and our herd's chances for survival.  We don't "know" that answer because our information is not complete.  So, we develop strategies to help us discern the "right" answer.  One of those strategies is Religion.



The survival instinct is imprinted on our bones and there are some moral codes that spring from that fact.  But individuals might do some morally questionable things in order to perpetuate their own individual genes.  Some people might over-ride their instinct for self preservation as well, but I think in those cases it was the result of an intellectual exercise, ie: suicide, throwing one's self on a grenade, offering your child as a human sacrifice or flying a plane into a building.  

I don't see anything wrong with "developing strategies" to keep order.  I just don't like when they become so ingrained that they supersede reason.  I imagine that you will agree.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't think so at all.  We all have a God given sense of right and wrong.  Many have either, 1) made the choice to reject it, or 2) are so out of touch with the creator that they have lost touch with that as well.  I know you don't buy that....that's cool.  You don't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're setting it up for one to be able to say : "You discerned this wrong.  I discerned this better than you." and I see it happen here all the time. 

Better to use reason.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 15, 2009)

Problem is that too many people like to use what is essentially "God told me that you should do this...".

I discern what God tells me.  You...well, he doesn't tell you anything I suppose.  But, other believers...they discern for themselves.  

I agree with you on this; there is no real way to tell "true believers".  My sense is that all "true believers" have the same sense of morality.  But there are lots of fakes, imposters, evildoers, etc who will claim Christ and yet not live for him.

I agree, there is lots of "I discerned this better than you".  I think you must think that Christians are against reason because it necessarily goes against belief in God.  I don't think that's the case.  I'm a pretty dang logical guy.  Excel is my best Friend!


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Problem is that too many people like to use what is essentially "God told me that you should do this...".
> 
> I discern what God tells me.  You...well, he doesn't tell you anything I suppose.  But, other believers...they discern for themselves.
> 
> ...



Many Christians are against reason and intellect (they usually resort to the ignore feature).  Even you have a point where you will forego your reason in favor of your faith.   That's sad to me but its probably sad to you that I cannot suspend my reason.


----------



## pnome (Jun 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> The survival instinct is imprinted on our bones and there are some moral codes that spring from that fact.  But individuals might do some morally questionable things in order to perpetuate their own individual genes.



People might do morally questionable things in order to perpetuate their own genes because they do not empathize with the person they are doing it to.  (i.e. in-herd vs. out-herd)  If they do empathize with the person they are doing it to, then I can guarantee you that they do not think the thing they are doing is "good."




> Some people might over-ride their instinct for self preservation as well, but I think in those cases it was the result of an intellectual exercise, ie: suicide, throwing one's self on a grenade, offering your child as a human sacrifice or flying a plane into a building.



I don't know anyone who thinks suicide is "good".   Unless it's someone else committing suicide that they do not empathize with. (i.e. Some Hamas terrorist blows himself up without killing anyone else)  Or that they think somehow their death will help someone else with whom they do empathize (i.e. falling on a grenade).

The 9/11 hijackers thought they would be in paradise with 72 virgins after they "died."  What is heaven / paradise if it is not the ultimate in survival?  SO, from their point of view, they were enhancing their chances for survival, not just killing themselves.   Which gets us back to the incomplete information problem.


----------



## redwards (Jun 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> You're setting it up for one to be able to say : "You discerned this wrong. I discerned this better than you." and I see it happen here all the time.
> 
> Better to use reason.


Would that be 'conscious' or 'unconscious' reasoning?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

pnome said:


> People might do morally questionable things in order to perpetuate their own genes because they do not empathize with the person they are doing it to.  (i.e. in-herd vs. out-herd)  If they do empathize with the person they are doing it to, then I can guarantee you that they do not think the thing they are doing is "good."
> 
> Stealing, though morally wrong, might be done by someone for selfish reasons in order to perpetuate their own genes.  At some desperate point I don't think the thief will empathize with the person he has wronged.
> 
> ...





redwards said:


> Would that be 'conscious' or 'unconscious' reasoning?



In regards to discernment of the Bible, I think neither.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 15, 2009)

> Do you see how dangerous that statement is? Pigpen thinks that you are not a true believer because you don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You may not think my UCC inlaws are true believers because they allow lesbian ministers. Where does it end and what is the point?



It ends on that triumphant day when he returns and tells us all how we've been wrong on certain issues.


----------



## pnome (Jun 15, 2009)

> Stealing, though morally wrong, might be done by someone for selfish reasons in order to perpetuate their own genes. At some desperate point I don't think the thief will empathize with the person he has wronged.



Correct, but if the thief empathizes with the person he is stealing from, he will think stealing is "wrong."  He might do it anyway, but he will still not think he is doing something "good."   

There is a point at which the thief will no longer empathize with his victim or may empathize with someone else to a greater degree (blood is thicker than water) and thus think that what he is doing is "right."  The "I'm just trying to feed my family."  




> Its good for the one who did it, at least a better alternative to living, which is what their "bones" told them to do.



If their "bones" told them to do it, then either they are not sane (rational actor), or they think that their death will improve the lives of someone they empathize with.  (Think George Bailey jumping off a bridge because he wants his family to get the insurance.)



> I don't think people want to go to Heaven to perpetuate their genes.



Oh but they do! Even if they don't realize it.  To them, Heaven is the ultimate in survival.  Now, you and I may agree that these people have incorrect information about what happens after they die, but not to them.  They are making rational decisions with the information they have (or rather the information they trust).

Ultimately, given the information the 9/11 hijackers were operating with, they made rational decisions.  Now, their information was WRONG, but their actions based on that information were rational.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

pnome said:


> Correct, but if the thief empathizes with the person he is stealing from, he will think stealing is "wrong."  He might do it anyway, but he will still not think he is doing something "good."
> 
> There is a point at which the thief will no longer empathize with his victim or may empathize with someone else to a greater degree (blood is thicker than water) and thus think that what he is doing is "right."  The "I'm just trying to feed my family."
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

pnome said:


> Correct, but if the thief empathizes with the person he is stealing from, he will think stealing is "wrong."  He might do it anyway, but he will still not think he is doing something "good."
> 
> There is a point at which the thief will no longer empathize with his victim or may empathize with someone else to a greater degree (blood is thicker than water) and thus think that what he is doing is "right."  The "I'm just trying to feed my family."
> 
> ...




Why would anyone want to make such an important decision based on incomplete or unfounded information?


----------



## pnome (Jun 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Why would anyone want to make such an important decision based on incomplete or unfounded information?



For one thing, your information is NEVER complete or fully founded.

You have to make a guess at some point.  Which information to trust?  To make that guess, people develop strategies.  Religion is such a strategy.  It basically says, "Believe this as true and nothing else"  SO some people operate with that.  Science is another such strategy.  Which basically says "Trust nothing you don't have sufficient evidence for."


----------



## footjunior (Jun 15, 2009)

I think the 9/11 hijackers may have indeed been subconsciously following their instinct to "survive" by attempting to go to Heaven. However, humans are not completely bound by their genetically induced urges. Intellectualism allows one to recognize, and then go against, one's own natural desires. Part of it could have been their deep rooted belief that they were indeed following Allah's orders.

I'm not sure that the natural desire to survive should be considered a "moral absolute". I guess it depends on one's definition of moral absolute.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I think the 9/11 hijackers may have indeed been subconsciously following their instinct to "survive" by attempting to go to Heaven. However, humans are not completely bound by their genetically induced urges. Intellectualism allows one to recognize, and then go against, one's own natural desires. Part of it could have been their deep rooted belief that they were indeed following Allah's orders.
> 
> I'm not sure that the natural desire to survive should be considered a "moral absolute". I guess it depends on one's definition of moral absolute.



What would be the reason to need a moral absolute?  It would be impossible to identify so it just hangs out there in the ether, not helping the cause of determining morality here on Earth.  Is it just an intellectual exercise?


----------



## pnome (Jun 15, 2009)

> He may indeed be doing the right thing in terms of his interests but they may not be in the best interests of the species as a whole, which I would contend is a sounder basis for morality. (Deists, take note please. This is how to debate about morality by using logic and reason as opposed to superstition.)



Well, I doubt anyone truly empathizes with the whole species.  Sure it would be nice if they did, but that just doesn't happen.



> I know some people who were sane but just didn't want to live anymore. I think they were able to over-ride their survival instinct, intellectually.



I would argue that they were not acting rationally.  



> Survival for their "soul". I think they want to live on in the same way that emperors and rockstars want immortality. I think it' s an issue of ego, frankly.



Certainly.  But what is our "soul" if it is not our "ego"?  Same thing. 

Believers think that they will live after they die.  They want to enhance their chances for survival after death, so heaven seems like the right place to go, especially if hades is the alternative.    I think it's completely wrongheaded, but that is the information they are operating from.


----------



## pnome (Jun 15, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I think the 9/11 hijackers may have indeed been subconsciously following their instinct to "survive" by attempting to go to Heaven. However, humans are not completely bound by their genetically induced urges. Intellectualism allows one to recognize, and then go against, one's own natural desires. Part of it could have been their deep rooted belief that they were indeed following Allah's orders.
> 
> I'm not sure that the natural desire to survive should be considered a "moral absolute". I guess it depends on one's definition of moral absolute.



Intellectualism allows you to better sift between good information and bad.  The decision you make based on that information is still going to be rooted in your survival instinct.


----------



## redwards (Jun 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Quote:
> <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by *Huntinfool*
> 
> 
> ...


If neither, then what type of reasoning, and why.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

redwards said:


> If neither, then what type of reasoning, and why.



I don't think that when someone performs this mystical "discernment" that they are exercising reason of any kind.  They're doing the same thing as someone reading tea leaves or taro cards or chicken bones.


----------



## redwards (Jun 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by *redwards*
> 
> 
> _If neither, then what type of reasoning, and why._
> ...


You are misinterpreting my question.....I am not asking what type of reasoning the discernment is......
You stated "Better to use reason"....I am asking....What type of reason(ing) is the reason(ing) that is "better to use"?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2009)

redwards said:


> You are misinterpreting my question.....I am not asking what type of reasoning the discernment is......
> You stated "Better to use reason"....I am asking....What type of reason(ing) is the reason(ing) that is "better to use"?



Intellectual


----------



## footjunior (Jun 15, 2009)

pnome said:


> Intellectualism allows you to better sift between good information and bad.  The decision you make based on that information is still going to be rooted in your survival instinct.



But people can and do sometimes make decisions that go against their survival instinct. I don't think people _always_ make decisions based purely on the chances of their survival. For example, atheists in foxholes. They don't believe in an afterlife, yet they risk their life (sometimes ending up dead) to protect their country. They have used intellectualism to go against their natural urge to survive.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> What would be the reason to need a moral absolute?  It would be impossible to identify so it just hangs out there in the ether, not helping the cause of determining morality here on Earth.  Is it just an intellectual exercise?



I agree. I think it is just an intellectual exercise.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 16, 2009)

footjunior said:


> But people can and do sometimes make decisions that go against their survival instinct. I don't think people _always_ make decisions based purely on the chances of their survival. For example, atheists in foxholes. They don't believe in an afterlife, yet they risk their life (sometimes ending up dead) to protect their country. They have used intellectualism to go against their natural urge to survive.



...and many cry out to God in that moment.


----------



## pnome (Jun 16, 2009)

footjunior said:


> But people can and do sometimes make decisions that go against their survival instinct. I don't think people _always_ make decisions based purely on the chances of their survival. For example, atheists in foxholes. They don't believe in an afterlife, yet they risk their life (sometimes ending up dead) to protect their country. They have used intellectualism to go against their natural urge to survive.



They are risking their life because they empathize with those they are fighting for and wish to better their chances for survival.  

Just like the "falling on a grenade" example.  They sacrifice their life for the greater "good."  That "good" being the survival of their "herd" (for lack of a better word.)

Here is another example:  You walk down to the grocery store and you cash a check for $300 so you can pay your rent.   On the way back you see a very attractive prostitute.   She tells you as you pass by that she'll rock your world for $200 / hour.

You've got a moral decision to make.  Your sexual instinct is to mate with this attractive young female.  However, your intellect and information tell you this is not the best decision for your survival.   Shelter for a month vs. 1 1/2 hours of pleasure.   Of course those are just two factors.  There are most likely a lot more factors going into your decision.  But all of those will be a choice of survival options.  The "good" or "moral" choice will be the one you deem to be the best for your survival and / or the survival of those with whom you empathize (your herd).   

You are free to make the other choice as well, take her home and spend your rent money on fleeting pleasure, you have free will.  However, if you are a rational actor, you will not think that what you are doing is "good".


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 16, 2009)

pnome said:


> Here is another example:  You walk down to the grocery store and you cash a check for $300 so you can pay your rent.   On the way back you see a very attractive prostitute.   She tells you as you pass by that she'll rock your world for $200 / hour.
> 
> You've got a moral decision to make.  Your sexual instinct is to mate with this attractive young female.  However, your intellect and information tell you this is not the best decision for your survival.   Shelter for a month vs. 1 1/2 hours of pleasure.   Of course those are just two factors.  There are most likely a lot more factors going into your decision.  But all of those will be a choice of survival options.  The "good" or "moral" choice will be the one you deem to be the best for your survival and / or the survival of those with whom you empathize (your herd).
> 
> You are free to make the other choice as well, take her home and spend your rent money on fleeting pleasure, you have free will.  However, if you are a rational actor, you will not think that what you are doing is "good".



Bad bargain.  Like you said, too many other factors, but I think I get your point.

Your old mother and a young stranger are drowning. Who do you save?   (assuming you can save one, but only one.)


----------



## pnome (Jun 16, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Bad bargain.  Like you said, too many other factors, but I think I get your point.
> 
> Your old mother and a young stranger are drowning. Who do you save?   (assuming you can save one, but only one.)



That is a tough choice.  I empathize more with my mother (she is more "in-herd"), so her survival is more important to me.   Saving the young stranger might be better for the survival of the species, but "blood is thicker than water."


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 16, 2009)

pnome said:


> That is a tough choice.  I empathize more with my mother (she is more "in-herd"), so her survival is more important to me.   Saving the young stranger might be better for the survival of the species, but "blood is thicker than water."



I asked my mom what she would prefer and she said she would stop swimming and let herself drown.


----------



## redwards (Jun 17, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Quote:
> <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by *redwards*
> 
> 
> ...


A-h-h-h-h....Good 'ole intellectual reasoning!
How appropriate....As Herbert Lockyer has stated....
"The position of the rationalist is, 'My reason is all the God I need.'"


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 17, 2009)

redwards said:


> A-h-h-h-h....Good 'ole intellectual reasoning!
> How appropriate....As Herbert Lockyer has stated....
> "The position of the rationalist is, 'My reason is all the God I need.'"



If he need a God then he's not a very good atheist.


----------



## redwards (Jun 17, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Quote:
> <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by *redwards*
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see any implication toward atheism in the post. 
For certain, Dr. Lockyer is not atheistic whatsoever! 
But then, perhaps 'intellectual reasoning' produces erroneous statements such as yours, who knows?


----------



## Madman (Jun 17, 2009)

In my worldview I do not see someone "falling on a grenade" as necessarily being "good" for the survival of their "herd".  There have been some commanding officers who have sacrificed themselves to save their men.  The “logical” thing to do would have been to save themselves so that they could lead them in battle or maybe out of harms way.  They threw themselves on the grenade in an act of unselfish love for their men.  Just as Christ did for us.

They choose to suffer so their friends would not have to.



> Here is another example:  You walk down to the grocery store and you cash a check for $300 so you can pay your rent.   On the way back you see a very attractive prostitute.   She tells you as you pass by that she'll rock your world for $200 / hour.
> 
> You've got a moral decision to make.  Your sexual instinct is to mate with this attractive young female.  However, your intellect and information tell you this is not the best decision for your survival.   Shelter for a month vs. 1 1/2 hours of pleasure.   Of course those are just two factors.  There are most likely a lot more factors going into your decision.  But all of those will be a choice of survival options.  The "good" or "moral" choice will be the one you deem to be the best for your survival and / or the survival of those with whom you empathize (your herd).



I do not have to make this "moral decision" it has already been made. The God of the universe says take the money and pay the rent, because my wife and children need me to do that so they will have shelter and because sex outside the bounds of marriage is extremely dangerous I am to stay away from prostitutes. All I have to do is overcome my sin nature which in this case is my desire for immediate gratification, not some sexual instinct.

There is an arbiter of truth, which includes morality, the only choice I have is whether to be obedient or not.  

Therefore as a Christian I disagree with the premise of your argument.


----------



## pnome (Jun 17, 2009)

Madman said:


> In my worldview I do not see someone "falling on a grenade" as necessarily being "good" for the survival of their "herd". ... They threw themselves on the grenade in an act of unselfish love for their men.



You could say that the officer empathized with his men.  They were his herd.



> I do not have to make this "moral decision" it has already been made. The God of the universe says take the money and pay the rent, because my wife and children need me to do that so they will have shelter



So, to you, the "right" or "good" thing to do is to use the money to enhance the survival prospects for your wife and children.  This is your survival instinct.  Not god.



> and because sex outside the bounds of marriage is *extremely dangerous* I am to stay away from prostitutes. All I have to do is overcome my sin nature which in this case is my desire for immediate gratification, not some sexual instinct.



Dangerous to your *survival*.   Do you see my point yet?


----------



## Madman (Jun 17, 2009)

pnome said:


> You could say that the officer empathized with his men.  They were his herd.



They were his "flock" and he gave his life for them.  Thank you for the analogy.



> So, to you, the "right" or "good" thing to do is to use the money to enhance the survival prospects for your wife and children. This is your survival instinct. Not god.



No.  I am commanded to love and protect them.    Therefore the only option I have is to be obedient or not to be obedient to God.

If this supposed "survival instinct" existed I would only care for my survival.



> Dangerous to your survival. Do you see my point yet?



I have already said that as a Christian I believe your point is flawed.  I will live forever.  Do you see my point?


----------



## pnome (Jun 17, 2009)

Madman said:


> I am commanded to love and protect them.



True.  But the command does not come from any god, the command comes from your natural instincts.


----------



## earl (Jun 24, 2009)

b717doc said:


> pnome said:
> 
> 
> > I can't remember if I've asked this question before, so if I have humor me as we have some new faces around here.
> ...


----------



## dsoj05 (Jun 24, 2009)

Gentlemen I put forth two points as to why one could beleave in God (Chirstian God here); I say could because i was raised a Christian by my prents and It is just imprinted and hard to think of a case where there is no God.
1.) Being a Biologist trained in evolution before i switched to a new field.  Looking at the variables and chances that would have had to take place for life to occur can take a lot of the faith out of evolution.  The existence of life makes more sense then if you look at it from the idea that we were created.  explains things better than saying that there existed a soup of goo that had to under go billions of reactions with each reaction not only needing the right conditions but only having a billion to one chance of happening.  It  must also be said that these reactions had to occur in sufficient quantity to allow the build up of the chemical compounds needed for life.  Now even with these compounds being created in universe naturally (comets and asteroids and even in the interstellar medium their are complex compounds such as amino acids being created and destroyed) they are not in great enough quantity to allow for even enough to build a single organism.  So the idea of creation seems a easier to understand and believe than evolution from the big bang to humans today.  
2.) Humans, if you only believe in evolution then we are nothing but animals.  but we do strange things that are not easily explained by the basic animal instincts.  Why do we even believe in God or why do we do we create literature or art these are not actions of animals.  The things we create could be explained by survival, the idea that we survive by what we leave behind (children or things).  But what you have to remember in that is that the argument falls apart when you consider that the sun will one day burn out and the planet will be destroyed.  so it can not be survival.  So are we animals, we do not act like animals; this follows that we must have be something different.  like a being created in Gods image.

But i welcome comments and thoughts.  
thanks


----------



## wholenotem (Jun 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> I can't remember if I've asked this question before, so if I have humor me as we have some new faces around here.
> 
> 
> The question is:
> ...


Hmmmmmm. Are you plagued with doubt? Are you searching? riddle me this! why do you not believe in God?


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 24, 2009)

Ah,the Silver-Tongued Devil is going about the forum like a roaring lion,seeking whom he might destroy.

Christians - don't be swayed by slick debating skills and false teachings. You will not win a debate with Satan or his Helpy Helpertons. LEARN the Word of God,and stand fast on it.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 24, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Christians - don't be swayed by slick debating skills and false teachings.




Even if they come from behind a pulpit, or across the radio waves, or from a TV, or.........


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 24, 2009)

dsoj05 said:


> But what you have to remember in that is that the argument falls apart when you consider that the sun will one day burn out and the planet will be destroyed.  so it can not be survival.



Wanna explain where that rationale comes from?
You are a Biology major?  Graduate level?


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 24, 2009)

Madman said:


> I have already said that as a Christian I believe your point is flawed.  I will live forever.  Do you see my point?



There's a desire to be as a god if I have ever seen one.


----------



## tell sackett (Jun 24, 2009)

WTM45: First of all, man that avatar is just WRONG,but it's also hilarious. If I may, we as believers in Christ don't want to be gods, we want to spend eternity with God our Father. Huge difference. We will all spend eternity somewhere, the only question is where you choose to spend it. Whosoever will may drink of the water of life freely.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 24, 2009)

Dsoj05 states: “But what you have to remember in that is that the argument falls apart when you consider that the sun will one day burn out and the planet will be destroyed. so it can not be survival.”   Um?  You’re kidding, right?   The best idea extant is that the sun formed about 4.6 billion years ago.  Now, even give or take a billion or so years to satisfy those who would quibble about everything, that is one darned long time ago.  By comparison, homo sapiens arose in recognizable form about 30 or 40 thousand years ago, depending on which anthropological line one follows.  Now, given that you argue that 30,000 years of continuous survival and advancement does not argue in favor of a survival motive, how, exactly, can you argue that the fact the Sun will burn out one day causes a species to similarly not wish to survive?  (By the way, the best estimates of that event are about 5 billion years from now, so I guess patience in this belief thing is indeed going to be a virtue, since we have no motive to survive the next 5 billion years except by our belief . . . )

Wanna try that one again?  

Crackerdave states: “Christians - don't be swayed by slick debating skills and false teachings. You will not win a debate with Satan or his Helpy Helpertons. LEARN the Word of God,and stand fast on it.”   

Wow.   Can we ask what a ‘Helpy Helperton’ is, or was that limited to your own Nursery School?  Wait.  I’m sure I had a point to make in rebuttal to that, but I just can’t stop laughing long enough to remember it . . . 

I’ll get back to you on that one, as soon as the echo of the ‘false teachings’ line begins to fade . . .


----------



## pnome (Jun 24, 2009)

dsoj05 said:


> Gentlemen I put forth two points as to why one could beleave in God (Chirstian God here); I say could because i was raised a Christian by my prents and It is just imprinted and hard to think of a case where there is no God.
> 1.) Being a Biologist trained in evolution before i switched to a new field.  Looking at the variables and chances that would have had to take place for life to occur can take a lot of the faith out of evolution.  The existence of life makes more sense then if you look at it from the idea that we were created.  explains things better than saying that there existed a soup of goo that had to under go billions of reactions with each reaction not only needing the right conditions but only having a billion to one chance of happening.  It  must also be said that these reactions had to occur in sufficient quantity to allow the build up of the chemical compounds needed for life.  Now even with these compounds being created in universe naturally (comets and asteroids and even in the interstellar medium their are complex compounds such as amino acids being created and destroyed) they are not in great enough quantity to allow for even enough to build a single organism.  So the idea of creation seems a easier to understand and believe than evolution from the big bang to humans today.
> 2.) Humans, if you only believe in evolution then we are nothing but animals.  but we do strange things that are not easily explained by the basic animal instincts.  Why do we even believe in God or why do we do we create literature or art these are not actions of animals.  The things we create could be explained by survival, the idea that we survive by what we leave behind (children or things).  But what you have to remember in that is that the argument falls apart when you consider that the sun will one day burn out and the planet will be destroyed.  so it can not be survival.  So are we animals, we do not act like animals; this follows that we must have be something different.  like a being created in Gods image.
> 
> ...



This is not exactly what I'm looking for.  You've presented two arguments for belief in "a" god.  I want to know why you believe in "your" God.  I.E. Why are you a Christian?


----------



## pnome (Jun 24, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Ah,the *Silver-Tongued Devil* is going about the forum like a roaring lion,seeking whom he might destroy.
> 
> Christians - don't be swayed by slick debating skills and false teachings. You will not win a debate with Satan or his Helpy Helpertons. LEARN the Word of God,and stand fast on it.




Who's the Silver-Toungued?  Are you talking about me?  If so, I'm flattered.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> Who's the Silver-Toungued?  Are you talking about me?  If so, I'm flattered.




Nice avatar!


----------



## Bigtalker (Jun 25, 2009)

> The best idea extant is that the sun formed about 4.6 billion years ago.



Prove it.



> By comparison, homo sapiens arose in recognizable form about 30 or 40 thousand years ago, depending on which anthropological line one follows.



Prove it.

You know, that is fun. I see why you guys do it now.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 25, 2009)

Well, we have determined the speed of light.  Correct?
Mathmatical calculations from the time of flight from the farthest stars has given great insight to potential ages and lifespans of suns and stars.
Our sun is puny in comparison to what has been witnessed burn out in other galaxies.

There is strong evidence available to support the human timeline outside holy books.  Fossilized bones, tools, implements, dwellings and even forms of communication to that ends.


----------



## Bigtalker (Jun 25, 2009)

Those were all educated *guesses* based on *assumptions*, correct?


----------



## pnome (Jun 25, 2009)

Bigtalker said:


> Those were all educated *guesses* based on *assumptions*, correct?



Yeah, just a bunch of guesses and assumptions about the sun...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NNcQX033V_M&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NNcQX033V_M&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 25, 2009)

Bigtalker said:


> Those were all educated *guesses* based on *assumptions*, correct?




Um, no.
It might require some knowledge gained through study of the subjects in order to comprehend and recognize the results of the presented evidence.

The math especially can be challenging to some.

I can assure you, the calculated speed of light is no guess.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 25, 2009)

pnome said:


> Who's the Silver-Toungued?  Are you talking about me?  If so, I'm flattered.



There was certainly no flattery intended,Helpy Helperton.


----------



## Bigtalker (Jun 25, 2009)

> I can assure you, the calculated speed of light is no guess



Focus, now, focus. I said the age of the sun and how long man had been in his current form. No one was there to witness it, so they are educated guesses. You do know the practice of carbon dating was partially 'proven' using historical documents, right? 

Pnome, COOL VIDEO, DUDE!!! Not sure of your point, though.

My point is that there is a certain level of faith, even in science.


----------



## Israel (Jun 25, 2009)

One reason I believe in God is because that viper will gather molecules from the air around him and then insert each point of his bifurcated tongue into a sensory area that will allows him to "taste" his environment. He is then able to track prey, kill, and eat them. (Or maybe find a store that sells Chanel #5 if he needs that, too)
Do you like to eat when you are hungry?
Yeah, that happened accidentally, the way my desk was accidentally straightened out when I awoke this morning. 
But that's only one in a long list, and surely, not the most compelling.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 25, 2009)

Bigtalker said:


> Focus, now, focus. I said the age of the sun and how long man had been in his current form. No one was there to witness it, so they are educated guesses. You do know the practice of carbon dating was partially 'proven' using historical documents, right?
> 
> Pnome, COOL VIDEO, DUDE!!! Not sure of your point, though.
> 
> My point is that there is a certain level of faith, even in science.




The speed of light has much to do with the current calculation of the age of the sun, as well as the age of other stars and suns in and well past our galaxy.

There's that faith/belief confusion again.  Two different words, two different uses.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 25, 2009)

There's a word that applies very well here -"confusion." God is NOT the author of it.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 25, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> There's a word that applies very well here -"confusion." God is NOT the author of it.




Confusion is purely individual in scope.
Some are, some were once, some are not, some will always be.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 25, 2009)

And some,like you,only promote confusion.


----------



## earl (Jun 25, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> There's a word that applies very well here -"confusion." God is NOT the author of it.



If there is no confusion ,why all the different christian religions ?  Don't ya'll always say God wrote the bible through mans hand ?


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 25, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> And some,like you,only promote confusion.



If making you think outside the ropes confuses you, then work to resolve the confusion with knowledge.
I know that is a challenge for some.  But I can assure you it is rather satisfying and enlightening!


----------



## wholenotem (Jun 25, 2009)

earl said:


> If there is no confusion ,why all the different christian religions ?  Don't ya'll always say God wrote the bible through mans hand ?


Don't ya know Brothers and Sisters  are always a squabbling! LOL Unfortunately to our own embarassment , I feel we tend to interpret God's word personally; instead of letting it interpret it's own self. if that makes sence.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 25, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> If making you think outside the ropes confuses you, then work to resolve the confusion with knowledge.
> I know that is a challenge for some.  But I can assure you it is rather satisfying and enlightening!



Same goes for Bible study...whether you are interested in the knowledge merely for education and/or debate.
That is also satisfying and enlightening.
However I realize everyone, including Christians (believe it or not) are not interested in everything.
So why do some of you keep saying if we would educate ourselves, etc??
Everyone could use some education, ya know? Unless you deem yourself knowlegeable about everything on/beyond the planet.  And I know that ain't so.

So when some of you say something ignorant about the Bible, I think I'll just say, 'hey educate yourself before you speak about something you know nothing about'.

I'm not interested in skydiving, disecting frogs, or hooking worms....so I don't need/want no education on that...but I'm not gonna debate with someone who does know either.


----------



## Bigtalker (Jun 25, 2009)

> The speed of light has much to do with the current calculation of the age of the sun, as well as the age of other stars and suns in and well past our galaxy.



Actually, the age of the sun was determined using computer models of stellar evolution and nucleocosmochronology, both of which are unproven sciences, if you want to get technical. You can read all about both methods on the internet. The base of it all is computer models, though. Hardly a fool-proof method.



> There's that faith/belief confusion again. Two different words, two different uses.



There has to be a certain amount of faith in a scientist's belief, as he is not able to physically travel to the sun to know it consists of hydrogen, helium, iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, carbon, neon, calcium, and chromium. He is trusting (has faith in) the tests he performs to come to that determination. I have done that with my faith in God by reading the Bible and by my own personal experience and listening to the experiences of people that I trust. 

I did not join this discussion to argue, but after reading so many of these threads with you guys questioning the beliefs of others, I had to chime in. There are so many things that are questionable in the world for you to question something that does not effect you. If someone believes in the God, as I do, what is it to you? Either do or don't. 

But I personally do not know of one thing I will miss out on by accepting Jesus as my Saviour and trying to live a Christian life. I do not mess with anyone else and do not try to force my belief on anyone. I will one day reap the rewards of that. If it turns out I was wrong, big fat deal. I did not miss out on a thing. If you are wrong, well.........


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 25, 2009)

wholenotem said:


> Don't ya know Brothers and Sisters  are always a squabbling! LOL Unfortunately to our own embarassment , I feel we tend to interpret God's word personally; instead of letting it interpret it's own self. if that makes sence.



It makes perfect sense.

Here's a short/hopefully short example.

Take David and Goliath....most of us know that story.
There's a message in that story that can be sort of interpreted differently to different people. Most of the Bible is complex...and God says His word is sharper than any two edged sword, dividing asunder even soul and spirit.

If we are David, the weak, the small, etc, compared to a huge giant or a big man, or a big problem, then God has shown us that He will give us the tool/tools to conquer our bigger than life problems.

I've had many Goliaths in my lifetime, some different than what others may have. So my interpretation of slaying Goliath could be different than some other folks.

It could mean conquering a seemingly defeating battle.
Sickness, addiction, mental illness, lawlessness, abuse, finances, children, etc etc.

When something comes up that I can't conquer I will ask God to help me slay my Goliath. Even if it's just something that I can't do like paint my porch before it gets in really bad repair, or don't let me be sick this week so I can pay my car payment next week. Even fixing something in my home that I can't afford for someone to fix and needs fixing immediately until help arrives...give me a clue God.

Ok  not so short. But that is why all of our interpretations aren't exactly alike, because God's word is so complex.

Once again if we all believe John 3:16 we are pretty much good to go.
We have different ideas on baptism, that's not salvation rendering....unless you are personally convicted that it is...then get baptized, simple as that.

I might even get baptized again...still not a salvation threat..it's something I feel convicted to do and I'm sure God has a reason for, it's probably pride on my part that I haven't already done it.  My pride is a pretty good sized Goliath, that I work on constantly.


----------



## earl (Jun 25, 2009)

wholenotem said:


> Don't ya know Brothers and Sisters  are always a squabbling! LOL Unfortunately to our own embarassment , I feel we tend to interpret God's word personally; instead of letting it interpret it's own self. if that makes sence.





Why do you think it was written that way ? When God handed down the commandments [supposedly in his hand writing ] there was nothing ambiguous about them  Short and to the point . No interpretation needed. 
Now along comes the bible [supposedly inspired by God] written by man with parables and stories and supposedly a lot of facts. Makes me wonder.


----------



## earl (Jun 25, 2009)

Bigtalker ....partial quote

I did not join this discussion to argue, but after reading so many of these threads with you guys questioning the beliefs of others, I had to chime in. There are so many things that are questionable in the world for you to question something that does not effect you. If someone believes in the God, as I do, what is it to you? Either do or don't.


You do understand debate don't you ?
Unless your God commanded you to chime in ,it was your choice to join in. Evidently you knew before you chimed in how this forum ''rolls''.
So why are you crying ? You either want to join in or you don't.


----------



## Bigtalker (Jun 25, 2009)

Calm down, man. Just acknowledging WTM45 and I were going back and forth on something that was not the original intent of the thread. My other comment was just MY OPINION that it goes beyond debate with some of you sometimes. I'll debate you all day, dude.



> You do understand debate don't you ?
> Unless your God commanded you to chime in ,it was your choice to join in. Evidently you knew before you chimed in how this forum ''rolls''.
> So why are you crying ? You either want to join in or you don't.



And is that what YOU call 'debate'?


----------



## redwards (Jun 25, 2009)

Bigtalker said:


> Actually, the age of the sun was determined using computer models of stellar evolution and nucleocosmochronology, both of which are unproven sciences, if you want to get technical. You can read all about both methods on the internet. The base of it all is computer models, though. Hardly a fool-proof method.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent post!!


----------



## earl (Jun 25, 2009)

That was opinion.


----------



## Bigtalker (Jun 25, 2009)

Good reply, Earl. 

Now, take me to task on the other stuff I said.


----------



## pnome (Jun 25, 2009)

Bigtalker said:


> There has to be a certain amount of faith in a scientist's belief, as he is not able to physically travel to the sun to know it consists of hydrogen, helium, iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, carbon, neon, calcium, and chromium. He is trusting (has faith in) the tests he performs to come to that determination. I have done that with my faith in God by reading the Bible and by my own personal experience and listening to the experiences of people that I trust.



What tests have you performed on God?  What are your results?


----------



## earl (Jun 25, 2009)

Bigtalker said:


> Good reply, Earl.
> 
> Now, take me to task on the other stuff I said.





 Why would I do that ?


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 26, 2009)

Bigtalker:  Okay.  If you insist.

“Actually, the age of the sun was determined using computer models of stellar evolution and nucleocosmochronology, both of which are unproven sciences, if you want to get technical.”   Sir, if you know nothing, it is best to say nothing.

‘nucleocosmochronology’ isn’t even a word, let alone an accepted scientific concept.  Making stuff up as you go along only works with your Faith, and here you are far out of your depth.  Hoyle, in 1957, didn’t have a computer model, nor even a computer.  Fowler, who won a Nobel Prize largely for explaining Hoyle’s work, didn’t have a computer either.  

Then!  -- “There has to be a certain amount of faith in a scientist's belief, as he is not able to physically travel to the sun to know it consists of hydrogen, helium, iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, carbon, neon, calcium, and chromium. He is trusting (has faith in) the tests he performs to come to that determination. I have done that with my faith in God by reading the Bible and by my own personal experience and listening to the experiences of people that I trust.”   Sir!  Surely you jest!

Certainly a man as learned as yourself would understand the properties of singly ionized helium atoms, and would thus implicitly understand the Cepheid variable, since our own Pole star, Polaris, is a Cepheid.  You would certainly be aware of the work of Pickering; Slipher’s revealing of the red shift; Hubble’s discovery (in 1924), that M31 wasn’t a gas cloud but a distant galaxy; and Hubble’s further discovery, using only the Mount Wilson observatory, that the observable galaxies are largely moving away from us.  Also, you would surely know that Einstein also predated the invention of computers, and that had Hubble and even Michelson been aware, in 1929, of Einstein’s work and how well it dovetailed with their own the entirety of the world would have changed much more rapidly than it turns out to have done.  Or, perhaps you would not.    

So, your ignorance seems to require that you ask us to ‘believe’ in science, and even in your own version of it, which is so badly flawed as to be dismissed out of hand, and considers that science requires ‘faith,’ while asking us to believe only you, the one Book you personally trust, and the unduplicated results of your personal experiences?

Nothing personal, son, but the smart money is on Einstein, Hoyle, and Hubble.


----------



## Israel (Jun 26, 2009)

I ain't Heisenberg, but I sure ain't sure bout nothin' you wrote.


----------



## Bigtalker (Jun 26, 2009)

> Nothing personal, son, but the smart money is on Einstein, Hoyle, and Hubble.



Don't call me son, my dad earned that right and no one else.


----------



## Bigtalker (Jun 26, 2009)

> â€˜nucleocosmochronologyâ€™ isnâ€™t even a word, let alone an accepted scientific concept.



Nucleocosmochronology, also known as cosmochronology, is a relatively new technique used to determine timescales for astrophysical objects and events. This technique employs the abundances of radioactive nuclides in a way that is very similar to the use of C14 in dating archeological samples, save that the elements measured are typically uranium and thorium.

Nucleocosmochronology has already been successfully employed to determine the age of the Sun (4.57±0.02 Ga, i.e., 4.57×109 years) and of the Galactic thin disk (8.3±1.8 Ga), among others. It has also been used to estimate the age of the Milky Way itself, as exemplified by recent study of the halo star CS31082-001. Limiting factors in its precision are the quality of observations of faint stars, and perhaps more importantly, the uncertainty of the primordial abundances of r-process elements.

So you think I just made all of that up? 



> So, your ignorance seems to require that you ask us to â€˜believeâ€™ in science, and even in your own version of it, which is so badly flawed as to be dismissed out of hand, and considers that science requires â€˜faith,â€™ while asking us to believe only you, the one Book you personally trust, and the unduplicated results of your personal experiences?



All of the science that you talk about still takes into account some assumptions. Big bang and evolution, that I am sure you bow at the alter of, are both just theories that can be argued for days with no conclusion due to the lack of a witness. 

I never asked you to believe in God. Read my posts again. I simply was engaging in the debate. If you could back down just a little, you might get some respect, as you seem to have a hint of knowledge about a few issues. 



> What tests have you performed on God? What are your results?



Whatever I could tell you here would obviously not convince you. I can tell you that I will not be doing is testing God. Not something that you want to do. 

BTW, Dio, you stick with Einstein, Hoyle, and Hubble, and see how far it gets you in the end.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 26, 2009)

Bigtalker:  I fear, then, that I do not understand a word of your point.  The age of the Sun was determined with pretty good accuracy prior to the invention of the computer.  Cosmochronology (the ‘Nucleo’ part is a new twist, and threw me), seeks to refine things using new techniques, largely related to what is known about White Dwarf stars, but you go on to say that this technique has been successfully employed to determine the age of the Sun.  

But how is ‘successful’ parallel to unproven?  And what does the stunning, but not absolutely precise success of science over the years have to do with complete leaps of faith?


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 26, 2009)

pnome said:


> What tests have you performed on God?  What are your results?



Pnome

We have already talked about how much evidence there is that the place and TIME in which we live is almost mathematically impossible to have happened by chance. If you want to use any form of the anthropic principal that's fine, but that would be the same as a scientist taking away a key piece of evidence (that is pointing to his hypothesis being right) before he had the chance to prove his hypothesis. 

I'll say it again. If you dont want to believe in the Christian God then at least tell me there is strong evidence of intelligent design. If you can not admit that, then you are being ignorant _in my opinion_.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 27, 2009)

pnome said:


> I shouldn't be casting stones here huh?



Go ahead, gives us practice dodging bigger enemies.

The more stones you cast the more I sharpen my sword....sorta like 'keep on talking,I'm reloading'....LOL


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 27, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Bigtalker:  I fear, then, that I do not understand a word of your point.  The age of the Sun was determined with pretty good accuracy prior to the invention of the computer.  Cosmochronology (the ‘Nucleo’ part is a new twist, and threw me), seeks to refine things using new techniques, largely related to what is known about White Dwarf stars, but you go on to say that this technique has been successfully employed to determine the age of the Sun.
> 
> But how is ‘successful’ parallel to unproven?  And what does the stunning, but not absolutely precise success of science over the years have to do with complete leaps of faith?




It's a miracle...this the the shortest post ever posted by diogenes, Good job.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 27, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> Pnome
> 
> We have already talked about how much evidence there is that the place and TIME in which we live is almost mathematically impossible to have happened by chance. If you want to use any form of the anthropic principal that's fine, but that would be the same as a scientist taking away a key piece of evidence (that is pointing to his hypothesis being right) before he had the chance to prove his hypothesis.



The anthropic principle has been discussed here before:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=306924

and Pnome's post in the above thread describes the use of the anthropic principle very well:



			
				pnome said:
			
		

> The anthropic principle is a tautology.
> 
> You're saying, "If things had been different, they would have been different."



I'd like to hear your responses to pnome's posts and perhaps my post in the above thread.



> I'll say it again. If you don't want to believe in the Christian God then at least tell me there is strong evidence of intelligent design. If you can not admit that, then you are being ignorant _in my opinion_.



Guess I'm ignorant then.

Could you list some of the "strong evidence" of intelligent design?


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> The anthropic principle has been discussed here before:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=306924
> 
> ...



I will read the other post later. I'm going to the lake now, but tonight or tomorrow I will gather some details of how miraculous it is we are in existence.

It seems to me that how you view the anthropic principal is all about perspective. You know those flash cards that have weird designs on them that you look at and try to figure out what the design is. Normally the designs represent or look like different objects to different people depending on their perception of the design. Well this is similar to our discussion on intelligent design. I look at the universe and see the complexity of our existence and perceive that their is a greater power at work. An atheist  perceives the formation and existence of our universe as nothing more than chance. _*In my humble opinion it takes more faith to believe this all happened by chance rather than a greater power creating it all.*_


----------



## footjunior (Jun 27, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> It seems to me that how you view the anthropic principal is all about perspective. You know those flash cards that have weird designs on them that you look at and try to figure out what the design is. Normally the designs represent or look like different objects to different people depending on their perception of the design. Well this is similar to our discussion on intelligent design. I look at the universe and see the complexity of our existence and perceive that their is a greater power at work.



Can you describe why you "perceive that there is a greater power at work" just because of the "complexity of our existence"? Your statement conveys a belief on your part, correct? The belief being that there is a "greater power at work." I assume you're talking about a deity?

How does the fact that our existence is complex serve as evidence that God exists?



> An atheist perceives the formation and existence of our universe as nothing more than chance. _*In my humble opinion it takes more faith to believe this all happened by chance rather than a greater power creating it all.*_



Well I would consider myself an atheist, and I do agree that _one possible scenario_ is that it all happened by chance. Another possible scenario is that the universe as we know it could in fact be a computer simulation. Another possible scenario is that Yahweh could have created it, or Zeus, or Odin, or the great Jubu god of the volcano.

In truth, I don't know how the universe came into existence. And until I see some evidence one way or the other, I will continue to say, "I don't know."


----------



## footjunior (Jun 27, 2009)

Here's a video related to our discussion that I think you should watch... 

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P591Yt6dIHY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P591Yt6dIHY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>


----------



## redwards (Jun 27, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> .......
> ‘nucleocosmochronology’ isn’t even a word, let alone an accepted scientific concept......


Then you may want to inform this individual 
*J. W. Truran*


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 27, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> Pnome
> 
> We have already talked about how much evidence there is that the place and TIME in which we live is almost mathematically impossible to have happened by chance. If you want to use any form of the anthropic principal that's fine, but that would be the same as a scientist taking away a key piece of evidence (that is pointing to his hypothesis being right) before he had the chance to prove his hypothesis.
> 
> I'll say it again. If you dont want to believe in the Christian God then at least tell me there is strong evidence of intelligent design. If you can not admit that, then you are being ignorant _in my opinion_.



Did you know that the probability of the lottery coming up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is the same as any other combination of 6 numbers?  If that ever happened, would you say that it was the result of "design"?

Did you further know that most of the time that I rub my magic rabbit's foot that my horse wins at the racetrack?  That shows me beyond an shadow of a doubt that it has magical properties.  ( When I don't win, I assume it's because the rabbits foot, in its infinite wisdom has a better plan for my 5 dollar bet.  I may never know what that plan was, but I trust the rabbit's foot to know what is best.)


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 27, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Did you know that the probability of the lottery coming up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are the same as any other combination of 6 numbers?  If that ever happened, would you say that it was the result of "design"?
> 
> Did you further know that most of the time that I rub my magic rabbit's foot that my horse wins at the racetrack?  That shows me beyond an shadow of a doubt that it has magical properties.  ( When I don't win, I assume it's because the rabbits foot, in its infinite wisdom has a better plan for my 5 dollar bet.  I may never know what that plan was, but I trust the rabbit's foot to know what is best.)



Do you really only come here to mock what we believe? Comparing a rabbit's foot to God? 
That is sick.

Besides anybody that rubs a rabbit's foot for luck is delusional anyway, didn't give the rabbit much luck did it?


----------



## footjunior (Jun 27, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Do you really only come here to mock what we believe?
> 
> Besides anybody that rubs a rabbit's foot for luck is delusional anyway, didn't give the rabbit much luck did it?



You mock people that rub rabbit's feet.

You clasp your hands together and pray to a deity who seems to randomly answer your prayers and sometimes he does not answer them.

What's the difference?

I can tell you how they're similar: They both produce comfort for the believer.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 27, 2009)

“Comparing a rabbit's foot to God? 
That is sick.
Besides anybody that rubs a rabbit's foot for luck is delusional anyway, didn't give the rabbit much luck did it?”

Some might observe that placing the symbol of an execution (the cross) as a central icon for a World religion is a bit sick as well.  Didn’t bring anyone else much luck either, did it?


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 27, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Did you know that the probability of the lottery coming up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are the same as any other combination of 6 numbers?  If that ever happened, would you say that it was the result of "design"?
> 
> Did you further know that most of the time that I rub my magic rabbit's foot that my horse wins at the racetrack?  That shows me beyond an shadow of a doubt that it has magical properties.  ( When I don't win, I assume it's because the rabbits foot, in its infinite wisdom has a better plan for my 5 dollar bet.  I may never know what that plan was, but I trust the rabbit's foot to know what is best.)



I'm not going to reply to any of these because they are stupid. If you want to poke fun at least make it funny or some what relative to the scale we are talking about.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 27, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> I'm not going to reply to any of these because they are stupid. If you want to poke fun at least make it funny or some what relative to the scale we are talking about.



Actually ambush's point about the lottery describes the anthropic principle very well. I would like to hear your response to his lottery analogy.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 28, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Can you describe why you "perceive that there is a greater power at work" just because of the "complexity of our existence"? Your statement conveys a belief on your part, correct? The belief being that there is a "greater power at work." I assume you're talking about a deity?
> 
> How does the fact that our existence is complex serve as evidence that God exists?
> 
> ...



Our place and time in our universe is very convenient. Not only are we in the right time and place to measure the cosmic background radiation (big bang) telling us how old the universe is, but the rare properties that allow for this measurement and galactic discovery are the same properties that allow for our existence on this planet. 
Let’s start small. Perfect solar eclipses are a great example of the correlation between habitability and observability. Perfect solar eclipses are important to measuring solar flash spectrum, starlight deflection, and the earth’s rotation. We also learn a lot about the sun through these eclipses. Look at our atmosphere. If the earth’s atmosphere was any thicker or thinner it would skew our vision of such phenomenon. The earth’s atmosphere strikes a perfect balance. It transmits the radiation useful for life while blocking most of the lethal energy. Eclipses and the atmosphere are just the beginning. 

It’s not just where the earth is located relative to the sun. If the earth was composed of a different percent of liquid iron then our magnetic field would be thrown off. This allows earth’s plate tectonic shift to perform as is does. This is where the carbon cycle is created. This is key for all life to live on earth. Also, the magnetic fields or the magnetosphere is created by the composition of the earth’s crust. This creates a force field against solar winds that would rob our upper atmosphere of hydrogen and oxygen atoms from water. That would be bad for all life for sure.  The magnetosphere also blocks harmful galactic cosmic rays as well. The combination of where the earth is in the solar system ( Circumstellar Habitable Zone) along with  what the earth is made of are important for life to be sustained on earth. 

The earth’s mass and size had to be perfect as well. There are a number of complications that come with having a smaller planet which would have a weaker magnetic field and lose atmosphere at a quicker rate. A large planet could have too much atmosphere (i.e. Jupiter), or more viscous air making it harder for big brained mobile creatures to breathe. 

Earth’s orbit and tilt are precise for being efficiently hospitable. With even slight changes in these two variables you could affect the planet’s climate. The earth would have huge difference in biospheres. With a region experiencing a wide range of different temperatures over the year, fewer species would survive. 

Earth’s plate tectonics, oscillating magnetic field, stable orbit and transparent atmosphere all together provide the best “lab bench” in the solar system as well as being very hospitable. No other locations have yet to come close to being as habitable as earth has been. 

What's so amazing is that we are perfectly placed in our  solar system and perfectly placed in our own galaxy (Galactic Habitable Zone).  The inner Milky Way has too many threats for habitable planets such as radiation, comet collisions and the planets are less likely to acquire a stable circular orbit. The outer regions are safer, but the planets are small and it is hard for them to retain an atmosphere and plate tectonics. Our Galactic Habitable Zone has not only sustained our existence it is also one of the best locations to be a successful astronomer and cosmologist.

My last point for making my case for intelligent design of our universe is the Cosmic Habitable Age. Not all places and times around a star within a galaxy are equally habitable.  Similarly not all ages of the universe are equally habitable. If we take into account everything needed to support complex life, then cosmically you’re talking a very short time period. Let’s look at our sun as the simplest example.  A hundred thousand years ago the sun in our solar system would have been too hot for life to thrive on Earth. A hundred thousand years into the future and the sun will not be as hot as it is now. Both circumstances would be very difficult for life to thrive under those conditions. 

These are but a few reasons that our existence is so unbelievable! Believe it or not, there is much more evidence on how special are little oasis in the Milky Way is. Take all these facts into consideration. Then think about the process of getting from a tadpole, to a primate, then to a human…what are the chances? Or, is it chance at all?


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 28, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Actually ambush's point about the lottery describes the anthropic principle very well. I would like to hear your response to his lottery analogy.



The reason that his analogy is so ridiculous is the scale of what he is comparing. Sure the the probability is the same for 6 numbers. So is the probability of getting a sequence of numbers 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 long. Whats the difference?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 28, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “Comparing a rabbit's foot to God?
> That is sick.
> Besides anybody that rubs a rabbit's foot for luck is delusional anyway, didn't give the rabbit much luck did it?”
> 
> Some might observe that placing the symbol of an execution (the cross) as a central icon for a World religion is a bit sick as well.  Didn’t bring anyone else much luck either, did it?



Yeah it bought me forgiveness and eternal life with my Lord.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 28, 2009)

footjunior said:


> You mock people that rub rabbit's feet.



Yeah but rubbing a rabbit's foot doesn't usually compare to someone's entire belief system, that's stretching a little bit, dontcha think?
So you rub a rabbit's foot when you go to a horserace, is that what your entire life is based on?

I think you are just being a little bit of a drama queen on that one.


----------



## Israel (Jun 28, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “Comparing a rabbit's foot to God?
> That is sick.
> Besides anybody that rubs a rabbit's foot for luck is delusional anyway, didn't give the rabbit much luck did it?”
> 
> Some might observe that placing the symbol of an execution (the cross) as a central icon for a World religion is a bit sick as well.  Didn’t bring anyone else much luck either, did it?



As life has nothing to do with luck nor the benefits of an iconic representation, I do not endorse crosses for any purpose.
But the reality of the cross, not as jewelry, or painted illustration, or perched atop some abominable steeple, has brought life to many.
Christ crucified is always worthy of consideration.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 28, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> The reason that his analogy is so ridiculous is the scale of what he is comparing. Sure the the probability is the same for 6 numbers. So is the probability of getting a sequence of numbers 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 long. Whats the difference?




Exactly my point.  You are in essence saying that the the number of things that happened just right in order for life to exist on Earth is SO great that it MUST be designed, but you also realize that the same probability exists for any other combination of factors to have occurred.  What exactly is the number where one draws the line between randomly occurring and NECESSARILY designed?  Please elaborate.



mtnwoman said:


> Yeah but rubbing a rabbit's foot doesn't usually compare to someone's entire belief system, that's stretching a little bit, dontcha think?
> So you rub a rabbit's foot when you go to a horserace, is that what your entire life is based on?
> 
> I think you are just being a little bit of a drama queen on that one.



Why is it so easy for you to dismiss the rabbit foot rubbers as loony?  Do you feel  the same about those who believe in prayer wheels or burning incense?   My point is that you THINK that you are different from them because you believe what you are worshiping is true and what they are worshiping is not.  What I, and I suspect Pnome and Foot Junior and Diogenes would like for you to see and understand is that y'all are the same.  The people that do those things believe that they are true in their hearts and souls JUST AS STRONGLY and for the same reasons that you believe that Jesus is Lord.  If you can realize that, I mean truly realize and accept that fact, then I don't think anyone would be able to argue with you anymore.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 28, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Exactly my point.  You are in essence saying that the the number of things that happened just right in order for life to exist on Earth is SO great that it MUST be designed, but you also realize that the same probability exists for any other combination of factors to have occurred.  What exactly is the number where one draws the line between randomly occurring and NECESSARILY designed?  Please elaborate.



Let us at look at this from another perspective. Imagine that we have a universe creating machine. The dials and slides represent the different laws of physics necessary to conjure up a universe.  Some of the dials are mass density, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, gravitational force, cosmological constant, electromagnetic force, proton to electron mass ratio, age of the universe, expansion rate, speed of light, and so on and so on. There are millions of different variables for each slide or dial. Every time we adjust the dials and press "create" it spits out another universe which is normally a piece of junk. One will collapse in seconds into a black and maybe another floats along forever as a lifeless hydrogenated soup.  

Yes, the probability of creating a different universe is the same as our universe being created. But, some how in our "large number of coincidences" every law of physics, cosmology, and astrophysics are correct. Did I explain it any better this time?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 28, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> Let us at look at this from another perspective. Imagine that we have a universe creating machine. The dials and slides represent the different laws of physics necessary to conjure up a universe.  Some of the dials are mass density, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, gravitational force, cosmological constant, electromagnetic force, proton to electron mass ratio, age of the universe, expansion rate, speed of light, and so on and so on. There are millions of different variables for each slide or dial. Every time we adjust the dials and press "create" it spits out another universe which is normally a piece of junk. One will collapse in seconds into a black and maybe another floats along forever as a lifeless hydrogenated soup.
> 
> Yes, the probability of creating a different universe is the same as our universe being created. But, some how in our "large number of coincidences" every law of physics, cosmology, and astrophysics are correct. Did I explain it any better this time?



You and I understand it the same.  If you spin the dials, there's an equal chance that OUR combination comes up as any other combination.  You just seem to have a particular number of permutations that have to occur in sequence that irrefutably takes it from random to design.  I just want to know what that number is for you.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 28, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Why is it so easy for you to dismiss the rabbit foot rubbers as loony?  Do you feel  the same about those who believe in prayer wheels or burning incense?   My point is that you THINK that you are different from them because you believe what you are worshiping is true and what they are worshiping is not.  What I, and I suspect Pnome and Foot Junior and Diogenes would like for you to see and understand is that y'all are the same.  The people that do those things believe that they are true in their hearts and souls JUST AS STRONGLY and for the same reasons that you believe that Jesus is Lord.  If you can realize that, I mean truly realize and accept that fact, then I don't think anyone would be able to argue with you anymore.



So you consider rubbing a rabbit's foot to religions.

We're all the same? I beg your pardon.

I don't go to any religious/spiritual forum and compare their beliefs to rubbing a rabbits foot.

Is it ONLY Christians that you are trying to educate or do you dare go to a muslim forum and compare what they believe to rubbing a rabbit's foot or ANY other religion? Do any of you? If not, then you're all the same.

What other religious groups do you try to educate? I'd be interested in knowing whether you're just prejudice towards Christians or ALL other religious groups. 

That's MY point.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 28, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> So you consider rubbing a rabbit's foot to religions.
> 
> We're all the same? I beg your pardon.
> 
> ...



I would go to any religious forum and tell them that they are being superstitious.  I like the recipes and the hunting/fishing talk here.  The Christians have the most influence on what happens in the U.S., so I am particularly concerned with their agenda.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 28, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> So you consider rubbing a rabbit's foot to religions.
> 
> We're all the same? I beg your pardon.
> 
> ...



And your point should be well taken by him!


----------



## gtparts (Jun 28, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Exactly my point.  You are in essence saying that the the number of things that happened just right in order for life to exist on Earth is SO great that it MUST be designed, but you also realize that the same probability exists for any other combination of factors to have occurred.  What exactly is the number where one draws the line between randomly occurring and NECESSARILY designed?  Please elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so easy for you to dismiss the rabbit foot rubbers as loony?  Do you feel  the same about those who believe in prayer wheels or burning incense?   My point is that you THINK that you are different from them because you believe what you are worshiping is true and what they are worshiping is not.  What I, and I suspect Pnome and Foot Junior and Diogenes would like for you to see and understand is that y'all are the same.  The people that do those things believe that they are true in their hearts and souls JUST AS STRONGLY and for the same reasons that you believe that Jesus is Lord.  If you can realize that, I mean truly realize and accept that fact, then I don't think anyone would be able to argue with you anymore.





Thanatos said:


> Let us at look at this from another perspective. Imagine that we have a universe creating machine. The dials and slides represent the different laws of physics necessary to conjure up a universe.  Some of the dials are mass density, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, gravitational force, cosmological constant, electromagnetic force, proton to electron mass ratio, age of the universe, expansion rate, speed of light, and so on and so on. There are millions of different variables for each slide or dial. Every time we adjust the dials and press "create" it spits out another universe which is normally a piece of junk. One will collapse in seconds into a black and maybe another floats along forever as a lifeless hydrogenated soup.
> 
> Yes, the probability of creating a different universe is the same as our universe being created. But, some how in our "large number of coincidences" every law of physics, cosmology, and astrophysics are correct. Did I explain it any better this time?





ambush80 said:


> You and I understand it the same.  If you spin the dials, there's an equal chance that OUR combination comes up as any other combination.  You just seem to have a particular number of permutations that have to occur in sequence that irrefutably takes it from random to design.  I just want to know what that number is for you.



The apparent difference  is that without any evidence to support the  notion of multiple occurrences of universes spontaneously coming into existence, much less ones supporting life, one can reason that our situation is not only unique in that respect (supports life), but also the only universe.

 If, in fact, we are alone, what are the odds of getting everything "right" in one colossal stroke of "luck"?

My only reasonable conclusion would not be that the innumerable factors necessary for life resulted from random events occurring in close proximity in time and space, but that what we know as "the universe" is a created system, the result of creative design and continued involvement. 

Can I say God?

You bet I can!


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 28, 2009)

gtparts said:


> The apparent difference  is that without any evidence to support the  notion of multiple occurrences of universes spontaneously coming into existence, much less ones supporting life, one can reason that our situation is not only unique in that respect (supports life), but also the only universe.
> 
> If, in fact, we are alone, what are the odds of getting everything "right" in one colossal stroke of "luck"?
> 
> ...



The same odds as it not coming together just right or in any other combination.  Besides, how do you know that there was only one attempt to create life here on Earth besides that the Bible told you so?  

 Did you know that there is as much chance of the lottery numbers coming up 1,2,3,4,5,6 as there is for it to come up any other combination?  

Sounds weird, I know, but it's true.  

It's the same probability no matter how many zeros you put after the number of permutations.  Wanna know something else weird?   The chances of the lottery numbers coming up 1,2,3,4,5,6, AGAIN the next day are still the same.  Each drawing is independent of the next or the last or next weeks.  Any mathematicians that can let me know if this is correct?  

At any rate, it seems that the issue is that as the number of permutations becomes VERY big, some people will say that it couldn't have happened "just so" without design.

What is that number for you personally?   If the lottery drew 10  balls instead of 6 and they came up in numeric sequence (1,2,3,4,5....) would that be enough evidence to point to design?  How about if they drew 1 million balls?   Or a "gazillion"?  Is there a number that is large enough, impressive enough for you to be able to say without a doubt that it was planned?


----------



## redwards (Jun 28, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> .....
> Did you know that there is as much chance of the lottery numbers coming up 1,2,3,4,5,6 as there is for it to come up any other combination?....


Simple question...Has the combination 1,2,3,4,5,6 ever happened in any lottery drawing anywhere?
If so, where?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 28, 2009)

redwards said:


> Simple question...Has the combination 1,2,3,4,5,6 ever happened in any lottery drawing anywhere?
> If so, where?



Not that I know of, but if you don't believe that the chances of it happening or of it happening in reverse (6,5,4,3,2,1) or all prime numbers, then all odd numbers, then all even numbers are the same chances as any other combination, then I suggest you study probability.  

It's counter intuitive and it seems weird but its mathematically true.  Take that into consideration if you ever feel lucky and decide to play the Lotto.  It puts into perspective what your chances of winning really are.

It holds true for as many numbers as you want to draw, even a "gazillion".


----------



## redwards (Jun 28, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Not that I know of, but if you don't believe that the chances of it happening or of it happening in reverse (6,5,4,3,2,1) or all prime numbers, then all odd numbers, then all even numbers are the same chances as any other combination, then I suggest you study probability.
> 
> It's counter intuitive and it seems weird but its mathematically true. Take that into consideration if you ever feel lucky and decide to play the Lotto. It puts into perspective what your chances of winning really are.
> 
> It holds true for as many numbers as you want to draw, even a "gazillion".


'zat a fact, or is that just 'intellectual reasoning'?


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 28, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Not that I know of, but if you don't believe that the chances of it happening or of it happening in reverse (6,5,4,3,2,1) or all prime numbers, then all odd numbers, then all even numbers are the same chances as any other combination, then I suggest you study probability.
> 
> It's counter intuitive and it seems weird but its mathematically true.  Take that into consideration if you ever feel lucky and decide to play the Lotto.  It puts into perspective what your chances of winning really are.
> 
> It holds true for as many numbers as you want to draw, even a "gazillion".



For some reason it seems that you are hung up on all permutations having the same probability. So what? Does the chance to not exist make it any less remarkable that we do exist? The point is that out of the 1 in a gazillion chances to exist...we do. Again, so what if the probability is the same. Here we are chatting about it on the internet.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 28, 2009)

redwards said:


> 'zat a fact, or is that just 'intellectual reasoning'?



In any given lottery drawing where you pull 6 random balls from 49 balls, the odds of picking the right combination are 1 in 13,983,816.  Guess what the odds are that they pull 1,2,3,4,5,6.  Ask Thanatos.



Thanatos said:


> For some reason it seems that you are hung up on all permutations having the same probability. So what? Does the chance to not exist make it any less remarkable that we do exist? The point is that out of the 1 in a gazillion chances to exist...we do. Again, so what if the probability is the same. Here we are chatting about it on the internet.



Remarkable is as remarkable does.  Under slightly different conditions, zebras might have had purple stripes.  

What is the number that separates  random from design in your mind?


----------



## footjunior (Jun 29, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> Our place and time in our universe is very convenient. Not only are we in the right time and place to measure the cosmic background radiation (big bang) telling us how old the universe is, but the rare properties that allow for this measurement and galactic discovery are the same properties that allow for our existence on this planet.
> Let’s start small. Perfect solar eclipses are a great example of the correlation between habitability and observability. Perfect solar eclipses are important to measuring solar flash spectrum, starlight deflection, and the earth’s rotation. We also learn a lot about the sun through these eclipses. Look at our atmosphere. If the earth’s atmosphere was any thicker or thinner it would skew our vision of such phenomenon. The earth’s atmosphere strikes a perfect balance. It transmits the radiation useful for life while blocking most of the lethal energy. Eclipses and the atmosphere are just the beginning.
> 
> It’s not just where the earth is located relative to the sun. If the earth was composed of a different percent of liquid iron then our magnetic field would be thrown off. This allows earth’s plate tectonic shift to perform as is does. This is where the carbon cycle is created. This is key for all life to live on earth. Also, the magnetic fields or the magnetosphere is created by the composition of the earth’s crust. This creates a force field against solar winds that would rob our upper atmosphere of hydrogen and oxygen atoms from water. That would be bad for all life for sure.  The magnetosphere also blocks harmful galactic cosmic rays as well. The combination of where the earth is in the solar system ( Circumstellar Habitable Zone) along with  what the earth is made of are important for life to be sustained on earth.
> ...



Did you read the other thread? This has all been said before, and I have agreed with it. There is indeed an incredible number of things that must be perfectly right for this universe and Earth to sustain life. I believe that we agree on that point.

Maybe I should just quote myself from the previous thread instead of repeating myself:



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> The entire core argument (and refutation) of the anthropic principle lies in this sentence, gratefully provided by Celt:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you see where I am coming from? It is indeed incredibly difficult for life to survive in this universe. Or at least that's what it looks like right now. Perhaps in the future we will be proven incorrect by hordes of aliens. 

However, the only reason there are humans on this planet who are attempting to use the anthropic principle to defend their faith is because we happen to inhabit the improbable planet in the improbable universe.

We exist here on Earth. Therefore Earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us, however unusual, even unique, that kind of planet might be. For example, our kind of life cannot survive without liquid water, right? Around a typical star like our sun, there is a so-called Goldilocks zone - not too hot and not too cold, but just right - for planets with liquid water. A very small distance lies between those planets that are too far from the star, where water freezes, and too close, where it boils. Earth lies perfectly within this Goldilocks zone, and it's orbit is not elliptical enough to throw us out of the Goldilocks zone. Earth's situation in the solar system is unique in other ways that singled it out for the evolution of life. The massive gravitational vacuum cleaner by the name of Jupiter is well-placed to intercept asteroids that might otherwise threaten us with lethal collision. Earth's single relatively large moon serves to stabilize our axis of rotation, and helps to foster life in various other ways. Our sun is unusual in not being a binary star, locked in mutual orbit with a companion star. Binary stars are usually too chaotic to produce an environment where planets capable of sustaining life can occur.

Two main explanations have been offered for our planet's peculiar friendliness to life.

1. The design theory says that God made the world, placed it in the Goldilocks zone, and deliberately set up all the details for our benefit.

2. The anthropic approach is very different, and it has a faintly Darwinian feel. The great majority of planets in the universe are not in the Goldilocks zones of their respective stars, and not suitable for life. None of that majority has life. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.

I think it is strange that religious apologists love to use the anthropic principle. For some reason that makes no sense at all, they think it supports their case. Precisely the opposite is true. The anthropic principle, like natural selection, is an alternative to the design hypothesis. It provides a rational, design-free explanation for the fact that we find ourselves in a situation propitious to our existence.

What I'm saying is that your hypothesis could be true: God could have placed us in a hospitable place on purpose. 

However, the alternative could also be true: All life will be in a hospitable place because it must be in a hospitable place for it to exist. Therefore all intelligent life could use the anthropic principle to claim that a god placed them there because they must inhabit the improbably hospitable planet for them to even be making the argument.

Do you see the circular reasoning when you attempt to use the anthropic principle to suggest that a god put you on a hospitable planet? All life arises on the improbable planet.

Religious apologists can continue to make the point that,  however improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here. However they are not saying anything, because like pnome said:



			
				pnome said:
			
		

> The anthropic principle is a tautology.
> 
> You're saying, "If things had been different, they would have been different."


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 29, 2009)

The fact that we do exist means only that we do exist.  It means nothing else.  The fact that we are able to observe the unimaginably huge universe around us, and try to figure out the principles and workings of it only means, again, that we exist.  

A confusion seems to exist in the use of the word ‘universe.’  It does not mean people, nor does it mean Earth.  In an apparently infinite Universe (though that may not be so, even though our observations to date mark the Universe around us as so incredibly huge as to thus far defy the limits of mathematics and our ability to observe), there would of necessity exist an apparently infinite number of possible combinations of elements and conditions.  We observe a gigantic number of those combinations, and see everything from the red-shift, to the nebulae, to distant galaxies, to exploding stars and stars newly born.  We see, in short, random combinations of the elements creating unimaginable things around us, but we do not deny the truth of those things – we simple observe them, and though we might not be able, yet, to fully explain things such as the Red Rectangle Nebula, we know for sure that it is there.  

The odds, if one is an apologist rather than a pragmatist, of the formation of Jupiter, the Horsehead Nebula, the rings of Saturn, the Van Allen Belt, electrons that can jump from one orbit to another, Light existing and behaving as both particle and wave (and having measurable speed besides), the Supernova, the curvature of space, the existence of other known galaxies, black holes, and photosynthesis, all at the same time – well, the odds are pretty remote for each particular event, but become a certainty that each would eventually occur.  And there you have it.  All those things argue for their existence simply by existing.  In a Universe that is endlessly combining things and crashing them into one another, each of those combinations becomes a uniqueness unto itself.  But, given about 13 billion years, give or take a few billion, it is a safe bet that nearly every possible combination has occurred.  We happen to be one of them.  

A uniqueness, in a Universe full of the unique, each born, or not born, by the conditions that obtained at the time and place of each occurrence.  The odds, far from being against it, were that it had to happen sooner or later.  The fact that you are able to observe that, and doubt it just the same, proves that point to the satisfaction of the random Universe.  

Personally, I wish that I had better comfort to offer to the Believers, and could offer that the Sun is not somewhere around 4.6 billion years old, but is only around 6,000 years old; or I could offer that 40 days and 40 nights of rain could Flood the Earth over 25,000 feet deep, and all that water could just as mysteriously disappear, saving only the few; or could say that mankind spontaneously arose out of one couple on a certain day, fully aware of having been cast out of some ‘Paradise’ somewhere;  could confirm for you that seas have been parted, plagues and pestilences rained down, sinners punished, and True Believers rewarded; could demonstrate that there is either a Heavenly reward or an Eternal punishment in some other-worldly realms, or could place one man at one time as the sole ‘spiritual’ guide for all other humans before or since – but, unfortunately, I cannot.

Neither can you.

In an infinite Universe, the odds that we would exist is a statistical certainty.  And so we do exist.  Was it tremendously random?   Yes it was.  Was it the result of the confluence of a huge number of random combinations?  Yes it was.  Was it something that took billions of years of such combinations to realize?  Yes it was.  Is it real?  Yes it is.

Oddly enough, the existence of nearly intelligent life on this planet does not cause me to look backwards, as a doubter who needs to create a ‘God’ to explain it all and write fairy-tales to make it all mean something, but rather causes me to understand that our uniqueness is a burden that demands our inquiry instead of our capitulation to our ignorance. Hiding behind the barely more sophisticated arguments of modern religions, spawned out of earlier pantheistic paganism and aboriginal fears of the nature of the world around them, hardly explains but rather continues refutations of realities by trying to explain them away rather than confront them.

If the tales of your great-great-great-great grandparents, and the superstitions and prejudices and refusals to inquire further are enough for you, then stop right where you are, fall again to your knees, and worship whatever it is you have been blindly taught to worship.  Or, you could stand, on your own, and take the risk of leaving the safety of the herd by asking the hard questions.  Some of us call that individuality and progress, but it is clearly not for everybody . . .

(  Insert predictable next post here – ridicule and Bible Verse – So much easier than thinking and inquiring . . . )


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 29, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Personally, I wish that I had better comfort to offer to the Believers,



I like you and all that but I don't need comfort from you, all I need from you is to be treated as you think I should treat others.  Seeing as you have no idea how I treat anyone from any other religion. I may debate about their beliefs, but I'm not gonna go after them tooth and nail in every forum they post in.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 29, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I would go to any religious forum and tell them that they are being superstitious.  I like the recipes and the hunting/fishing talk here.  The Christians have the most influence on what happens in the U.S., so I am particularly concerned with their agenda.



I'm sure they have good recipes from other religions.

You say you are concerned with Christians agenda? Well we're concerned of those of the muslims...you aren't? You should be. Not all muslims, I know I know, but not all Christians either.

Do you actually think that what you do here in this itty bitty forum effects anything on a bigger picture? If you're really concerned about what Christians do, I suggest you launch out into the deep and do something about it, rather than taunt people that seem to like the same thing you do...ie hunting and fishing....geez How in the world do you think you posting here is gonna help anyone?...honestly,you just come here to ridicule folks, and that is obvious to everyone. You do what you think others should not do....I NEVER go to ANY forum and poke and prod at other religious folks, NEVER....can you say the same?

Debating and mocking are two different things.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 29, 2009)

We could keep going back and forth for days. But, like you said there is a circular pattern about deciding why we exist. I _choose_ to see the evidence that we are here by no mistake and there is a certain design that allowed us to live _when_ and _where_ we are. If you _choose_ not to see the evidence in front of you that is fine. It is a choice we make. Not to long ago I was on the same side as footjunior, dio, pnome, etc. After researching the topic I came to the conclusions that we have just talked about. I respect your opinions, but I will pray that one day you will see how non-random your life is and that you matter more than you think you do.


----------



## earl (Jun 29, 2009)

There is another alternative to The Bid Bang and God issue.  We ,like the God theory ,have always been here. We continually are evolving like the BB theory. It is not a new Idea. It takes no more faith or scientific proof to believe. It also leaves room for a higher power,Mother Nature ,for lack of a better word. Or you can use whatever name fits your particular need.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 29, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm sure they have good recipes from other religions.
> 
> You say you are concerned with Christians agenda? Well we're concerned of those of the muslims...you aren't? You should be. Not all muslims, I know I know, but not all Christians either.
> 
> ...



I believe that the problems that arise from being Muslim are the same problems that arise from being Christian.  I'm here on GON because in many ways these are my "peeps"; my woods and water brethren.  I would have the same conversation if we were sippin' from the jug around the campfire after a hunt.   

I'm not an activist.  

I don't consider anything that I've said ridicule.  What I say is what I truly believe.  I've never said  in one breath say that I think that religion is superstition like rabbit foot rubbin' and in the next breath chastise someone for telling me that I'm going to He11.  That's what they truly believe and I respect that.

Observe someone like RoosterTodd or GT parts or Fishin'ditty or Isreal or Thanatos.  They are firm in their beliefs yet they will listen to my ideas and respond to them in kind.  I would use a decidedly different language if my goal were ridicule.



Thanatos said:


> We could keep going back and forth for days. But, like you said there is a circular pattern about deciding why we exist. I _choose_ to see the evidence that we are here by no mistake and there is a certain design that allowed us to live _when_ and _where_ we are. If you _choose_ not to see the evidence in front of you that is fine. It is a choice we make. Not to long ago I was on the same side as footjunior, dio, pnome, etc. After researching the topic I came to the conclusions that we have just talked about. I respect your opinions, but I will pray that one day you will see how non-random your life is and that you matter more than you think you do.





Does the "certain design" concept have anything to do with "Irreducible Complexity"?  Do you believe that anything is random?If so, then there exits for you a "line in the sand", a threshold where things go from random to design.  Help me out here.  Describe where things go from random to necessarily designed.   Please?

I imagine that you would say that you see Gods hand in everything that happens.  Would that include the casting of chicken bones or the patterns of tea leaves?  Could there possibly be messages from God hidden in those things that one might be able to discern?  You claim to see the will of God based on clues in the Universe.  Does it work on a smaller scale?


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 29, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> The fact that we do exist means only that we do exist.  It means nothing else.  The fact that we are able to observe the unimaginably huge universe around us, and try to figure out the principles and workings of it only means, again, that we exist.



Yes!
No matter how strong the individual human desire is to feel part of a bigger plan, special in some way, more important than someone else, eternal in our existance and more valuable than we really are.

Excellent post, Diogenes.  Much thought and much contribution!


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 29, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I believe that the problems that arise from being Muslim are the same problems that arise from being Christian.  I'm here on GON because in many ways these are my "peeps"; my woods and water brethren.  I would have the same conversation if we were sippin' from the jug around the campfire after a hunt.
> 
> I'm not an activist.
> 
> ...



Im not smart enough to read things as complicated as chicken bones or tea leaves. What I can see is the evidence of design every where I look. In my opinion there is no event that is random. Every step that every human has ever taken was preordained by a mixture of man's free will and God's purpose for our lives. All the people who just talked about how little earth was in comparison to the universe should take a step back and look at their theory. Yes, the earth is insignificant compared to the larger cosmic picture so what does that make you? A frail human who lives only a split second relative to the age of our universe. For you to realize that we are so small and insignificant some of us sure do act like we know more than we think we do. The problem is that believers and non believers try to put God into a nice tiny square box. One that is made of human emotion and perception when reality is that he can not fit into that box. We can barely understand humanity, and here we are trying to figure out who God is, or is not. As I said before you can choose to ignore the evidence that is staring you right in the face, or you can deal with the unknown by telling yourself that chances are we had to come around some time right? Right?


----------



## ToLog (Jun 29, 2009)

Perhaps in the future we will be proven incorrect by hordes of aliens. (cut & paste copy)

as someone posted the above statement, is there a risk we'll be overrun by hordes of aliens? 

i hope, if they do arrive, they'll choose to eat the fat-ones amongst us first. that's only logical, right? 

we've weaved our way around the basic philosophy once again, seems like?  we don't know from whence we came, we don't know where we are, and most certainly, we don't know where we're going.

beyond that minor detail, all is debatable.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 29, 2009)

ToLog said:


> Perhaps in the future we will be proven incorrect by hordes of aliens. (cut & paste copy)
> 
> as someone posted the above statement, is there a risk we'll be overrun by hordes of aliens?
> 
> ...



The aliens might have already arrived, and were so small they were eaten by barn swallows.
Who knows?


----------



## footjunior (Jun 29, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> What I can see is the evidence of design every where I look.



Could you give specific examples?



> In my opinion there is no event that is random. Every step that every human has ever taken was preordained by a mixture of man's free will and God's purpose for our lives.



Is it truly free will if it's a mixture of anything else?



> As I said before you can choose to ignore the evidence that is staring you right in the face, or you can deal with the unknown by telling yourself that chances are we had to come around some time right? Right?



I'm not ignoring the evidence. I've analyzed it just like you have, and we have come to different conclusions.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 30, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Could you give specific examples?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Examples are bountiful. The human body is one great example. Have you ever been to the bodies exhibit? We transform from one living cell into all the systems and parts that work together to keep us alive. Holy cow! 

2. You have me on the freewill issue. I don't understand how it works, but I believe we are predestined through foreknowledge of our wills. Think of God looking through a tunnel of time. Just my opinion. I don't know a good answer.

3. That is has been my point the whole time. You have examined the evidence and so have I and we have come to different conclusions. I hope one day when you are out in God's wilderness or on his waters that you can see how non-random this reality is.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 1, 2009)

â€œDebating and mocking are two different things.â€�  Indeed they are Mâ€™Lady.  Debating and dismissing are also different things.  

In a debate, one does not resort to recommending that the opposing thought go away, because that thought is clearly not your own, or the one you presume to be held by your community, and so you find opposing thoughts to be insulting to you, personally, and therefore intolerable.  

A debate requires deliberation on oneâ€™s own part, consideration of another thought, and an advocating of your own viewpoint through factual argument.  By this process of â€˜debate,â€™ folks might view the positive and negative sides of the proposition that is under discussion, and both sides might actually learn something.

Disagreement, that is to say, is the heart of a good, lively, and intelligent debate.  Things like this: â€œDo you actually think that what you do here in this itty bitty forum effects anything on a bigger picture? If you're really concerned about what Christians do, I suggest you launch out into the deep and do something about it, rather than taunt people that seem to like the same thing you do...â€� tend to be dismissive, and have nothing to do with a â€˜debateâ€™ except to say that you wish not to tolerate any such thing.  If you find disagreement to be distasteful, and beneath your certainty, then perhaps the Church is a fine place to seek refuge, rather than a forum devoted to the exchange of opposing ideas.

â€œSeeing as you have no idea how I treat anyone from any other religion.â€�  Um?  Maâ€™am?  Have we not just now seen exactly that?

And sir?  Thanatos?  â€œEvery step that every human has ever taken was preordained by a mixture of man's free will and God's purpose for our lives.â€� I would recommend a reconsideration of that assertion.  Especially in light of the name you have taken here -- In Greek mythology, Thánatos (in Greek, Î˜Î¬Î½Î±Ï„Î¿Ï‚ â€“ "Death") was the dæmon personification of Death.   Naming onself after a minor Greek God who represented, in a panthiestic system of belief, the idea of Death personified, and one who was considered to be an evil spirit besides,  is a bit mysterious when compared to your thoughts.  Iâ€™m just saying . . .

And also, the ability to make such a statement, and the ability to justify and demonstrate that statement, seem to similarly be worlds apart.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 1, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “Debating and mocking are two different things.”  Indeed they are M’Lady.  Debating and dismissing are also different things.
> 
> In a debate, one does not resort to recommending that the opposing thought go away, because that thought is clearly not your own, or the one you presume to be held by your community, and so you find opposing thoughts to be insulting to you, personally, and therefore intolerable.
> 
> ...



Because my name on an online hunting/fishing forum was taken from Greek mythology (think of me as Thanatos of the deer and turkey woods)...that means I'm going against my religious views??? Seems there is a large amount of assumption there on your part.  

As stated above. My views on freewill are my own. There are a few verses in Romans that could point toward my view, but in the end does it really matter what i think? Nope.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 20, 2009)

"Irreducible Complexity".....discuss.


----------



## Steve Thompson (Jul 20, 2009)

I guess I felt God in my heart, before I knew him. At 58 years of age, I still want to know more.  
  We're not just a accident out here in the middle of space.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Steve Thompson said:


> I guess I felt God in my heart, before I knew him. At 58 years of age, I still want to know more.
> We're not just a accident out here in the middle of space.



Personal experience.  If I am to ever believe, I think it will have to be from personal experience.  I hope that god (whichever one it is) will one day reveal himself to me, but thus far, he has not.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> Personal experience.  If I am to ever believe, I think it will have to be from personal experience.  I hope that god (whichever one it is) will one day reveal himself to me, but thus far, he has not.



What do you hope to gain by said revelation?


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 20, 2009)

addictedtodeer said:


> I know this won't matter but I'm called to always give a defense (1 Peter 3:15) so therefore; I believe because God made me believe in him.
> 
> Heb 11:1-6
> _ Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.  For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him._
> ...



An absolutely AWESOME answer!!  How refreshing!  AMEN and THANK YOU!!!


----------



## jimbo4116 (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> Personal experience.  If I am to ever believe, I think it will have to be from personal experience.  I hope that god (whichever one it is) will one day reveal himself to me, but thus far, he has not.



I think he reveals Himself everyday.  It is far more implausible to think that the world we know today was an accident, than to believe that is was developed and guided by a something greater than ourselves.

The question of earth's existence is not how but why?

Do you not find it at least puzzling that man began to record his history all over the globe at the same time when time is put in the perspective of earth's age.  The Greeks, Egyptians and Mayans all begin to record history within a millenium of each other.  Mere nano second in the life of the planet.

As for a personal experience providing you with a reason to believe in God, you have it all backwards.

God has nothing to prove to you, it is you who must prove yourself to God.  It is a simple concept.  Just like a ball coach does not have to prove he will let you play, you have to prove to the ball coach you can play and then earn the right to do so.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

jimbo4116 said:


> God has nothing to prove to you, it is you who must prove yourself to God.



If God exists and this is indeed how He operates, then I am certainly doomed.


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

jimbo4116 said:


> I think he reveals Himself everyday.  It is far more implausible to think that the world we know today was an accident, than to believe that is was developed and guided by a something greater than ourselves.
> 
> The question of earth's existence is not how but why?
> 
> ...





If this is true ,I can tell you for a fact that every person my dad led to Christ in his 60 some years of preaching is headed straight to hades. To paraphrase him, all you have to do is ask Jesus into your heart and ask for forgiveness of your sins. I guess there are a lot of Baptist gonna be surprised when the heat goes up.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> For one thing, your information is NEVER complete or fully founded.
> 
> You have to make a guess at some point.  Which information to trust?  To make that guess, people develop strategies.  Religion is such a strategy.  It basically says, "Believe this as true and nothing else"  SO some people operate with that.  Science is another such strategy.  Which basically says "Trust nothing you don't have sufficient evidence for."



And why is it that you don't believe anything in the Bible, considering that "science" has been out to prove it wrong for decades... and only continue to not be able to do so?  There is evidence of a universal flood in the fossils of ocean creatures being found on the tops of mountains.  The plagues?  Oh yeah, you can explain away "some" of them as just being a natural chain reaction due to the interruption in the food chain... but can you explain how it came to pass that all the plagues happened in the order that God told Moses they would happen in - freak weather included?  Even Egyptian documents record the parting of the sea and the demise of the Egyptian army.

The more "science" attempts to disprove, the more it ends up proving that it can't be done.  So.... let 'em keep trying.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 20, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> And why is it that you don't believe anything in the Bible, considering that "science" has been out to prove it wrong for decades... and only continue to not be able to do so?  There is evidence of a universal flood in the fossils of ocean creatures being found on the tops of mountains.  The plagues?  Oh yeah, you can explain away "some" of them as just being a natural chain reaction due to the interruption in the food chain... but can you explain how it came to pass that all the plagues happened in the order that God told Moses they would happen in - freak weather included?  Even Egyptian documents record the parting of the sea and the demise of the Egyptian army.
> 
> The more "science" attempts to disprove, the more it ends up proving that it can't be done.  So.... let 'em keep trying.



That's not the goal of science, just a pleasant byproduct.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 20, 2009)

jimbo4116 said:


> I think he reveals Himself everyday.  It is far more implausible to think that the world we know today was an accident, than to believe that is was developed and guided by a something greater than ourselves.



Actually, the odds were the same.



jimbo4116 said:


> The question of earth's existence is not how but why?
> 
> Do you not find it at least puzzling that man began to record his history all over the globe at the same time when time is put in the perspective of earth's age.  The Greeks, Egyptians and Mayans all begin to record history within a millenium of each other.  Mere nano second in the life of the planet.



A possible explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth-monkey_effect



jimbo4116 said:


> As for a personal experience providing you with a reason to believe in God, you have it all backwards.
> 
> God has nothing to prove to you, it is you who must prove yourself to God.  It is a simple concept.  Just like a ball coach does not have to prove he will let you play, you have to prove to the ball coach you can play and then earn the right to do so.



Coach never said: "Make the team or burn in He11."


----------



## redwards (Jul 20, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Actually, the odds were the same.


Please show your calculations that allowed you to reach that conclusion.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

I believe in my God, the God of Abraham, the God of Israel, the Father of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ because I have been through some trials in my life, I have felt all is lost, and I have stared unexplainable evil in the eye and only through the mercy of my God, and by speaking words of power such as rebuking these evils with the Blood of the Lamb, have I seen changes occur, some instantly, some over time, but all changed to better the situation, and some to the desires of my heart through these words and through prayer. Just as in seeing the wind blow, and the power and effects wind can have, I have seen with my own eyes the power and effects words and prayer can bring about when used in affiliation with my God. 

Sorry if this is not what you are after, but these are the facts.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 20, 2009)

earl said:


> If there is no confusion, why all the different christian religions?  Don't ya'll always say God wrote the bible through mans hand?


Personal preference.  Denominations were all born when a group of folks decided they would live "mostly" the way God wanted them to... except for a portion here & there that they just didn't quite feel they needed to conform to, lest they venture outside their "comfort zone".

God's Word is not confusing.  Man's interperetation of it to suit personal preference IS.


----------



## jimbo4116 (Jul 20, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Actually, the odds were the same.
> 
> Well at the least you admit that it is possible although I would like to know how you calculated the odds.
> 
> ...



But he probably gave you the threat of wind sprints, the equivialent of hades on earth.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> Personal preference.  Denominations were all born when a group of folks decided they would live "mostly" the way God wanted them to... except for a portion here & there that they just didn't quite feel they needed to conform to, lest they venture outside their "comfort zone".
> 
> God's Word is not confusing.  Man's interperetation of it to suit personal preference IS.




Goes back even further than that.  Man has gone so far as to outright edit and destroy holy books, all but what they chose to promote via concensus as to being the words of a deity.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 20, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> That's not the goal of science, just a pleasant byproduct.


I see you don't read full sentences very well.   LOL


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Goes back even further than that. Man has gone so far as to outright edit and destroy holy books, all but what they chose to promote via concensus as to being the words of a deity.


 
Or perhaps, just as a Mod may do on occasion, they chose to clean up the books that were existing to help us commoners better understand them and omit the ones they knew for sure we would never grasp. Based on the rantings and disagreements over what we have now, I can only imagine what the ones that were left out must have been like..


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> And why is it that you don't believe anything in the Bible,



Strawman.  I've never said that.



Country_Girl said:


> considering that "science" has been out to prove it wrong for decades... and only continue to not be able to do so?





> The more "science" attempts to disprove, the more it ends up proving that it can't be done.  So.... let 'em keep trying.


Anyone who would try to prove the Bible wrong will only meet with failure.   This is not because the Bible is true, though certainly parts of it are, but because it is impossible to prove a negative.  

Here is an analogy I often use to illustrate this point:

Let's say I told you I have an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in my garage at home.  Do you believe me? 

You might then say, "Show me your garage" and when you looked you might say, "I don't see him." 

To which I could reply, "I told you he's invisible."

You might then say, "Well, it's not hot in here, if he's a fire-breathing dragon, it stands to reason it would be hot in your garage"

To which I could reply, "Oh, he's just holding his breath right now."

Do you see where this is going?  I can continue to provide whatever I like to explain away any inconsistencies you may find.  You will never be able to prove that my pet dragon doesn't exist.

So do you believe in my pet dragon yet?  Of course not.  You shouldn't anyway.  If you do, I've got some beachfront Arizona property you might be interested in.

The point of all this is to say that the burden of proof lies with the positive.  It is up to me to prove that my pet dragon exists, otherwise you can rightfully, and freely disregard my claim.  This is why in our legal system there is the "presumption of innocence."  It is up to the prosecution to prove first that a crime was committed, and then prove who committed the crime.

My signature is another way of stating the same thing:

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
(What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason.)




> There is evidence of a universal flood in the fossils of ocean creatures being found on the tops of mountains.


Evidence of a flood, maybe, evidence that the flood was caused by the god of Abraham?  Not so much.



> The plagues?  Oh yeah, you can explain away "some" of them as just being a natural chain reaction due to the interruption in the food chain... but can you explain how it came to pass that all the plagues happened in the order that God told Moses they would happen in - freak weather included?



Can you prove that they did in fact happen in that exact order?



> Even Egyptian documents record the parting of the sea and the demise of the Egyptian army.


I'd be interested to see these.  However, even if true, they do not represent enough evidence to support such an extraordinary claim as "Moses parting the waters"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

(everyone playing the pnome SDDS post drinking game, take a two drinks)


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Or perhaps, just as a Mod may do on occasion, they chose to clean up the books that were existing to help us commoners better understand them and omit the ones they knew for sure we would never grasp. Based on the rantings and disagreements over what we have now, I can only imagine what the ones that were left out must have been like..



That argument reinforces the tenent of religion being a tool of the elite/powerful/ruling class over the population.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Sorry if this is not what you are after, but these are the facts.



Nope that is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for.  Thanks.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That argument reinforces the tenent of religion being a tool of the elite/powerful/ruling class over the population.


 
No, that arguement is based in the history of education, back to a period when there were very few able to read. So when putting the books into one, or several common languages scribes and theologist had to come to a meeting of the minds to make them better understood by those that could read, and those to come in the future that would read.

If there were secrets to an eternal physical life, or treasure maps, etc. etc. etc. that were left out then you could blame it on an elite/powerful/ ruling class.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> No, that arguement is based in the history of education, back to a period when there were very few able to read. So when putting the books into one, or several common languages scribes and theologist had to come to a meeting of the minds to make them better understood by those that could read, and those to come in the future that would read.
> 
> If there were secrets to an eternal physical life, or treasure maps, etc. etc. etc. that were left out then you could blame it on an elite/powerful/ ruling class.



No, go back even further.
Constatine, Arius and others.
We are not just talking about literary needs.  We're talking about outright foundational tenents of the Christian belief system and who shaped them.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, go back even further.
> Constatine, Arius and others.


 
I will if you go first. What praytell would have been their's to gain by offering up a repressed version of the accounts of Christianity by restricting certain books, or word for word verbage (not that this is possible in some translations) to the peasant populous of the time?

I mean, if you are going to lay blame then per rules of common debate you must also demonstrate motive.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

"Repressed" is your word.  I'd choose the word manipulated.


----------



## jimbo4116 (Jul 20, 2009)

The bottom line to all these arguments is that some people require proof and cannot rely on faith.

And some folks take it on faith, not requiring proof.

I find it amusing that a man will accept the word of another man on faith but requires proof of Gods exists and that he will fulfill his promise.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> "Repressed" is your word. I'd choose the word manipulated.


 
Regardless, provide the motive and we'll move forward.


----------



## Country_Girl (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> Personal experience.  If I am to ever believe, I think it will have to be from personal experience.  I hope that god (whichever one it is) will one day reveal himself to me, but thus far, he has not.



pnome.... I really hope it does not take a traumatic personal experience to open your eyes, ears and heart to the Lord... but at the same time, if that is what it will take for you to be able to finally actually believe, I certainly hope and pray that it happens for you soon!  I say this with the utmost sincerity and not an ounce of ill will, and I sure hope you realize that.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> pnome.... I really hope it does not take a traumatic personal experience to open your eyes, ears and heart to the Lord... but at the same time, if that is what it will take for you to be able to finally actually believe, I certainly hope and pray that it happens for you soon! I say this with the utmost sincerity and not an ounce of ill will, and I sure hope you realize that.


 
Well stated, and along those lines, the word of God is a food for the soul that will never go stale. It is upon the heart and mind of every man to walk his walk, regardless of the path it takes him down. God only ask that we place these bits of food before them, and when it is their time, in their time, or in Gods time (for he may have things of this world for them to learn before he leads them to this food) all men come to an end, and most find it at some point prior to that time.

Those that would attempt to force feed an individual in many cases only serve to drive them further off of the path and away from that food. If only we would realize that God is in control, and rest in the faith that we claim to have, we would know that the food we have placed before these strangers is noted, and will still be good when they seek it out.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Regardless, provide the motive and we'll move forward.



There is no motive.  
In any general conversation regarding religious belief systems the historical significance of when a (the) holy book was agreed upon and made formal and when changes and edits were made are greatly relevant to the discussion.
Same goes for Buddhism, Islam, Hindu.......the list goes on and on.

I'm not refuting anything.  I'm making clear that at certain times, certain people got together and made their decisions as to how their religious belief system was to be represented and presented to the populace.
That had to involve the discussion of intent.  And for most, it is the intent to control what is taught as doctrine.

Simply a discussion of history.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> pnome.... I really hope it does not take a traumatic personal experience to open your eyes, ears and heart to the Lord...



A traumatic personal experience would not be enough.  In fact, I see that driving me further away (if that's even possible).  

No, it will have to on the order of John 20:25


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That argument reinforces the tenent of religion being a tool of the elite/powerful/ruling class over the population.


 
Your words, not mine. This demonstrates motive.

Have a blessed day, we have reached an impasse.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

Scooter, what I underlined of your quote was the reason for my response.
We are far from an impasse!



scooter1 said:


> Or perhaps, just as a Mod may do on occasion, they chose to clean up the books that were existing to help us commoners better understand them and omit the ones they knew for sure we would never grasp. Based on the rantings and disagreements over what we have now, I can only imagine what the ones that were left out must have been like..




How is that statement not representative of a controlling authority making a command decision or determination of what "commoners" would understand and grasp?  
Then, acting with their power to change and modify what will be presented to the "commoners" as the holy writings?
Destroying what they did not want others to see?

Can a "commoner" investigate further?  Some were outright killed for doing just that.

But the standard answer is that "the deity used those people as tools to accomplish his end result."  That is common in nearly every religious belief system I've studied that holds a deity as a center figure.


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> Personal preference.  Denominations were all born when a group of folks decided they would live "mostly" the way God wanted them to... except for a portion here & there that they just didn't quite feel they needed to conform to, lest they venture outside their "comfort zone".
> 
> God's Word is not confusing.  Man's interperetation of it to suit personal preference IS.





The very fact that it is written so ambiguously as to allow for interpretation of meaning is further proof that God's word is indeed confusing. There is nothing ambiguous about the 10 commandments that came directly from God's hand . Why isn't the bible as written by man ''with God's guidance '' written just as clear ?  No interpretation needed.

  I seem to detect a preference in your posts to avoid hard questions and a tendency to avoid providing backup or proof for a lot of your posts. Is there a reason ?


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

Hey earl, you know that any "backup" or "proof" is not required to discuss and debate here.  Opinion is often found in the dicsussions here, and one is as welcome as the other.

But you do bring up a fantastic point.  Were some of the apostles and prophets just better at the task than others?
It is pretty deep to think about!


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 20, 2009)

Country_Girl said:


> I see you don't read full sentences very well.   LOL



Science is not out to prove the Bible wrong. Science is trying to figure out how things work.  When they were able to explain why someone can't live three days inside of a fish, meaning they better understood respiration, fish anatomy etc.,  proving the Bible wrong was just a byproduct.

Science often dispels notions that were believed because of superstition or tradition.  We're better off for their efforts.


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Hey earl, you know that any "backup" or "proof" is not required to discuss and debate here.  Opinion is often found in the dicsussions here, and one is as welcome as the other.
> 
> But you do bring up a fantastic point.  Were some of the apostles and prophets just better at the task than others?
> It is pretty deep to think about!





 I understand what you are saying BUT.  If you are making statements that have a historical significance , motto /founding fathers, you should be able to provide the dates that the motto was approved and implemented.  That's what I was trying to get across. I did not mean to infer that all are not entitled to their opinion.


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

partial quote WTM45

Were some of the apostles and prophets just better at the task than others?
It is pretty deep to think about! 

I would assume that if the bible is ''GOD inspired '' that the man or method would have little to do with the clarity of the bible or lack there of. 
  Yes, I know what assume makes out of you and me. LOL

 That does beg another question . Was it in fact God's words or mans' ?


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

earl said:


> I understand what you are saying BUT.  If you are making statements that have a historical significance , motto /founding fathers, you should be able to provide the dates that the motto was approved and implemented.  That's what I was trying to get across. I did not mean to infer that all are not entitled to their opinion.



I should have added the  to that one!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That is common in nearly every religious belief system I've studied that holds a deity as a center figure.


 
It is more common in our Public Educational system in regards to American History. Your point?


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

I thought I made my point.  Humans make attempts to manipulate or control other humans.  Religion has been used as tool to that ends just like politics has been used.

Are you asking about how American History has been manipulated, like in the historical review of Manifest Destiny?

Sorry, I'm trying to follow your discussion.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I thought I made my point. Humans make attempts to manipulate or control other humans. Religion has been used as tool to that ends just like politics has been used.
> 
> Are you asking about how American History has been manipulated, like in the historical review of Manifest Destiny?
> 
> Sorry, I'm trying to follow your discussion.


 
Do you believe in your Country any less because of this Heinous manipulation of teachings handed down at the hands of our government?


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Do you believe in your Country any less because of this Heinous manipulation of teachings handed down at the hands of our government?




I'd have to say it has affected the level of trust I place in it.  But nothing has stopped me from investigating and researching anything I have sought to find answers for.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I'd have to say it has affected the level of trust I place in it. But nothing has stopped me from investigating and researching anything I have sought to find answers for.


 
The level of trust you have in your Country, or your Government?
My question was pointed at your Country.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> The level of trust you have in your Country, or your Government?
> My question was pointed at your Country.



I see them as one in the same.  The government is a representation of the country or its people.

I consider myself more a member of the human race than I do a part of a country or of a government.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I see them as one in the same. The government is a representation of the country or its people.
> 
> I consider myself more a member of the human race than I do a part of a country or of a government.


 
Now you are dodging and skirting specific answers.

We could cross over into political diversions very easily with these type answers, but I will digress. Intellectual honesty is the key to any successful debate. 

Have a good evening.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Now you are dodging and skirting specific answers.
> 
> We could cross over into political diversions very easily with these type answers, but I will digress. Intellectual honesty is the key to any successful debate.
> 
> Have a good evening.



I feel I am being truthful and honest.  It does pain me that you feel I am not being honest with you intellectually.

As I stand here, proud of the country where I live, a veteran who enjoys the freedom it offers, I can honestly say no matter where I find myself on the globe I still seek knowledge. 

Have a fantastic evening as well!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I feel I am being truthful and honest. It does pain me that you feel I am not being honest with you intellectually.
> 
> As I stand here, proud of the country where I live, a veteran who enjoys the freedom it offers, I can honestly say no matter where I find myself on the globe I still seek knowledge.
> 
> Have a fantastic evening as well!


 
Ahhhh, so it is the Country you are proud of and have faith in, but doubt and distrust the Government. Can you at least admit that much?


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Ahhhh, so it is the Country you are proud of and have faith in, but doubt and distrust the Government. Can you at least admit that much?



I am not 100% trusting of this country at the moment.  It has elected what it wants, and is letting them do what they wish.
I hold no faith in men.  There are some I will trust or believe in, but faith is not in my toolbox.

Oh, I'm proud of the accomplishments of citizens of this country, especially those who have stood to defend the oppressed and downtrodden.

I distrust the government, as they are representative of the electorate.

We digress.  Sorry pnome.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I am not 100% trusting of this country at the moment. It has elected what it wants, and is letting them do what they wish.
> I hold no faith in men. There are some I will trust or believe in, but faith is not in my toolbox.
> 
> Oh, I'm proud of the accomplishments of citizens of this country, especially those who have stood to defend the oppressed and downtrodden.
> ...


 
I do not equivocate the electorate with the concensus of the citizens of my Country. I do have faith in the patriotism that will most certainly rise up in times of need, and in the face of the threat of harm from outside or from within, however uncertain it may seem to others.

Equally, I do not equivocate the decisions of men a millineum ago with the doctrine or documents that espouse the words that are representative of the origin of my faith in my God.

I do not trust our government, as I most likely would not have trusted that government back in Biblical days. I do trust the country as a whole, as I do trust the bible as a whole, both carry a certain level of integrity and honor, as do most citizens that are representative of our country. Is there contradictory information in the Bible, of course, is there contradictory behavior in our citizens when questioning their patriotism towards my country, absolutely. Neither is cause for me to doubt that the end result of both are for a higher good.

Thus, those that would use the arguement of men of elite standing manipulated the Bible so they could mandate what they wanted people to believe is no more true than the maniplation of the education system. Most are intelligent enough to do their own research and find the truth. I see those that would use such an arguement as someone merely seeking reasons not to believe, rather than seeking the truth. 

Many times in life the forest is a hinderance to the view of the trees, for those that choose to only see a grand scheme of manipulation, and not the individual truths.


----------



## redwards (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> ....but because it is impossible to prove a negative.....


I disagree.
Go out to your car...
start the engine...
raise the hood and disconnect the negative cable from the negative battery post...
Observe what you prove....


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Thus, those that would use the arguement of men of elite standing manipulated the Bible so they could mandate what they wanted people to believe is no more true than the maniplation of the education system. Most are intelligent enough to do their own research and find the truth. I see those that would use such an arguement as someone merely seeking reasons not to believe, rather than seeking the truth.




There we will have to simply agree to disagree.  There are clear examples in history to the contrary.
But regardless of what we believe, I'll fight for the right to believe it!

Good discussion!


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

redwards said:


> I disagree.
> Go out to your car...
> start the engine...
> raise the hood and disconnect the negative cable from the negative battery post...
> Observe what you prove....


----------



## Israel (Dec 10, 2019)

I still ain't figgered out if time is long or short. Maybe it's one of dem Quantum Theory thingys bout observing a thing and measuring it...can have a direct result upon the thing.

I'm thinkin' someone could take their whole life trying to find out how much time can fit between one second and the next.


----------

