# A question for Atheists.



## Ronnie T (Nov 23, 2009)

Why is there something, rather than nothing?


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Why is there something, rather than nothing?



i dont know, neither does anyone else. the only difference is we dont believe in a big fabricated and elaborate story to make us feel like we know everything.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> i dont know, neither does anyone else. the only difference is we dont believe in a big fabricated and elaborate story to make us feel like we know everything.



Nope...you just believe that you do know everything.


----------



## pnome (Nov 23, 2009)

Well, why not?


Ok that's a much bigger question than my answer seems to suggest.

Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/01..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=154XT74WDW8V1ZT23ZSK


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Nope...you just believe that you do know everything.



i have no problem admitting i dont know everything. however, christians do have a problem admitting it, hence the big god conspiracy theory to make them feel as if they know all the answers.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> i have no problem admitting i dont know everything.



Really?  Based on your smart responses to every question asked on this forum, I'd say your actions speak louder than your words


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

Nobody knows. Nobody can even claim to know. We are all here, people, dogs, rattle snakes, swine flu, babies, etc. That's all we CAN really know. Science can give us a look into how things work, but not really a look at why. Religion attempts to explain the why, and does a good job of making the believers feel like they have the answers.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Really?  Based on your smart responses to every question asked on this forum, I'd say your actions speak louder than your words



ive already told you that i know darn well i dont know everything, but your so convinced that i think i do, that you are just trying to pound it into my head that i do and make me believe it.

gotta love that christian determination. if the bible told you the sky was red, you would believe it.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Religion attempts to explain the why, and does a good job of making the believers think it is the answer.



fixed it for ya'


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> fixed it for ya'



Wow...you know other's thoughts too


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> fixed it for ya'



Ha, ha, thanks. We are all here as a result of chaos. There is no other explanation that you can back up or claim to be true. 

Think about it this way - what are the odds of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker? Well, you have the same odds of getting dealt ANY other possible combination of cards. That's just the way it happened to come together. Nothing special happened to put those particular cards in that order.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Ha, ha, thanks. We are all here as a result of chaos. There is no other explanation that you can back up or claim to be true.
> 
> Think about it this way - what are the odds of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker? Well, you have the same odds of getting dealt ANY other possible combination of cards. That's just the way it happened to come together. Nothing special happened to put those particular cards in that order.



Hmmm...and yet, somehow, chaos gets the free pass on not having any back up or support.


And per your Poker example, you're saying that Creation has the same odds of happening as chaos?


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

I'm saying that I sure don't understand how everything came to be. However, things coming together out of chaos in just the right way seems more plausible to ME than creation by the hand of any god of any creation story I have ever heard.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Hmmm...and yet, somehow, chaos gets the free pass on not having any back up or support.
> 
> 
> And per your Poker example, you're saying that Creation has the same odds of happening as chaos?



Exactly the same odds.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Exactly the same odds.



Wow...that isn't what he thinks.



grizzlyblake said:


> However, things coming together out of chaos in just the right way seems more plausible to ME than creation by the hand of any god of any creation story I have ever heard.




And to add...seems much more plausible to me that an Omnipotent God created everything in just 6 days.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> seems much more plausible to me that an Omnipotent God created everything in just 6 days.



what may seem plausible to you, may seem impossible to someone else. as is the case here.

logically, based on how things / the world around us physically works, it just doesnt add up.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...that isn't what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It goes against everything I've ever witnessed and everything I've been taught.  It goes against my intuition.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> what may seem plausible to you, may seem impossible to someone else. as is the case here.
> 
> logically, based on how things / the world around us physically works, it just doesnt add up.



okay...so based on logic...and grizzlyblake's example...all things have equal chance of happening.

So how do you know that chaos has a better chance than creation?

See...you're admitting your superior knowledge with your statements


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> See...you're admitting your superior knowledge with your statements



get off your horse dude, im not trying to admit any "superior knowledge" over anyone. im not trying to say im smarter than anyone, or that i know everything. how many times am i gonna have to tell you that?  im just saying it doesnt add up to me.

what the heck is wrong with you?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> It goes against everything I've ever witnessed and everything I've been taught.  It goes against my intuition.



And that is fine.  That is your belief.


But every chaos believer will say that they're way is the most logical way and is the right way.  Sounds to me based on the "poker hand" you're just bluffing.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

I'm not saying that there's not a big bearded guy up in the sky who's getting a kick out of playing with us like dolls. If that proves to be the case then I'm all for it. 

Why is my dog chasing trucks in the road? Why did that leaf just fall exactly onto another leaf? Why are there flies buzzing around the dog doo that the puppy decided to leave on the front porch instead of going out in the yard? 

Hand of god, or just chaos happening everywhere?


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> And that is fine.  That is your belief.
> 
> 
> But every chaos believer will say that they're way is the most logical way and is the right way.  Sounds to me based on the "poker hand" you're just bluffing.



And that is fine.  That is your belief.


But every christian believer will say that they're way is the most logical way and is the right way.  Sounds to me based on the "poker hand" you're just bluffing.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> get off your horse dude, im not trying to admit any "superior knowledge" over anyone. im just saying it doesnt add up to me.
> 
> what the heck is wrong with you?



Funny...how when something doesn't add up to you...it must be wrong.  But then in the next breath, you say you're not trying to admit any "superior knowledge."

Nothing is wrong with me.  I'm not the one coming into a spiritual forum trying to stir the hornets nest.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

So, we're boiling it down to logic? And you can't admit that random chaos seems more logical than magic?

Come on...


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> And that is fine.  That is your belief.
> 
> 
> But every christian believer will say that they're way is the most logical way and is the right way.  Sounds to me based on the "poker hand" you're just bluffing.



Nope...it isn't the most logical.  But is what the Bible says....so nope...not bluffing


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> So, we're boiling it down to logic? And you can't admit that random chaos seems more logical than magic?
> 
> Come on...



You are the one who brought logic into the equation.  You said that all things have equal chances of happening.

Why now are you going back on what you've already said to be true?

And no...I never said that creation was logical.  The truth doesn't always seem logical.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Nope...it isn't the most logical.  But is what the Bible says....so nope...not bluffing



i have a book here that says the bible is wrong. so there, i have just as much to back my claims as you do.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> You are the one who brought logic into the equation.  You said that all things have equal chances of happening.
> 
> Why now are you going back on what you've already said to be true?
> 
> And no...I never said that creation was logical.  The truth doesn't always seem logical.



So you know that magical creation is the truth. How do you know this? And I don't want any of this "just because the bible said so" or "God told me so" business. 

I want to know how you KNOW that's the truth.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> So you know that magical creation is the truth. How do you know this? And I don't want any of this "just because the bible said so" or "God told me so" business.
> 
> I want to know how you KNOW that's the truth.



you might wanna get your seatbelt on, this is gonna be a rough one.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

Probably just going to see the same ol' same ol'.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Probably just going to see the same ol' same ol'.



yep.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> So you know that magical creation is the truth. How do you know this? And I don't want any of this "just because the bible said so" or "God told me so" business.
> 
> I want to know how you KNOW that's the truth.



I'm afraid that's the only answer that they can give.  It's called faith.  So there are people that believe things based on faith and there are people who believe things because of evidence; real, tangible, quantifiable evidence.  Who would you rather have as cell mate?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> are you high? drunk? on crack? heroin?



Hmmm...nope, nope, no and no.



heavymetalhunter said:


> i have a book here that says the bible is wrong. so there, i have just as much to back my claims as you do.





grizzlyblake said:


> So you know that magical creation is the truth. How do you know this? And I don't want any of this "just because the bible said so" or "God told me so" business.
> 
> I want to know how you KNOW that's the truth.



Do a search in here.  There's plenty of threads on this subject...but I'll give you a few.

The Bible proves itself.  It has countless prophecies that have been fulfilled.  From the Babylonian captivity, the destruction of Solomon's temple, the coming of a redeemer, the trial of Jesus before Pilot and Herod, the gospel being spread into Ethiopia by the Eunuch in Acts 8.  Hundreds of prophecies being fulfilled.

Also, the text has been unchanged from when it was originally written.  How was this "story" protected from change?  How is it that the earliest writings we have of the NT (circa 150 AD) match what we have today?  How is it that the earliest writing of the OT match what we have today?  Chance?  I don't think so.

You should read this book.  http://www.crossway.org/product/9781433501463

Might enlighten you on how the Bible has more than just a chance at being accurate.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

A cell mate? Someone who believes illogical things based on faith. Much easier to manipulate into doing things out of fear of magical punishment.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> you might wanna get your seatbelt on, this is gonna be a rough one.





grizzlyblake said:


> Probably just going to see the same ol' same ol'.





ambush80 said:


> I'm afraid that's the only answer that they can give.  It's called faith.  So there are people that believe things based on faith and there are people who believe things because of evidence; real, tangible, quantifiable evidence.  Who would you rather have as cell mate?




You guys are hilarious.  Same ole same ole.

Yet, it requires just as much faith to believe in nothingness and chaos.  No evidence.  No proof.  Only that it is easier to prove nothing and chaos than to prove order.

Take the easy way out and bury your head in the sand.  Say we all came as a part of chaos and chance.  Yet...deep inside, there is something inside of you that just won't let it go.  It gnaws at you and you have to go and try and prove your point.  You have to try and disrupt others and prove your point, when you have no idea if it is the truth or not.

Maybe someday, you'll prove yourself right.  Until then, hopefully you'll gather some amount of truth out of this spiritual forum rather than just trying to upset others and getting a giggle from it.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Yet, it requires just as much faith to believe in nothingness and chaos.  No evidence.  No proof.  Only that it is easier to prove nothing and chaos than to prove order.



yep. we got a live one here. 

nothingness. think about what you are saying. you saying it takes faith to believe in nothingness, because there is no evidence or proof, for NOTHINGNESS! if something doesnt exist, its gonna be kinda hard to find proof or evidence of it.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

First off, there is no disrupting others going on here. The title of this thread is "A question for Atheists."

Secondly, it does not take faith to believe that a story isn't true. You could tell me that there is an invisible clown sitting here at my desk with me. It does not take faith for me to say there is no invisible clown here. 

Easy way out? Believing in a religion that was ingrained in one's psyche from childbirth by society, school, and many times family? Not exploring any other forms of religion but trusting that the one you are blindly following is the only right one? Letting your blind belief trump scientific evidence?

I think that one is the easy way out.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Easy way out? Believing in a religion that was ingrained in one's psyche from childbirth by society, school, and many times family? Not exploring any other forms of religion but trusting that the one you are blindly following is the only right one? Letting your blind belief trump scientific evidence?
> 
> I think that one is the easy way out.


well said.

most christians dont realize that they are only christian as a product of their environment. had they been born in africa, chances are they would be worshipping the great witch doctor that lives halfway up the mountain.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> You guys are hilarious.  Same ole same ole.
> 
> Yet, it requires just as much faith to believe in nothingness and chaos.  No evidence.  No proof.  Only that it is easier to prove nothing and chaos than to prove order.
> 
> ...



Actually, I see pretty good evidence for chaos.  Still borns, deformities, injustice...

The easy way out is calling something you don't understand "Magic".  Struggling to make sense of it is a noble pursuit that drives science and exploration.  

What I have "deep inside" is a sneaking suspicion that all that stuff I was told in Sunday school was akin to the Boogie Man; a figment used by may parents to keep me in bed.

I have to admit, I do get a giggle out of some of the postings here; made by believers and non believers as well.   Some of it makes me terribly sad.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> So, we're boiling it down to logic? And you can't admit that random chaos seems more logical than magic?
> 
> Come on...



Logical??
How can total chaos become complete logic?
It seems simply impossible.
Total chaos is a car sitting in your driveway with no battery in it.  It will be impossible for the automobile to start.  The car will have to conjure up it's own battery.
But wait, it'll first have to make itself.

Total something from total nothing is completely impossible in my frail human mind........ until I add creator God to the equation.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

Yes, that's my point. Since the dawn of time man has fabricated stories to explain things that man himself could not. Your creation story may just as well be the great flying Coke can that made everything. Once you have that simple explanation for everything you won't have any more questions.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 23, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I'm afraid that's the only answer that they can give.  It's called faith.  So there are people that believe things based on faith and there are people who believe things because of evidence; real, tangible, quantifiable evidence.  Who would you rather have as cell mate?



Evidence!

Where's your evidence?

How did there come to be a purpose in a leaf falling from a tree?

You have no evidence.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Yes, that's my point. Since the dawn of time man has fabricated stories to explain things that man himself could not. Your creation story may just as well be the great flying Coke can that made everything. *Once you have that simple explanation *for everything you won't have any more questions.




Oh it isn't a simple explanation.  I know very little of it.  Only what I read from God's word.  
When I consider everything that must have occurred, I realize that what occurred goes far beyond explanation.
But I don't even need the Bible to help me understand and realize that it didn't just happen.


Why is there something rather than nothing??????????

From an atheist point of view,  Why is there something rather than nothing?????????????/


----------



## Tanner boyzz (Nov 23, 2009)

Hope what a waiste of time


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

Why not? Why do Christians insist that everything happens for a reason and that their god is worried about their personal well being and that he has his hands involved in everything? 

Unfortunately, I'm not self-centered enough to think that a magical being thinks that out of everyone on the planet I'm special. 

Why did the leaf fall off the tree? It just did. That's all. It wasn't a magical symbol of beauty to convey god's love to 1 person out of 6.8 billion on the planet. 

From a Christian point of view, why did God create this something? Why did he create something with so much suffering, sadness, pain, misery, etc. when he is supposedly powerful enough to change it for the better? Why doesn't he do that? Is he in actuality not all powerful? Is he all powerful but just not all loving? 

Maybe he just doesn't exist at all.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 23, 2009)

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

Energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy rather than decrease it. 


These two fly in the face of Chaos. 
And these are Scientific Laws.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Why not? Why do Christians insist that everything happens for a reason and that their god is worried about their personal well being and that he has his hands involved in everything?
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm not self-centered enough to think that a magical being thinks that out of everyone on the planet I'm special.
> 
> Why did the leaf fall off the tree? It just did. That's all. It wasn't a magical symbol of beauty to convey god's love to 1 person out of 6.8 billion on the planet.



God is omniscient and omnipresent. For him to know eveyrone on the planet and take a personal interest in them takes very little energy for him. 



> From a Christian point of view, why did God create this something? Why did he create something with so much suffering, sadness, pain, misery, etc. when he is supposedly powerful enough to change it for the better? Why doesn't he do that? Is he in actuality not all powerful? Is he all powerful but just not all loving?
> 
> Maybe he just doesn't exist at all.



He gave humans free will. 
Surrendering your power to give another a choice is not weakness or non-existence.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 23, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Evidence!
> 
> Where's your evidence?
> 
> ...



Most things I don't know.  The things that I do know, I know because of evidence.

I took a botany class in college.  It explained why some trees are deciduous. I have a pretty good idea why a leaf falls from a tree, and why it falls down.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> God is omniscient and omnipresent. For him to know eveyrone on the planet and take a personal interest in them takes very little energy for him.



Well, then, answer the question. Does he not fix the problems in the world because he is, after all, NOT omnipotent? Or is it because he IS omnipotent but just doesn't care enough to do anything?


----------



## gtparts (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Why not? Why do Christians insist that everything happens for a reason and that their god is worried about their personal well being and that he has his hands involved in everything?
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm not self-centered enough to think that a magical being thinks that out of everyone on the planet I'm special.
> 
> ...



I'll ask Him when I see Him face-to-face. Then, at least one of us will know the answer, but it will not be you unless you make a different decision than the one you currently cling to so tenaciously.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 23, 2009)

rj,

You can fling yourself against the irrational folks who believe order can come of chaos, that everything  is the result of nothing + chaos = something, that despite an admission that the odds are the same, they favor one outcome over another because....(why?)... it fits their worldview.

Their powder is wet, but they will not realize it till they try to discharge their weapon. On the other hand, we live every day in the grace of God and know it is true experientially.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

I don't think I'm the one clinging to my belief so tenaciously. In college I took lots of different religion courses as electives because I am very curious and interested in these things. I have not ruled out anything at all, and have heard VERY convincing "first hand" accounts of being touched by the spirit by people of several very different religions from around the world. 

I'm not sure what in the heck to think, but blindly jumping into one fairly young religion just because it's popular in my part of the world doesn't seem wise. Especially when it doesn't really offer any answers.

I hope YOU have chosen the correct religion, heck, the correct sect of Christianity, out of the 4000+ religions worldwide today. Those are pretty big odds to say that you will be the one meeting god face-to-face.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Nov 23, 2009)

Honest answer:  I don't know, but I don't think it's because of your deity.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Well, then, answer the question. Does he not fix the problems in the world because he is, after all, NOT omnipotent? Or is it because he IS omnipotent but just doesn't care enough to do anything?



That is a whole other thread. But at the center is free will. 

There was a time we walked and talked with God in the physical sense. Since the fall, we can only do that in a spiritual sense.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> I'm not sure what in the heck to think, but blindly jumping into one fairly young religion just because it's popular in my part of the world doesn't seem wise. Especially when it doesn't really offer any answers.




What answers are you seeking?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 23, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
> 
> Energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy rather than decrease it.
> 
> ...



Still waiting...


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Why not? Why do Christians insist that everything happens for a reason and that their god is worried about their personal well being and that he has his hands involved in everything?
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm not self-centered enough to think that a magical being thinks that out of everyone on the planet I'm special.
> 
> ...





Why is there something, rather than nothing?



.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Well, then, answer the question. Does he not fix the problems in the world because he is, after all, NOT omnipotent? Or is it because he IS omnipotent but just doesn't care enough to do anything?




Why is there something, rather than nothing?


.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

Because there just IS. Period.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 23, 2009)

If all of these so called "atheists"  deep down did not believe in God, they would not spend so much time on it. I don't spend my time on stuff I don't believe in.   I cannot believe some of you believe creation came from chaos. That would be like a tornado going through a junkyard an leaving in its wake the most high tech machinery ever imagined.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 23, 2009)

you talk about 4000 different religions------ since Christianity is the largest religion on earth, that would mean we have the most powerful God. this is common sense. it's numbers. if any of the other religions are true,they must have pretty weak "gods"!


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

Now if you can wrangle a god fight I PROMISE I will show up to that!


----------



## Roberson (Nov 23, 2009)

*the One True God*



grizzlyblake said:


> I don't think I'm the one clinging to my belief so tenaciously. In college I took lots of different religion courses as electives because I am very curious and interested in these things. I have not ruled out anything at all, and have heard VERY convincing "first hand" accounts of being touched by the spirit by people of several very different religions from around the world.
> 
> I'm not sure what in the heck to think, but blindly jumping into one fairly young religion just because it's popular in my part of the world doesn't seem wise. Especially when it doesn't really offer any answers.
> 
> I hope YOU have chosen the correct religion, heck, the correct sect of Christianity, out of the 4000+ religions worldwide today. Those are pretty big odds to say that you will be the one meeting god face-to-face.


4,000 + different religions, huh? and many of them older than Christianity? what have they done for the world?  Christianity has done more in its relatively short life than ANY other "religion". Just look at the difference today between Traditional Christian countries and non-Christian countries.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Now if you can wrangle a god fight I PROMISE I will show up to that!


And I can promise you'll be there.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

What has Christianity done for the world?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 23, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> Christianity has done more in its relatively short life than ANY other "religion".



Both "good" and "bad".........


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Well, then, answer the question. Does he not fix the problems in the world because he is, after all, NOT omnipotent? Or is it because he IS omnipotent but just doesn't care enough to do anything?



You know...there is one person in the Bible that questioned God.  You should read about it.  Read the book of Job.  Specifically Job 38-40.  You'll see what happened when Job wanted to question God...and you'll see his response in Chapter 40 to God.

As far as the Bible being infallible...what is your response to post #33?

Why do you think it is fallible?  Besides the fact that you just don't think it could happen?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Both "good" and "bad".........



Wow...welcome back WTM.....what have we done to have your presence grace us

just kidding.  you know...several of us actually have missed your thought provoking prodding.  Hope your deer season is going well up north.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 23, 2009)

Every day is a neatly wrapped gift!  And every day spent hunting puts the bow on top of the box!


----------



## Roberson (Nov 23, 2009)

Man if you think the world is bad now take Christianity away and see what you have. What has Christianity done for the world? Hmmm, let me see- our military, which is and has been traditionally Christian, has set free and helped more people than any other institution in history, for one, second,I personally know dozens of Christians who sacrifice their life to help others, there are millions of Christian missions around the world that feed and clothe and medicate the helpless, third, there are BILLIONS of people like me who can attest to power of God to change your life. I don't have enough time or room to name all the good Christianity has done. For one thing, whether you want to admit it or not, America, the greatest humanatarian country on earth, was founded by men of strong conviction of Jesus Christ.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 23, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> For one thing, whether you want to admit it or not, America, the greatest humanatarian country on earth, was founded by men of strong conviction of Jesus Christ.



That can be debated soundly.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

Regarding post #33, I am not educated enough on the Bible to make a judgment call on the real life happenings of the Bible (even though I went to Catholic middle and high school and a fairly Protestant private college). There is so much in the Bible that is just unbelievable like water to wine, healing the blind, burning bush, immaculate conception, etc. It sort of takes away from the credibility for me.

What it comes down to is that I just don't think it could happen. That's all. I don't have to have faith that there is no god, I just have not seen any evidence that it's real. Until something miraculous happens to me I'll be a skeptic.

I'm not out attacking people unprovoked, in fact, I usually avoid these discussions here but got involved because it was addressing atheists. I am not an atheist. I don't know what's real, so my mind gravitates to what seems to be the easiest, most logical answer.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That can be debated soundly.


 Which part,my friend?


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> Man if you think the world is bad now take Christianity away and see what you have. What has Christianity done for the world? Hmmm, let me see- our military, which is and has been traditionally Christian, has set free and helped more people than any other institution in history, for one, second,I personally know dozens of Christians who sacrifice their life to help others, there are millions of Christian missions around the world that feed and clothe and medicate the helpless, third, there are BILLIONS of people like me who can attest to power of God to change your life. I don't have enough time or room to name all the good Christianity has done. For one thing, whether you want to admit it or not, America, the greatest humanatarian country on earth, was founded by men of strong conviction of Jesus Christ.



I disagree on the founders having strong convictions of Jesus Christ.

I don't see how our military could be given credit for fighting as Christians. I don't believe the U.S. armed forces are church affiliated.

There are also millions of people and groups around the world who do wonderful humanitarian things who are not religiously affiliated. 

I'll definitely concede that America has done great things. We are the best country in the world. However, all those great things cannot be solely credited to Christianity.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Regarding post #33, I am not educated enough on the Bible to make a judgment call on the real life happenings of the Bible (even though I went to Catholic middle and high school and a fairly Protestant private college). There is so much in the Bible that is just unbelievable like water to wine, healing the blind, burning bush, immaculate conception, etc. It sort of takes away from the credibility for me.
> 
> What it comes down to is that I just don't think it could happen. That's all. I don't have to have faith that there is no god, I just have not seen any evidence that it's real. Until something miraculous happens to me I'll be a skeptic.
> 
> I'm not out attacking people unprovoked, in fact, I usually avoid these discussions here but got involved because it was addressing atheists. I am not an atheist. I don't know what's real, so my mind gravitates to what seems to be the easiest, most logical answer.



Well...I'll agree with you that immaculate conception ain't in the Bible  My Catholic friends will disagree...but Mary was a sinner just like you and I.

So what is more likely?  Prophecy of the 70 year Babylonian captivity or changing water to wine?

oh...and the charge of causing issues in the spiritual forum in post 33 wasn't to you.  It was more to Heavymetal.  Ambush is a pot stirrer, but at least somewhat respectful.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 23, 2009)

And I'm trying to be respectful as well. 

I think it is important to say again that I am NOT an atheist. I have nothing to gain by proving any point. I am open to any solid ideas of why in the heck we are here, but will not blindly follow anything.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Regarding post #33, I am not educated enough on the Bible to make a judgment call on the real life happenings of the Bible (even though I went to Catholic middle and high school and a fairly Protestant private college). There is so much in the Bible that is just unbelievable like water to wine, healing the blind, burning bush, immaculate conception, etc. It sort of takes away from the credibility for me.
> 
> What it comes down to is that I just don't think it could happen. That's all. I don't have to have faith that there is no god, I just have not seen any evidence that it's real. Until something miraculous happens to me I'll be a skeptic.
> 
> I'm not out attacking people unprovoked, in fact, I usually avoid these discussions here but got involved because it was addressing atheists. I am not an atheist. I don't know what's real, so my mind gravitates to what seems to be the easiest, most logical answer.


until something miraculous happens to you? just about everything around you is a miracle, man. is it not miraculous that we are just hanging out in space rotating around an unbelievably huge ball of fire that if we were a few inches closer or farther away life would not be possible? their are a million other things of the miraculous. go ask a doctor if he has ever seen a miracle. Creation itself is a miracle!


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> And I'm trying to be respectful as well.
> 
> I think it is important to say again that I am NOT an atheist. I have nothing to gain by proving any point. I am open to any solid ideas of why in the heck we are here, but will not blindly follow anything.



You should really check out the book that I mentioned in post 33.  I think it gives a lot of good evidence as to why the Bible is true.  Countless prophecies being fulfilled.  Sure...the entire universe being created out of nothing in 6 24 hour periods...does sound crazy.  But when you've got prophecies being fulfilled and history being told hundreds of years before...makes a good case that the whole thing is true.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 23, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Why is there something, rather than nothing?



“The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that
‘nothing’ is unstable."
Frank Wilczek

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Something.pdf


----------



## earl (Nov 23, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> Which part,my friend?



Do a quick search ,friend, and you will find all the evidence you will ever need that this country was not founded on Christianity ,nor was it founded by Christians. When you get finished with that,Kick out all the Christian denominations that you do not back as a Christian. Then start comparing published numbers of faiths and you will also find that your assumption that Christians are the world's majority is also bogus. And then just for giggles explain how Obama got elected by a Christian nation. 

From some of your posts it seems you assume nonChristians to be ignorant. You will learn in time that on this forum ,for the most part, that is a false assumption. Just a suggestion ,but in future debates it may be wise to research your ''beliefs'' so you can back them up. 

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## earl (Nov 23, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...welcome back WTM.....what have we done to have your presence grace us
> 
> just kidding.  you know...several of us actually have missed your thought provoking prodding.  Hope your deer season is going well up north.



X2 Good to see you .


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 23, 2009)

earl said:


> X2 Good to see you .



Right back at 'cha, my friend!


----------



## PWalls (Nov 23, 2009)

Good to see you posting Les.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Nov 23, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Ha, ha, thanks. We are all here as a result of chaos. There is no other explanation that you can back up or claim to be true.
> 
> Think about it this way - what are the odds of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker? Well, you have the same odds of getting dealt ANY other possible combination of cards. That's just the way it happened to come together. Nothing special happened to put those particular cards in that order.




We are all the result of chaos...then how do you ground logic?  Back to the OP's question, why is there something rather than nothing?    The position of philosophical naturalism has some gaping holes.  Darwin recognized one of these holes with regard to epistemology, he says, "The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.  Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"  If we are living in a world governed by created and perpetuated by the irrational, then rationality does not exist.  Irrationality cannot create rationality, no matter how hard it tries.

With regard to the card example, the odds of getting a royal flush are 649,739 to 1.  The odds of a single simple organism being formed through evolution according to a Yale University biophysicist are 1 to 10^340,000,000.  1 to 10^50 is a statistical impossibility.  Am I to believe something that science is telling me is logically impossible?  Clearly, the world is not like a poker hand. 

But supposing it was logically possible, and supposing Chaos is the dealer, where do the cards come from?  Where did the nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. come from?  Am I to believe that there is an infinite string of dependent reactions and beings?  Also, logically impossible.  The fact that I am here implies a beginning, don't believe me?  Try counting down to negative infinity and counting back up.  Feel free to post after that.

So an eternal string of dependent beings is logically impossible, the only logical answer is that it was started by an independent being.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 24, 2009)

VERY well said hayseed!


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 24, 2009)

“Why is there something, rather than nothing?”

Which is to say:  Why is Blue?  Where is here?  What is that?  Who is air?  When is someday?  How is water?  

Rjcruiser, with too much time and not enough motivation, jibes: “See...you're admitting your superior knowledge with your statements.”   Well, actually, you seem not to be reading anything at all . . .  and in your smugness – “I'm not the one coming into a spiritual forum trying to stir the hornets nest,” you may have forgotten that you, personally, do assert superior knowledge – “. . . an Omnipotent God created everything in just 6 days.”  Um?   Really?  How, exactly, can you assert such superior knowledge?     

“Might enlighten you on how the Bible has more than just a chance at being accurate.”   Um?  Which part?  The part where God decided he made a mistake, in Genesis – “6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”    

The part where God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised, in Exodus – “4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.”   

That part where God mass-murders innocent children – “Exodus 11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.”  

Or is the accurate part the one where God decides that childbirth is sinful – “Leviticus 12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:    
12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.”   

Or the parts where God forbids the handicapped from entering his churches?  Or promises to kill anyone who paints a picture?  Or endorses incest?  Are all of the parts accurate?  Or are you just choosing the parts you like?  

Then the capper – the ultimate argument from ignorance – “Take the easy way out and bury your head in the sand. Say we all came as a part of chaos and chance. Yet...deep inside, there is something inside of you that just won't let it go. It gnaws at you and you have to go and try and prove your point. You have to try and disrupt others and prove your point, when you have no idea if it is the truth or not.”    Well.  Shame on us.  How dare we take the easy way out and do centuries of actual work when we have a fella right here who says it is much harder to read only a few bits and learn almost nothing from a single ancient book.  I’m convinced.  Ignorance is truth.  Knowledge is the easy way out.  Seems self-evident to me.

And finally, a lick of sense from Ronnie – “Total something from total nothing is completely impossible in my frail human mind........”   I agree.  Whether you seek to explain it from a ‘Big Bang’ perspective, or a ‘God Snapped his Omnipotent Fingers’ perspective, it is equally unsatisfying, similar to asking ‘Why is Blue.’  Unfortunately, I suspect that science is at least actively trying to progress, and find out at least a few of the answers, where religion is relying on a retreat to ancient dogma to hide behind.  I suspect also that since we are little tiny critters on a little tiny planet on the outer edge of a little tiny galaxy, and are really only here because a few billion years of natural selection happened to add up this way, our own development and perspective is probably such that we can never actually know.  Personally, I’m good with that.  Honest doubts are far better than self-serving and purely invented certainties all day long.  Honest inquiry, searching, and discovering, is far better than quitting and falling back into tales and folklore and superstitions.  

A collection of fairy stories is not evidence to support religion, and it is disingenuous to continually call science into question for not having all of the answers when religion has none.  Science is as close as your keyboard, and it does not ask for blind belief – you push the key, something happens.  Religion cannot even offer that much by way of demonstrating itself.  

Why is there something is an absurd question, designed entirely to confute and confuse.  Any number of unanswerable questions can be posed – ‘How do Martians celebrate the Fourth of July?’ --  but the existence of the rhetorical does not in and of itself prove anything other than the ability to imagine.  Every doubt, imponderable, or unknown is hardly prima facie evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being.  To say that something is not known is only to say exactly that – it is not to say that it cannot be learned, and so must be the work of an invisible deity.  If that were the case, the world would still be flat, as was universally ‘believed’ in the time that Jesus lived, and all of the world would be living much as they lived at that time if all truths had already been revealed.  Clearly we’ve progressed a bit since the Bible told us everything we needed to know.


----------



## GONoob (Nov 24, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> You should really check out the book that I mentioned in post 33.  I think it gives a lot of good evidence as to why the Bible is true.  Countless prophecies being fulfilled.  Sure...the entire universe being created out of nothing in 6 24 hour periods...does sound crazy.  But when you've got prophecies being fulfilled and history being told hundreds of years before...makes a good case that the whole thing is true.



You keep bringing this up, I just have to say though. History books have a lot of mistakes. There is no doubt some of the events in the bible took place. Prophecies being fulfilled? Nostradamus must have been the 2nd coming.

You ever play that game where everyone stands in a line and passes on a word in whisper? At the end of the line its gibberish. That's what history was centuries ago.

I wont get into this whole debate, just wanted to clarify some things. It seems you rely on the bible a bit too much. A book that has changed so much over time.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 24, 2009)

And shooter?  Um?  “There was a time we walked and talked with God in the physical sense. Since the fall, we can only do that in a spiritual sense.”    

You’re kidding, right?  I mean, doesn’t your particular religion teach that the ‘fall’ was redeemed by a particularly well described execution?  And are you not so smug about it that you carve an image of that execution three times life size and kneel in front of it in your Churches?  

Which is it?  Was someone tortured and executed for your sins, or do you still have those sins?  If your sins were not redeemed by God sending His Only Begotten Son to Die for You, then you have quite a bit of explaining to do . . . 

And by the way – your entropy trope?   Ignorance writ large.  Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius, a German physicist, observed in the mid-1800’s that in any process that is thermodynamically reversible, the entropy of a thermally isolated closed system is unchanged.  In any process that is thermodynamically irreversible, then, the entropy of a thermally isolated closed system increases.  The planetary atmosphere, you might notice, is not thermodynamically reversible by nature, where the universe at large is quite a different story.  

Similarly, the Second law of thermodynamics, axiomatically referred to as Caratheodory’s Principle, involves a work principle between two closed systems, or as stated by Lord Kelvin the interaction produces nothing other than the extraction of nearly equivalent quantities from the surroundings, or, in the findings of R J E Clausius, result in directional energy transfer.  Notice, again, that we speak of closed systems, and in such a system, such as this puny planet, the ‘Scientific Law’ holds true – but it was not intended to be extended beyond closed systems.  

If you wish to cherry-pick your limited knowledge of science to justify your cherry-picking among your limited knowledge of bible verses then at least choose some stuff that makes sense.  Or learn something about one or the other.  I’m too old to take folks to school, and we already paid a ton of taxes to teach folks stuff they forgot to learn . . . C’mon, you’ll need to do better than that  . . .


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 24, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> And shooter?  Um?  “There was a time we walked and talked with God in the physical sense. Since the fall, we can only do that in a spiritual sense.”
> 
> You’re kidding, right?  I mean, doesn’t your particular religion teach that the ‘fall’ was redeemed by a particularly well described execution?  And are you not so smug about it that you carve an image of that execution three times life size and kneel in front of it in your Churches?
> 
> Which is it?  Was someone tortured and executed for your sins, or do you still have those sins?  If your sins were not redeemed by God sending His Only Begotten Son to Die for You, then you have quite a bit of explaining to do . . .



Yes and no. Yes, we have been redeemed. No, I still do not walk with God in the cool of the day. It will be later when I get to see and be in the presence of God. 



> And by the way – your entropy trope?   Ignorance writ large.  Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius, a German physicist, observed in the mid-1800’s that in any process that is thermodynamically reversible, the entropy of a thermally isolated closed system is unchanged.  In any process that is thermodynamically irreversible, then, the entropy of a thermally isolated closed system increases.  The planetary atmosphere, you might notice, is not thermodynamically reversible by nature, where the universe at large is quite a different story.
> 
> Similarly, the Second law of thermodynamics, axiomatically referred to as Caratheodory’s Principle, involves a work principle between two closed systems, or as stated by Lord Kelvin the interaction produces nothing other than the extraction of nearly equivalent quantities from the surroundings, or, in the findings of R J E Clausius, result in directional energy transfer.  Notice, again, that we speak of closed systems, and in such a system, such as this puny planet, the ‘Scientific Law’ holds true – but it was not intended to be extended beyond closed systems.
> 
> If you wish to cherry-pick your limited knowledge of science to justify your cherry-picking among your limited knowledge of bible verses then at least choose some stuff that makes sense.  Or learn something about one or the other.  I’m too old to take folks to school, and we already paid a ton of taxes to teach folks stuff they forgot to learn . . . C’mon, you’ll need to do better than that  . . .



So, we can infer that evolution and the origin of life on this planet flies in the face of Clausius' findings. Good to know. 

If there existed energy/matter at some point in time that was not the universe as we see it, then it had to draw energy from something else outside the equation to subsequently convert it into the universe as we know it-according to the second law. 


Can we indulge in a debate without bringing one's education into question? 
For someone who prides himself on educating others and opening up intelligent debate, you seem to carry a chip on your shoulder about doing so.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 24, 2009)

GONoob said:


> You keep bringing this up, I just have to say though. History books have a lot of mistakes. There is no doubt some of the events in the bible took place. Prophecies being fulfilled? Nostradamus must have been the 2nd coming.
> 
> You ever play that game where everyone stands in a line and passes on a word in whisper? At the end of the line its gibberish. That's what history was centuries ago.
> 
> I wont get into this whole debate, just wanted to clarify some things. It seems you rely on the bible a bit too much. A book that has changed so much over time.



Are you Mormon?  Because that is what Joseph Smith said about the Bible...but with the Dead Sea Scrolls, this was proved to be a myth.  I don't have the stats off the top of my head, but the sections of the Bible that we have today when compared to the earliest manuscripts (mid second century for the NT...150s AD) are something like 99.97% the same.

So...over 2,000 years, nothing changed.  

You really should research things before you just jump in with your pre-conceived notions.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> “The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that
> ‘nothing’ is unstable."
> Frank Wilczek
> 
> http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Something.pdf



WTM45,

I find it interesting you didn't go to science for your answer, but to philosophy. Is there any proof for Wiczek's response? What is it about a vacuum that is unstable?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

Please read the link I posted.  It will explain that answer.
My answer is "I just don't know."

The question here is one of a philosophical nature.  Maybe the most fundamental question of all time.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Good to see you posting Les.



Great to see you as well!


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Read the link I posted.  It will explain that answer.
> My answer is "I just don't know."
> 
> The question here is one of a philosophical nature.  Maybe the most fundamental question of all time.



I am glad to see you find the question understandable, unlike the silly concoctions such as: "Why is Blue?". "Who is air?", "How is water?".

Just because a question can be framed doesn't mean it makes sense....or has an answer.

Dio you might want to consider the inequality of your questions relative to the one posed in the OP. The contrasts outweigh any similarity that might support the notion that the OP question is nonsense. This is not the first time you have out-punted your coverage.


----------



## pnome (Nov 24, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Why is there something, rather than nothing?



What's your answer Ronnie?


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

hayseed_theology said:


> We are all the result of chaos...then how do you ground logic?  Back to the OP's question, why is there something rather than nothing?    The position of philosophical naturalism has some gaping holes.  Darwin recognized one of these holes with regard to epistemology, he says, "The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.  Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"  If we are living in a world governed by created and perpetuated by the irrational, then rationality does not exist.  Irrationality cannot create rationality, no matter how hard it tries.
> 
> With regard to the card example, the odds of getting a royal flush are 649,739 to 1.  The odds of a single simple organism being formed through evolution according to a Yale University biophysicist are 1 to 10^340,000,000.  1 to 10^50 is a statistical impossibility.  Am I to believe something that science is telling me is logically impossible?  Clearly, the world is not like a poker hand.
> 
> ...




A very good explanation.  And logical.  

THIS that we have, did not produce itself.  
And there could be only one reason to think it did produce itself............... an unwillingness to recognize the existance of that "Independent Being".

It makes sense.
It proves itself.
It stands the test of time.

Long ramblings can't change it and the strongest arguments can't add anything else to it.

The only argument is ones refusal to admit to the existance of that "Independent Being".


----------



## pnome (Nov 24, 2009)

hayseed_theology said:


> We are all the result of chaos...then how do you ground logic?  Back to the OP's question, why is there something rather than nothing?    The position of philosophical naturalism has some gaping holes.  Darwin recognized one of these holes with regard to epistemology, he says, "The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.  Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"  If we are living in a world governed by created and perpetuated by the irrational, then rationality does not exist.  Irrationality cannot create rationality, no matter how hard it tries.
> 
> With regard to the card example, the odds of getting a royal flush are 649,739 to 1.  The odds of a single simple organism being formed through evolution according to a Yale University biophysicist are 1 to 10^340,000,000.  1 to 10^50 is a statistical impossibility.  Am I to believe something that science is telling me is logically impossible?  Clearly, the world is not like a poker hand.
> 
> ...



Ah, the argument from personal incredulity.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ah, the argument from personal incredulity.
> 
> http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity



pnome, 

hayseed's post isn't about fallacious reasoning. It's about statistical improbability and practical impossibility based on statistics. Try again.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2009)

hayseed_theology said:


> We are all the result of chaos...then how do you ground logic?  Back to the OP's question, why is there something rather than nothing?    The position of philosophical naturalism has some gaping holes.  Darwin recognized one of these holes with regard to epistemology, he says, "The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.  Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"  If we are living in a world governed by created and perpetuated by the irrational, then rationality does not exist.  Irrationality cannot create rationality, no matter how hard it tries.



The conviction of a monkey's mind when he's applying reason or superstition?

The notion of chaos or randomness is not irrational.  



hayseed_theology said:


> With regard to the card example, the odds of getting a royal flush are 649,739 to 1.  The odds of a single simple organism being formed through evolution according to a Yale University biophysicist are 1 to 10^340,000,000.  1 to 10^50 is a statistical impossibility.  Am I to believe something that science is telling me is logically impossible?  Clearly, the world is not like a poker hand.



No matter how big the number is, how many "cards" you are playing with, the chance of them being "dealt" in one particular order is the same as them being dealt in any other order.  You know that.



hayseed_theology said:


> But supposing it was logically possible, and supposing Chaos is the dealer, where do the cards come from?  Where did the nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. come from?  Am I to believe that there is an infinite string of dependent reactions and beings?  Also, logically impossible.  The fact that I am here implies a beginning, don't believe me?  Try counting down to negative infinity and counting back up.  Feel free to post after that.



It is just as possible that all the energy was always here.

A "dealer" is unnecessary.  Possible, however improbable.



hayseed_theology said:


> So an eternal string of dependent beings is logically impossible, the only logical answer is that it was started by an independent being.



I have scientific (simply meaning: collected in a scientific manner) data describing the nature of "Beings".  The being you consider exists in my imagination.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> The conviction of a monkeys mind when he's applying reason or superstition?
> 
> The notion of chaos or randomness is not irrational.
> 
> ...




You just can't accept the possibility of that "independent Being" yet can you.
Someday


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> You just can't accept the possibility of that "independent Being" yet can you.
> Someday



I can accept the possibility of God or Gods and ghosts and the soul and Sasquatch.  I really, really can.  So far I haven't experienced anything that would lead me to move them into the "Plausible" category.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> The conviction of a monkeys mind when he's applying reason or superstition?
> 
> The notion of chaos or randomness is not irrational.
> 
> ...



I believe Darwin's point was that we have no reason to expect that the mental capabilities of a monkey would ever rise to the level of humans. Since you seem to hold to macro-evolution as the most likely scenario, explaining where you came from, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us on the monkey's capacity for abstract thought, to ponder concepts like _truth_, _honor_, or _fidelity_.

As to the matter of probability, the only reality we have is this one and we do not fully grasp it. To assume there ever was or will be another "shuffle and re-deal" is speculation. While we can theoretically consider the permutations all we care to, we can only point to a single "dealing of the cards". 1 : 1 X 10^340,000,000 

WOW!!! One random pull and we hit the cosmic jackpot. It is the atheist that believes in fairy tales.


----------



## pnome (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> pnome,
> 
> hayseed's post isn't about fallacious reasoning. It's about statistical improbability and practical impossibility based on statistics. Try again.



"practical impossibility"   Hence the argument from incredulity.  

As far as he knows, it's "practically" impossible.  Though, I'll disagree.

Let's look at his numbers some then....



> With regard to the card example, the odds of getting a royal flush are 649,739 to 1. The odds of a single simple organism being formed through evolution according to a Yale University biophysicist are 1 to 10^340,000,000. 1 to 10^50 is a statistical impossibility. Am I to believe something that science is telling me is logically impossible? Clearly, the world is not like a poker hand.



His odds may be correct if evolution was completely random.  It is not.  Natural selection is not random at all.  Evolution is not like a poker hand.  

From: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Huxley



> Julian Huxley
> 
> Recently, a creationist cited yet another dismally misquoted scientific statistic which really takes the cake for best example of an abused reference. The source is Julian Huxley, who, it is said--and he of all things a "bastion of the theory of evolution"--determined that "the odds of the evolution of the horse were 1 in 1000 to the power of 1,000,000." One might immediately wonder how someone who believed this could still be a defender of evolution--after all, if those really were the odds against the evolution of the horse, who would buy evolution as a sensible explanation? Our doubt-sensors are right to ring loudly on this one: for Huxley never made such a claim. In fact, he made the exact opposite claim. Here is the original quote:
> 
> ...



Here's an experiment for you...

Take a bucket of water, and pour in some gravel.  Then pour in some sand, then add some ashes.   Shake it all around.  Let it sit for a while.

Notice that the coarser material ends up on the bottom and the lighter material ends up on top.  Now, what do you think the odds are of this organizational layering happening _completely at random_?

Pretty long I'd say.  But no matter how many times you shake and stir the bucket, the same result.   Why?  because something outside of just the bucket and the contents is at work, influencing the results.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I believe Darwin's point was that we have no reason to expect that the mental capabilities of a monkey would ever rise to the level of humans. Since you seem to hold to macro-evolution as the most likely scenario, explaining where you came from, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us on the monkey's capacity for abstract thought, to ponder concepts like _truth_, _honor_, or _fidelity_.



I don't know what monkeys think about.  I know that human primates sometimes apply reason and sometimes they apply superstition.  Did you bring up notions like truth, honor and fidelity to add some kind of legitimacy to your assertion; give it an authoritative or noble sound?



gtparts said:


> As to the matter of probability, the only reality we have is this one and we do not fully grasp it. To assume there ever was or will be another "shuffle and re-deal" is speculation. While we can theoretically consider the permutations all we care to, we can only point to a single "dealing of the cards". 1 : 1 X 10^340,000,000
> 
> 
> WOW!!! One random pull and we hit the cosmic jackpot. It is the atheist that believes in fairy tales.





I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that given the immensity of the Universe and the great length of time that it's been here that there has been some other "shuffling and dealing".  Even on our own little "rock" It seems plausible that many permutations ("shuffles and deals")  have been possible.


----------



## Paymaster (Nov 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> "practical impossibility"   Hence the argument from incredulity.
> 
> As far as he knows, it's "practically" impossible.  Though, I'll disagree.
> 
> ...



Yep, someone had to shake the bucket.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 24, 2009)

*What?*



earl said:


> Do a quick search ,friend, and you will find all the evidence you will ever need that this country was not founded on Christianity ,nor was it founded by Christians. When you get finished with that,Kick out all the Christian denominations that you do not back as a Christian. Then start comparing published numbers of faiths and you will also find that your assumption that Christians are the world's majority is also bogus. And then just for giggles explain how Obama got elected by a Christian nation.
> 
> From some of your posts it seems you assume nonChristians to be ignorant. You will learn in time that on this forum ,for the most part, that is a false assumption. Just a suggestion ,but in future debates it may be wise to research your ''beliefs'' so you can back them up.
> 
> Welcome to the forum.


OK, I did a quick (20 yr) study,and behold, my suspicions proved true. America was definetly founded by Christians called PILGRIMS fleeing religous persecution, I would never "kick out" other Christian denominations , as I am non-denominational, and I also studied and found that Christianity represents about 33% of the worlds population, with Islam coming in at about 19%.  as far as atheists, 2%.   And about Obama,HE IS A SELF DESCRIBED CHRISTIAN, just for giggles. how dare you say I don't back up my beliefs with study. I spent 6 yrs in theology school doing just that.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

pnome,

Your only problem is that we are not talking about gravel, sand, and ash. Nevertheless it makes a wonderful argument for a "something outside". So what holds the various systems together? I mean atoms to solar systems, microbes to humans,.....what is the cause or causes of there origin, and what sustains them? How did order come about and how does it persist? You can probably name many forces that are responsible, right?

And keep in mind we have no scientific proof that at every stage in the course of time there was ever more than one outcome. No do-overs, no mulligans, no second roll of the dice, no reshuffles and re-deals. No alternate realities. We can only be certain of one shot at arriving at what is.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> WOW!!! One random pull and we hit the cosmic jackpot. It is the atheist that believes in fairy tales.



Who can say in all certainty we are the lone galaxy supporting life as we know it in the vastness of space?


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know what monkeys think about.  I know that human primates sometimes apply reason and sometimes they apply superstition.  Did you bring up notions like truth, honor and fidelity to add some kind of legitimacy to your assertion; give it an authoritative or noble sound?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ask Darwin, he's the one who pointed out one of the unanswered problems with man being the end product of evolution.

As for "many permutations being possible", I agree on a statistical basis. I just have no proof of other realities than the one in which we exist. I cannot point to any other randomly generated realities, either failures or successes.

Looks like the existence we now have is quite singular and unique. There is no debris left over from unsuccessful miss-starts. Do you have any evidence to support the existence of even one of these possible permutations beyond the theoretical?


----------



## pnome (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> pnome,
> 
> Your only problem is that we are not talking about gravel, sand, and ash. Nevertheless it makes a wonderful argument for a "something outside". So what holds the various systems together? I mean atoms to solar systems, microbes to humans,.....what is the cause or causes of there origin, and what sustains them? How did order come about and how does it persist? You can probably name many forces that are responsible, right?



What do you think the cause is?  The God of Abraham?  

And what if, later on down the road, human's discover the cause and it turns out to not be the God of Abraham after all?  Will that make you doubt God as much as the absence of that knowledge makes you believe?



> And keep in mind we have no scientific proof that at every stage in the course of time there was ever more than one outcome. No do-overs, no mulligans, no second roll of the dice, no reshuffles and re-deals. No alternate realities. *We can only be certain of one shot at arriving at what is*.



It certainly does look that way when we view it from our position of the present.  Like the royal flush deal.  If we are sitting there with the royal in our hand, and we look back and consider that the deck had to be shuffled just exactly like it was for us to be dealt such a good hand, it seems astronomical.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> OK, I did a quick (20 yr) study,and behold, my suspicions proved true. America was definetly founded by Christians called PILGRIMS fleeing religous persecution....





RONG!

Better look a little bit closer at the historical timeline.


----------



## Steve Thompson (Nov 24, 2009)

How can someone look at our earth sitting in the middle of all this space and not belive that we answer to a higher power?
 God as we understand him is in a layman term which we can possibly understand.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2009)

Steve Thompson said:


> How can someone look at our earth sitting in the middle of all this space and not belive that we answer to a higher power?
> God as we understand him is in a layman term which we can possibly understand.



We used to say the same thing about lightning.  Are you glad someone decided to try and find out how it works or would you be content just saying "It's so mysterious and powerful.  It must be a God"?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Ask Darwin, he's the one who pointed out one of the unanswered problems with man being the end product of evolution.
> 
> As for "many permutations being possible", I agree on a statistical basis. I just have no proof of other realities than the one in which we exist. I cannot point to any other randomly generated realities, either failures or successes.
> 
> Looks like the existence we now have is quite singular and unique. There is no debris left over from unsuccessful miss-starts. Do you have any evidence to support the existence of even one of these possible permutations beyond the theoretical?



Fossil record.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> What do you think the cause is?  The God of Abraham?
> 
> And what if, later on down the road, human's discover the cause and it turns out to not be the God of Abraham after all?  Will that make you doubt God as much as the absence of that knowledge makes you believe?
> 
> ...



Absolutely, my friend! God made the "cards", "stacked the deck", and  "dealt" the entirety of the cosmos. My world-view depends only on the God of Abraham and His character. The rest of what we think we know is either consistent with that, and right, or we are mistaken in what we think we know, and are wrong. The world-view of the atheists is dependent on linking millions and billions and trillions of independent events so as to arrive at the present cosmos we live in. And even then, atheists are arbitrary about most of what they believe, primarily on what best suites them. That is what is most appealing to atheists: no ultimate accountability.


----------



## pnome (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> That is what is most appealing to atheists: no ultimate accountability.



Not to this one.  I would love nothing more than for all of the evil, bad people who escape punishment in this life to be punished in the next.  Hitler being tortured in the depths of hades sounds great!   

Further, I would love it if all of the good, and kind people who die are given an eternity free from want in bliss.  Sounds great!

My wishes, however, do not make it so.

The worldview of the atheist requires none of those things.  It requires only two things:

The first is the ability to accept "I don't know" as an answer.  

The second is the ability to distinguish fantasy from fact.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> RONG!
> 
> Better look a little bit closer at the historical timeline.


look, I know Indians were here before Europeans , but as far as founding America as we know it............and besides, dare I say that there were also people here before Indians, your own legends tell of fair blue eyed people in the hills. I also know that the vikings were here before the pilgrims.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Absolutely, my friend! God made the "cards", "stacked the deck", and  "dealt" the entirety of the cosmos. My world-view depends only on the God of Abraham and His character. The rest of what we think we know is either consistent with that, and right, or we are mistaken in what we think we know, and are wrong. The world-view of the atheists is dependent on linking millions and billions and trillions of independent events so as to arrive at the present cosmos we live in. And even then, atheists are arbitrary about most of what they believe, primarily on what best suites them. That is what is most appealing to atheists: no ultimate accountability.



That's not entirely true.  Most Atheists often just accept the rational stance of "I don't know" without having to rely on something extraordinary, superstitious or paranormal.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Fossil record.



Thanks, but that hardly accounts for an entirely different cosmos, an alternate reality based on a reshuffle and re-deal of all the elemental factors involved in existence. It is just historical evidence of this cosmos. It is earlier than the dodo and the passenger pigeon, but it doesn't begin to evidence an attempt to correct whatever caused their extinction, to "re-deal the cards".


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> look, I know Indians were here before Europeans , but as far as founding America as we know it............and besides, dare I say that there were also people here before Indians, your own legends tell of fair blue eyed people in the hills. I also know that the vikings were here before the pilgrims.



You do realize the time gap between 1620 and 1776 filled the New World with more than just Pilgrims, don't you?
And what has been constantly developing since 1776?
Historically, New World settlers have wanted freedom to believe as they wish individually, not as a .gov requirement.

But then, the "Biblically supported" idea of "Manifest Destiny" really iced the cupcake, didn't it?

We digress.......


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Thanks, but that hardly accounts for an entirely different cosmos, an alternate reality based on a reshuffle and re-deal of all the elemental factors involved in existence. It is just historical evidence of this cosmos. It is earlier than the dodo and the passenger pigeon, but it doesn't begin to evidence an attempt to correct whatever caused their extinction, to "re-deal the cards".



Here's some reading.....
http://www.spacetoday.org/DeepSpace/Stars/Planets/FarawayPlanets.html

Who is to say there is no life found on a planet that is over 140 light years away from the Earth?
Even if we could travel at the speed of light, no one (current humankind) could live long enough to get there.
Can there be the possibility?  And would it be "life" anything like we know "life" here?


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's not entirely true.  Most Atheists often just accept the rational stance of "I don't know" without having to rely on something extraordinary, superstitious or paranormal.



"I don't know" is simply a method of deflection, a way of avoiding the issue of ultimate accountability. Just play "dumb blonde" and you get a pass. Denying the existence of God seems to work, at least some times, ...until He calls us to give account for the life He has given us. Since we all come up short, I hope you have a convincing story. Every Christian does.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> You do realize the time gap between 1620 and 1776 filled the New World with more than just Pilgrims, don't you?
> And what has been constantly developing since 1776?
> Historically, New World settlers have wanted freedom to believe as they wish individually, not as a .gov requirement.
> 
> ...


the bottom line is the FIRST EUROPEANS came here to escape RELIGIOUS persecution, i.e., to worship GOD, yes even the Christ, to their own satisfaction. yes , of course I know the New World was filled with all sorts of unsavory characters, But it was Christian Pilgrims who were first to settle and make it safe for others to follow. even the Spanish who came here before the English were of course Christian. But they did not stay,mostly just passed through.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> "I don't know" is simply a method of deflection, a way of avoiding the issue of ultimate accountability. Just play "dumb blonde" and you get a pass. Denying the existence of God seems to work, at least some times, ...until He calls us to give account for the life He has given us. Since we all come up short, I hope you have a convincing story. Every Christian does.



It's not deflection.  It is honesty.  Atheists believe in accountability every day, not just for the unknown and unproven hereafter.

I'm pretty sure most Atheists will clearly state if they are someday "called to give account" to a deity creator there will be some major issues raised and some serious questions coupled with indignation brought forth.  Justifiably so.

Would not a creator deity expect its created to use the mind and brain which they have been given and charged with developing to its fullest potential?

Question everything.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> the bottom line is the FIRST EUROPEANS came here to escape RELIGIOUS persecution, i.e., to worship GOD, yes even the Christ, to their own satisfaction. yes , of course I know the New World was filled with all sorts of unsavory characters, But it was Christian Pilgrims who were first to settle and make it safe for others to follow. even the Spanish who came here before the English were of course Christian. But they did not stay,mostly just passed through.



Wrong again.
Very few were religious zealots or missionaries.
Most were entrepreneurs and risk takers, looking for better ways of existance and obtaining wealth.  Many were on missions of exploration and conquest financed by .gov entities and the wealthy.
Settlement brought the need for labor, and that opened the door for the oppressed, the debtor and the wards of the state to make the journey.
Building a form of government in the New World was not a matter of establishing a religious belief system.  But the two have very similiar interests in controlling people.

This needs to be a seperate thread.  But then, it has been discussed here before ad nauseum.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Here's some reading.....
> http://www.spacetoday.org/DeepSpace/Stars/Planets/FarawayPlanets.html
> 
> Who is to say there is no life found on a planet that is over 140 light years away from the Earth?
> ...



Same cosmos. Again, it doesn't constitute evidence of a different "dealing of the cards". It is part of the "deal" that we are part of. Our ignorance to this point is only that...ignorance. It really does not matter how many possible permutations are required to cover all the possibilities for the arrangement of matter and energy. On a theoretical basis they number to infinity + one. We only exist in one of those combinations. We have no concrete evidence that any other combination has ever existed. Until we can verify just one, we must reason that we exist in a singular reality out of an infinite number of possibilities. Probabilty-wise, that makes us pretty rare. So rare that our cosmos would have to be intentional. And that is the point.

Nothing that is, is accidental!


----------



## Jeffriesw (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Wrong again.
> Very few were religious zealots or missionaries.
> Most were entrepreneurs and risk takers, looking for better ways of existance and obtaining wealth.  Many were on missions of exploration and conquest financed by .gov entities and the wealthy.
> Settlement brought the need for labor, and that opened the door for the oppressed, the debtor and the wards of the state to make the journey.
> ...



Yep, It has been wore out a time or two

By the way WTM, Glad your Back


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> By the way WTM, Glad your Back



Thanks!  Been out and about wearing out the soles of my hunting boots!


These deep questions make for great campfire banter!


----------



## gtparts (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It's not deflection.  It is honesty.  Atheists believe in accountability every day, not just for the unknown and unproven hereafter.
> 
> I'm pretty sure most Atheists will clearly state if they are someday "called to give account" to a deity creator there will be some major issues raised and some serious questions coupled with indignation brought forth.  Justifiably so.
> 
> ...



God just wants each to exercise the faith He has given them, to rely on Him, not intellect or science. Neither one is the pathway to God. It is not a repudiation of intellect or science, but the spiritual is not accessed through those things.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

To some, faith is used as a replacement for the spirit of exploration and answer seeking.  Obtaining an individual easy solution or answer to hard questions through superstition or parable.
Yes, they can very well believe it all to be true.  Each has that right.

I'm very happy everyone has not in the past and does not now just sit back and use faith to replace seeking answers to hard questions.  They work in labs, operating rooms, universities, corporate offices, in the field, underwater, through optics, utilizing computers, mixing chemicals, performing calculations, inventing, designing, observing, recording and even giving their own lives for the cause of exploring life as we know it.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Wrong again.
> Very few were religious zealots or missionaries.
> Most were entrepreneurs and risk takers, looking for better ways of existance and obtaining wealth.  Many were on missions of exploration and conquest financed by .gov entities and the wealthy.
> Settlement brought the need for labor, and that opened the door for the oppressed, the debtor and the wards of the state to make the journey.
> ...


Yes, this does need to be a seperate thread, but I did not say they were religious zealots,quite the contrary,they were escaping religious zealots who tried to force them to worship God the way THEY saw fit. I say you are wrong my friend, they did come here almost expressly for the purpose of worshiping God the way they wanted individually. you talk about religious zealots---that has been      historically what's wrong with Christianity,but that is not true Christianity. True Christianity is not a religion, true Christianity sets you free from religion. I've never been a religious person, just a strong believer in Jesus.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I can accept the possibility of God or Gods and ghosts and the soul and Sasquatch.  I really, really can.  So far I haven't experienced anything that would lead me to move them into the "Plausible" category.



I believe that one day you will believe it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> "practical impossibility"   Hence the argument from incredulity.
> 
> As far as he knows, it's "practically" impossible.  Though, I'll disagree.
> 
> ...




And of course something had to place the material in the bucket.  And the material, water, gravel, sand, had to be created before the experiment could take place.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> We used to say the same thing about lightning.  Are you glad someone decided to try and find out how it works or would you be content just saying "It's so mysterious and powerful.  It must be a God"?



Don't be surprised if, sometimes in the future, scientist learn that their thinking in regard to lightning needs to be readjusted because of new understandings.

Truth is, our understanding of this universe is probably pretty elementary.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 24, 2009)

Obviously this is not going to be settled here. The repetition of the same line of questioning of "well who made that?" is not going anywhere. It's similar to the annoying child that keeps asking "why?" to everything you say just to be obnoxious. 

I do see a disconnect in reasoning here, in that the Atheists are questioned "well who created that?" after every explanation they give, while the Christians are allowed to allude that question with something along the lines of "God is timeless" or some such nonsense.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> To some, faith is used as a replacement for the spirit of exploration and answer seeking.  Obtaining an individual easy solution or answer to hard questions through superstition or parable.
> Yes, they can very well believe it all to be true.  Each has that right.
> 
> I'm very happy everyone has not in the past and does not now just sit back and use faith to replace seeking answers to hard questions.  They work in labs, operating rooms, universities, corporate offices, in the field, underwater, through optics, utilizing computers, mixing chemicals, performing calculations, inventing, designing, observing, recording and even giving their own lives for the cause of exploring life as we know it.



I'm with you on the above.
And I believe Christians are eager to discover the things of life that we havn't made good use of yet.
Isn't it totally amazing what has happened on this planet during the past 50 years.  It's as though new understands have been given or discovered.  There's been more advancements during the past century than all prior centuries.  At least appears to me.
How has that happened.  Is it all on account of man's intellect?  Or is it possible that that independent force has open the flood gates of knowledge and understanding.
Might I add, look at Israel, it's unbelievable the amount of technology that has come from Israel during the past 50 years.
Why?  Don't know, but maybe it's God moving things along a little faster than before.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Don't be surprised if, sometimes in the future, scientist learn that their thinking in regard to lightning needs to be readjusted because of new understandings.
> 
> Truth is, our understanding of this universe is probably pretty elementary.



New understandings won't come if you stop at "God did it".


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> New understandings won't come if you stop at "God did it".




No......... it won't come like that.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> WOW!!! One random pull and we hit the cosmic jackpot. It is the atheist that believes in fairy tales.


 atheists dont have a "belief" system.




> An oxymoron (plural oxymora (greek plural) or, more often, oxymorons) ("sharply dull" in Greek) is a figure of speech that combines normally contradictory terms. They appear in a range of contexts, from inadvertent errors such as extremely average, to deliberate puns like same difference, to literary oxymorons that have been carefully crafted to reveal a paradox.
> 
> The most common form of oxymoron involves an adjective-noun combination. For example, the following line from Tennyson's Idylls of the King contains two oxymora:
> 
> ...


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 24, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Isn't it totally amazing what has happened on this planet during the past 50 years.



yep, its absolutely amazing that people have completely destroyed this planet in the last 50 years.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 24, 2009)

*What?*



heavymetalhunter said:


> yep, its absolutely amazing that people have completely destroyed this planet in the last 50 years.


Actually, the earth is less polluted now than it was 50 yrs ago.............and most of the animal populations are faring better.......look at the pop. of game animals now compared to then. And just think, alot of good done to the planet was brought about by Christians!


----------



## earl (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> Yes, this does need to be a seperate thread, but I did not say they were religious zealots,quite the contrary,they were escaping religious zealots who tried to force them to worship God the way THEY saw fit. I say you are wrong my friend, they did come here almost expressly for the purpose of worshiping God the way they wanted individually. you talk about religious zealots---that has been      historically what's wrong with Christianity,but that is not true Christianity. True Christianity is not a religion, true Christianity sets you free from religion. I've never been a religious person, just a strong believer in Jesus.





Looks like WTM has been doing a good job while I was baby sitting again. Just to clarify a little more. The Christians ,Pilgrims, Quakers, Shakers etc. were USED to populate the land , so the land owners could fill the obligations of their land grants.  America was founded by Kings and men looking to increase their wealth and land holdings. Surely ,some where in your 20 years of study ,you didn't miss this.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> yep, its absolutely amazing that people have completely destroyed this planet in the last 50 years.



That's hogwash.
Sorry pigpen.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> Actually, the earth is less polluted now than it was 50 yrs ago.............


keep tellin' yourself that bruno. 



Gatorcountry said:


> and most of the animal populations are faring better.......look at the pop. of game animals now compared to then.


that because people are forgetting how to fare for themselves, and they give in to laziness and buy their food, instead of going into the wood and earning their survival.




Gatorcountry said:


> And just think, alot of good done to the planet was brought about by Christians!


Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Trials, Blue Laws, Holocaust; just to name a few


----------



## Roberson (Nov 24, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> keep tellin' yourself that bruno.
> 
> 
> that because people are forgetting how to fare for themselves, and they give in to laziness and buy their food, instead of going into the wood and earning their survival.
> ...


come on,hmh, I could see that comin' for a country mile! those incidents are ancient history when people where even more ignorant than they are now! and as for the holocaust, that was the work of Hitler, of course, who was NOT Christian, but a mystic. BUT........... THOUSANDS of CHRISTIAN  allied soldiers gave their life to free the persecuted Jews.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> come on,hmh, I could see that comin' for a country mile! those incidents are ancient history



it may be history, but its not ancient history. you shouldnt dismiss things just because they happened in the past.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 24, 2009)

*We may need to start a new thread*



heavymetalhunter said:


> keep tellin' yourself that bruno.
> 
> 
> that because people are forgetting how to fare for themselves, and they give in to laziness and buy their food, instead of going into the wood and earning their survival.
> ...





earl said:


> Looks like WTM has been doing a good job while I was baby sitting again. Just to clarify a little more. The Christians ,Pilgrims, Quakers, Shakers etc. were USED to populate the land , so the land owners could fill the obligations of their land grants.  America was founded by Kings and men looking to increase their wealth and land holdings. Surely ,some where in your 20 years of study ,you didn't miss this.


 They may have been "used", but they were not forced! They came here of their own free will, and stayed here of their own free will. You are right when you say America was founded by Kings........CHRISTIAN KINGS.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 24, 2009)

*growing pains*



heavymetalhunter said:


> it may be history, but its not ancient history. you shouldnt dismiss things just because they happened in the past.


  I don't dismiss these terrible events, but really,can you point to something more recent? these were "growing pains" of a relatively new religion.......... even back then, religion was getting in the way of true Christianity. Maybe you should take a look at Islam, if you wanna talk about religions doing terrible things to people..........


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> Maybe you should take a look at Islam, if you wanna talk about religions doing terrible things to people..........



Neither belief system has clean hands.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> even back then, religion was getting in the way of true Christianity.



are you trying to say that christianity is above "religion" as a whole?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> They may have been "used", but they were not forced! They came here of their own free will, and stayed here of their own free will. You are right when you say America was founded by Kings........CHRISTIAN KINGS.



It's a hopeless argument when one side is handicapped by their lack of historical knowledge.
I think it is best to move on at this point.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It's a hopeless argument when one side is handicapped by their lack of historical knowledge.
> I think it is best to move on at this point.




Actually, the original question was:    Why is there something now........... rather than nothing???

How did we get from "Nothing" to "This"?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 24, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Actually, the original question was:    Why is there something now........... rather than nothing???
> 
> How did we get from "Nothing" to "This"?



Where is the proof there was ever a "nothing?"


----------



## earl (Nov 24, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> They may have been "used", but they were not forced! They came here of their own free will, and stayed here of their own free will. You are right when you say America was founded by Kings........CHRISTIAN KINGS.



I am going to stop here. If you really believe that about Christian Kings ,it is obvious that I ,and all the history that has ever been written ,will not show you  the error of your ways. Enjoy your stay here.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 25, 2009)

Wow.  There isn’t much that can be done with ex nihilo arguments, and voodoo and abracadabra nonsense.  Some folks will go to any lengths to pull a rabbit out of a metaphorical hat, usually by relying on false assumptions.  A false assumption can be used to demonstrate anything one wishes – try this one, from Bertrand Russell – When asked, “Do you mean that if 2 +2 =5, then you are the Pope?”  Russell answered affirmatively.  “If we’re assuming that 2 + 2 =5, then certainly you’ll agree that subtracting 2 from each side of the equation gives us 2 = 3.  Transposing, we have 3 = 2, and subtracting 1 from each side of the equation gives us 2 = 1.  Thus, since the Pope and I are two people, and 2 = 1, then the Pope and I are one.  Hence, I’m the Pope.”

If we start with 2 + 2 = 6, then by the same method 3 = 1, and the entire Holy Trinity is explained . . .  Sorry folks, but the flaw is in your initial imposition of conditions that are simply asserted, and no amount of ‘logical’ progression can overcome a flawed premise . . . 

Nice to see that some of you are such passionate ‘Believers’ that this problem does not disturb you a bit, and that a few sentences in Genesis suffice to provide the entire basis of your personally reality – But, um?  Please give us a break – religion has nothing to offer other than a bunch of words and volumes of verbal tricks played on the ignorant by the ignorant.  Words.  That is all you have.  But, oddly enough, while religion hides under a shell, science has gone on, and has become mind-bogglingly complex in the actual search for the same answers religions pretend to already know.  Even odder, it has in every case of scientific discovery been religion that has been forced to retreat, retrench, and offer up ever more strained rationalizations in its own defense --  The Earth isn’t really flat?  Darn – but that’s only because . . . – The Sun and the Universe doesn’t really revolve around the Earth?  Darn – but that’s only because . . . – The Earth is really older than 6,000 years?  Darn – but that’s only because . . .  – There really are atoms that combine to become molecules that combine into more complex things?  Darn – but that is only because . . . 

C’mon guys.  You lost.  You can persist in trying to rationalize everything from nuclear power to gluons to vaccines to the Hubble Telescope in terms of an ancient manuscript that was barely relevant even back then, but really, don’t you feel a little ridiculous trying to explain a triple-bypass operation, the internet, and geo-synchronous satellites in Biblical terms?  I mean, where did the Bible make a provision for blood transfusions, microwave ovens, and corrugated cardboard?  What are you going to tell me next?  ‘On the Eighth Day, God Created the Sewage Treatment Plant?’  Be serious.

Huff-and–puff arguments, repeated incessantly, only bear out the aphorism about fanatics doubling their efforts when actual support for their position is halved.  Science has always undermined the posturing of the self-proclaimed holders of the Truth, and will continue to do so for one simple reason – religious folks claim to already know the Truth, while scientists claim only to be looking for it.  So far we’re ahead on points, and on accomplishments, and we’re kicking you out of our governments . . .   

(And so far as the ‘33% of the world is Christian’ bit goes, nearly 100% of the world used to think it was flat – agreeing with someone who is wrong only compounds the error, and makes one doubly wrong . . . )


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 25, 2009)

Diogenes: I have no idea why you are attempting to take a book intended for spiritual matters and apply it to the physical world. 
I will say it. The Bible is not a science text book. It was never intended to be and never will be. Why is there a war between science and religion? 

Did you ponder my response to Clausius' findings?


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 25, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> attempting to take a book intended for spiritual matters and apply it to the physical world.



yep, spiritual and physical is a combination for disaster.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 25, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I have no idea why you are attempting to take a book intended for spiritual matters and apply it to the physical world.





Tell us then, why the book is comprised of so many rules regarding the physical world and mankind?  How could anyone accept it (through blind faith) as the "end all" of understanding and discovery?


----------



## Roberson (Nov 25, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> are you trying to say that christianity is above "religion" as a whole?


of course it is! it's the end of religion,man. Read the New Testament and see how Jesus liked "religious people",  I.E., pharisees, he called them a bunch of arrogant hypocrites because they were outwardly religious but inwardly evil. Religion will send you to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- ,my friend.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 25, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It's a hopeless argument when one side is handicapped by their lack of historical knowledge.
> I think it is best to move on at this point.


did you guys go to school in America? after that, did you go to some sort of crazy liberal college that taught an alternate history of the founding of America? how can you say America does not have a Christian heritage? Did you know that starting in 1800 the Capitol Building was used as a Christian Church? I could name hundreds of other evidences of our Christian heritage, but alas, this be not the thread for it.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 25, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> of course it is! it's the end of religion,man. Read the New Testament and see how Jesus liked "religious people",  I.E., pharisees, he called them a bunch of arrogant hypocrites because they were outwardly religious but inwardly evil.


yep, jesus calling people names, awesome. 



Gatorcountry said:


> Religion will send you to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- ,my friend.



make no mistake, im not your friend.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 25, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> I could name hundreds of other evidences of our Christian heritage, but alas, this be not the thread for it.



there is a big difference between people having a christian heritage, and america having a christian foundation, which it does not have.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 25, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> yep, jesus calling people names, awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> make no mistake, im not your friend.


oh well,i tried. Jesus also says don't throw pearls to swine.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 25, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> there is a big difference between people having a christian heritage, and america having a christian foundation, which it does not have.


 Did you sleep your way through American history in school?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 25, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> did you guys go to school in America? after that, did you go to some sort of crazy liberal college that taught an alternate history of the founding of America?



You do not want to take this history discussion there.
Trust me, you don't.
You are not prepared at all for that.  Sorry.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 25, 2009)

I am truly sorry if  offended you,but as for as being prepared, i grew up a scout and spent 4 yrs. active duty,military police. I'm prepared.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 25, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Tell us then, why the book is comprised of so many rules regarding the physical world and mankind?  How could anyone accept it (through blind faith) as the "end all" of understanding and discovery?



It may be the "end all" of a spiritual discovery and understanding, but I certainly never decided to just rest on that and ignore college...

The rules you speak of are how we are to interact with the world around us, not to tell us how that world works. It was not intended as a science text book. 
Why do some have a hard time grasping the idea of an intelligent Christian? 

I believe in God; therefore I must be so ignorant I cannot learn physics or microbiology and I never tolerate scientific inquiry.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 25, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I believe in God; therefore I must be so ignorant I cannot learn physics or microbiology and I never tolerate scientific inquiry.



Never have I said, nor inferred that towards you.

If we are honest with ourselves, we can see those who do hold that stance regardless of the name of their chosen deity or the title of their holy book.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 25, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> I am truly sorry if  offended you,but as for as being prepared, i grew up a scout and spent 4 yrs. active duty,military police. I'm prepared.



Nothing on the Internet offends me.  It's even hard to offend me face to face.  I'm just too laid back to care.

Thank you for your service.
There are many of us who have served on Woody's.

I'm simply referring more to your stance on what you have accepted as historical fact.  It's simply just not accurate.

Throwing veiled insults at others regarding their education is a slippery slope.  You might be very suprised at just what the participants here have on their resume, in military service, formal education and experience.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 25, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Wow.  There isn’t much that can be done with ex nihilo arguments, and voodoo and abracadabra nonsense.  Some folks will go to any lengths to pull a rabbit out of a metaphorical hat, usually by relying on false assumptions.  A false assumption can be used to demonstrate anything one wishes – try this one, from Bertrand Russell – When asked, “Do you mean that if 2 +2 =5, then you are the Pope?”  Russell answered affirmatively.  “If we’re assuming that 2 + 2 =5, then certainly you’ll agree that subtracting 2 from each side of the equation gives us 2 = 3.  Transposing, we have 3 = 2, and subtracting 1 from each side of the equation gives us 2 = 1.  Thus, since the Pope and I are two people, and 2 = 1, then the Pope and I are one.  Hence, I’m the Pope.”
> 
> If we start with 2 + 2 = 6, then by the same method 3 = 1, and the entire Holy Trinity is explained . . .  Sorry folks, but the flaw is in your initial imposition of conditions that are simply asserted, and no amount of ‘logical’ progression can overcome a flawed premise . . .
> 
> ...




Once again the kettle is calling the pot black.
As usual rather than deal with the original question, you begin your tirade about the shallow-minded, ignorant Christians who aren't smart enough to know truth from fiction.
I began this thread to let you explain to me your point of view as to why  "nothing" went through the motions necessary to become "something"?
You're long-winded with words so you should have an excellent explanation.

If you and I compare education, It's very possible my education and degrees will shock you (and not in Bible).  And I still believe in God.  As dumb as you believe that makes me, it is you that is misapplying true logic.
Your obvious distaste for believers in God has numbed you to being able to carry on a decent conversation within the bounds of the subject.
I can accept your unbelief, now you should accept my belief and answer the question.  That's all.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 25, 2009)

Why is there an underlying belief that once there was nothing?

Is it simply because believers base their understanding on a deity always existing, but what we know as the universe started with Genesis 1:1's "In the beginning?"

Many evolutionists, Atheists and others believe there has always been "something" rather than there ever being a time there was "nothing."  That "something" has changed many times and has possibly resulted in worlds preceeding ours, running concurrent with ours and will have worlds that will follow ours.

Like I said, my answer is truly "I don't know."  I do not lose sleep over not knowing.  
It is hard to grasp for some, I understand.  They need firm answers.  Others just let their faith in a belief do it for them.
Whatever works.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 25, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Nothing on the Internet offends me.  It's even hard to offend me face to face.  I'm just too laid back to care.
> 
> Thank you for your service.
> There are many of us who have served on Woody's.
> ...


I'm certainly not throwing veiled insults at others education. I'm just amazed at the differences of views concerning American history from people educated in the same school system. But ,we have gotten waaaaay off track from the original question .


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 25, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Why is there an underlying belief that once there was nothing?
> 
> Is it simply because believers base their understanding on a deity always existing, but what we know as the universe started with Genesis 1:1's "In the beginning?"
> 
> ...




Hey, you and I agree.
Then please allow us to discuss our beliefs rather than discussing whether you and the others think our beliefs are worthy.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 25, 2009)

I like banana pudding


----------



## Roberson (Nov 25, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> I like banana pudding


me too


----------



## Roberson (Nov 25, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> yep, jesus calling people names, awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> make no mistake, im not your friend.


 aw come on,if I thought you weren't my friend,I just don't think I could bear it............and as far as calling people names, I had no idea you were so sensitive---- you DID call Christians a bunch of "weak-minded simpletons


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 25, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> I like banana pudding



I like the kind that doesn't have to be cooked.
Those cooked nanner's look yucky to me.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 25, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Hey, you and I agree.
> Then please allow us to discuss our beliefs rather than discussing whether you and the others think our beliefs are worthy.



Ronnie, I don't recall ever intentionally doing that.  I do discuss the differences of thought and interpretation.  Sometimes I even bring up other's ideas which I personally do not subscribe to.

If I have done that to you, I apologize.  I am in no position to judge anyone or belittle anyone's stance.  

I still believe in freedom of religion in our country, and would stand and fight for that right.
And I think much good comes from open discussion.  I know I do enjoy reading other's ideas and interpretations.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Why is there an underlying belief that once there was nothing?
> 
> Is it simply because believers base their understanding on a deity always existing, but what we know as the universe started with Genesis 1:1's "In the beginning?"
> 
> ...



The "Big Bang" supporters are still a very large part of the scientific community. Last I checked, that was the dominate theory on the origin of our universe. There has been a huge amount of data collected to support an expanding universe with a finite beginning.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Tell us then, why the book is comprised of so many rules regarding the physical world and mankind?  How could anyone accept it (through blind faith) as the "end all" of understanding and discovery?Millions and millions of normal human being accept it in just that way.  Is that okay with you?



WTM45,
The above is an example of what I'm talking about.

Who is the "Us"?  You sound as though you don't believe in the Bible and you are speaking for others.

Like the others said:  Welcome back.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> The "Big Bang" supporters are still a very large part of the scientific community. Last I checked, that was the dominate theory on the origin of our universe. There has been a huge amount of data collected to support an expanding universe with a finite beginning.



I understand well the place the theory has currently in the community.  But the theory does not promote a beginning to this universe from a truly complete "nothing."
"Somethings" made up the initiation.  And it is truly speculation at this point.  But I've read nothing that promotes a defined beginning from "nothing" outside of religious texts.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I understand well the place the theory has currently in the community.  But the theory does not promote a beginning to this universe from a truly complete "nothing."
> "Somethings" made up the initiation.  And it is truly speculation at this point.  But I've read nothing that promotes a defined beginning from "nothing" outside of religious texts.



But wouldn't every physical thing have to have a beginning.  Could there have been a single cell someplace that had always existed?  In the physical world, doesn't everything have a beginning.  Scientist and researchers have developed carbon testing to attach a date to everything.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> WTM45,
> The above is an example of what I'm talking about.
> 
> Who is the "Us"?  You sound as though you don't believe in the Bible and you are speaking for others.
> ...



In the context of my question to ddd, the "us" referred to everyone here, the collective of members and guests viewing this particular thread.

How can my questioning of "why" people believe the things they do, or the curiosity of "how" they came to their interpretations and decisions regarding their beliefs be construed as passing judgement on their worthiness?

Whatever religious belief system, whatever watering can in Geneva, whatever flying spaghetti monster or whatever asteroid folks want to follow, it's all good with me.
I just like to ask why.  Or why not.

I do like being able to visit here!  It's been hard to find the extra time of late.  Thanks!


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> But wouldn't every physical thing have to have a beginning.



I don't know.  Maybe if it is proven to have an ending.

Could what we know now as a "thing" have been something else before?  Could the entire Universe as we know it be the result of a previous universe that died or broke down to its basic particles and energies?


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I don't know.  Maybe if it is proven to have an ending.
> 
> Could what we know now as a "thing" have been something else before?  Could the entire Universe as we know it be the result of a previous universe that died or broke down to its basic particles and energies?



You out of my league now.

.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> You out of my league now.
> 
> .



I'ts WAY over my head as well, my friend!

I do enjoy the discussions here.  I know some folks get heavy handed, and there are the few here who seek to stir up the silt rather than enjoy the cool water during their swim.
I appreciate the time you take to express your beliefs and thoughts.  It always makes me think, and even has me reach over to reference my own Bible at times!

I participate in these types of SDDS subject threads for the discussion only, never as an attempt to belittle or judge.
I mean that with all honesty and respect.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I understand well the place the theory has currently in the community.  But the theory does not promote a beginning to this universe from a truly complete "nothing."
> "Somethings" made up the initiation.  And it is truly speculation at this point.  But I've read nothing that promotes a defined beginning from "nothing" outside of religious texts.



Ok. Something has always existed...."God." 

So given a super-hot, super-dense amount of matter "in the beginning," what caused it to form the universe?


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 26, 2009)

Shooter asks: “I have no idea why you are attempting to take a book intended for spiritual matters and apply it to the physical world. 
I will say it. The Bible is not a science text book. It was never intended to be and never will be.”    I agree, but it is not me who is attempting to make the Bible into a science book --  those who read the first chapter of Genesis, and take it to be actual fact are.

And Ronnie?  “ . . . the shallow-minded, ignorant Christians who aren't smart enough to know truth from fiction,” is your phrase, but again we walk that odd line where some wish to take bits and parts as please them – Either Genesis, Chapter 1, is a fact, and is thus a scientific statement of certainty, or it is utter hogwash.  The same goes for the rest of the Book.  It is either absolutely, factually, irrefutably true, or it is a nice set of parables containing some pretty good advice and some real pearls of wisdom – but it cannot be both.      And I did answer the question – the short answer is that nobody knows.  Nobody.  Some folks are working on trying to figure it out, while others claim to be absolutely certain that the thousands of years old story that starts the Old Testament is all that needs to be known.  

The long answer is tens of thousands of pages and a few hundred doctoral dissertations long, and as you observed I already talk too much, so trying to post all of that wouldn’t win me any points.  There is something because there is.  Alot of the something slowly congealed and combined in various ways over the course of about 14 billion years by our current best estimate, and things like stars and galaxies and nebulae and planets and atmospheres resulted.  Some of that stuff isn’t working out so well, and crashes into other stuff, or explodes, or gets burned up, and just goes back to being stuff floating about waiting to see what happens next . . . Some of it never combined into much of anything, and is still floating around.  Like Democrats, for example . . . 

Point is, the question itself is unanswerable for all practical purposes until we learn far more than we now know.  Unfortunately, the default position for many folks is that if they, personally, do not understand something, then God must have done it, and their inquiry stops right there.  I find that such attitudes, when reflected as certainties, make a mockery of the legitimate place that belief systems hold within humanity, the same as I feel that violence in the name of religion is self-negating.

Personally I hold no religious beliefs, but my only real axe to grind with believers arrives the moment they begin to try to make their own beliefs into everyone else’s facts.  Once the leap is made from believing in something to asserting that belief as absolute truth I’m afraid I have to part company.  That way lies madness . . .


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 26, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> aw come on,if I thought you weren't my friend,I just don't think I could bear it............



you aint no daisy.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 26, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Shooter asks: “I have no idea why you are attempting to take a book intended for spiritual matters and apply it to the physical world.
> I will say it. The Bible is not a science text book. It was never intended to be and never will be.”    I agree, but it is not me who is attempting to make the Bible into a science book --  those who read the first chapter of Genesis, and take it to be actual fact are.
> 
> And Ronnie?  “ . . . the shallow-minded, ignorant Christians who aren't smart enough to know truth from fiction,” is your phrase, but again we walk that odd line where some wish to take bits and parts as please them – Either Genesis, Chapter 1, is a fact, and is thus a scientific statement of certainty, or it is utter hogwash.  The same goes for the rest of the Book.  It is either absolutely, factually, irrefutably true, or it is a nice set of parables containing some pretty good advice and some real pearls of wisdom – but it cannot be both.      And I did answer the question – the short answer is that nobody knows.  Nobody.  Some folks are working on trying to figure it out, while others claim to be absolutely certain that the thousands of years old story that starts the Old Testament is all that needs to be known.
> ...



The anthropic principal. Very nice, but you have to ignore a BUNCH of evidence to believe that we are here because...we just are.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 26, 2009)

For those of us who struggle to KNOW everything. Here is a picture that will make you understand how small and meaningless we are. 

This is a picture of JUST the milky way in its entirety. Notice the closer galaxies and then the far distant ones. Now, thank about this fact. Some of the stars in this picture do not exist anymore because they died a hundred thousand years ago. It takes that long for light to travel to our galaxy and our little "paradise" in it.

Now go outside and scream, "We are here because it is mathematically probable that we should be!" Does is it sound good to you?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> Now go outside and scream, "We are here because it is mathematically probable that we should be!" Does is it sound good to you?



Probably about the same to some as them screaming "A spirit made it all from fairy dust, spit and sweat."

Who knows?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> So given a super-hot, super-dense amount of matter "in the beginning," what caused it to form the universe?



"I don't know."

Define "the beginning."  The "beginning" of OUR Universe?  Could there be others, past, present and future?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> "I don't know."
> 
> Define "the beginning."  The "beginning" of OUR Universe?  Could there be others, past, present and future?



Yes the beginning of this universe. The best I can do without God is to say that the previous universe imploded upon itself then condensed to the super hot super dense particle that exploded into the big bang. But, where would the matter from the other universe have originated? Another previous one? 

I still think there was an outside catalyst to the whole thing.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2009)

Is it impossible for man to just accept that "matter" has always been?  In its various forms, shapes and particle makeup?

I say it is entirely possible.  Some need a type of answer only provided through spiritual conjecture.  Others don't.  Whatever works is fine.  It does make for good discussion!


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Is it impossible for man to just accept that "matter" has always been?  In its various forms, shapes and particle makeup?
> 
> I say it is entirely possible.  Some need a type of answer only provided through spiritual conjecture.  Others don't.  Whatever works is fine.  It does make for good discussion!



Your "matter" is our God. In my opinion you have to work at being an Atheist with all the evidence of a superior being out there. Now, which deity is a different question all together.

Yes, I believe in a multiverse too


----------



## Israel (Nov 26, 2009)

Even if matter always existed, how did it form itself into Screaming Mimi's Pizza parlor on the corner of Prince and Oglethorpe? And precisely at the time I was here to enjoy a large pepperoni with banana peppers? 

I have come to the unalterable conclusion that life is good, and even my resentments and disgruntlements only testify to this for they spring from the perception that for me, even at those times, it is not going as I'd like. (good)
My default position is that life is and should be good...and I cannot escape that without being a hypocrite.
Therefore I am pinned by the testimony of the Lord...there is such a thing as good


----------



## gtparts (Nov 26, 2009)

Israel said:


> Even if matter always existed, how did it form itself into Screaming Mimi's Pizza parlor on the corner of Prince and Oglethorpe? And precisely at the time I was here to enjoy a large pepperoni with banana peppers?
> 
> I have come to the unalterable conclusion that life is good, and even my resentments and disgruntlements only testify to this for they spring from the perception that for me, even at those times, it is not going as I'd like. (good)
> My default position is that life is and should be good...and I cannot escape that without being a hypocrite.
> Therefore I am pinned by the testimony of the Lord...there is such a thing as good



Indeed. Adam and Eve could not conceive of the true goodness of God without some understanding of the absence of good. The simple gift of free will, being allowed to form in the minds and be expressed by those two, has opened to all the dichotomy of good and evil. Some have accused God of creating evil. It is merely the byproduct of the character of God and the free will of man. As for the issue of nothing to something, at least as I understand it, the current "big bang" theory embraces that idea fully, though it still has no satisfying explanation of why. To some extent, it ratifies the idea of a single beginning of matter, space, and time. The energy issue still seems to be muddled. Maybe we are getting closer to an agreement between the scientific and the Biblical cosmologies. As long as science does all the moving, of course.



MMmmmmmmmm!!! PIZZA!!!!


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 26, 2009)

Israel said:


> Even if matter always existed, how did it form itself into Screaming Mimi's Pizza parlor on the corner of Prince and Oglethorpe? And precisely at the time I was here to enjoy a large pepperoni with banana peppers?
> 
> I have come to the unalterable conclusion that life is good, and even my resentments and disgruntlements only testify to this for they spring from the perception that for me, even at those times, it is not going as I'd like. (good)
> My default position is that life is and should be good...and I cannot escape that without being a hypocrite.
> Therefore I am pinned by the testimony of the Lord...there is such a thing as good



Could not have said it better myself.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 26, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Probably about the same to some as them screaming "A spirit made it all from fairy dust, spit and sweat."
> 
> Who knows?


now if you believe it's "probably about the same" wouldn't be safer for you to believe in God?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> now if you believe it's "probably about the same" wouldn't be safer for you to believe in God?



Full circle to Pascal's Wager.
It never takes long.


Everyone take care!


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 26, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> now if you believe it's "probably about the same" wouldn't be safer for you to believe in God?



im surprised it took this long for the thread to come to this.


----------



## earl (Nov 26, 2009)

I still run with scissors.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 26, 2009)

Still no response about the state of entropy in a closed system (earth) regarding evolution and the formation of life...


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 27, 2009)

Sigh.  Thermodynamically, the Earth is much too huge to be a closed system, and in fact is not a thermodynamically closed system in which entropy might apply.  Those really only exist in labs.  If the Earth were a thermodynamically isolated system, then the constant influx of solar radiation (an outside influence which alone denies any idea of ‘isolation’) would have fried the planet to a crisp long ago.  Heat (radiation) gets in, and heat (radiation) gets out – so entropy does not apply on a planetary scale, or even or a galactic scale, let alone a universal scale.  It is a fun lab experiment, and the principle allows us to control things like Grandpa’s oxygen tank, neon lights, and the flow of natural gas to your furnace.  Unfortunately we’ve been unable to apply the principle to filibustering gas-bags in Congress or to The New York Times.

But – again to the OP – if the default position is that if everything is not known then it is thus a proof of God, then I must ask a parallel and equally valid question.  If one cannot accept, intellectually, that the basic matter that has combined to form the universe has simply always existed, then how can that same intellect go back one more step of complication and accept a God that has simply always existed? 

And more absurdly, posit a being who ‘Created’ that matter out of nothing?  Do you not also automatically ask where that being came from?  I mean, if you feel it is impossible that the world sprang up out of nothing, would it not be just as impossible for a God to spring up out of nothing?


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 27, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> And more absurdly, posit a being who ‘Created’ that matter out of nothing?  Do you not also automatically ask where that being came from?  I mean, if you feel it is impossible that the world sprang up out of nothing, would it not be just as impossible for a God to spring up out of nothing?



if i had a dollar for everytime i have asked this question on here............


----------



## Roberson (Nov 27, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> if i had a dollar for everytime i have asked this question on here............


God never "sprang up".  God is.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 27, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> God never "sprang up".  God is.



wow, i never expected such an in-depth answer.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 27, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> wow, i never expected such an in-depth answer.


.....Don't you have some heavy metal to hunt somewhere?


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 27, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> .....Don't you have some heavy metal to hunt somewhere?


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 27, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> And more absurdly, posit a being who ‘Created’ that matter out of nothing?  Do you not also automatically ask where that being came from?  I mean, if you feel it is impossible that the world sprang up out of nothing, would it not be just as impossible for a God to spring up out of nothing?



Wheeze. Diogenes my old pal. Will it kill you to not have a scientific answer for everything? I have asked that question and have yet to find an answer, but it doesn't matter. Did you know that we have discovered galaxies and stars so big that scientifically they are not suppose to exist per the laws of physics. Men and our laws are not perfect. This is evident over the ages of the scientific theories  that have been tested and failed.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 27, 2009)

Oh, this will get good.  Trust me, it will get REALLY good now!


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 27, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Oh, this will get good.  Trust me, it will get REALLY good now!



What? Will Diogenes post something that only someone with a doctorate in quantum mechanics or string theory be able to understand?


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 27, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> What? Will Diogenes post something that only someone with a doctorate in quantum mechanics or string theory be able to understand?



Don't know.
But I'm betting class will begin shortly!


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 27, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Don't know.
> But I'm betting class will begin shortly!



Please! Let us here from the great one! Diogenes! We yearn for your internets!


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 27, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> Please! Let us here from the great one! Diogenes! We yearn for your internets!


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Nov 28, 2009)

all our internets are belong to diogenes.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 28, 2009)

Wow.   In Act II,  I will dress up as Garabaldi and play Gregorian chants on a jew's harp, while aiming for a highly referential opacity and simultaneously satisfying all of the demands of aggressive anti-realism that a theatre of the absurd demands . . .   Don't touch that dial . . .


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 28, 2009)

"Oh goodie!"


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 28, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Wow.   In Act II,  I will dress up as Garabaldi and play Gregorian chants on a jew's harp, while aiming for a highly referential opacity and simultaneously satisfying all of the demands of aggressive anti-realism that a theatre of the absurd demands . . .   Don't touch that dial . . .



Weak. 

We want more "facts" and less fluff.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 29, 2009)

Dear, dear Thanatos, 

First, Thanatos, as you knew, was an ancient Greek personification of Death, a minor deity.  What you may not have known is that in psychoanalysis the term is usually used as an adjective (‘Thanatotic’), and refers to those who display a death instinct usually expressed in terms of violent aggression.  I only make this observation so that you realize that I am not unaware of your self-description . . .

So.  Where were we?  

Oh yes – back to the death thing – “Will it kill you to not have a scientific answer for everything?”   Not at all.  Hasn’t yet.  Nor will it kill me to be patient, and avoid replacing uncertainties with graven superstitions.  Y’know, just today I was trying to catch a pesky fly in my house, and just as it landed on the window, and I had it in my sights, the poor bugger fell off the glass and died.  My only explanation for that is the darned fly saw how much bigger I was, used it’s little fly-brain to conclude I was God, and died of fright . . . 

“I have asked that question and have yet to find an answer, but it doesn't matter.”   Au Contraire!  It matters very much.  Dismissing a question because you personally have no answer is intellectually dishonest, and ignoring a question due only to your own inability to answer it is intellectually lazy.  Worse, rather than continue the search for the answer, to fall back on ancient dogmatic superstition and declare that Fairy Tales are therefore True is completely anti-intellectual, and is actually aboriginal.  

“Did you know that we have discovered galaxies and stars so big that scientifically they are not suppose to exist per the laws of physics.”   Methinks you misunderstand – you are going to have a tough road justifying religion on the basis of things that the Bible says do not exist.  Really, really big galaxies and stars?  Wow!  You mean to say, there are others?  And wait a minute – Andromeda, a really close neighbor, is only, um, what?  About 2.9 million light years away?  Darn, that light is pretty tricky to have gotten here in 6,000 years or so . . .   And not to be the one to point it out – but physics is a science, not a set of immutable declarations, and thus has no ‘laws.’  Physics deals with matter, energy, motion, and force – ever changing things, in other words, and seeks to explore and understand the interactions.  In some ways we’re making pretty good progress, as witnessed by such oddly un-Biblical stuff as nuclear power, satellites, Voyager, microwave ovens, and Jello.  Only religions claim to have all the answers – no science has ever made such an outrageous claim – but still, Raspberry Jello is hard to argue with . . . 

“Men and our laws are not perfect. This is evident over the ages of the scientific theories that have been tested and failed.”   Agreed.  And?   I’m afraid I’m not sure where that statement was supposed to lead.  In the period from 1878 to 1880 Edison and his associates worked on at least three thousand different theories to develop an efficient incandescent lamp.  Clearly most of those attempts failed.  So, since tested scientific theories have failed, are you saying that you do not have a light bulb?  Did God just get tired of watching us poor misguided fools thrash about and divinely provide a solution on the three thousand and first attempt?  Or are you saying that the light bulb and the nuclear submarine are already provided for under the doctrines of religion?  Are you saying that since men and our sciences are not ‘perfect,’ then you can trot out an ancient manuscript, blow the dust off it, and show us the actual perfection contained therein?

If so, then have at it – but please keep a few things in mind about the idea of a Biblical perfection – the Bible, and its laws and theories and stories, are not perfect.  And that is evident over the ages of Bible theories that have been tested and have failed.  Try starting with Adam and Eve, a God-given admonition to avoid sins of the flesh, two resulting sons (Cain and Abel) in direct opposition to that advice, and then go ahead and try to populate the Earth (be fruitful and multiply) when the only extant female was good old Mom . . .  OOPS.  Sacrificing Sons?  Nah.  Stoning Sinners to death?  Right.  900 year life spans?  Sure thing.  Rising from the dead?  Yup, perfectly plausible – happens every day.  Parting a Sea?  Old hat, my neighbor did that just yesterday.  Turning folks into pillars of salt?  Don’t be silly – happens all over the place.  Vanquishing those pesky Egyptians?  Well, that clearly happened . . .

Be quite careful here – if you observe a lack of human perfection, that is quite true.  But if you extend that observation to either imply or ratify a Godly perfection then you will need to demonstrate a Godly perfection, and that, my death obsessed friend, is well beyond your means, especially if you intend to use the Bible as your source . . .


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 29, 2009)

_*“I have asked that question and have yet to find an answer, but it doesn't matter.” Au Contraire! It matters very much. Dismissing a question because you personally have no answer is intellectually dishonest, and ignoring a question due only to your own inability to answer it is intellectually lazy. Worse, rather than continue the search for the answer, to fall back on ancient dogmatic superstition and declare that Fairy Tales are therefore True is completely anti-intellectual, and is actually aboriginal.*_

I have not given up. That is the only reason i visit this spiritual forum. I want to see what kind of answers, or questions the select group of atheist come up with. In my personal life and in my profession I find joy in making a process as efficient and effective as possible. Through my small brain I see that it took something more than chance to bring about the process of our universe, or universes, and then human life being established on this "convenient" planet. 

*“Did you know that we have discovered galaxies and stars so big that scientifically they are not suppose to exist per the laws of physics.” Methinks you misunderstand – you are going to have a tough road justifying religion on the basis of things that the Bible says do not exist. Really, really big galaxies and stars? Wow! You mean to say, there are others? And wait a minute – Andromeda, a really close neighbor, is only, um, what? About 2.9 million light years away? Darn, that light is pretty tricky to have gotten here in 6,000 years or so . . . And not to be the one to point it out – but physics is a science, not a set of immutable declarations, and thus has no ‘laws.’ Physics deals with matter, energy, motion, and force – ever changing things, in other words, and seeks to explore and understand the interactions. In some ways we’re making pretty good progress, as witnessed by such oddly un-Biblical stuff as nuclear power, satellites, Voyager, microwave ovens, and Jello. Only religions claim to have all the answers – no science has ever made such an outrageous claim – but still, Raspberry Jello is hard to argue with . . .*

Notice the phrases in red. You made my point for me. The pursuit of knowledge, in whatever form it may be, tells us that we do not and can not know all the answers. The  evidence of a creator (mine is the Trinity) is overwhelming. It makes sense that there was a God who "pushed the button" if you will. Humans and our pursuits are not perfect and that leads me to this. 

*If so, then have at it – but please keep a few things in mind about the idea of a Biblical perfection – the Bible, and its laws and theories and stories, are not perfect. And that is evident over the ages of Bible theories that have been tested and have failed. Try starting with Adam and Eve, a God-given admonition to avoid sins of the flesh, two resulting sons (Cain and Abel) in direct opposition to that advice, and then go ahead and try to populate the Earth (be fruitful and multiply) when the only extant female was good old Mom . . . OOPS. Sacrificing Sons? Nah. Stoning Sinners to death? Right. 900 year life spans? Sure thing. Rising from the dead? Yup, perfectly plausible – happens every day. Parting a Sea? Old hat, my neighbor did that just yesterday. Turning folks into pillars of salt? Don’t be silly – happens all over the place. Vanquishing those pesky Egyptians? Well, that clearly happened . . .*

The Bible is written by humans and it was edited by humans. It has been rewritten and translated many times. Men spend their lives trying to understand the Bible. Whatever God wanted the message of the Bible to be...its there. The message is there and it has always been the same through all of the stories, rewrites, contradictions, etc. Though different words or sentences may be used the message is the same. You and I are selfish, sinful, prideful creatures. Jesus (God) lived like a man and died like a man for us. If you believe that message then your good to go per the Judeo-Christian view.  That is my belief system.

*“Men and our laws are not perfect. This is evident over the ages of the scientific theories that have been tested and failed.” Agreed. And? I’m afraid I’m not sure where that statement was supposed to lead. In the period from 1878 to 1880 Edison and his associates worked on at least three thousand different theories to develop an efficient incandescent lamp. Clearly most of those attempts failed. So, since tested scientific theories have failed, are you saying that you do not have a light bulb? Did God just get tired of watching us poor misguided fools thrash about and divinely provide a solution on the three thousand and first attempt? Or are you saying that the light bulb and the nuclear submarine are already provided for under the doctrines of religion? Are you saying that since men and our sciences are not ‘perfect,’ then you can trot out an ancient manuscript, blow the dust off it, and show us the actual perfection contained therein? 
*
God gave us freewill. The scientific process is a great example of freewill. Some times the process leads to great discoveries. (The internets!)  Some times it leads to harmful and divisive discoveries. (WMDs) Through our freewill we can use these devices to strengthen humanity or tear it down.
*
First, Thanatos, as you knew, was an ancient Greek personification of Death, a minor deity. What you may not have known is that in psychoanalysis the term is usually used as an adjective (‘Thanatotic’), and refers to those who display a death instinct usually expressed in terms of violent aggression. I only make this observation so that you realize that I am not unaware of your self-description . . .*

I meant for people to wonder about my user name and maybe take the time to look it up..but i did not think I was going to get psychoanalyzed for it. LoL! How about this. Think of me as the minor deity Thanatos of the deer and turkey woods! Deer and turkey fear my wrath! Haha!


----------



## Israel (Nov 29, 2009)

Thanatos said:


> _*“I have asked that question and have yet to find an answer, but it doesn't matter.” Au Contraire! It matters very much. Dismissing a question because you personally have no answer is intellectually dishonest, and ignoring a question due only to your own inability to answer it is intellectually lazy. Worse, rather than continue the search for the answer, to fall back on ancient dogmatic superstition and declare that Fairy Tales are therefore True is completely anti-intellectual, and is actually aboriginal.*_
> 
> I have not given up. That is the only reason i visit this spiritual forum. I want to see what kind of answers, or questions the select group of atheist come up with. In my personal life and in my profession I find joy in making a process as efficient and effective as possible. Through my small brain I see that it took something more than chance to bring about the process of our universe, or universes, and then human life being established on this "convenient" planet.
> 
> ...



How do you get a deer to lay still like that in the bed of your pickup so you can hold him by the horns?


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 29, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> oh well,i tried. Jesus also says don't throw pearls to swine.



Then why do we Christians continue to do so? Our responsibility is to offer the Gospel of Christ to anyone who wants to hear it.To continue arguing after they have rejected - and _continue_ to reject it- is to do the very thing Jesus commanded us _not_ to do.

After nearly four years of arguing with people who do not believe in God,I have done more harm - to myself,as a Christian - than good,although the discussions have been "challenging," I guess is the word.I'm not known for being subtle,and my tact has often been lacking,but my faith in Jesus Christ has _never_ been shaken by anything posted on this board or anywhere else and it never _will_ be.There are non-believers who will be non-believers until Judgment Day - that is a fact I can not change.

Over the time I've been on this forum,I have seen the same topics thrashed over and over,every time new members come on. The results are always the same.

There is that chance that some of the more "cool-headed" Christians here might change the minds of the "swine" who are being pelted with pearls. I pray that is the case - if only _one_ has a change of heart,then it's worth the effort.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Then why do we Christians continue to do so? Our responsibility is to offer the Gospel of Christ to anyone who wants to hear it.To continue arguing after they have rejected - and _continue_ to reject it- is to do the very thing Jesus commanded us _not_ to do.
> 
> After nearly four years of arguing with people who do not believe in God,I have done more harm - to myself,as a Christian - than good,although the discussions have been "challenging," I guess is the word.I'm not known for being subtle,and my tact has often been lacking,but my faith in Jesus Christ has _never_ been shaken by anything posted on this board or anywhere else and it never _will_ be.There are non-believers who will be non-believers until Judgment Day - that is a fact I can not change.
> 
> ...



As a member of the "swine", I would like to say that I get great satisfaction when deists say "I just feel it in my heart that it's the truth".  I like when they say it repeatedly and when they type it in real big, red italic letters. I hope that through repetition that they begin to truly hear and understand what they are saying and in doing so that they accept that that is not a rational position.  Some people will be content with being irrational.  Hopefully they will be able to recognize when they are doing it.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 29, 2009)

who are you to judge what's rational and irrational? is it rational that billions of people are being suspended on a ball that is but a speck in existence by an unseen force we choose to call gravity? 


is existence itself rational?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> who are you to judge what's rational and irrational? is it rational that billions of people are being suspended on a ball that is but a speck in existence by an unseen force we choose to call gravity?
> 
> 
> is existence itself rational?


1+1=2 is rational. 1=3 is irrational.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Gravity is probably a difficult concept to grasp for an uneducated primitive or an indigenous tribesman. They would, however, probably be quite at ease with the notion of a magical super creature keeping them stuck down to the Earth.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 29, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Then why do we Christians continue to do so? Our responsibility is to offer the Gospel of Christ to anyone who wants to hear it.To continue arguing after they have rejected - and _continue_ to reject it- is to do the very thing Jesus commanded us _not_ to do.
> 
> ,"
> .



That's a great question.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 29, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> 1+1=2 is rational. 1=3 is irrational.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.
> 
> Gravity is probably a difficult concept to grasp for an uneducated primitive or an indigenous tribesman. They would, however, probably be quite at ease with the notion of a magical super creature keeping them stuck down to the Earth.


ME KNOW WAT GRA-VA-TEE DOO!
.................................................But still i ask,is existence "rational"?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> ME KNOW WAT GRA-VA-TEE DOO!
> .................................................But still i ask,is existence "rational"?



Existence is rational, reasonable, possible, likely, observable and quantifiable.

But you can act irrationally if you like.


----------



## Roberson (Nov 29, 2009)

everything that has , does, and will exist because of a "big bang" that you still cannot prove---that's rational, reasonable, possible, likely even, observable,and quantifiable? 


it is not rational, it certainly is not reasonable,it may be possible(hardly) it is certainly not likely,it is not observable , or quantifiable.     you may have misunderstood me. I know that physical existence is all that you said, but not the possibility that existence is here by dumb luck. THAT"S irrational thinking, if you ask me.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2009)

Gatorcountry said:


> everything that has , does, and will exist because of a "big bang" that you still cannot prove---that's rational, reasonable, possible, likely even, observable,and quantifiable?
> 
> 
> it is not rational, it certainly is not reasonable,it may be possible(hardly) it is certainly not likely,it is not observable , or quantifiable.     you may have misunderstood me. I know that physical existence is all that you said, but not the possibility that existence is here by dumb luck. THAT"S irrational thinking, if you ask me.



I don't know if there is a beginning.   I've never seen something come from nothing.  But I definitely have never seen anything that nearly resembles a Giant-Super Sky Being.   The notion of such a thing exists in the same part of my brain that Winged Unicorns live; my imagination.

Luck is not dumb or smart.  It's just "luck".


----------



## pileit (Nov 29, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> As a member of the "swine", I would like to say that I get great satisfaction when deists say "I just feel it in my heart that it's the truth".  I like when they say it repeatedly and when they type it in real big, red italic letters. I hope that through repetition that they begin to truly hear and understand what they are saying and in doing so that they accept that that is not a rational position.  Some people will be content with being irrational.  Hopefully they will be able to recognize when they are doing it.




I grew up on a farm all I ever heard out of the swine was grunting and squealing, still hear the same on these debates.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2009)

pileit said:


> I grew up on a farm all I ever heard out of the swine was grunting and squealing, still hear the same on these debates.



Explain how what I said is akin to the squealing and grunting of pigs.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Nov 29, 2009)

Wow, the Christian humility and compassion is absolutely overwhelming here...


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Wow, the Christian humility and compassion is absolutely overwhelming here...



The best thing to do in response is to remain civil.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 29, 2009)

pileit said:


> I grew up on a farm all I ever heard out of the swine was grunting and squealing, still hear the same on these debates.



You're right.  When the debate has to do with creation verses evolution only, it's always the same.
I wonder why the evolutionist keep wanting to debate the issue?


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 29, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> You're right.  When the debate has to do with creation verses evolution only, it's always the same.
> I wonder why the evolutionist keep wanting to debate the issue?




Then again, why am I always willing to get into the debate at some point????????????????????????
Don't make sense do it?


----------



## pileit (Nov 30, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Then again, why am I always willing to get into the debate at some point????????????????????????
> Don't make sense do it?




I think its an addiction.  I started a few months back reading, not intending to comment, then I do it anyway.  I guess I got too much time on my hands.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 30, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know if there is a beginning.   I've never seen something come from nothing.  But I definitely have never seen anything that nearly resembles a Giant-Super Sky Being.   The notion of such a thing exists in the same part of my brain that Winged Unicorns live; my imagination.
> 
> Luck is not dumb or smart.  It's just "luck".



Ah, how refreshing, ambush80. You are willing to chalk up existence to something that "just is."

How dare you question something that "just is."


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Ah, how refreshing, ambush80. You are willing to chalk up existence to something that "just is."
> 
> How dare you question something that "just is."



I don't own any "chalk" in this debate.


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 1, 2009)

Pearls before swine?   You guys have pearls?  Really?  I bet they look fetching when worn with that camo stuff . . .


----------



## Roberson (Dec 2, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Pearls before swine?   You guys have pearls?  Really?  I bet they look fetching when worn with that camo stuff . . .


to someone like you, maybe...........


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Why is there something, rather than nothing?



Could there just as easily been nothing as opposed to something?


----------



## 14pounder (Dec 4, 2009)

I'm a christian/not knocking anyone whose not,but I personally find it hard to believe that a bunch of rocks collided in space and made this world we live in. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2009)

14pounder said:


> I'm a christian/not knocking anyone whose not,but I personally find it hard to believe that a bunch of rocks collided in space and made this world we live in. Just my 2 cents.



I'm not a Christian, but I think it's possible to be a Christian and believe that God caused the rocks to collide in space.

There are many levels to this debate.

-Did the world come from rocks banging into each other?  I think, yes.

-Did it take a long time for the Universe to be formed?  I think, yes.

-Did the Earth come together in 7 days?  I think, no.

-Did some being cause the rocks to bang together just so?  I think, maybe, but the notion of a supernatural being is really weird.

There are a lot of other questions that are  germane to the OP.  Discuss.....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 13, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> -Did the Earth come together in 7 days?  I think, no.



6 days.


----------

