# A Question for Non-believers



## tomtlb66 (May 8, 2010)

First off, let me express I am not judging anyone nor am I being disrespectful. I just want to ask some questions, thats it. If you don't believe in God, please explain somethings to me if you don't mind. People who have been diagnosed with deadly illnesses and go back to the doctor and now they are fine. My daughter had spinabifida and she is fine, no medical explanation either. When doctors themselves have said it is a miracle, how do you explain that. Again, not being disrespectful, I am just asking questions, thats it. Another question here, the process of breathing, how is that possible, or the act of growth in a human being, from one stage to another. We can define the process of breathing and growth but cannot reproduce it in a lab to any success. All I am asking is for you to take time and really think about God and why not talk to Him. If we can take the time to write what we believe and what we think is real, why not try this. What harm can come from this, I am not asking you to do anything that will harm you,again, I am not being rude and I think I have been repectful, so please be respectful with you responses and pardon my spelling.


----------



## Madrox (May 8, 2010)

I was a devout Baptist, now Atheist. I have never felt more whole in my life. There have been many studies on the subconscious thought process and could relate it back to the theory that if you believe in something enough, it will happen. I am in a rush atm, but will explain a little more later on.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (May 8, 2010)

Congratulations on your daughter's recovery! That is awesome 

As far as God goes, there is a lot to be said for positive thinking. Plenty of non-believers have been healed from disease due to the positive thinking and attitude.  And our culture is always learning more as time goes on... 100 years ago we couldn't cure polio or many other illnesses, now we can. It is feasible that someday we may have the answers to how breathing is achieved, etc. but just don't know it yet. 

I am with Madrox, used to be a believer but once I left the church I felt better than I had all my life, and now wonder how I ever believed in the first place. 

Although I'm not an atheist... I don't know how we got here, it's possible, even probable that *something* created us, but I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. I just know what I don't believe in 

Again, very happy for you on the recovery for your daughter, may she continue to be in good health!


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 8, 2010)

It's great that she's healthy.  Right on.

The first explanation that comes to my mind is an misdiagnosis.  It happens.

The second explanation is .... I don't know.  And neither do you.  Most people say "God did this...he is so great!!".  But they don't know that for sure.  I am unconvinced that any heavenly entity has ever cured anyone of anything.

Benny Hinn though....he'll tell you something different.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5lvU-DislkI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5lvU-DislkI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## OlAlabama (May 8, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> doctors themselves have said it is a miracle, how do you explain that. an define the process of breathing and growth but cannot reproduce it in a lab to any success. All I am asking is for you to take time and really think about God  I am not being rude and I think I have been repectful, so please be respectful with you responses and pardon my spelling.



I do.  Ecclesiastes 3:11.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 8, 2010)

I give every man kudos for talents and skills he has above and beyond my capabilities. I give no less to God...


----------



## OlAlabama (May 8, 2010)

Have you ever know anyone, who actually STUDIED the Bible from end to end, that was an Atheist?  Is there good reasons why some have turned to Atheism?  2 Co 4:4; 1 Jo 5:19; Re 12:9.


----------



## tomtlb66 (May 8, 2010)

I appreciate all the responses to my questions and thank you for the respectful way this was discussed. As far as my daughter goes, we saw the x-rays,which showed her head and the problems there, and now she is fine. When you say that your whole i don't understand what you mean. As far as you saying you were once a beliver and now your not, wasn't there something that you felt deep in your heart when you were a believer? Where did all this come from? It couldn't have just apperared one day,right? All I am saying is to really honestly think about it. That's all, just ponder on the issue of God, and do it with all your heart and mind. Again, whats the worst that can happen?


----------



## WTM45 (May 8, 2010)

OlAlabama said:


> Have you ever know anyone, who actually STUDIED the Bible from end to end, that was an Atheist?  Is there good reasons why some have turned to Atheism?  2 Co 4:4; 1 Jo 5:19; Re 12:9.



Multiple people.


----------



## earl (May 8, 2010)

Congrats on your daughters health. 

Please take this in the respectful manner I intend it. Do you think God was responsible for giving her that condition in the first place ?
I believe in a higher power . I don't think it gives or takes away diseases. I do think that the power of love emanating from people can cure just as you believe in God's power. I am sure that Christian prayer is akin too this. 

DD said it better than I did. 

Whatever happened , it is great !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## WTM45 (May 8, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> First off, let me express I am not judging anyone nor am I being disrespectful. I just want to ask some questions, thats it. If you don't believe in God, please explain somethings to me if you don't mind. People who have been diagnosed with deadly illnesses and go back to the doctor and now they are fine. My daughter had spinabifida and she is fine, no medical explanation either. When doctors themselves have said it is a miracle, how do you explain that. Again, not being disrespectful, I am just asking questions, thats it. Another question here, the process of breathing, how is that possible, or the act of growth in a human being, from one stage to another. We can define the process of breathing and growth but cannot reproduce it in a lab to any success. All I am asking is for you to take time and really think about God and why not talk to Him. If we can take the time to write what we believe and what we think is real, why not try this. What harm can come from this, I am not asking you to do anything that will harm you,again, I am not being rude and I think I have been repectful, so please be respectful with you responses and pardon my spelling.



tomtlb66, I am extremely glad your child is doing well!  Nothing pulls at my heart strings harder than a child suffering with an illness.  That is some fantastic news!

There are many things that are impossible to explain in life. 
Sometimes simply saying "I just don't know" has to suffice.


----------



## Thanatos (May 8, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> First off, let me express I am not judging anyone nor am I being disrespectful. I just want to ask some questions, thats it. If you don't believe in God, please explain somethings to me if you don't mind. People who have been diagnosed with deadly illnesses and go back to the doctor and now they are fine. My daughter had spinabifida and she is fine, no medical explanation either. When doctors themselves have said it is a miracle, how do you explain that. Again, not being disrespectful, I am just asking questions, thats it. Another question here, the process of breathing, how is that possible, or the act of growth in a human being, from one stage to another. We can define the process of breathing and growth but cannot reproduce it in a lab to any success. All I am asking is for you to take time and really think about God and why not talk to Him. If we can take the time to write what we believe and what we think is real, why not try this. What harm can come from this, I am not asking you to do anything that will harm you,again, I am not being rude and I think I have been repectful, so please be respectful with you responses and pardon my spelling.



These are all good questions, but think big picture. If you believe in our absolute laws of math and science, then how  did the universe start?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (May 8, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> I appreciate all the responses to my questions and thank you for the respectful way this was discussed. As far as my daughter goes, we saw the x-rays,which showed her head and the problems there, and now she is fine. When you say that your whole i don't understand what you mean. As far as you saying you were once a beliver and now your not, wasn't there something that you felt deep in your heart when you were a believer? Where did all this come from? It couldn't have just apperared one day,right? All I am saying is to really honestly think about it. That's all, just ponder on the issue of God, and do it with all your heart and mind. Again, whats the worst that can happen?



Sure, I had a lot of emotions when I was a believer.  Emotions do just appear one day... haven't you ever fallen in love?  

I've had plenty of relationships that I had a lot of trust and emotion in... until they were proven (to me) to be untrue.  My relationship with religion is no different.  

I do say that I believe in a higher power.  But probably only because I have no other explanation for much of what I don't understand about life and creation. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong, either 

There is only one thing that anyone can be 100% sure of, and that is that one day, each of us will die.  What happens after we die is anyone's guess... because again, nobody knows what happens after you take that last breath.  You can speculate and hope and have faith for whatever you like, but the fact is, nobody knows until it happens to them.  I'm guessing that we just cease to exist... just as we were before we were born.  In fact, even your bible tends to agree with me, as it states that the dead know nothing.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 8, 2010)

Who can say what God does and what God does not do.
Or why He does or why He does not.

Either believe in Him and all that is His.........
Or believe only in yourself.


----------



## crackerdave (May 8, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> tomtlb66, I am extremely glad your child is doing well!  Nothing pulls at my heart strings harder than a child suffering with an illness.  That is some fantastic news!
> 
> There are many things that are impossible to explain in life.
> Sometimes simply saying "I just don't know" has to suffice.




Yeah - you and some of the other "brainy" types here should try that one time!


----------



## WTM45 (May 8, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> Yeah - you should try that one time!



I have quite often.  Twice today, in fact.


----------



## Madrox (May 8, 2010)

I have a pretty clear understanding of the bible. I have read/studied it a good bit. I have researched most all standard religions, and have a firm grasp of them.
On that same token, there are plenty of ancient civilizations that have the exact same stories that are in the bible, but with different names.  
Do some research on the Sumerians. Some neat stuff to find there.
Most religious people I try to have simple conversations with assume Atheists are closed minded when typically they are the ones who get in a huff and will not listen any longer.
I can certainly respect people's beliefs and usually when I walk up on a conversation about religion, I keep out of it unless I am asked.
I think the "miracles" a lot of people see are either misdiagnosis, medical intervention, or a result of subconscious thought. Your brain is a very powerful tool, that can have amazing results.

Most items in life can be explained, and if not, just give it time. Knowledge is a god killer. Ancient civilizations had a god for everything they could not explain, until knowledge explained these items and the gods were no longer needed.
With religion, I found nothing but heart ache, with Atheism, I feel a great relief.


----------



## Thanatos (May 8, 2010)

Madrox said:


> I have a pretty clear understanding of the bible. I have read/studied it a good bit. I have researched most all standard religions, and have a firm grasp of them.
> On that same token, there are plenty of ancient civilizations that have the exact same stories that are in the bible, but with different names.
> Do some research on the Sumerians. Some neat stuff to find there.
> Most religious people I try to have simple conversations with assume Atheists are closed minded when typically they are the ones who get in a huff and will not listen any longer.
> ...



This is funny because I am your antithesis. The more knowledge I gain the more God appears to me in my short, frail existence. The more I learn about the past (especially on a cosmic scale) the greater awe I have for his majesty.


----------



## OlAlabama (May 9, 2010)

If someone just stumbles on to this thread, and admits to the fact that all those here are better and smarter, should he still make comment?  

Don't y'all believe in somethin?  What drives you... God, yourself, the boss, Satan?  For y'all that never had, or have moved away - is it people or organized religion or rules that turn you off, and who can be blamed?  Arn't we all imperfect and don't we all need direction?  Are we capable on our own - look at world gubments... have any proved capable?  

Some might say they turn to God, but do they know him?  Do they turn to him because they want something, need something, or git something fine, and feel the need to give thanks to someone?  On the other hand is he the one we should blame when we need someone to blame? 

If we claim to know God, shouldn't we have made a deep study of his word? If not, then who do we really know? Can we know ourselves without knowing him?

If we claim not need him or that he does not exist, shouldn't we of made a deep study of the book that actually claims to be form the one who made us?

Thank y'all, and like I said in the beginning - I'm purdy much nobody.


----------



## crackerdave (May 9, 2010)

Madrox said:


> I have a pretty clear understanding of the bible. I have read/studied it a good bit. I have researched most all standard religions, and have a firm grasp of them.
> On that same token, there are plenty of ancient civilizations that have the exact same stories that are in the bible, but with different names.
> Do some research on the Sumerians. Some neat stuff to find there.
> Most religious people I try to have simple conversations with assume Atheists are closed minded when typically they are the ones who get in a huff and will not listen any longer.
> ...




How much relief will you feel when your life ends,and you stand before the One who created you _and_ your brain? Ever wonder how it is that there can be jillions of people and no two are alike? There is a tiny "something" that makes you "YOU." That will never die - it will spend eternity in one of two places: _With_ God, or _without_ God. A simple choice - one we make of our own free will.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 9, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> These are all good questions, but think big picture. If you believe in our absolute laws of math and science, then how  did the universe start?



Why jump to the trump card?  At any rate, with a tip of the hat to Cracker Dave, I don't know.


----------



## Madrox (May 9, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> How much relief will you feel when your life ends,and you stand before the One who created you _and_ your brain? Ever wonder how it is that there can be jillions of people and no two are alike? There is a tiny "something" that makes you "YOU." That will never die - it will spend eternity in one of two places: _With_ God, or _without_ God. A simple choice - one we make of our own free will.


When I die, I will cease to exist, and everything will go black. That's what I believe, and if I am wrong, so be it. 

I think there are two types of people, those who seek answers and knowledge, and those who are comfortable with a simple answer that doesn't really explain anything. Faith seems to be a great thing for those that have it. I think that most of humanity just cannot deal with the thought that they may be finite.

This thread seems to be going in a direction where most all of them go. I have not tried to bash any of you, or say you are wrong, just explain what I think. Religion is a touchy topic, especially when faith is such a huge part of it.


----------



## Thanatos (May 9, 2010)

Madrox said:


> When I die, I will cease to exist, and everything will go black. That's what I believe, and if I am wrong, so be it.
> 
> I think there are two types of people, those who seek answers and knowledge, and those who are comfortable with a simple answer that doesn't really explain anything. Faith seems to be a great thing for those that have it. I think that most of humanity just cannot deal with the thought that they may be finite.
> 
> This thread seems to be going in a direction where most all of them go. I have not tried to bash any of you, or say you are wrong, just explain what I think. Religion is a touchy topic, especially when faith is such a huge part of it.



In your post it sounds like your assuming people who are Christians are not thinkers or intelligent because we believe in a God that we can not "prove" exist. That would be a very, very, very ignorant position to take.


----------



## Madrox (May 9, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> In your post it sounds like your assuming people who are Christians are not thinkers or intelligent because we believe in a God that we can not "prove" exist. That would be a very, very, very ignorant position to take.




Not what I was trying to relay, but I can see how you would see that. Sorry about that, let me try to explain a little better. 
Majority of the Christians I do converse with, their answer is simply one of two things, because God did it, or its in the Bible. On that same token, I have met quite a few very intelligent Christians and had good debates with them. Its just like any other Religion or lack there of, there is going to be a mixed bag of IQ. With Science, it seems like there is a never ending quest to gain more knowledge, with Religion, you already have your answers, but its always God. When you do not feel a soul in you, or see it in humanity, God just does not feel like a relevant answer to me.


----------



## OlAlabama (May 9, 2010)

Madrox said:


> their answer is simply one of two things, because God did it, or its in the Bible.





OlAlabama said:


> If we claim not need him or that he does not exist, shouldn't we of made a deep study of the book that actually claims to be form the one who made us?



Could it be cause that the answer IS in the Bible? Didn't the Bible say that the earth was round, about a thousand years before science said it? Didn't Bible coin the phrase "he got away by the skin of his teeth" long before science discovered that there is a layer of skin on teeth? Has anyone ever proved the Bible wrong? Haven't many tried?


----------



## tomtlb66 (May 9, 2010)

Well then lets go a little further here. If the sun moved just a few inches further to the earth, the earth would be engulfed in flames. The sun is at the perfect distance from the earth for every living thing to live and flourish. Also, the whole galaxy and galaxies that we know are there, man could not have done that, correct? We have our limits, we all know that, so, with that being said, and if you really sit and think about it, there has to be a higher being if you will. Sight from our eyes, just another example of what I call blessings and miracles. DNA, well no matter what color you are or where you and your family comes from, we all have a similiar gene in us that is exactly the same as every person on the earth. So, we have all that, it cannot be by accident or by chance. It must come from design, thats how God made it. Just sit and think about it, thats all I am asking. As far as people being racist, or evil, or just plain bad, thats there choice. We all have gotten angry and didn't knock out every person we have ever gotten angry at. What causes that change in a person who was angry and was racist and blamed the whole world for their problems and thought that if it wasn't their way, it was wrong? What causes that change to where a person loves and tries to love everyone even when they don't want to? When a person is broke down on the side of the road and he is not the same color as you and something inside you says go back and help that person when 5 years ago you could basically care less? Or, when you look at all the people in the world that have lives waisted by drugs and alcohol and you don't say, its their fault not mine and its not my problem? When that man was married and had affairs and in his mind justified that. When now when that person and looks at his new wife and says she is the most beautiful women in the world and that same man who has been married 3 times before, would rather die than ever cheat on the woman he loves, and when she is sad, he is sad. When that man who looks at one his best friends in the whole world and he is not the same color as him and loves helps his friend and tries to help him when he is in trouble, what causes that? What cause that person to look back at his life and all the people he has emotionally hurt and it makes him want to cry? Or, when a family member who has hurt him and he has to call that person and say I am sorry if I did something wrong to you and asks for forgiveness? What causes that? When That person see a man holding a sign a will work for food and doesn't say, he just wants money to buy drugs or is to lazy to work and feels compassion and knows in his heart he could be there as well? When our current President who he didn't vote for, has this huge feeling in his heart to pray for that president? These are just some examples, oh there is one more, what causes that person who reads on this forum about people who don't believe in God, and wants to pray for them and see God move in their lives and wants to see them write back and say, God spoke to my heart and I listened and invited Him into my heart? Please tell me, because that man was and is me. I cannot change the way I was and by no means am I perfect, I have already stated I make more mistakes than anyone on this forum, but when my own mother tells me she is proud of me and that I am doing great, my answer to her is, its not me, its God. I have never murdered anyone or physically hurt anyone for the fun of it or because they were a different color but I didn't love them. You see, I could not have done all this on my own, there is NO WAY! I am not saying that I am this great man of God, I struggle everyday with battles, not like I use to, just new ones, just my story and believe me I have changed and the people in my life see it, I couldn't have done it without God. I am a mess and a work in progress, but I am like so many other believers, I pray for everyone, even if you don't believe. This is my testimony for my God, my Father, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.


----------



## WTM45 (May 9, 2010)

Argument from Incredulity.


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2010)

OlAlabama said:


> If we claim to know God, shouldn't we have made a deep study of his word? If not, then who do we really know? Can we know ourselves without knowing him?



There are many, many books that deal with the matter of the "soul" or god(s).  Maybe they should all be given consideration.


To the OP,

Do you believe in luck?  Do you have a lucky fishing lure or a lucky rabbit's foot?   Do you believe that they work?  Do they work all the time?  When they don't work, what do you give as the cause of their ineffectiveness?  

Such is prayer. 

The sick pray and are sometimes healed; sometimes they die.  People who don't pray and are healed and some die.  Some sick people who rub themselves with crystals are miraculously healed and some die as well.  What your faith in God gives you is the same thing that a rabbits foot gives to a lotto scratch off card player; a feeling that you have access to a higher power that can tilt odds in your advantage.  But we all know examples of prayer that did not work. 

Do you know what a placebo is?


----------



## Madrox (May 9, 2010)

tomtlb66:
Man could not have made the earth and sun..... The sun being where it is allows life to be on this planet. 

We do have similar genes, as well do animals. I do not see this as a miracle, I see it as years upon years or trial and error/evolution.

ambush80: I like your thought process.

OlAlabama: I may be a little rusty, but can you give me the passages that support what you said so I can take a look at them? I have never tried to prove the Bible wrong. I just see a lot of stories from other cultures, not to mention stuff that was left out and possibly censored when it was compiled. The Bible is tampered by man. I think some of it may be truth, but changed to have a control over masses, or misguided or misquoted.


----------



## Madrox (May 9, 2010)

WTM45: A link to what he was talking about... I like it as well.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 9, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> Well then lets go a little further here. If the sun moved just a few inches further to the earth, the earth would be engulfed in flames. The sun is at the perfect distance from the earth for every living thing to live and flourish. Also, the whole galaxy and galaxies that we know are there, man could not have done that, correct? We have our limits, we all know that, so, with that being said, and if you really sit and think about it, there has to be a higher being if you will. Sight from our eyes, just another example of what I call blessings and miracles. DNA, well no matter what color you are or where you and your family comes from, we all have a similiar gene in us that is exactly the same as every person on the earth. So, we have all that, it cannot be by accident or by chance. It must come from design, thats how God made it. Just sit and think about it, thats all I am asking. As far as people being racist, or evil, or just plain bad, thats there choice. We all have gotten angry and didn't knock out every person we have ever gotten angry at. What causes that change in a person who was angry and was racist and blamed the whole world for their problems and thought that if it wasn't their way, it was wrong? What causes that change to where a person loves and tries to love everyone even when they don't want to? When a person is broke down on the side of the road and he is not the same color as you and something inside you says go back and help that person when 5 years ago you could basically care less? Or, when you look at all the people in the world that have lives waisted by drugs and alcohol and you don't say, its their fault not mine and its not my problem? When that man was married and had affairs and in his mind justified that. When now when that person and looks at his new wife and says she is the most beautiful women in the world and that same man who has been married 3 times before, would rather die than ever cheat on the woman he loves, and when she is sad, he is sad. When that man who looks at one his best friends in the whole world and he is not the same color as him and loves helps his friend and tries to help him when he is in trouble, what causes that? What cause that person to look back at his life and all the people he has emotionally hurt and it makes him want to cry? Or, when a family member who has hurt him and he has to call that person and say I am sorry if I did something wrong to you and asks for forgiveness? What causes that? When That person see a man holding a sign a will work for food and doesn't say, he just wants money to buy drugs or is to lazy to work and feels compassion and knows in his heart he could be there as well? When our current President who he didn't vote for, has this huge feeling in his heart to pray for that president? These are just some examples, oh there is one more, what causes that person who reads on this forum about people who don't believe in God, and wants to pray for them and see God move in their lives and wants to see them write back and say, God spoke to my heart and I listened and invited Him into my heart? Please tell me, because that man was and is me. I cannot change the way I was and by no means am I perfect, I have already stated I make more mistakes than anyone on this forum, but when my own mother tells me she is proud of me and that I am doing great, my answer to her is, its not me, its God. I have never murdered anyone or physically hurt anyone for the fun of it or because they were a different color but I didn't love them. You see, I could not have done all this on my own, there is NO WAY! I am not saying that I am this great man of God, I struggle everyday with battles, not like I use to, just new ones, just my story and believe me I have changed and the people in my life see it, I couldn't have done it without God. I am a mess and a work in progress, but I am like so many other believers, I pray for everyone, even if you don't believe. This is my testimony for my God, my Father, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.


 
Lordy, I can't even read that. Did God invent divisions by paragraph or did man?


----------



## Madrox (May 9, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Lordy, I can't even read that. Did God invent divisions by paragraph or did man?


I had to go through and delete as I read to understand. I think man did invent the divisions however, think of how long a term paper would be without breaks. lol.


----------



## GOAT.45acp (May 9, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> Well then lets go a little further here. If the sun moved just a few inches further to the earth, the earth would be engulfed in flames. The sun is at the perfect distance from the earth for every living thing to live and flourish. Also, the whole galaxy and galaxies that we know are there, man could not have done that, correct? We have our limits, we all know that, so, with that being said, and if you really sit and think about it, there has to be a higher being if you will. Sight from our eyes, just another example of what I call blessings and miracles. DNA, well no matter what color you are or where you and your family comes from, we all have a similiar gene in us that is exactly the same as every person on the earth. So, we have all that, it cannot be by accident or by chance. It must come from design, thats how God made it. Just sit and think about it, thats all I am asking. As far as people being racist, or evil, or just plain bad, thats there choice. We all have gotten angry and didn't knock out every person we have ever gotten angry at. What causes that change in a person who was angry and was racist and blamed the whole world for their problems and thought that if it wasn't their way, it was wrong? What causes that change to where a person loves and tries to love everyone even when they don't want to? When a person is broke down on the side of the road and he is not the same color as you and something inside you says go back and help that person when 5 years ago you could basically care less? Or, when you look at all the people in the world that have lives waisted by drugs and alcohol and you don't say, its their fault not mine and its not my problem? When that man was married and had affairs and in his mind justified that. When now when that person and looks at his new wife and says she is the most beautiful women in the world and that same man who has been married 3 times before, would rather die than ever cheat on the woman he loves, and when she is sad, he is sad. When that man who looks at one his best friends in the whole world and he is not the same color as him and loves helps his friend and tries to help him when he is in trouble, what causes that? What cause that person to look back at his life and all the people he has emotionally hurt and it makes him want to cry? Or, when a family member who has hurt him and he has to call that person and say I am sorry if I did something wrong to you and asks for forgiveness? What causes that? When That person see a man holding a sign a will work for food and doesn't say, he just wants money to buy drugs or is to lazy to work and feels compassion and knows in his heart he could be there as well? When our current President who he didn't vote for, has this huge feeling in his heart to pray for that president? These are just some examples, oh there is one more, what causes that person who reads on this forum about people who don't believe in God, and wants to pray for them and see God move in their lives and wants to see them write back and say, God spoke to my heart and I listened and invited Him into my heart? Please tell me, because that man was and is me. I cannot change the way I was and by no means am I perfect, I have already stated I make more mistakes than anyone on this forum, but when my own mother tells me she is proud of me and that I am doing great, my answer to her is, its not me, its God. I have never murdered anyone or physically hurt anyone for the fun of it or because they were a different color but I didn't love them. You see, I could not have done all this on my own, there is NO WAY! I am not saying that I am this great man of God, I struggle everyday with battles, not like I use to, just new ones, just my story and believe me I have changed and the people in my life see it, I couldn't have done it without God. I am a mess and a work in progress, but I am like so many other believers, I pray for everyone, even if you don't believe. This is my testimony for my God, my Father, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.



The earth is not on a perfect rotation around the sun and does get closer to the sun on the peaks of its rotation. This is why on some days of the year the sun appears much larger in the sky and on others its smaller. Life could be sustained on mars if it had an atmosphere like earths and its much farther away from the sun than  the earth. The fact of the matter and I have studied your Bible from cover to cover looking for my answers in life and they are not there. Telling a Christan or a Muslim today there is no God is no different than telling a Greek 3000 years ago there is no God of the sun .


----------



## Madrox (May 9, 2010)

A few quotes that I liked:
Epicurus- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Bertrand Russell -And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence

Gene Roddenberry- We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes


----------



## GOAT.45acp (May 9, 2010)

The fact of the matter is that we will all get our answers , one day we will all die my only hope is that if I'm wrong and one of the religions of the world are correct that the God I go to meet has mercy on me for using my brain he gave to to look for the answers he was not willing to give.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 9, 2010)

GOAT.45acp said:


> The fact of the matter is that we will all get our answers , one day we will all die my only hope is that if I'm wrong and one of the religions of the world are correct that the God I go to meet has mercy on me for using my brain he gave to to look for the answers he was not willing to give.


 
Ever stand in a forest looking for deer only to realize they were all around you?


----------



## GOAT.45acp (May 9, 2010)

Nope, can't sat I have . Not much for hunting.


----------



## Thanatos (May 9, 2010)

GOAT.45acp said:


> The earth is not on a perfect rotation around the sun and does get closer to the sun on the peaks of its rotation. This is why on some days of the year the sun appears much larger in the sky and on others its smaller. Life could be sustained on mars if it had an atmosphere like earths and its much farther away from the sun than  the earth. The fact of the matter and I have studied your Bible from cover to cover looking for my answers in life and they are not there. Telling a Christan or a Muslim today there is no God is no different than telling a Greek 3000 years ago there is no God of the sun .



Because earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect circle, then that disproves God and religion. You are dismissing A LOT more facts to come to that conclusion.


----------



## Madrox (May 9, 2010)

He was commenting on the early statement that there has to be a god because of the prefect rotation etc..... I doubt you can call any of them Facts however.


----------



## GOAT.45acp (May 9, 2010)

as Madrox said I was commenting on an older post , about how perfect everything has to be in order for the earth to survive. It is not my goal to disprove God at all, but there few if any facts that revolve around religion, this is why a good many people refer to religion as FAITH being that a lot of things in it can not be proven with facts .


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Ever stand in a forest looking for deer only to realize they were all around you?



Ever been to the magical fairy land Heaven?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 9, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Ever been to the magical fairy land Heaven?


 
Not yet, haven't been to the moon either. You?


----------



## gtparts (May 9, 2010)

Madrox said:


> A few quotes that I liked:
> Epicurus- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
> 
> Bertrand Russell -And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence
> ...



You must have just arrived here on this SDDS forum rather recently, even though your membership dates to Jul 2008 because the quotes have been covered before.....perhaps several times.

_God_, by any reasonable definition is omnipotent. That simply means He is able, leaving only two propositions according to this great "thinker". "Epi"(as I will refer to him) would have us believe that in every situation, an omnipotent God would be universally unwilling to prevent evil or universally willing to prevent evil. The basic flaw in Epi's thinking is that a third possibility exists, i.e. that God may choose to prevent evil in some specific cases and choose not to prevent evil in other specific cases. I could stop right here because Epi is probably no better than a third rate thinker or logician. He doesn't get very far before even I can see that he fails to consider other possible explanations for evil in this world based on the actions of an omnipotent God.

In truth, God does or allows that which achieves His ultimate purpose, knowing that whatever transpires, He can cause it all to work for good to those that love Him. He is not obligated in the least to those who openly hate Him or those who disavow His existence. His commitment to those who love Him is to, in the final analysis, preserve and protect throughout all eternity the personal relationship He has purposed for them, in His presence. I could give a fuller explanation, but for now, that is all time I will give to Epi.

As for Russell, he offers speculation about a deity, whose existence he is in doubt about, and clearly does not know. How wise is it to place any confidence in such a one who starts off declaring his personal ignorance of the subject about whom he is about to comment ? To credit "uneasy vanity" as the reason why "doubting His existence" is offensive to God, is for Russell to "plea from ignorance".

So much for Russell's credibility!

Finally, to the matter of that science fiction writer, Roddenberry. ( Impressive credentials for someone who fancied himself as a "creator" of sorts.) I see you find his fiction to be "likable".

He obviously didn't delve too deeply into Scripture or he would have known that humans were not created faulty by God. We (mankind) chose corruption. Many still do choose corruption, even though we have an opportunity to have that set aside. God does not blame those who make the choice to forgo redemption. He merely allows them to have their own way in the matter. How many times does one have to be alerted to the eventual and permanent personal disaster they will experience by choice before they heed the warning?

I'll give Roddenberry his due. His fiction has been great fun and entertainment over the years. It has inspired and even taught lessons on morality to several generations.

 I just wish you could read the non-fiction he would be posting here, if he could.


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Not yet, haven't been to the moon either. You?



No, but I've seen pictures and video from people who have.


----------



## OlAlabama (May 9, 2010)

OlAlabama said:


> Could it be cause that the answer IS in the Bible? Didn't the Bible say that the earth was round, about a thousand years before science said it? Didn't Bible coin the phrase "he got away by the skin of his teeth" long before science discovered that there is a layer of skin on teeth? Has anyone ever proved the Bible wrong? Haven't many tried?





Madrox said:


> OlAlabama: I may be a little rusty, but can you give me the passages that support what you said so I can take a look at them? The Bible is tampered by man. I think some of it may be truth, but changed to have a control over masses, or misguided or misquoted.



Job20:20  To my skin and to my flesh my bones actually cleave,
And I escape with the skin of my teeth.

Isiah40:22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth


A report published in 1991 shows that there are possibly 6,000 handwritten copies containing all or part of the Hebrew Scriptures; the oldest dates back to the third century B.C.E. Of the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are some 5,000 in Greek, the oldest dating back to the beginning of the second century C.E. There are also many copies of early translations into other languages.
In the introduction to his seven volumes on The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them [the papyri] is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or addition of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used. But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts.”—(London, 1933), p. 15.
It is true that some translations of the Bible adhere more closely to what is in the original languages than others do. Modern paraphrase Bibles have taken liberties that at times alter the original meaning. Some translators have allowed personal beliefs to color their renderings. But these weaknesses can be identified by comparison of a variety of translations.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 9, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Ever been to the magical fairy land Heaven?


 


ambush80 said:


> No, but I've seen pictures and video from people who have.


 
Pictures and videos are easy, just look..

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1_JBMrrYw8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1_JBMrrYw8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## crackerdave (May 9, 2010)

OlAlabama said:


> If someone just stumbles on to this thread, and admits to the fact that all those here are better and smarter, should he still make comment?
> 
> Don't y'all believe in somethin?  What drives you... God, yourself, the boss, Satan?  For y'all that never had, or have moved away - is it people or organized religion or rules that turn you off, and who can be blamed?  Arn't we all imperfect and don't we all need direction?  Are we capable on our own - look at world gubments... have any proved capable?
> 
> ...



 We are _all_ "somebody" in the eyes of God.

Good post!


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Pictures and videos are easy, just look..
> 
> <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1_JBMrrYw8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1_JBMrrYw8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>



My God!!!! You're right!!! The Apollo missions and avatar are exactly the same!!!

Do you have any lucky charms?  Lucky hunting jacket or fishing rod?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 9, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> My God!!!! You're right!!! The Apollo missions and avatar are exactly the same!!!


Now you're gettin somewhere..


----------



## Vernon Holt (May 9, 2010)

*A Question*



Madrox said:


> I was a devout Baptist, now Atheist. I have never felt more whole in my life. There have been many studies on the subconscious thought process and could relate it back to the theory that if you believe in something enough, it will happen. I am in a rush atm, but will explain a little more later on.


 

You and I should have met somewhere along the way. I was once an atheist, but now am a devout Baptist.


----------



## tomtlb66 (May 9, 2010)

Well I appreciate all the repect and sorry I did not have paragraphs for each of you. I'll work on that.


----------



## Thanatos (May 9, 2010)

GOAT.45acp said:


> as Madrox said I was commenting on an older post , about how perfect everything has to be in order for the earth to survive. It is not my goal to disprove God at all, but there few if any facts that revolve around religion, this is why a good many people refer to religion as FAITH being that a lot of things in it can not be proven with facts .



It is called the Goldilocks Theory. 

In my opinion the FACTS given to us by our absolute laws of math and science point to a creator, not chance. 

Here is something I wrote in an earlier post....

"All the evidence a man would need to "see" God is right in front of you.

The key ingredient to knowing the wickedness of man is self awareness. If you take an objective look at your thoughts and actions you will see what I mean.

Look at the picture below. To understand just how big of a mindbleep this picture is, it's of a patch of sky that (to the naked eye) is completely empty, and based on our knowledge of physics the large yellow-white spiral galaxy in the bottom right circled in red is to big to exist."


----------



## pileit (May 9, 2010)

Vernon Holt said:


> You and I should have met somewhere along the way. I was once an atheist, but now am a devout Baptist.


----------



## crackerdave (May 9, 2010)

I was looking up in that sky today,and missing my mother. I felt very tiny.


----------



## Thanatos (May 9, 2010)

The evidence that should concern non-religious folk the most is not where we exist in the universe, but when we exist. 

We are in a perfect spot in the three dimensions of our universe, and we would not have existed if we "occurred" sooner or later in it's fourth dimension (time) as well. 

We have four different dimensions that needed to be almost perfect relative to a universal scale...then we need lighting to ignite a pool of goo that created a tad pole that became an ape that became a human...

That is a mighty thin blanket of comfort for atheist to have don't you think?


----------



## Diogenes (May 10, 2010)

And post hoc nonsense all over again . . .  I love the ‘photo’ of one small bit of the universe there, but if you understand any of what it represents then you already know one simple thing – none of it is there.

Clearly what you see is possible, or was way back when the light began radiating our way from the now visible event – a few hundred million years ago, or a billion or more.  Or maybe only twenty or thirty or fifty million years ago . . . it is hard to tell from the photo . . .  But it is pretty safe to say that when you look up into the sky you are snatching a moment out of your present to view only the very distant past.  Not a single bit of it is there anymore.  During the millions upon millions of years it took the light itself to get as far as your individual eye quite a lot is pretty sure to have happened way out there.  

As well, quite a lot happened here.  That much is obvious.  Here, during all that time it took the light from distant stars and galaxies to reach us, WE happened.  Oddly, I’ll grant, but certainly not in defiance of any odds-making operation, and that is the 'evidence' that ought to disturb religious folks.  The ‘odds’ against something happening can only be compared with the certainty that it has actually happened.  Once it has happened, and we know that it has (since we are here to speculate about it), the odds are then 100%.  The odds that your plane will crash can only be made speculatively by comparison with the safety record of the airline industry, and those ‘odds’ can only be relied upon BEFORE your board a plane.  For those on the rare plane that is going down, well, please don’t mention that the ‘odds’ are that it isn’t actually happening . . . 

The argument that the fact that we are here is a pretty long shot in comparison to the odds that we might not be is kind of silly, since it can only be argued from the platform of being here in the first place.  Since most of us think that we ARE here, with only the exception of Nancy Pelosi and her staff, the odds for our existence narrow to 100%.

How that came to be true is presented by many as a magical event, initiated by a magical creator, with noble and loving intentions.  

Well.  Um.  That picture posted above of a small slice of the ancient universe just came along for the ride?  I mean, how does your ‘Loving and Benevolent Creator’ theory account for an observable universe that is mind-bogglingly huge and unimaginably old?  Was that just put there for our amusement?  Was it an endless series of failed attempts at ‘creating’ US, and all those other ones were just left behind because there wasn’t an eraser on the ‘Creator’s’ pencil?  Did this ‘creator’ sort of get us right, finally, and only have to ‘repenteth’ of us and wipe us all out and start again one more time like that Noah and the Flood story says?

And it seems to me to be a pretty thin comfort for a ‘believer’ if the stock-in-trade of the belief is that this ‘creator’ they propose is pretty sure that He still doesn’t have it right, and is planning on returning to wipe us all out yet again (but for you few, of course, who know what the future holds and are fully ready and willing and actually eager to be wiped out).  I mean, it sounds to a reasonable person like your religion is not only founded on an execution, but seems to focus in a rather unhealthy manner on the glorious prospect of your own execution.  Sorry, but that sort of intentional ‘design’ seems more than a bit mentally unbalanced, not to mention in direct opposition to the readily obvious truth that surrounds you.

To the OP – tomtlb66 – your questions, while reasonable ones, ask that several thousand years of human learning be distilled into a set of singular and all-encompassing answers that will fit into one internet post and answer your prejudices in a neat fashion all tied up with a bow.  I’m afraid that asking others to answer for your own failure to educate yourself is not a validation of your superstitions about some magical being.  If you do not understand how an animal can grow from a sperm and an egg, and can breathe, and live and thrive or wither and die, then this is hardly the place to begin that education.  Those are not ‘spiritual’ issues, nor are they philosophical problems any more that water is a philosophical problem for a fish.  Simply stating, in a nutshell – “I don’t understand – therefore God,” isn’t going to win any points.  You reveal yourself here – “All I am asking is for you to take time and really think about God and why not talk to Him. “  

No.  That is not ‘all’ you were asking.  But it actually was.  So why waste your time with the preface?  Most of us, though obviously by no means all, have taken the time to ‘really think about God.’  In my case I’ve taken about 52 years of pretty careful and comprehensive thought and study.  And as to the ‘why not talk to Him’ bit of the conceit, well, the truth ends up being that nobody in all of history but for a few spectacularly successful frauds has yet worked out how exactly to do such a thing . . . including you.  

In order to ‘talk’ to GOD, there would first have to be a god.  Nobody has demonstrated even that first condition.  If such a thing were to be demonstrated, since we’re speculating here – this God would need to have the ability to talk.  To you, individually.  Now, I’ll wager that if you pluck someone at random out of, say, Iowa, and drop them in the middle of, say, Botswana, that person wouldn’t even be able to ‘talk’ to another person.  This is to say that it is all well and good to imagine a God that you anthropomorphize and imbue with characteristics that are uniquely your own – but that is hardly realistic even as conjecture.  If you propose a magical, invisible, all-powerful God as the Creator of the entire universe, by what possible means do you propose that God to be in any way comparable to yourself?  Just for fun, and with apologies to Douglas Adams, what if this God actually exists and is actually only a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue?  What makes you think that such an imaginary entity might be only as you wish to imagine it?  

Is it only because it says so in a Book you once read?


----------



## Thanatos (May 10, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Clearly what you see is possible, or was way back when the light began radiating our way from the now visible event – a few hundred million years ago, or a billion or more.  Or maybe only twenty or thirty or fifty million years ago . . . it is hard to tell from the photo . . .  But it is pretty safe to say that when you look up into the sky you are snatching a moment out of your present to view only the very distant past.  Not a single bit of it is there anymore.  During the millions upon millions of years it took the light itself to get as far as your individual eye quite a lot is pretty sure to have happened way out there.



As I stated this was from an earlier post and in that post I stated that the image we see when we look up into the heavens is very, very, very old. 

I understand that you want to dismiss the evidence in front of you. I wish that you and others would not dismiss such a huge amount of evidence because it is not convenient to your theory of chance. It is your choice and I respect that, but I don't like it.


----------



## pnome (May 10, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> And post hoc nonsense all over again . . .  I love the ‘photo’ of one small bit of the universe there, but if you understand any of what it represents then you already know one simple thing – none of it is there.
> 
> Clearly what you see is possible, or was way back when the light began radiating our way from the now visible event – a few hundred million years ago, or a billion or more.  Or maybe only twenty or thirty or fifty million years ago . . . it is hard to tell from the photo . . .  But it is pretty safe to say that when you look up into the sky you are snatching a moment out of your present to view only the very distant past.  Not a single bit of it is there anymore.  During the millions upon millions of years it took the light itself to get as far as your individual eye quite a lot is pretty sure to have happened way out there.
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (May 10, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> It is called the Goldilocks Theory.
> 
> In my opinion the FACTS given to us by our absolute laws of math and science point to a creator, not chance.
> 
> ...



So, if no one can explain it, it must be magical?


----------



## GOAT.45acp (May 10, 2010)

Diogenes you are my hero !  I am a firm believer that if you look for something hard enough you will find it, people look for a higher power so they find signs all around them pointing to one. I only wish it were that easy for me . I think that people having a belief is amazingly wonderful it gives them purpose and hope and do not wish to take that from anyone .


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 10, 2010)

GOAT.45acp said:


> Diogenes you are my hero ! I am a firm believer that if you look for something hard enough you will find it, people look for a higher power so they find signs all around them pointing to one. I only wish it were that easy for me . I think that people having a belief is amazingly wonderful it gives them purpose and hope and do not wish to take that from anyone .


 
This input I respect.




ambush80 said:


> So, if no one can explain it, it must be magical?


 
This, not so much.


----------



## ronpasley (May 10, 2010)

This breaks my heart, I love you guys my the Lord have mercy on your souls.


----------



## Thanatos (May 10, 2010)

GOAT.45acp said:


> Diogenes you are my hero !



You have just lost all credibility and respect with that statement alone. JK Dio I love you, but seriously GOAT you need to find another hero...



GOAT.45acp said:


> I am a firm believer that if you look for something hard enough you will find it, people look for a higher power so they find signs all around them pointing to one. I only wish it were that easy for me . I think that people having a belief is amazingly wonderful it gives them purpose and hope and do not wish to take that from anyone .



It is not hard, nor does it take much imagination to see the evidence of a creator. You must realize that you are a small insignificant spec of dust compared to this universe and here you are deciding (without bringing forth any evidence that I have read) that WE are the ones blinded by faith.  It is illogical to avoid the facts of math and science that point to a creator.


----------



## hayseed_theology (May 11, 2010)

Dio, you write some pretty long posts, so I hope you don't mind if I respond to parts of it separately.  



Diogenes said:


> And post hoc nonsense all over again . . .  I love the ‘photo’ of one small bit of the universe there, but if you understand any of what it represents then you already know one simple thing – none of it is there.
> 
> Clearly what you see is possible, or was way back when the light began radiating our way from the now visible event – a few hundred million years ago, or a billion or more.  Or maybe only twenty or thirty or fifty million years ago . . . it is hard to tell from the photo . . .  But it is pretty safe to say that when you look up into the sky you are snatching a moment out of your present to view only the very distant past.  Not a single bit of it is there anymore.  During the millions upon millions of years it took the light itself to get as far as your individual eye quite a lot is pretty sure to have happened way out there.
> 
> ...



Your point concerning the discussion of probability is argued well, but I believe it has some holes in it.  

The question of probability of being here is not just a question about mathematics but a function of a greater question of how did I come to be here?  

Why do we even have a discussion of the probability of a plane crashing?  Not simply because we fly tons of planes around the world and only a few of them crash.  The discussion has a much more foundational level than that.  We observe the normal interaction of the laws of physics.  How does the plane take off?  Air moving over a wing of a certain shape creates a foil which creates lift.  In accordance with these laws, the plane takes off.  The fact that planes take off is not dumb luck.  How do planes crash?  It's not a mystery.  When a plane loses power or is damaged structurally, gravity does what it does.  The plane comes down.  Discussing the probability of a plane crash is not based on mere statistics, it also involves a basic understanding of the physics involved.  

The question of how does the world come to exist is more of a question of "How can a plane that's not moving fly?"  or perhaps, "How did the plane, runway, air traffic control tower, etc. get here?"

Questioning the probability of an extremely large, complex, and orderly universe is based on observation of naturally occurring phenomena around us.  As best I understand, atheist propose that the world was formed from natural chemicals that were already in existence that were presumably subject to the same laws that they are subject to now.  Our observation of the way these chemicals interact and the laws they conform to leads us to question the possibility of unconscious matter producing the sort of complexity and order we observe.  To believe that a collection of gases reacting together produced this universe, it would seem that one would have to jettison the idea that the world operates in a normal way.  Questioning the probability of universe without an intelligent, self-existent being, is based on an understanding of the way the universe operates.

It would appear that the creation of the universe, would be out of the ordinary for basic, impersonal chemicals.  i.e. "How can a plane that's not moving fly?"  That would be out of the ordinary.  What are the odds of that?  

Also, the Teleological argument comes into play.  The plane, airport, air traffic control tower all have purpose.  They are all orderly.  In fact, they are very complex.  What are the odds of random chemicals producing these?  Without some intelligent being planning the construction and doing the work of building it, what are the odds it happens?

And then, you have the problem of where did these gases come from?  Here you get into the Cosmological argument. (Now, I don't believe the Teleological or Cosmological arguments prove the existence of God; however, I believe they expose problems inherent in an atheistic position.)  A eternal string of dependent beings and reactions is not philosophically tenable.

The assumption that the universe is a closed system leaves many questions unanswered.  However, if we consider the universe an open system, there is a reasonable answer to these questions.  Then the probability depends on the will of the creator, which as you point out, by the fact that we are here means the probability was 100%.


----------



## hayseed_theology (May 11, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> In order to ‘talk’ to GOD, there would first have to be a god.  Nobody has demonstrated even that first condition.  If such a thing were to be demonstrated, since we’re speculating here – this God would need to have the ability to talk.  To you, individually.  Now, I’ll wager that if you pluck someone at random out of, say, Iowa, and drop them in the middle of, say, Botswana, that person wouldn’t even be able to ‘talk’ to another person.  This is to say that it is all well and good to imagine a God that you anthropomorphize and imbue with characteristics that are uniquely your own – but that is hardly realistic even as conjecture.  If you propose a magical, invisible, all-powerful God as the Creator of the entire universe, by what possible means do you propose that God to be in any way comparable to yourself?  Just for fun, and with apologies to Douglas Adams, what if this God actually exists and is actually only a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue?  What makes you think that such an imaginary entity might be only as you wish to imagine it?



But, you also must admit that no one has proven that the first condition is not true.

Christian theism does not assume a deity with the finitude of an Iowa corn farmer.  

If there is a God, why is it such an unrealistic conjecture that he would be able to communicate with his creation?  And how does one who argues that God does not exist, then turn around and dictate what is reasonable to believe concerning his attributes and abilities?  If you grant that the supernatural exists, on what basis do you set up rules concerning what is reasonable to believe about it?

I think you bring up a great question, if we believe that a God exists, the question "What is he like?" is perfectly natural.  And even more basic, "How can we even know what he is like?"  Well, he probably isn't a "hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue," seeing as colors do not possess personality, intelligence, or consciousness.  I think its safe to say that any being that does not posses these three is not God.  If we assume that a deity exists, then we must determine what he is like based on the evidence he has left, i.e. creation, providence, or he must reveal what he is like, i.e. the Bible.

Why do people believe in a God that appears to  resemble them in some ways?  Well, Christian theism proposes that God does not resemble us, but rather that God chose man, as the chief creature, to in someway resemble himself.  I know from your perspective, it appears people have created a God in their image, but Christianity claims the exact opposite.  However, I don't expect you to accept that answer, if you don't accept the existence of a God.  Just like I wouldn't expect you to accept that giraffes have long necks if you didn't believe that such a thing as a giraffe could possibly exist.


----------



## Thanatos (May 11, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> Dio, you write some pretty long posts, so I hope you don't mind if I respond to parts of it separately.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yet again...Hayseed steps up to the plate and knocks another one out of the park. Thank you.


----------



## pnome (May 11, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> (Now, I don't believe the Teleological or Cosmological arguments prove the existence of God; however, I believe they expose problems inherent in an atheistic position.)



What problems are those?


----------



## GOAT.45acp (May 11, 2010)

I would like to bring forth evidence to prove my point but ... you will use the one source of evidence you have to prove there is a god that being the "Bible" and sate that God is not bound to the laws of science and math to disprove everything I say. This is how most all theological debates go. I can not prove that there is not a God not more than you can prove there is one . Remove the Bible from the picture and all you have is a feeling that life must some how go on , now this could be described as a hard wired thought processes in the brain to not ever be able to accept absolute death and ensure survival , and how we exist there for we must have been created by a creator. These are Human thoughts that because something exists it must have been created. Humans have a drive for something more , something better and religion gives just that.


----------



## Thanatos (May 11, 2010)

GOAT.45acp said:


> I would like to bring forth evidence to prove my point but ... you will use the one source of evidence you have to prove there is a god that being the "Bible" and sate that God is not bound to the laws of science and math to disprove everything I say. This is how most all theological debates go. I can not prove that there is not a God not more than you can prove there is one . Remove the Bible from the picture and all you have is a feeling that life must some how go on , now this could be described as a hard wired thought processes in the brain to not ever be able to accept absolute death and ensure survival , and how we exist there for we must have been created by a creator. These are Human thoughts that because something exists it must have been created. Humans have a drive for something more , something better and religion gives just that.



If you read post #64 by Hayseed he explains that life exist and flourishes on our planet because of our absolute laws of math and science. 

Please bring forth your point anyway. I would like to see if it is original, or if we have already beat it to death awhile ago.


----------



## hayseed_theology (May 11, 2010)

pnome said:


> What problems are those?



Well, the Cosmological argument brings up the issue of what caused the universe to begin.  All beings and reactions that we observe are dependent.  They are all contingent.  This is an oversimplification but how many people do you know that didn't have parents?  Or grandparents?  Or great-grandparents? Etc.  Human beings do not decide when they will be born, how they will be born, to whom they will be born, or if they will be born.  Rather, children are dependent beings, they are dependent on the decision and actions of their parents.  If you trace these dependent beings back, it is not possible to have an eternal string of dependent beings.  The fact that we are here right now implies that we have a beginning.  If you don't buy that, try counting down to negative infinity and counting back up to zero.  So what started this chain of dependent beings?  It must be something other than a dependent being.  It must be an independent being.  It is not a contingent being, but rather a necessary being.  A self-existent being who is able to create ex nihilo.  If you say that the big bang occurred and created this universe, where did the energy for this bang come from?  If you say volatile gases mixed together, where did these gases come from?  Did they exist eternally?  Is physical matter eternal?  This is an issue for atheism.  Atheism cannot account for this initial jump start. The law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but where did this energy initially come from?

With regard to the teleological argument, the key words are purpose, complexity, and order.  If there is an intelligent creator, it is then no surprise that we observe these things in nature.  However, if the universe is a closed system -  If the universe is just the product of random accidents, it makes no sense to speak of order.  Take a deck of cards, throw them up in the air.  See if they land in a nice stack that happens to be organized numerically and by suit.  Won't happen.  The random tossing of cards will not produce an orderly result.  A universe governed by chaos cannot produce order that we observe.

How does a lifeless world suddenly produce life?  How does unconscious matter suddenly produce consciousness?  

The complexity that we observe also seems to work against the atheism.   Now, certainly complexity can be produced without intelligence.  Like backlash on a baitcaster, the fishing line didn't decide to be complex, but the knot that's in my reel is complex.  However, the complexity is not specified.  In nature, we observe specified complexity like the human nervous system.  Also we observe, irreducible complexity as in the human eye.  Take away one part of the eye and the whole thing is worthless.  These are the two points that intelligent design has brought up.  You can read on them further, but the arguments are legitimate.

As I have mentioned before in another thread, denying the existence of a deity leaves one with the difficult task of trying to ground reason, morality, meaning, etc.  If the universe is random, then how can you search for any meaning it?  How can you believe anything is true.  Here is an example that I've heard, I think it shows some of the problems with atheism.  When riding a train from England into Wales, the phrase "British Railways welcomes you to Wales" is spelled out by an arrangement of rocks.  When you see that, you assume someone made it.  It is complex, yet it is orderly.  You assume that if someone made it, it has some purpose.  In fact, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the arrangement of rocks is legitimately communicating to passengers that they are leaving England and entering Wales.  Who would look at that arrangement and think that it occurred randomly.  That there was no intelligent creator behind it.  That it was not intentional.  And, if someone did think this, they would have absolutely no reason to think that it is communicating anything meaningful.  This is the position that atheism is in.  Once again, assuming that the universe is a closed system creates problems.  Not the least of which is how can you believe that anything is meaningful, or that there is purpose, or that you trust knowledge, etc.


----------



## hayseed_theology (May 11, 2010)

GOAT.45acp said:


> These are Human thoughts that because something exists it must have been created.



How do you account for the existence of the universe?



GOAT.45acp said:


> Humans have a drive for something more , something better and religion gives just that.



Interesting, and where does this innate drive come from?  What evolutionary purpose does this development serve?


----------



## Diogenes (May 12, 2010)

Thanatos states: “I understand that you want to dismiss the evidence in front of you. I wish that you and others would not dismiss such a huge amount of evidence because it is not convenient to your theory of chance.”

The problem, I guess, is that there isn’t any genuine evidence in front of us to support your own theory.  You say that the ‘evidence’ to support your theory is ‘huge,’ but shy away from offering anything other than conjecture and ‘belief,’ ancient stories and heresay, and the ‘evidence’ of the numbers of your fellow believers.  We can’t build a bridge out of those sorts of intangible bits of ‘huge’ evidence.  We can build a bomb or a power plant out of the energy stored in tiny atoms, and we can chart enough of the planet we live on sufficiently to identify fault lines and earthquake risks that result – that sort of thing counts as evidence.  Blind belief in the unknown simply does not stand up to that sort of a definition of ‘evidence.’

GOAT.45acp states: “I think that people having a belief is amazingly wonderful it gives them purpose and hope and do not wish to take that from anyone . “   Sir, to a limit, I agree wholeheartedly.  There are many very good and very valuable uses of belief.  I part company only when belief becomes an end unto itself, and seeks to stamp out truth and progress, as history handily reveals that it has done and continues to try to do.  Belief, as a replacement for thought or understanding, has the advantage of requiring very little of the believer other than blindly following their leader.  But often, and in fact always, those leaders have been interested more in gathering the power inherent in having many followers than in seeking actual truth.  Too often the ‘believers’ are enlisted as persecutors, and too seldom have they been actually left alone to find their comfort.  What comfort, really, can be taken from any doctrine that preaches eternal perdition as a consequence for less than ‘perfect’ obedience?  Fear of the unknown is purpose and hope?  I might have missed something . . .

Thanatos tries again: “It is illogical to avoid the facts of math and science that point to a creator.”   And so, by extension, it is logical to studiously avoid all of the evidence (and that would be the vast preponderance of actual, tested and testable evidence), that suggests strongly otherwise?  Actually, there are no ‘facts of math and science’ that prove a creator.  There are some cherry-picked bits of things that may be used in a long line of strained exhibits that may, if interpreted just so, ‘point’ to a creator.  But the rationalizations become so strained at each step, and the desperation to force the actual answers to fit the pre-ordained conclusions become so odd and disconnected that anyone at even a child’s arms-length view can see the ‘earth is the center of the universe’ of the early and viciously defended Church doctrine haunting the objectivity.  Actual science seeks real answers, rather than trying to prove what you have decided ahead of time based only on an ancient set of superstitions.

Hayseed: You speak eloquently, and make your points well.  Refreshing, if I may say, to speak to something other than randomly chosen Bible verses.  

But right here – “Questioning the probability of an extremely large, complex, and orderly universe is based on observation of naturally occurring phenomena around us,”  -- is where I think we need to define things a bit further.  The assumption that the universe is orderly is far from the observed facts.  In layman’s terms, stuff is crashing into other stuff out there without any conceivable rhyme or reason, ranging from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies, and the fact that it all exists still means only that it does.  

You point out the flaw in my ‘plane crash’ example of odds-making, and that is fair enough.  The example was a short-cut, but the point remains valid.  Attempting to reverse-engineer chaotic and unknown processes into a pre-conceived and neatly packaged conclusion – (GOD did it) – is only too easy, and has proven time and again to be the wrong answer.  Religion and science have a history of opposition that is as old as the first foray into actually scientific, provable, inquiry, and religions have been back-pedaling and rationalizing each new discovery ever since – or simply killing those who dare to inquire.

At the foundation of religion is the contention that the universe is orderly, and that foundation rests only upon the observation that things have turned out the way they have.  Here.  A few billion years of things crashing into each other, combining or failing to combine, taking hold or dying off, evolving or becoming extinct, surviving or failing to survive, well . . . religion fails to explain . . .  Teleology, cosmology, eschatology, or any number of the innumerable ‘philosophies’ of humans are our own unique inventions, meant to explain the unknown and give it a ‘sound-bite’ face so that anyone can grasp it . . . Not so easy.

The truth seems to be that the universe is a mess, and that from our small place in it we may never be able to do anything more than to try our best to look, test, and try to put some of it into some sort of frame that makes sense to us from where we sit.  Personally, I don’t need to propose a God to confuse me further – the truth is confusing enough . . . 

“If you grant that the supernatural exists, on what basis do you set up rules concerning what is reasonable to believe about it?”  You misunderstand – I do not grant that the supernatural exists.  I merely point out that for those who do grant such a thing, it is a bit egotistical to assign their own attributes and ideals to such a proposed force.  Why, I ask, would you think that the supernatural is composed only of those traits you wish it to possess?

“Just like I wouldn't expect you to accept that giraffes have long necks if you didn't believe that such a thing as a giraffe could possibly exist.”  Here you go too far past what were decent points – a giraffe is not a matter of ‘belief.’  If you wish to have it accepted that your God is just as you describe, well, that is a different matter – I can produce a giraffe, while you can only propose your God.  Fundamentally different points.

Thanatos opines: “If you read post #64 by Hayseed he explains that life exist and flourishes on our planet because of our absolute laws of math and science. “  Well . . . I expect that Hayseed will refute that particular interpretation, since he said nothing of the sort . . . 

Hayseed builds a box: “A self-existent being who is able to create ex nihilo.”  But then argues in the same thought: “If you trace these dependent beings back, it is not possible to have an eternal string of dependent beings.”  Well?  Which is it?  If there cannot be a self-existent being, then how can there be one?  You propose one, by magic, as the only explanation, but say in the same breath that such a being is impossible.  

Then builds another box: “With regard to the teleological argument, the key words are purpose, complexity, and order.”  None of which can be demonstrated, but for complexity beyond the grasp of our own less than perfectly evolved intellect.  My goldfish, I will say again, is probably unaware that it is living in a bowl.  Is this line of reasoning an argument in favor of a God of Goldfish, or an argument in favor of the limits of the understanding a goldfish is capable of achieving?

“A universe governed by chaos cannot produce order that we observe.”  Nonsense.  We impose an order, because it comforts us to do so.  Certain natural laws of physical interactions among elements, and the combinations of same, appear to obtain, from where we are viewing things, and we use those observations to our own advantages – nobody quite knows why a metal has weakly bound valence electrons, with a periodic arrangement of spherically-symmetric positive ions surrounded by an electron gas formed of the released electrons.  We do know that we can build a bridge out of it.  THAT it exists, we are sure.  WHY it exists, we’re working on.  So – a universe ‘governed by chaos’ is not precisely the case – there are physical laws that obtain, and the existence of those does not in and of itself prove or even suggest a magical law-giver.

Having observed the flaws in my plane-crash allegory, the fishing line example is certainly no better. And the human eye is certainly not an example of ‘irreducible complexity.’  As one of many specially adapted organs, the eye is nothing more than an information-gathering device, no more or less than any other sense organ, and is connected directly to an even more complex development – the brain --  which makes sense out of the signals gathered.  Many of our fellow creatures make do quite handily without eyes.  Point is – complexity is evolution and adaptation achieved over many eons – not ipso facto ‘proof’ of some sort of superior ‘design.’  

And ask this – were there a magical ‘designer,’ what purpose would be served by making any portion of Creation less than perfect?  The observation of any imperfection, no matter how small, in any of ‘creation,’ would render the ‘creator’ flawed.  If we are flawed in any way, then what does that say of our architect?

Finally: “Not the least of which is how can you believe that anything is meaningful, or that there is purpose . . . “   Well, um?   I DON’T.  The desire to assign meaning and purpose is yours alone.  And good luck with that one.  Folks have been trying to do that for quite a long time, and the only answer they seem to keep coming up with is that meaning is what they say it is, and purpose is what they want you to do for them.  “Build me a pyramid, for the greater glory of my ego!”  “Oh, well, okay, if you say so . . . “  

See, it is not my responsibility to account for the existence of the universe, since I do not propose an all-encompassing theory that a magical being did it, and I assign no attributes or motives to that proposed magical being, and am not, therefore, stuck in the awkward position of having to make excuses for the failures of this imaginary force and constantly defend my imaginary friend against nagging questions and new discoveries.  

But I can see why you ‘believers’ get so crabby – defending such a position has got to be quite a lot of work . . .


----------



## pnome (May 12, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> Well, the Cosmological argument brings up the issue of what caused the universe to begin.  All beings and reactions that we observe are dependent.  They are all contingent.  This is an oversimplification but how many people do you know that didn't have parents?  Or grandparents?  Or great-grandparents? Etc.  Human beings do not decide when they will be born, how they will be born, to whom they will be born, or if they will be born.  Rather, children are dependent beings, they are dependent on the decision and actions of their parents.  If you trace these dependent beings back, it is not possible to have an eternal string of dependent beings.  The fact that we are here right now implies that we have a beginning.  If you don't buy that, try counting down to negative infinity and counting back up to zero.  So what started this chain of dependent beings?  It must be something other than a dependent being.  It must be an independent being.  It is not a contingent being, but rather a necessary being.  A self-existent being who is able to create ex nihilo.  If you say that the big bang occurred and created this universe, where did the energy for this bang come from?  If you say volatile gases mixed together, where did these gases come from?  Did they exist eternally?  Is physical matter eternal?  This is an issue for atheism.  Atheism cannot account for this initial jump start. The law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but where did this energy initially come from?



How do you solve the infinite regress of "Well then, who created God?  Where did he come from?"

Do you not just make a plea that God is immune to causality?  

If that's so, then...









> With regard to the teleological argument, the key words are purpose, complexity, and order.  If there is an intelligent creator, it is then no surprise that we observe these things in nature.  However, if the universe is a closed system -  If the universe is just the product of random accidents, it makes no sense to speak of order.  Take a deck of cards, throw them up in the air.  See if they land in a nice stack that happens to be organized numerically and by suit.  Won't happen.  The random tossing of cards will not produce an orderly result.  A universe governed by chaos cannot produce order that we observe.



Take a bucket of water.  Put some gravel in, add some sand, and then add some ash.  Stir vigorously so as to completely randomize the contents.  Then let it sit.  Notice how the gravel ends up on the bottom, the sand next, and if you wait for it, the ash will settle on top.

Order out of randomness and all without the need for a supernatural entity.



> How does a lifeless world suddenly produce life?  How does unconscious matter suddenly produce consciousness?



Good questions.  I do not know the answers. Do you?  Or do you just have _faith_ that an ancient primitive tribe of desert people knew the answers?

I'm sorry but, as for myself, I'll accept not knowing before I'll accept talking snakes.



> The complexity that we observe also seems to work against the atheism.   Now, certainly complexity can be produced without intelligence.  Like backlash on a baitcaster, the fishing line didn't decide to be complex, but the knot that's in my reel is complex.  However, the complexity is not specified.  In nature, we observe specified complexity like the human nervous system.  Also we observe, irreducible complexity as in the human eye.  Take away one part of the eye and the whole thing is worthless.  These are the two points that intelligent design has brought up.  You can read on them further, but the arguments are legitimate.



No they are not.  They all rely on an inherent argument from ignorance.  Evolution is far from a "random" process.   

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1TEKDWAe_b8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1TEKDWAe_b8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>




> As I have mentioned before in another thread, denying the existence of a deity leaves one with the difficult task of trying to ground reason, morality, meaning, etc.  If the universe is random, then how can you search for any meaning it?



How do you choose a deity?  Do the Muslim's have the right meaning?  Do the Hindu?  If you look at the available "meanings" out there, they all look like pretty silly guesses.  A better position is to reject them all and instead look at the evidence.  Which is something none of these religions have to offer.  So, we can disregard them all.  Then you become like me:  A "de facto" Atheist.



> How can you believe anything is true.



Good question.  There are two ways that I know of.

1) Religion: Accept this one truth and no other.
2) Empiricism: Accept nothing as true without adequate proof.

I choose #2.  





> Here is an example that I've heard, I think it shows some of the problems with atheism.  When riding a train from England into Wales, the phrase "British Railways welcomes you to Wales" is spelled out by an arrangement of rocks.  When you see that, you assume someone made it.  It is complex, yet it is orderly.  You assume that if someone made it, it has some purpose.  In fact, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the arrangement of rocks is legitimately communicating to passengers that they are leaving England and entering Wales.  Who would look at that arrangement and think that it occurred randomly.  That there was no intelligent creator behind it.  That it was not intentional.  And, if someone did think this, they would have absolutely no reason to think that it is communicating anything meaningful.  This is the position that atheism is in.  Once again, assuming that the universe is a closed system creates problems.  Not the least of which is how can you believe that anything is meaningful, or that there is purpose, or that you trust knowledge, etc.



How do you trust the Bible?  You have more problems than I do.  I don't have to explain talking snakes and people walking on water.  

What is the purpose to the Universe?  I don't claim to know.  But the idea that it was all created just so God could watch humans struggle between good and evil seems to me a poor guess.  

"The stage is too big for the drama."


----------



## Thanatos (May 12, 2010)

pnome said:


> Take a bucket of water. Put some gravel in, add some sand, and then add some ash. Stir vigorously so as to completely randomize the contents. Then let it sit. Notice how the gravel ends up on the bottom, the sand next, and if you wait for it, the ash will settle on top.
> 
> Order out of randomness and all without the need for a supernatural entity.



Pnome...did you really just compare making gravel mud to the creation of the image below? Dude, I expected more from you.


----------



## Thanatos (May 12, 2010)

Question and Answer from one of my favorite books _The Privileged Planet_. The information below is just a DROP of what is in the book. I suggest everyone read it. In fact, I will buy Dio and Pnome the book if they want it. 

You can find this at... 

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/QandA.php 

*The Synopsis *

For centuries scientists and philosophers have marveled at an eerie coincidence. Mathematics, a creation of human reason, can predict the nature of the universe, a fact physicist Eugene Wigner referred to as the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences." In the last three decades astronomers and cosmologists have noticed another, seemingly unrelated, mystery. Contrary to all expectations, the laws of physics seem precisely "fine-tuned" for the existence of complex life.

Could these two wonders actually be isolated pieces of a wider pattern? Both are prerequisites for science, yet what about the process of scientific discovery itself? What are its necessary conditions? Why is it even possible? Read any book on the history of science, and you'll learn about magnificent tales of human ingenuity, persistence, and dumb luck. But that's only part of the story, and not even the most important part. Our location is much more critical to science than it is to real estate. For some reason our Earthly location is extraordinarily well suited to allow us to peer into the heavens and discover its secrets.

Elsewhere, you might learn that Earth and its local environment provide a delicate, and probably exceedingly rare, cradle for complex life. But there's another, even more startling, fact, described in The Privileged Planet: those same rare conditions that produce a habitable planet-that allow for the existence of complex observers like ourselves-also provide the best overall place for observing. What does this mean? At the least, it turns our view of the universe inside out. The universe is not "pointless" (Steven Weinberg), Earth merely "a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark," (Carl Sagan) and human existence "just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents" (Steven Weinberg). On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for discovery. 

*The Q and A*

Q #1: Is the fact that we can see "perfect" solar eclipses related to our existence?
A: The Earth's surface provides the best view of solar eclipses in the Solar System. The Earth's surface is also the most habitable place in the Solar System. Is this coincidence just that? In The Privileged Planet, we argue that it isn't. The conditions that make a planet habitable also make its inhabitants more likely to see solar eclipses.


Q #2: Is our existence related to the transparency of the atmosphere?
A: Atmospheres come in many forms, but not all allow for complex life or clear views of the wider universe. Complex life requires a certain type of atmosphere. It turns that this same type of atmosphere provides a remarkably clear view of the near and distant universe. Complex, intelligent beings are unlikely to find themselves on a planet with an opaque atmosphere or deep in a murky ocean. We explain this relationship in detail in The Privileged Planet.


Q #3: Can life be based on any liquid substance, or is water somehow special?
A: Water is common on Earth's surface, but one might suspect that on other planets, there are complex, intelligent beings that are not based on water, but liquid ammonia, methane, or nitrogen. But that's very unlikely. As it turns out, water is endowed with life-support capacities lacking in other substances. Together these capacities make water the most anomalous compound known to science. In The Privileged Planet, we also explain how important water has been to the rise of science.


Q #4: Is Earth a data recorder?
A: A walk through a Redwood forest is like a walk through the Library of Congress. Trees, along with corals, polar ice, marine sediments, and lake sediments contain vast storehouses of detailed information about Earth's past climate. Is this a typical feature of planets? On the contrary, we argue in that, as planets go, Earth (or, more precisely, the Earth-Moon system) is a quite high fidelity recorder of the past.


Q #5: Is the appearance of the night sky related to our existence?
A: Not only is our atmosphere transparent, but we also enjoy dark nights. Several happy coincidences, from having a planet that rotates on its axis, to our location in the galaxy, to the age of the cosmos, conspire to make this possible. And those dark nights have been vital to many scientific discoveries, as we argue in The Privileged Planet.


Q #6: Why are there so many planets in the Solar System?
A: Isn't just one planet (Earth) all we need? Doesn't it seem like a waste of space and materials to have all those other barren worlds? Well, not if those worlds are players in the games of life and scientific discovery. In The Privileged Planet, we discuss how the other planets serve as Earth's protectors while at the same time helping us in our quest to learn about the nature of the cosmos.


----------



## ambush80 (May 12, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> Well, the Cosmological argument brings up the issue of what caused the universe to begin.  All beings and reactions that we observe are dependent.  They are all contingent.  This is an oversimplification but how many people do you know that didn't have parents?  Or grandparents?  Or great-grandparents? Etc.  Human beings do not decide when they will be born, how they will be born, to whom they will be born, or if they will be born.  Rather, children are dependent beings, they are dependent on the decision and actions of their parents.  If you trace these dependent beings back, it is not possible to have an eternal string of dependent beings.  The fact that we are here right now implies that we have a beginning.  If you don't buy that, try counting down to negative infinity and counting back up to zero.  So what started this chain of dependent beings?  It must be something other than a dependent being.  It must be an independent being.  It is not a contingent being, but rather a necessary being.  A self-existent being who is able to create ex nihilo.  If you say that the big bang occurred and created this universe, where did the energy for this bang come from?  If you say volatile gases mixed together, where did these gases come from?  Did they exist eternally?  Is physical matter eternal?  This is an issue for atheism.  Atheism cannot account for this initial jump start. The law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but where did this energy initially come from?



If you can fathom a sky being with super powers having always been, why can you not imagine all the energy having always been?  I'm not claiming that that's the way it happened, but why is it such a stretch to you to consider that an option?  Is it because you have determined that the sky being is the only option and that no other option is possible?  If so, is it pure sentimentality that forces you to cling to your sky being theory or is it fear of punishment?



hayseed_theology said:


> With regard to the teleological argument, the key words are purpose, complexity, and order.  If there is an intelligent creator, it is then no surprise that we observe these things in nature.  However, if the universe is a closed system -  If the universe is just the product of random accidents, it makes no sense to speak of order.  Take a deck of cards, throw them up in the air.  See if they land in a nice stack that happens to be organized numerically and by suit.  Won't happen.  The random tossing of cards will not produce an orderly result.  A universe governed by chaos cannot produce order that we observe.



If the deck of cards were to align themselves as you described them, would you call it magic or would you look for another explanation?  Did you know that if you had a hopper full of ping pong balls numbered 1-a gazillion that the odds of them being pulled out of the hopper in numerical order, 1 to a gazillion are the EXACT SAME ODDS AS PULLING OUT ANY OTHER COMBINATION?




hayseed_theology said:


> How does a lifeless world suddenly produce life?  How does unconscious matter suddenly produce consciousness?
> 
> The complexity that we observe also seems to work against the atheism.   Now, certainly complexity can be produced without intelligence.  Like backlash on a baitcaster, the fishing line didn't decide to be complex, but the knot that's in my reel is complex.  However, the complexity is not specified.  In nature, we observe specified complexity like the human nervous system.  Also we observe, irreducible complexity as in the human eye.  Take away one part of the eye and the whole thing is worthless.  These are the two points that intelligent design has brought up.  You can read on them further, but the arguments are legitimate.



Take away some of the structures of an eye and you still have a pretty good light detection organ.  Just like if you remove the trigger mechanism from a mousetrap, you can still use it for a pretty nifty tie clip.  Hardly worthless at all.



hayseed_theology said:


> As I have mentioned before in another thread, denying the existence of a deity leaves one with the difficult task of trying to ground reason, morality, meaning, etc.  If the universe is random, then how can you search for any meaning it?  How can you believe anything is true.  Here is an example that I've heard, I think it shows some of the problems with atheism.  When riding a train from England into Wales, the phrase "British Railways welcomes you to Wales" is spelled out by an arrangement of rocks.  When you see that, you assume someone made it.  It is complex, yet it is orderly.  You assume that if someone made it, it has some purpose.  In fact, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the arrangement of rocks is legitimately communicating to passengers that they are leaving England and entering Wales.  Who would look at that arrangement and think that it occurred randomly.  That there was no intelligent creator behind it.  That it was not intentional.  And, if someone did think this, they would have absolutely no reason to think that it is communicating anything meaningful.  This is the position that atheism is in.  Once again, assuming that the universe is a closed system creates problems.  Not the least of which is how can you believe that anything is meaningful, or that there is purpose, or that you trust knowledge, etc.



There is nothing akin to an arrangement of rocks that spell Whales in nature.  Nor is there anything in nature akin to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and creating a BMW.  All the helices and the infinite regressions in nature are a result of the material available and the conditions present.  Under different circumstances, other "cool" patterns might have developed.


----------



## ambush80 (May 12, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Question and Answer from one of my favorite books _The Privileged Planet_. The information below is just a DROP of what is in the book. I suggest everyone read it. In fact, I will buy Dio and Pnome the book if they want it.
> 
> You can find this at...
> 
> ...



All very good questions.   I think I'll reserve "magic" as a last resort answer.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 12, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> If you can fathom a sky being with super powers having always been, why can you not imagine all the energy having always been? I'm not claiming that that's the way it happened, but why is it such a stretch to you to consider that an option? Is it because you have determined that the sky being is the only option and that no other option is possible? If so, is it pure sentimentality that forces you to cling to your sky being theory or is it fear of punishment?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You do realize that referring to "religion" as "magic" is condescending don't you?


----------



## ambush80 (May 12, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You do realize that referring to "religion" as "magic" is condescending don't you?



Only because you are religious and not a practitioner of "magic"; though I can't tell the difference, honestly.

Sticks to snakes?  3 days in a fish?  Rising from the dead?  Blue, elephant headed, 8 armed creature?  I think "magic" is appropriate and none the least judgmental.

Is it OK to call Buddhism or Islam heathen Devil worship?


----------



## jason t garrett (May 12, 2010)

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.


----------



## pfharris1965 (May 12, 2010)

*...*



tomtlb66 said:


> First off, let me express I am not judging anyone nor am I being disrespectful. I just want to ask some questions, thats it. If you don't believe in God, please explain somethings to me if you don't mind. People who have been diagnosed with deadly illnesses and go back to the doctor and now they are fine. My daughter had spinabifida and she is fine, no medical explanation either. When doctors themselves have said it is a miracle, how do you explain that. Again, not being disrespectful, I am just asking questions, thats it. Another question here, the process of breathing, how is that possible, or the act of growth in a human being, from one stage to another. We can define the process of breathing and growth but cannot reproduce it in a lab to any success. All I am asking is for you to take time and really think about God and why not talk to Him. If we can take the time to write what we believe and what we think is real, why not try this. What harm can come from this, I am not asking you to do anything that will harm you,again, I am not being rude and I think I have been repectful, so please be respectful with you responses and pardon my spelling.


 
How about asking not only the non-believers (which I would challenge you by asking "of what"...your beliefs?) and ask the ones that believe in the Spirit and not in the "church" and "christians" as defined by the "church"...

I agree with you...miracles happen everyday...is it not a miracle that God has allowed our doctors to understand all they do about the human body and the various interventions they do daily?...and cure all the things they do today?  I talk to God everyday...but God to me is not the drinking of a "church" Kool Aid...God is what you make of Him...I have a Bible and can think and read for myself and do not need a preacher man to do it for me...

Again...God Bless You...


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 12, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Only because you are religious and not a practitioner of "magic"; though I can't tell the difference, honestly.
> 
> Sticks to snakes? 3 days in a fish? Rising from the dead? Blue, elephant headed, 8 armed creature? I think "magic" is appropriate and none the least judgmental.
> 
> Is it OK to call Buddhism or Islam heathen Devil worship?


 
I don't use those terms for other religions either. 

Neutral comments beget neutral responses. If you insist on calling religion magic simply because you perceive it on equal grounds then don't be surprised by the responses you get.. There are respectful ways to approach a topic, and then there are other ways...


----------



## pnome (May 12, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Pnome...did you really just compare making gravel mud to the creation of the image below? Dude, I expected more from you.



Well, the Earth did form because of the same _natural_ force.

You can continue to point out ways in which you think it's unlikely that we are here, now, having this conversation.  But no matter how unlikely it may seem, it _is_.  You're only saying: "If things had been different, they would have been different"

Further, it bespeaks of a certain chauvinism.  What if the universe was created, only not for us?  Maybe we're just barnacles on the hull of the aircraft carrier.


----------



## Thanatos (May 12, 2010)

pnome said:


> Well, the Earth did form because of the same _natural_ force.
> 
> You can continue to point out ways in which you think it's unlikely that we are here, now, having this conversation.  But no matter how unlikely it may seem, it _is_.  You're only saying: "If things had been different, they would have been different"
> 
> Further, it bespeaks of a certain chauvinism.  What if the universe was created, only not for us?  Maybe we're just barnacles on the hull of the aircraft carrier.



The crazy thing is they are different...but not in this universe.


----------



## pfharris1965 (May 12, 2010)

*...*



Miguel Cervantes said:


> I don't use those terms for other religions either.
> 
> Neutral comments beget neutral responses. If you insist on calling religion magic simply because you perceive it on equal grounds then don't be surprised by the responses you get.. There are respectful ways to approach a topic, and then there are other ways...


 
Hmmmm...cannot stand an opposite opinion?  Is the word "religion" a Biblical term?

The topic was approached in perfect fashion...maybe not in agreement with the "perfect" ones here but ehhh...true colors are obvious...

How would you have responded differently to meet your "standards"?


----------



## pfharris1965 (May 12, 2010)

*...*



pnome said:


> Well, the Earth did form because of the same _natural_ force.
> 
> You can continue to point out ways in which you think it's unlikely that we are here, now, having this conversation. But no matter how unlikely it may seem, it _is_. You're only saying: "If things had been different, they would have been different"
> 
> Further, it bespeaks of a certain chauvinism. What if the universe was created, only not for us? Maybe we're just barnacles on the hull of the aircraft carrier.


----------



## Madrox (May 13, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Thanatos states: “I understand that you want to dismiss the evidence in front of you. I wish that you and others would not dismiss such a huge amount of evidence because it is not convenient to your theory of chance.”
> 
> The problem, I guess, is that there isn’t any genuine evidence in front of us to support your own theory.  You say that the ‘evidence’ to support your theory is ‘huge,’ but shy away from offering anything other than conjecture and ‘belief,’ ancient stories and heresay, and the ‘evidence’ of the numbers of your fellow believers.  We can’t build a bridge out of those sorts of intangible bits of ‘huge’ evidence.  We can build a bomb or a power plant out of the energy stored in tiny atoms, and we can chart enough of the planet we live on sufficiently to identify fault lines and earthquake risks that result – that sort of thing counts as evidence.  Blind belief in the unknown simply does not stand up to that sort of a definition of ‘evidence.’
> 
> ...



 Thanks for hopping into this thread. I have enjoyed your insight tremendously.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 13, 2010)

pfharris1965 said:


> Hmmmm...cannot stand an opposite opinion? Is the word "religion" a Biblical term?
> 
> The topic was approached in perfect fashion...maybe not in agreement with the "perfect" ones here but ehhh...true colors are obvious...
> 
> How would you have responded differently to meet your "standards"?


 
Come on Phil, you know I love a good debate with an opposite opinion, just not a disrespectful one.. You need a new ladle if you're gonna stir ol buddy... The one you're using has splinters stickin out..


----------



## Thanatos (May 13, 2010)

Again the thread heads toward the same cliff it always does...everyone trying to prove their opinion and beliefs receives further validation of their own while pushing further away from the opposition. I hope one day the search for unanswered questions leads you to God. 

Seriously, if Dio or Pnome want the book _The Privileged Planet_ I will buy it for you. Just shoot me a PM.


----------



## pnome (May 13, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Seriously, if Dio or Pnome want the book _The Privileged Planet_ I will buy it for you. Just shoot me a PM.



Save your money.


Though I am loath to provide you with more "ammunition" for your Cosmological argument I think you should read "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees.

You'll like it, I'll bet.


----------



## christianhunter (May 13, 2010)

In my own personal experience,I have met and talked to people.People who have said they used to be a "devout" add a "Denomination".That may be the problem,denominations get you no where.

You have to be a humble Believer,one willing to admit how vile and wicked we are.I'm certain it must be a load lifted off of ones shoulders,who chooses "not" to Believe.One reason is they no longer have to be accountable for their thoughts or actions.Evil or wicked thoughts can be dismissed as "natural".

Actions,regardless of what they are,can be called"human" nature.To look at a half dressed,or less, person of the opposite sex,not even given a second thought.Lying,just considered "stretching" the truth.Anger just a "natural" response to feeling attacked.

Not having to bow before a Holy and Righteous CREATOR,WHO knows our frailty,and weaknesses.Not having to follow Commandments,given to us,to be able to see HIM,for WHO HE really Is.Is this the reason for not believing?
To have that "load" lifted?

Miracles Do happen!
Life is a miracle in and of itself.All of creation,is a miracle,mathematically impossible to explain.Mans thought process is,it is The Christians burden to prove GOD exists.I adamantly disagree!

THE LORD gave us THE GOSPEL,to spread and to Preach to whoever will receive it.It is the unbelievers,burden to accept or reject it,that is it.Faith is the key,it is the stumbling block,it is the excuse for the unbeliever to deny.They want to touch,to see,to grasp.THE LORD came to us 2,000 years ago,and was rejected,and denied by many.HE was rejected,as was prophesied,it was HIS purpose.Man wanted HIM to be Who and what they thought HE should be.HE came,for Who HE Is,and for HIS Purpose.

HE is coming again,not as "The Lamb",but as "The Lion Of The Tribe of Judah".The Conqueror,The Righteous Judge,KING of Kings,and LORD of Lords.THE MIGHTY DELIVERER,where no one can escape HIS Judgment.Life doesn't fade to black,at its end in this temporal shell,it is filled with THE LIGHT,by THE FATHER of LIGHTS.When all creatures will fall at HIS Feet,and Worship HIM.HE is GOD,and there is no other!


----------



## Madrox (May 13, 2010)

Everyone keeps pointing out that the earth is perfect for our species and handling life etc as a sign that there is a god...... Have you ever thought about it from the aspect of, yes our planet is great for life, and that's why life was able to form and be sustained on it? I do not think I would gain any "knowledge" from said book that I would not be able to see in a different light.


----------



## pfharris1965 (May 13, 2010)

*...*



Miguel Cervantes said:


> Come on Phil, you know I love a good debate with an opposite opinion, just not a disrespectful one.. You need a new ladle if you're gonna stir ol buddy... The one you're using has splinters stickin out..


 
Me stir...nah...I could not care less about this topic...I have my beliefs and they work for me... 

...but on a brighter note, I am going to a great cookout coming up......will be some good fun and fellowship...hope the weather is nice...


----------



## Thanatos (May 13, 2010)

Madrox said:


> Everyone keeps pointing out that the earth is perfect for our species and handling life etc as a sign that there is a god...... Have you ever thought about it from the aspect of, yes our planet is great for life, and that's why life was able to form and be sustained on it? I do not think I would gain any "knowledge" from said book that I would not be able to see in a different light.



You pretty much put all the Atheist on this forum's arguments into the simplest terms they could be in.

If you would take the time to research the book (or an 8th grade science book) further you would see it is not about Earth alone, but about our PLACE and TIME in the universe that allows us to exist. You can branch out your theory to cover that too, but how far are you willing to go to accept random chance vs a more logical theory of a creator. Occom's Razor right? Right??? 

If you are familiar with the big bang theory you know that our universe "began" some time ago. The universe did not just exist. So by chance our universe began as well? 

Think about it this way. If there was a universe creating machine it would probably have more than 500 million dials on it. It is your job to turn the dials to a certain sequence that would create a universe whose sequence of events placed us in the exact spot at the exact time we are at now in the universe. Ummm...yea it all happened by random chance. I will stick with God and you can have Richard Dawkins.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 13, 2010)

pfharris1965 said:


> Me stir...nah...I could not care less about this topic...I have my beliefs and they work for me...
> 
> ...but on a brighter note, I am going to a great cookout coming up......will be some good fun and fellowship...hope the weather is nice...


 

I hope you're talkin about the 21st, haven't seen you in a long time bro'..


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> You pretty much put all the Atheist on this forum's arguments into the simplest terms they could be in.
> 
> If you would take the time to research the book (or an 8th grade science book) further you would see it is not about Earth alone, but about our PLACE and TIME in the universe that allows us to exist. You can branch out your theory to cover that too, but how far are you willing to go to accept random chance vs a more logical theory of a creator. Occom's Razor right? Right???
> 
> ...



If the dials got spun and we wound up with zebras with purple stripes, you would still argue that some deity made it "just so".  

Things are the way they are because that's how they ended up.


----------



## Thanatos (May 13, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> If the dials got spun and we wound up with zebras with purple stripes, you would still argue that some deity made it "just so".
> 
> Things are the way they are because that's how they ended up.



Maybe Zebras have purple stripes in another universe...but we live in this one.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 13, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> If the dials got spun and we wound up with zebras with purple stripes, you would still argue that some deity made it "just so".
> 
> Things are the way they are because that's how they ended up.


 
So are you willing to accept that as the answer to your stance on religion or the lack there of?


----------



## Diogenes (May 14, 2010)

Thanatos:  Actually, pnome DID just compare gravel and mud to the ‘image below,’ and oddly enough it is a fair comparison.  The extant evidence is that all planetary bodies condensed over a huge amount of time out of clouds of gas, salted by heavier elements that formed inside stars.  Troublesome, I know, if one wishes for a ten word explanation on the six-o’clock news, or prefers to believe that the cause was a magical snap of the fingers of an uncaused entity.  But you cannot propose that a cause was actually the creation of the uncaused – that is just silly . . . 

And, um?  The Privileged Planet?   You are certainly kidding.  Let’s just take on the last of the points, just because it is fun – “In The Privileged Planet, we discuss how the other planets serve as Earth's protectors while at the same time helping us in our quest to learn about the nature of the cosmos.”

Okay . . .   Now, um, work this out for us – God created the Earth, you assert, and created Us out of whole cloth and in God’s Image.  Nothing else involved.  Just a God who decided one day to do such a thing.  And you assert further that this God knows your personal thoughts, and knows if you believe in Him or not, to the degree that He will actually punish you, individually, for not acknowledging His Almighty Powers.  Sounds like a God who is pretty much involved in His creation, as you folks put it forward.  

But now you say that this same God needed to create the other planets to serve as ‘Earth’s protectors’?  What?  

He wasn’t able to pay enough attention to do that all by himself?  He needed a back-up plan to protect his Earth?  From what?  His other Creations?

And don’t you folks assert that the ‘Original Sin’ that led to all of this nonsense was the fact that those pesky Adam and Eve characters dared to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?  If that was the huge offense that set all this mythology in motion, then what possible motive would this God have to be “helping us in our quest to learn about the nature of the cosmos’?  I mean, that sounds a little contradictory . . . 

And what use would there be for a cosmos anyway?  Creating perfect beings in ones own image on a perfectly created planet ought to be quite enough to amuse an all-powerful being.  Well, not really, I mean what with having repenteth of us a few times, according to your Book, wiping nearly all of us out once, and continuing to regret those pesky Egyptians that He created, and smiting them left and right – seems like enough to keep a fickle-minded fella pretty busy, is all . . .

Sounds a bit like rationalizing and self-defining nonsense.  The odds of hitting the lottery are pretty slim by comparison with – say – getting hit by lightning, but folks just keep going ahead and winning it anyway  . . . Oddly enough, math and physics have been developed over a number of thousands years of trial-and-error- experimentation and empirical testing as a means of testing and attempting to explain the world – they did not spring fully formed with any ‘eerie’ coincidences.  You put the cart before the horse, and try to explain the cart by the fact that the horse exists.

It is asked – “You do realize that referring to "religion" as "magic" is condescending don't you?”   Well, yes.  To a degree it is.  

But – to refer to religious belief as fact is worse than condescending. It is intellectually invalid and insulting to any thinking person.   Religious belief does indeed propose situations and explanations that are, in fact, miraculous and magical – conjured out of thin air by a mysterious and as yet unrevealed magician who snapped the entire universe out of a whimsical act of will.  The sciences act and aim to discover, while religions cower and defend ancient superstitions, minting new interpretations and ‘explanations’ as they go along.  Thus far, but for a long period during which religions simply executed scientists for daring to discover, it has been religions who have found themselves in the odd position of having to react and replace and revise their ‘doctrines’ nearly daily in the face of scientific progress.  Science is not retreating and becoming militant and persecuting ‘non-believers.’  It has no need to do so.  If one wishes to persist in the ‘belief’ that God made the Earth and all of its creatures as the center of His universe, then one is free to ‘believe’ that, but the facts say otherwise.  So stand aside, ‘believe’ as you wish, and let the rest of us get on with it . . .  You are very wrong, and refuse to let go of ancient thoughts – good for you.  Not good enough for the rest of us.  Obviously.  

If your ‘Biblical Truth’ had any merit there would have been no reason to progress a step further, and we could have relied on God to give us the cure for the diseases He created, to cite a single example . . .   I mean, I’ve read over twenty different versions of that Bible, as well as the Koran, and dozens of other assertions from Buddha to Lao Tzu, and nobody bothered to mention Polio . . .  Get over yourselves, and get out of the way.  Witness your own rationizations – “is it not a miracle that God has allowed our doctors to understand all they do about the human body and the various interventions they do daily?”   

Um?  Is it ‘miraculous’ that the God you assert as All-Knowing and All-Powerful did, according to this assertion, Create such things to begin with?  What is wrong with this picture?  The ‘miracle’ you find is that we figured it out?  Really?

Then this: “If you would take the time to research the book (or an 8th grade science book) further you would see it is not about Earth alone, but about our PLACE and TIME in the universe that allows us to exist.”  Um?  Yeah.  Which part of the place and time bit leads to God?  Have you backpedaled so far from a Creation Theory that you now have to co-opt that place and time part and try to assert that evolution was the actual Plan of God all along?  Sounds a bit self-defeating . . . 

I’m perfectly willing to accept the answer that “we’re not wholly sure, but we’re trying to figure it out,” in favor of the assertion that you alone know the answer from your incomplete reading of only one ancient book of unknown, uncertain, questionable, and murky authorship.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (May 14, 2010)

Study the placebo effect and then ask questions.


----------



## Thanatos (May 14, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Thanatos:  Actually, pnome DID just compare gravel and mud to the ‘image below,’ and oddly enough it is a fair comparison.  The extant evidence is that all planetary bodies condensed over a huge amount of time out of clouds of gas, salted by heavier elements that formed inside stars.  Troublesome, I know, if one wishes for a ten word explanation on the six-o’clock news, or prefers to believe that the cause was a magical snap of the fingers of an uncaused entity.  But you cannot propose that a cause was actually the creation of the uncaused – that is just silly . . .
> 
> And, um?  The Privileged Planet?   You are certainly kidding.  Let’s just take on the last of the points, just because it is fun – “In The Privileged Planet, we discuss how the other planets serve as Earth's protectors while at the same time helping us in our quest to learn about the nature of the cosmos.”
> 
> ...



The problem I have with your post Dio is they are so long, yet, they have no substance.

I have never back pedaled once. I have always stated the place and time of our existence in this universe was a key piece of evidence of God creating us. I have ALWAYS thought God created evolution (humans have always looked the same) as a mechanism to bring forth His will on our planet. That goes for our planet protectors too. 

Seriously how can you or anyone compare the settling of material in bucket to the creation and the sustained existence of this planet? Then, the lottery sentence...What  the heck Dio. You are getting lazy. You compared picking a combination of a few numbers correctly to the beginning and sustained growth of our universe and our special place in it...Come on! I expected way better reasoning from you.

Your point how math and science evolved show your ignorance. Dio do you realize that if earth formed differently then we would not even be able to look into the night sky and see the heavens? We would not be able to figure out how long we have been here. Does it not bother you our world is a perfect viewing spot to study not only our own solar system, but our galaxy and even our own universe??? Our place allowed us to figure out the tools we needed to see when and where we are in the universe. If only a few variables are off then we either do not exist very long, or can not comprehend how long we have been here. How convenient right?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 14, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> It is asked – “You do realize that referring to "religion" as "magic" is condescending don't you?” Well, yes. To a degree it is.
> 
> But – to refer to religious belief as fact is worse than condescending. It is intellectually invalid and insulting to any thinking person. .


 
Yes, certainly no one with a brain, especially certainly not any notable individuals could possible see the forest for the trees? 

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


----------



## hayseed_theology (May 16, 2010)

So here's the problem with the spiritual forum, I have a busy week, and then I'm 40 posts behind on one thread.  Makes me not wanna even read or respond, but here goes.



Diogenes said:


> Hayseed: You speak eloquently, and make your points well.  Refreshing, if I may say, to speak to something other than randomly chosen Bible verses.



And I certainly respect your intellect and rhetorical skill.



Diogenes said:


> But right here – “Questioning the probability of an extremely large, complex, and orderly universe is based on observation of naturally occurring phenomena around us,”  -- is where I think we need to define things a bit further.  The assumption that the universe is orderly is far from the observed facts.  In layman’s terms, stuff is crashing into other stuff out there without any conceivable rhyme or reason, ranging from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies, and the fact that it all exists still means only that it does.



I would argue that a calendar demonstrates that the universe operates in an orderly fashion.  From what I've read, if our planet were to vary its path around the sun to a small degree, earth would not be inhabitable.  I feel like the numerous laws of physics demonstrate order.  The stability of our environment demonstrates order.  The ebb and flow of tides is orderly.  Does the human body or a simple pine tree not indicate some sort of purposeful complexity?  Some sort of order?




Diogenes said:


> Religion and science have a history of opposition that is as old as the first foray into actually scientific, provable, inquiry, and religions have been back-pedaling and rationalizing each new discovery ever since – or simply killing those who dare to inquire.



I don't think you can say that religion and science have always been at odds.  In fact, it's my understanding that in the history of ideas the study of science has come about because people believed that the world operated in an orderly fashion because God is orderly.  Scientist first starting looking for laws of nature because they believed in a Supreme Lawgiver, I believe this was part of Kepler's motivation.  Now, I concede that science has since left that position and that at times, science has been at odds with Christianity.  But I believe there are two main reasons for this.  First, in earlier times, many religious leaders overstepped their bounds in arguing for certain things.  For example, the Catholic church had no reason for persecuting Galileo.  Copernican theories were not in opposition to Scripture.  There were, in fact, many things that the church did at that time that were not "Christ-like," actually many things were detestable, and I hesitate to call many of them "Christians."  Perhaps, today, some leaders overstep their bounds in criticizing science.  It's very possible, maybe even probable.  We only know in part, and thus we err.  

Secondly, in recent years, it seems scientist operate from an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism.  If science is being done from the presupposition that the world is a closed system, then I do see science in opposition to religion.   However, I do not see the pure study of the physical realm as being, in any way, in opposition to Christianity.  I think they fit fine together, the rub in recent years has been when the presuppositional framework of scientist that precludes an intelligent designer.  



Diogenes said:


> At the foundation of religion is the contention that the universe is orderly, and that foundation rests only upon the observation that things have turned out the way they have.  Here.  A few billion years of things crashing into each other, combining or failing to combine, taking hold or dying off, evolving or becoming extinct, surviving or failing to survive, well . . . religion fails to explain . . .  Teleology, cosmology, eschatology, or any number of the innumerable ‘philosophies’ of humans are our own unique inventions, meant to explain the unknown and give it a ‘sound-bite’ face so that anyone can grasp it . . . Not so easy.



And Darwinian Evolotion is not seeking to do the same thing?  Any atheistic explanation of the beginning, purpose(or lack there of), and direction of the universe is seeking to answer the exact same questions isn't it?



Diogenes said:


> “If you grant that the supernatural exists, on what basis do you set up rules concerning what is reasonable to believe about it?”  You misunderstand – I do not grant that the supernatural exists.  I merely point out that for those who do grant such a thing, it is a bit egotistical to assign their own attributes and ideals to such a proposed force.  Why, I ask, would you think that the supernatural is composed only of those traits you wish it to possess?



No, you were very clear on your position.  I didn't misunderstand.  I know you don't grant that the supernatural exists, and my point is that because you deny the existence of a deity, you have no basis for dictating what I can or should believe about his attributes.  Having a discussion of his attributes assumes his existence.  To be honest, I didn't write the Bible.  I believe it is truth, and I submit to it as such.  If I am dead wrong on that, then the question is "Why, I ask, would think that the supernatural is composed only of those traits some dead Jews wish it to possess?"



Diogenes said:


> “Just like I wouldn't expect you to accept that giraffes have long necks if you didn't believe that such a thing as a giraffe could possibly exist.”  Here you go too far past what were decent points – a giraffe is not a matter of ‘belief.’  If you wish to have it accepted that your God is just as you describe, well, that is a different matter – I can produce a giraffe, while you can only propose your God.  Fundamentally different points.



You are correct here.  I was afraid that example might draw that response.  The point was that I do not expect you to accept my explanation of certain attributes of God if you don't believe he exists.  I meant nothing more by the example.  I agree that a giraffe and God are categorically different in terms of their tangible(or not so tangible) nature.  And, like you demonstrated, if I had meant something more by it, I would have been incorrect.




Diogenes said:


> Hayseed builds a box: “A self-existent being who is able to create ex nihilo.”  But then argues in the same thought: “If you trace these dependent beings back, it is not possible to have an eternal string of dependent beings.”  Well?  Which is it?  If there cannot be a self-existent being, then how can there be one?  You propose one, by magic, as the only explanation, but say in the same breath that such a being is impossible.



I use "self-existent," "necessary," and "independent" interchangeably.  Likewise, I use "contingent" and "dependent" interchangeably.  So the point of the argument is that an infinite regression of dependent beings is not logical.  Rather, there must be an independent being at the beginning of the chain - a being who is outside of the box.



Diogenes said:


> Then builds another box: “With regard to the teleological argument, the key words are purpose, complexity, and order.”  None of which can be demonstrated, but for complexity beyond the grasp of our own less than perfectly evolved intellect.  My goldfish, I will say again, is probably unaware that it is living in a bowl.  Is this line of reasoning an argument in favor of a God of Goldfish, or an argument in favor of the limits of the understanding a goldfish is capable of achieving?



Is the goldfish any more reasonable if he says that the fishbowl is all that exists, and that any explanation for what takes place in the fish bowl must be found within the fishbowl.  Furthermore, the very existence of the fishbowl is purely a result of those things contained in the fishbowl.  That seems less logical than the belief that there is an intelligent being who intentionally placed him there and maintains his environment.  And, the latter happens to be the case.  So using your goldfish analogy, is it any more logical to assume that the universe is a closed system than to assume that it was created by an intelligent being?



Diogenes said:


> “A universe governed by chaos cannot produce order that we observe.”  Nonsense.  We impose an order, because it comforts us to do so.  Certain natural laws of physical interactions among elements, and the combinations of same, appear to obtain, from where we are viewing things, and we use those observations to our own advantages – nobody quite knows why a metal has weakly bound valence electrons, with a periodic arrangement of spherically-symmetric positive ions surrounded by an electron gas formed of the released electrons.  We do know that we can build a bridge out of it.  THAT it exists, we are sure.  WHY it exists, we’re working on.  So – a universe ‘governed by chaos’ is not precisely the case – there are physical laws that obtain, and the existence of those does not in and of itself prove or even suggest a magical law-giver.



Those laws are part of the "order" I'm refering to.  You seem to argue strongly for a universe that is purely the result of random chance - a world without order.  I use "chaos" as a term for random or disorder.  If I am misrepresenting your position, please correct me.  I'm not trying to caricature it, I wanna engage your points as honestly as possible.




Diogenes said:


> Having observed the flaws in my plane-crash allegory, the fishing line example is certainly no better.



Really?  The point of that was to concede that an unconscious force could produce complexity.  I thought you would agree with that point.  I thought I was conceding something to you.




Diogenes said:


> And the human eye is certainly not an example of ‘irreducible complexity.’  As one of many specially adapted organs, the eye is nothing more than an information-gathering device, no more or less than any other sense organ, and is connected directly to an even more complex development – the brain --  which makes sense out of the signals gathered.  Many of our fellow creatures make do quite handily without eyes.  Point is – complexity is evolution and adaptation achieved over many eons – not ipso facto ‘proof’ of some sort of superior ‘design.’



Maybe I'm not presenting it well, but I don't think you are following the argument on irreducible complexity.  Pnome offers a response to the eye being irreducible complex; however, I don't think the linked video explains everything involved with that particular discussion.  Certainly some creatures can do fine without an eye, the point is that certain systems require multiple pieces to function and could not evolve one piece at a time.





Diogenes said:


> Finally: “Not the least of which is how can you believe that anything is meaningful, or that there is purpose . . . “   Well, um?   I DON’T.  The desire to assign meaning and purpose is yours alone.  And good luck with that one.



You sound like a nihilist.  Are you?





Diogenes said:


> See, it is not my responsibility to account for the existence of the universe, since I do not propose an all-encompassing theory that a magical being did it, and I assign no attributes or motives to that proposed magical being, and am not, therefore, stuck in the awkward position of having to make excuses for the failures of this imaginary force and constantly defend my imaginary friend against nagging questions and new discoveries.



Do you think it's worthwhile to inquire concerning the existence of the universe?  



Diogenes said:


> But I can see why you ‘believers’ get so crabby – defending such a position has got to be quite a lot of work . . .



Aww, come on.  I haven't been crabby have I?  I've tried to be down right cordial.  And aren't you the one with the reputation for being crabby?  For the record though, I wasn't a fan of the "Hey, Dio..." thread, many of the comments on that thread were unnecessary;  there were some crabby folks on there.  I, however, respect and invite your input here.  And by the way, judging by the length of your posts, defending your position is just as much work.  

Ambush and Pnome, ya'll make some good points. Hopefully I'll find some time to respond to them later in the week.


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So are you willing to accept that as the answer to your stance on religion or the lack there of?



If you mean that I reserve a religious (and I still maintain that "religious" is interchangeable with magical; or fantastical  if you prefer) explanation for the color of a zebra's stripes as a last resort, and a highly unlikely one at that, then: yes, that is my final answer.


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> Do you think it's worthwhile to inquire concerning the existence of the universe?




Sorry to butt in, but... on this one point, I would like to offer my opinion and that opinion is: "No".

I think of such inquiry as a luxury; a free time activity, in the same way that I consider spending time contemplating the existence of anything a luxury.   Inasmuch as such inquiry might lead one to a refinement of their self actualization (something that I also think of as a luxury) then it could be useful. Worthwhile? As a pursuit in and of itself, I'm not so sure about.  

Inquiring about how the Universe works is worthwhile. 

In the quest for how it works one might find out something about how it got here, which is entirely different from why it got here (which is also a question that I consider any time devoted to as spent on a luxury).  But seeing as I consider discussion of these topics personal entertainment (a luxury), by all means, lets wax philosophic on our personal ideas (because that's what they are and lets not go calling them truth anymore) about "Why we are here".

By the way, you and Dio are making for some entertaining reading.  Please, carry on.


----------



## Thanatos (May 18, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> By the way, you and Dio are making for some entertaining reading.  Please, carry on.



Hey! We agree on something!


----------



## Diogenes (May 19, 2010)

Hayseed:  “I feel like the numerous laws of physics demonstrate order. The stability of our environment demonstrates order.”

Well, that would be the spiritual view of it, and would be correct if, and only if, one presupposes that order to be the natural condition as imposed.  But the sciences do not exist for any other reason than to try to work out stuff like just how long it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun, and rather arbitrarily breaking that interval into a calendar.  Remember here that the early spiritual view was that the sun revolved around the earth, and folks were genuinely killed for suggesting otherwise.  ‘Order’ in many cases, if not most, is our capability for pattern recognition, and is more an attempt to explain what exists than to posit a cause.

Purposeful complexity is easily seen, and demonstrated, without the need to add the complexity of outside forces.

“I don't think you can say that religion and science have always been at odds.”   Fair enough.  When Stonehenge was built it was in the interest of both science and religion – built by the religious, but for the purpose of trying to chart the patterns of already observed order.  Here perhaps we need to separate the human politics of religions – the uses they have been put to – from the less than political motivations of the sciences.  History shows that Christianity, once rooted and ascendant as a political force, opposed scientific discovery tooth and nail.  We do, indeed, only know in part.  Even today, where we can unlock atoms and use them to generate bombs or electricity, indicating that we know quite a lot.  

‘Philosophical naturalism’ as you say, is indeed a fallacy.  But the flaw is not in seeing the world as a closed system (which it mostly is not in any event)  -- the flaw in the idea is in the view that everything that happens in nature is right, and is for the greater good of the ‘ecosystem.’  Religions fall prey to this same fallacy, declaring that everything that happens in nature is ‘god’s will’ and is therefore designed for a higher purpose.  Any view of the universe, scientific or religious, that all creatures and forces, great or small, act for a common purpose or according to a grand plan of some sort is refuted immediately by simply looking around.  

“And Darwinian Evolotion is not seeking to do the same thing? Any atheistic explanation of the beginning, purpose(or lack there of), and direction of the universe is seeking to answer the exact same questions isn't it?”

To some small degree, but evolution turns out to be the only explanation for what exists that makes any sense at all.  It does not propose a purpose other than survival, and does not propose a direction.  Those are human questions, not scientific ones.  Science is pretty patient, and waits until it can prove something before declaring it to be true.  Not so satisfying for folks who already know all of that, I realize, but it has invariably been the religions that have had to retreat over the course of history, and reinvent their positions, while science slowly plods along . . . 

“ . . . my point is that because you deny the existence of a deity, you have no basis for dictating what I can or should believe about his attributes. Having a discussion of his attributes assumes his existence.”    Well, um, first I’m not dictating anything at all, but simply pointing out that this ‘deity’ that is continually proposed seems to hold some suspiciously human characteristics.  This is a pretty common thread in the history of ‘gods’ all the way along, and does not suddenly distinguish yours alone as the One.  It is not impossible that it is us who assign our ideal characteristics, rather than the other way around.  And no, having a discussion of the characteristics of Spock, from the Star Trek fictions, or of Superman, does not in any way ‘assume’ the existence of such characters.

“The point was that I do not expect you to accept my explanation of certain attributes of God if you don't believe he exists.”  But – we return here to the fundamental problem – I cannot accept the certain attributes of your god unless and until you can demonstrate that he DOES exist.  Failing that part, you place the cart before the horse, and extend conclusions from undemonstrated premises.  One cannot, logically, accept conclusions built upon houses of cards.

“So the point of the argument is that an infinite regression of dependent beings is not logical. Rather, there must be an independent being at the beginning of the chain - a being who is outside of the box.”   But nobody proposed a dependent being to begin with.  This is where the logic again crumbles under the weight of a false initial assumption.  You see, proposing a cause that is outside of natural occurrences leads one back in the endlessly regressive chain of ‘beings’ that you put forward, but that is self-negating.  If all ‘beings’ in the chain were ‘dependent,’ then you cannot suddenly and arbitrarily assign ‘independence’ to one, and only the one of your personal choosing.  Either all beings are ‘caused,’ leading one to ask what caused the previously ‘causative being,’ or they are not.  No ‘being’ can exist outside of that chain of causation except by magic.

Your objections to the ‘goldfish’ analogy are well taken.  Yet, to the goldfish, the bowl IS all that exists.  The limits of our perception and understanding do not, in any way, limit the possible to only our observations and understandings and projections and proposals.  We are pretty small, and decidedly odd.  The universe is astoundingly huge, and much odder.

“I use "chaos" as a term for random or disorder.”  Understood.  And this point is one that is wrestled to a tie until we learn even more, but thus far our understanding is one derived from observation and application, and the ‘order’ that we observe is merely that – things are as they are.  In many cases things appear to be pretty well aligned, which is no real surprise, since if they weren’t they wouldn’t exist, and that would prevent us, no less our observations.  In many other cases, most in fact, we observe actual, universal, unrestrained chaos – from atomic elements all the way up to actual galaxies simply behaving according to their own purposes – crashing into each other, zooming about like drunken teenagers, and usually defying our best attempts to assign any purpose to why they are doing so.  The few we have been able to explain (and I will emphasize the ‘few’ here), are those we have been able to harness to our own uses.  Fire was once a mystery to humans.  Now nuclear power is at our disposal.  This is the result of human progress.  Not of any change in the universe, and certainly not because some invisible being is now allowing us to learn.

“You sound like a nihilist. Are you?”  Now, now.  Nihilism is so retrograde, and oddly parallel to the spiritual, don’t you think?  There is a difference between establishing an artificial order that happens to align perfectly with your own views and rejecting that imposition.  Nihilism, in the pejorative usage, is a rejection of established order.  Dictatorship, in the pejorative usage, is the imposition of ones will, and calling that imposition order.  So, in the sense of rejecting the nonsensical dictatorship of political will at the expense of actual truth, and calling it to the task of demonstrating, well, then yes.

“Do you think it's worthwhile to inquire concerning the existence of the universe?”   Well, since our inquiries have led to some pretty cool discoveries, and those discoveries have led to some pretty important developments, like electricity and medicine and the like, I’ll have to say that, yeah, it is pretty worthwhile . . . 

“And by the way, judging by the length of your posts, defending your position is just as much work. “  Wasn’t posting the ‘crabby’ comment at you Hayseed – you are one of the few that it is a pleasure to engage, as I said right up front.  But yeah, your posts don’t seem to end up much shorter either . . .  often we can use the short attention span to our advantage . . . and besides, the unwillingness or inability to read anything more than a few sentences reveals what we are up against . . .


----------



## Diogenes (May 19, 2010)

And Thanatos?  

“The problem I have with your post Dio is they are so long, yet, they have no substance.”

Thanks.  Your well made, deeply researched, and fully informed points, leavened with so many factual examples, leave me speechless.

Really.


----------



## Israel (May 19, 2010)

The cross is a very foolish proposition.
Even in a world where many say God is...few will believe he is found there.


----------



## Thanatos (May 19, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> And Thanatos?
> 
> “The problem I have with your post Dio is they are so long, yet, they have no substance.”
> 
> ...



I played this game with you and the "others" for months now. I have given many examples over the months of dissecting these topics. We both know, no matter how long of a post I came up with to refute your long winded post you would only dig deeper into your position. No thanks.

You make valid points sometimes, but they are covered and recovered in meaningless words and jargon. I am glad Hayseed came along because he communicates my opinion WAY more effectively than I ever could. I tip my hat to you Mr. Hayseed.


----------



## Thanatos (May 19, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> To some small degree, but evolution turns out to be the only explanation for what exists that makes any sense at all. It does not propose a purpose other than survival, and does not propose a direction. Those are human questions, not scientific ones. Science is pretty patient, and waits until it can prove something before declaring it to be true. Not so satisfying for folks who already know all of that, I realize, but it has invariably been the religions that have had to retreat over the course of history, and reinvent their positions, while science slowly plods along . . .



There is so much misinformation here it is scary that people here look up to your rhetoric. 

The exact "truths" that science finds can only be observed and measured because of how and where earth was created. If you want to dismiss that we first must rely on how we are to figure out how it happened then that is your prerogative.


----------



## hayseed_theology (May 19, 2010)

pnome said:


> How do you solve the infinite regress of "Well then, who created God?  Where did he come from?"
> 
> Do you not just make a plea that God is immune to causality?
> 
> ...




God, by definition, is not caused.  If we caused, he wouldn't be God.  He is a self-existent being.  That's why it's not illogical to conceive of him as having existed from eternity past and forever more.  He is not caused.  He is not subject to time and space constraints the same way that we are.  All things that exist within this time/space continuum are subject to certain constraints, among these is causality.  God exists independently of the universe; therefore while we are dependent beings, God is not.  And, it makes perfect sense to have some initial force at the beginning of this chain.  The infinite regression is not logical.

This is part of the reason I don't think your bucket example is valid.  Why do all the contents settle in an orderly fashion?  Well, it's important to note that this experiment is dependent on the "stir vigorously."  The whole thing is dependent on energy being initially applied from an outside force.  Once stirred, they settle in a regular fashion because of the law of gravity.  Heavier objects are pulled down.  What makes them heavier?  Well, laws regarding mass/weight, if 2 objects are composed of a similar substance, the one with greater mass will experience a greater gravitational pull, i.e. it will be heavier.  Also, it is subject to laws of space and time, two different objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time in the same way.  These laws exist independently of the bucket.  So it would seem that your bucket argument, is an argument for a creator.  A creator who provides the initial energy - the initial cause.  One who exists independently of the universe and by his wisdom provides laws for it to operate by.  The bucket example points to the validity of the cosmological argument.

As for Ole Willy of Ockham and his cutting instrument, it's good as a general rule, but it is in no way an absolute law of logical.  You have to prove what the correct application of it is.  Which explanations are simpler?  Which explanations are excessively complex?  If something is true, it does not matter how complicated or convoluted of an explanation it is.  Something may be both false and have a more favorable explanation.  



pnome said:


> Good questions.  I do not know the answers. Do you?  Or do you just have _faith_ that an ancient primitive tribe of desert people knew the answers?
> 
> I'm sorry but, as for myself, I'll accept not knowing before I'll accept talking snakes.



I appreciate your "I don't know."  I respect that answer.  I should say it more often than I do.  But, I have to ask, if, when you ask a difficult philosophical/theological question of a Christian on here, will you accept an "I don't know" answer?





pnome said:


> How do you choose a deity?  Do the Muslim's have the right meaning?  Do the Hindu?  If you look at the available "meanings" out there, they all look like pretty silly guesses.  A better position is to reject them all and instead look at the evidence.  Which is something none of these religions have to offer.  So, we can disregard them all.  Then you become like me:  A "de facto" Atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're argument is based on the false notion that one cannot be both a Christian and have considered the evidence.  The problem becomes what is adequate proof?  If you are gonna get strict with it, believing the theory of evolution would not fall into the empiricism camp.  


On what basis do you trust empiricism?


----------



## Diogenes (May 19, 2010)

Thanatos states: “The exact "truths" that science finds can only be observed and measured because of how and where earth was created. If you want to dismiss that we first must rely on how we are to figure out how it happened then that is your prerogative.”

I have no idea what that thought means.  But we have a pretty good idea of ‘how’ the earth came into being as a planet, and since it is right here under our feet we have a pretty good idea of just where it is.  Nobody is dismissing that.  And yeah – scientifically minded humans can only observe and measure because things happened to work out in such a way that we are here, the earth is here, and we have fortunately evolved some scientists who are smart enough and curious enough to try to figure out how that came about.  I realize that, in your view, that is a complete waste of time, since you already know the answer.  Your Bible School teacher told you when you were little.  Silly of us, I know, to be spending all of that time and money building spacecrafts and observatories and universities and particle accelerators when all we really had to do was ask you and your Sunday School teacher for the real answers.  We apologize.  


Hayseed asks (of pnome): “But, I have to ask, if, when you ask a difficult philosophical/theological question of a Christian on here, will you accept an "I don't know" answer?”   For my part, I would consider it refreshingly honest.  Hasn’t happened yet, though.  “I don’t know,” is usually the attack point for the religious, for whom all ‘unknowns’ are replaced by ‘AHA! Then GOD did it!’  They tend to leave very little room for further discovery.  Unfortunately, because of this tendency to count the unknown as among their own certainties, every time a new discovery has been made the religious certainty and zealous ‘Gotcha’ mentality has found itself back-pedaling and grasping for new rationalizations.  

The real difference here is that rational science freely says that it does not know.  Religions claim that the DO know, but fail in every way to demonstrate that certainty.  Perhaps this is a well-calculated bit of political sleight-of-hand on their part, since they have been stung so many times when actual, truthful progress has proven them to be very wrong.  But honestly, there has been no time on earth in which zestful intuition, untainted by any actual knowledge, has ended up proving itself to be correct.

And asks also: “On what basis do you trust empiricism?”  Um?  Speaking only for myself, I looked East early this morning, and that darned Sun rose, as it has done every single darned day for the nearly 53 years I’ve been testing it.  19,119 times in a row.  Empirically, that would count as an event that is provable by both experience and experiment.  And I tried to add 20 + 20 and give an answer of 12, but that pesky IRS said that my empiricism did not stand up to the test of a provable result.  Also, fifty out of the last fifty squirrels I shot died, so I have some empirical evidence that when a bullet hits a squirrel it is not good news for the squirrel’s life insurance carrier.  And, empirically, a whole bunch of dead folks would testify, if they could, that taking a bit of enriched uranium and imploding it right overhead is something that ought not be done too often.  

We trust empiricism because it is the basis upon which we have tested and proven just what works and just what doesn’t.  Trial and error.  Nothing more and nothing less.  There are no inspired leaps into the unknown, nor ‘faith’ in anything untested involved.  If we observe that God provided us with the water that sustains us, for example, then we have to wonder why it was empiricism that figured out that if we don’t first filter out the microorganisms and impurities in the water before drinking it we will die from it.  God gave us water to sustain us, then poisoned most of it?

On what basis would one then trust in this proposed God?


----------



## pnome (May 20, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> God, by definition, is not caused.  If we caused, he wouldn't be God.  He is a self-existent being.  That's why it's not illogical to conceive of him as having existed from eternity past and forever more.  He is not caused.  He is not subject to time and space constraints the same way that we are.  All things that exist within this time/space continuum are subject to certain constraints, among these is causality.  God exists independently of the universe; therefore while we are dependent beings, God is not.  And, it makes perfect sense to have some initial force at the beginning of this chain.  The infinite regression is not logical.



Well, to be honest, neither is your special pleading for God...

Anyway, the "unmoved prime mover" AKA First Cause argument is it? 

Here is my argument against that notion.

My first premise:
Will you accept that causality, as we understand it, is dependent on the passage of time?  First this, then that.  Without the dimension of time, we don't have a "first"

Second premise:
Will you accept that time itself is part of our universe?

Ergo:
There was no time before the universe.  Think about that for a minute and let the implications sink in.  

No such thing as "Eternity."  If you define eternity as endless time.  Time will end when our universe does.  It began when our universe began.  Causality began and will end.

It took me a while to get my head around the idea that there was no such thing as eternity.    I too was a big believer in the First Cause argument.  But even when I did accept it as valid, I realized that this "prime mover" is far far removed from the God of Abraham.

So, I think we can go ahead then and whet the blade on ole Occam's razor.




> This is part of the reason I don't think your bucket example is valid.  Why do all the contents settle in an orderly fashion?  Well, it's important to note that this experiment is dependent on the "stir vigorously."  The whole thing is dependent on energy being initially applied from an outside force.  Once stirred, they settle in a regular fashion because of the law of gravity.  Heavier objects are pulled down.  *What makes them heavier?*



You know they built that Large Hadron Collider to attempt to answer that very question.

Our "system" gets it's energy from the exact same force that arranges the gravel at the bottom of the bucket.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation




> I appreciate your "I don't know."  I respect that answer.  I should say it more often than I do.  But, I have to ask, if, when you ask a difficult philosophical/theological question of a Christian on here, will you accept an "I don't know" answer?



Can't see why I wouldn't.  

If you don't know, and are willing to admit that, that's the first step.  The next step is to decide where to put your faith.




> On what basis do you trust empiricism?



Because it _works_!


----------



## jmharris23 (May 20, 2010)

Everyone may want to look here: 

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=541256


----------

