# The best argument for God



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

This is the best argument for the existence of God I can come up with.

I have read about the Multiverse Theory and though I don't completely understand it, I feel as if I understand enough of what the theory is based on to say that it seems plausible.  

The Reader's Digest version of it seems to state: "All things that are possible will occur in some Universe."  To me that means anything that's conceivable (including an inconceivable being) exists somewhere, even the God of Abraham. Coincidentally, Allah exists in some Universe and Buddah in another and in some Universe they all exist at the same time and in every other permutation possible.  If Multiverse theory is correct, God exists somewhere.  

It also states that we can't ever know what's going on in those other Universes.  So that leaves me where I started.  There's no evidence of any of those Gods existing or having any effect on _this_ Universe so my default position still stands.  There doesn't appear to be any God in this Universe.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> This is the best argument for the existence of God I can come up with.
> 
> I have read about the Multiverse Theory and though I don't completely understand it, I feel as if I understand enough of what the theory is based on to say that it seems plausible.
> 
> ...


I have the thoughts that there doesn't appear to be any god in this universe that is anywhere along the lines that humans have claimed throughout all of history.
I do think an unconscious force, call it energy, exists everywhere and has been the catalyst for everything.  I do not believe there is a purpose or plan..  rather it seems to me what exists now exists because that is what the current chemicals, conditions and matter supports.  Whatever existed prior was because conditions allowed for it to be at that time and whatever else was, is, or will be all throughout the Universe follows the same reasons.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

There's a current theory that states there is matter because something existing is the natural way of things.  It also states that there's really no such thing as "nothing" as we understand it.  There's no way to prove any of that but the theories seem to be based on sensible mathematics. 

The implications of that effect the way that I view my place in the Universe.


----------



## Israel (Sep 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> This is the best argument for the existence of God I can come up with.
> 
> I have read about the Multiverse Theory and though I don't completely understand it, I feel as if I understand enough of what the theory is based on to say that it seems plausible.
> 
> ...



Read that again, slowly.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

Israel said:


> Read that again, slowly.



Why don't you just point out what you think is an inconsistency so we can discuss it like dudes crappie fishing in a jon boat?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

The existence of anything is the best argument for God, that and the systematic nature of existence.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

"Proof" exists everywhere if you look at it from a different angle.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> The existence of anything is the best argument for God, that and the systematic nature of existence.


God...
God of Abraham?
Energy the God?
Allah?
Vishnu?

Why does it have to be a god with human like qualitiea ir why does it have to be a god at all?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> "Proof" exists everywhere if you look at it from a different angle.



Proof exists for just about every argument up to the point where one needs to provide an actual god to tie all that proof together.
In each and every case so far nobody has been able to provide the do all, end all, shut up here it is..God.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Why does it have to be a god with human like qualitiea ir why does it have to be a god at all?



Calling it God eliminates the human like quality.  We will relate to anything like ourselves.......think about how we view all animals, we think they think like us on some level, when in fact, they prolly don't at all.

You mention an energy, could be gravity, that has led existence to where it is today.  I think it has to be conscious because of the state of existence today.  Look at our atmosphere, and the circle of life.  Systems interacting to sustain all existence.  Beyond our known corner of the universe there could be endless systems doing the same......but, everywhere we look we see systems.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Proof exists for just about every argument up to the point where one needs to provide an actual god to tie all that proof together.
> In each and every case so far nobody has been able to provide the do all, end all, shut up here it is..God.



As much as we have discussed this, I have never been able to convey my thoughts on the matter well.......and I doubt we will ever be able to conclude the same.  But, I see that proof every time I see something alive.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Calling it God eliminates the human like quality.  We will relate to anything like ourselves.......think about how we view all animals, we think they think like us on some level, when in fact, they prolly don't at all.
> 
> You mention an energy, could be gravity, that has led existence to where it is today.  I think it has to be conscious because of the state of existence today.  Look at our atmosphere, and the circle of life.  Systems interacting to sustain all existence.  Beyond our known corner of the universe there could be endless systems doing the same......but, everywhere we look we see systems.



Do you think it's possible that other "systems" have been tried and keep being tried, possibly ad infinitum?  Is it possible that this system that we currently exist in is just one of many?  The current understanding of maths seem to point to that being the case.  

I know it's all hypothetical, although making a hypothetical assertion based on math seems pretty sensible to me.  More
so than basing it on a "feeling".  I have a sense that what you have come to conclude is based on more than a feeling.  I know you can state it in words.  I believe in you.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> As much as we have discussed this, I have never been able to convey my thoughts on the matter well.......and I doubt we will ever be able to conclude the same.  But, I see that proof every time I see something alive.



Do you concede that you don't have very much of the entirety of information to draw the conclusion from?  Would you agree that all the information that you have to come to a conclusion is largely based on traditional wisdoms and not something time tested like math?

Give me your best argument.  Make it so that I might say "Yeah, I suppose that's possible" (although that's already my position).  See if you can move my "unlikely" needle closer to "plausible".


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Do you concede that you don't have very much of the entirety of information to draw the conclusion from?  Would you agree that all the information that you have to come to a conclusion is largely based on traditional wisdoms and not something time tested like math?



Isn't faith as time tested as Math?  Both have been around as long as man has been conscience.   All the pyramid builders were very spiritual people.  I want very much to be able to take a picture of God and email him to you.  But, if we must discuss this in terms of math, I will give it a shot.



ambush80 said:


> Give me your best argument.  Make it so that I might say "Yeah, I suppose that's possible" (although that's already my position).  See if you can move my "unlikely" needle closer to "plausible".



I lean on the things I see, a tree growing from dirt that is completely saturated with previous life and know that life only comes from life, so......I conclude life came from life.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

I will concede that I am limited with my knowledge, but I also recognize that discovery only further demonstrates systems.  Never does science open up a chaos frontier.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Calling it God eliminates the human like quality.  We will relate to anything like ourselves.......think about how we view all animals, we think they think like us on some level, when in fact, they prolly don't at all.
> 
> You mention an energy, could be gravity, that has led existence to where it is today.  I think it has to be conscious because of the state of existence today.  Look at our atmosphere, and the circle of life.  Systems interacting to sustain all existence.  Beyond our known corner of the universe there could be endless systems doing the same......but, everywhere we look we see systems.



I understand how our minds are conditioned to find human qualities and features in everything around us. Regarding animals the reality is that our features and qualities resemble theirs, not theirs resembles ours. We were too late to the game.
But, we are able to observe them. I understand why people give human like qualities to something we cannot observe, I just cannot agree with it.
Well in simplistic terms gravity doesn't exist without Mass. To the best of our knowledge  a sudden release of energy created particles which created mass which creates gravity..but that is over simplified. 
Gravity also pulls objects from space into our planet. At any moment one big enough can wipe out 99.9%of every living thing on the planet due to a sudden change in conditions. That to me does not feel organized.

Our atmosphere is condusive to life as we know it now but it was not always that way. Literally it took billions of years of small yet constant changes to allow us be alive right now. We didnt all poof into a perfect situation.
More species have died off due to changing "perfect " conditions than are alive on the planet right now. We did not exist even 2 million years ago when conditions were perfect for everything else at that time and we are not the same creatures as perfect conditions allowed 200,000 years ago
.
Why, in your opinion, would things now stay "perfect" for humans to continue in their current state for eternity?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't faith as time tested as Math?  Both have been around as long as man has been conscience.   All the pyramid builders were very spiritual people.  I want very much to be able to take a picture of God and email him to you.  But, if we must discuss this in terms of math, I will give it a shot.



Seems to me that things that were taken on faith seem to get shelved in the Fiction section more and more every day.  I think I've made a pretty good argument about how Faith could have evolved and what it's utility is.  I wish Madman would come back and discuss it with me again in the other thread.  

If you had never taken acid and I had, I could easily tell you what it is like well enough so that if someone dosed you without your knowledge, you would recall what I said and know what is going on.  I just can't imagine that the way that you feel or hear God can be any harder to explain.  



JB0704 said:


> I lean on the things I see, a tree growing from dirt that is completely saturated with previous life and know that life only comes from life, so......I conclude life came from life.



Did you know that almost all the Bio Mass of a tree comes from the air?  I didn't know that until recently.  The information changed how I understood trees.  Can you imagine that we might get some information that clearly explains, nay, demonstrates without a doubt how life can arise from inert matter?  Do you know the current theories about how life may have sprung from inert matter?  If you do, is it that you think that they're scientifically impossible or statistically unlikely?  If you can make that argument then I will consider taking them off the table.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I just can't imagine that the way that you feel or hear God can be any harder to explain.



I don't know what you are looking for more than what I have given. 



ambush80 said:


> Did you know that almost all the Bio Mass of a tree comes from the air?  I didn't know that until recently.  The information changed how I understood trees.  Can you imagine that we might get some information that clearly explains, nay, demonstrates without a doubt how life can arise from inert matter?  Do you know the current theories about how life may have sprung from inert matter?  If you do, is it that you think that they're scientifically impossible or statistically unlikely?  If you can make that argument then I will consider taking them off the table.



The discussion on trees furthers the belief in systems.  The tree needs the air and the dirt, which came first?  Then again, if we are discussing the origins of life, and statistics, you have to recognize that a tree must have evolved from the same cells that became a Trex.  Both are different expressions of life.......and, ultimately, both depend on the other for survival (trex ate critters that ate trees).

You are looking for an argument involving mathematical probabilities.  I am not a statistician, but, I can imagine the probabilities of life occurring on multiple fronts (different life forms, plants animals, etc) in the same environment is likely borderline impossible.  PArticularly once we understand how the diversity of the life is also necessary for sustaining each life form......then we need to discuss the air needed for the trees being different than the air needed for the Trex.

I am seeing a system intricately woven to sustain and compel life on multiple fronts.  You can look for mathematical possibilities, I will see design......as I would in any system I examined.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> At any moment one big enough can wipe out 99.9%of every living thing on the planet due to a sudden change in conditions. That to me does not feel organized.



I can understand that except for the fact that our fossil record tells the story of reset buttons being hit, and the system resetting.   Why.......in 4 billion years, has the system not been defeated?  Yes, it could be.......gravity could fail and we could get sucked into the sun, but here we sit, exactly where we did 4 billion years ago, perched on nothing, and held in place by gravity which has found equilibrium.

Now that images are pouring in throughout the universe we see this repeated over and over.  New suns have planets, and planets have moons, and they all interact and find equilibrium.



bullethead said:


> Our atmosphere is condusive to life as we know it now but it was not always that way. Literally it took billions of years of small yet constant changes to allow us be alive right now. We didnt all poof into a perfect situation.
> More species have died off due to changing "perfect " conditions than are alive on the planet right now. We did not exist even 2 million years ago when conditions were perfect for everything else at that time and we are not the same creatures as perfect conditions allowed 200,000 years ago



I am thinking that supports my thoughts on the matter.
.


bullethead said:


> Why, in your opinion, would things now stay "perfect" for humans to continue in their current state for eternity?



Intelligent design


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> God...
> God of Abraham?
> Energy the God?
> Allah?
> ...



We are made in the image of God so it would stand to reason God and man share traits. Also God became man so it would stand to reason God has shared the traits of man. 
When we see Jesus(God) in the future, we will finally see him as he truly is and become like him. This is the final example of man and God sharing traits.

The other gods could be different manifestations of the Architect of the Universe made various to see how we treat each other. It might be a test. 

That or they could just be false Gods made in the image of man.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know what you are looking for more than what I have given.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't think of it as  someone or something creating air or dirt in order for the tree to live, the tree lives because there happens to be air and dirt. At some point that tree wouldn't have survived in previous air or dirt. It survives now because that is what conditions allow.

A tree and a trex do not necessarily share the same originating cell or cells.
Our planet right this second is constantly being bombarded by matter from outer space.
Everything from comets and meteors to literally billions of incredibly small particles that pass through your body every second. 
A lot of research makes a good argument for panspermia where matter and cells may have(because we know it still does) come from distant planets and origins in space and mixed with matter and cells here and certain combinations under certain conditions were responsible for certain things, again though as combinations and conditions and chemicals and time allows not everything necessarily had to come from one cell.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I can understand that except for the fact that our fossil record tells the story of reset buttons being hit, and the system resetting.   Why.......in 4 billion years, has the system not been defeated?  Yes, it could be.......gravity could fail and we could get sucked into the sun, but here we sit, exactly where we did 4 billion years ago, perched on nothing, and held in place by gravity which has found equilibrium.
> 
> Now that images are pouring in throughout the universe we see this repeated over and over.  New suns have planets, and planets have moons, and they all interact and find equilibrium.
> 
> ...


We know Suns die and so does their life giving power. Ours is on its way out. You and I wont have to worry about it but it will happen.

You undertand the changes the planet has gone through and the time it has taken to get us to this point. How do you balance that information with the information given in the bible which is supposed to be the word of the god you worship? 
I can see why you believe in a god, I just wonder how picked one specific god with the conflicting information you acknowledge.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> We are made in the image of God so it would stand to reason God and man share traits. Also God became man so it would stand to reason God has shared the traits of man.
> When we see Jesus(God) in the future, we will finally see him as he truly is and become like him. This is the final example of man and God sharing traits.
> 
> The other gods could be different manifestations of the Architect of the Universe made various to see how we treat each other. It might be a test.
> ...



Art, Just to cut to the chase, can you back up your declarative statement that humans are made in the image of the God you worship?
I do not know what your god looks like and I am curious to know how you do?

Is it possible you may be mistaken?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know what you are looking for more than what I have given.



You said it was like home.  I asked which parts of home?  Like when you were five waking up Christmas Morning?  When you were five getting your tail whooped cause you almost burnt down the house?  What does God sound like?  Does he have a voice that you are certain is His?  Is it disembodied and sounds like it's in the room with you or does it sound like when a thought comes into your head? Does he have an accent?  What would happen if when he talked to you next time you imposed a British accent on Him?  You know I'm not making light, right?  These are serious questions to me, things that I ponder often.  I can only hope that a believer might be able to answer them.  





JB0704 said:


> The discussion on trees furthers the belief in systems.  The tree needs the air and the dirt, which came first?  Then again, if we are discussing the origins of life, and statistics, you have to recognize that a tree must have evolved from the same cells that became a Trex.  Both are different expressions of life.......and, ultimately, both depend on the other for survival (trex ate critters that ate trees).
> 
> You are looking for an argument involving mathematical probabilities.  I am not a statistician, but, I can imagine the probabilities of life occurring on multiple fronts (different life forms, plants animals, etc) in the same environment is likely borderline impossible.  PArticularly once we understand how the diversity of the life is also necessary for sustaining each life form......then we need to discuss the air needed for the trees being different than the air needed for the Trex.
> 
> I am seeing a system intricately woven to sustain and compel life on multiple fronts.  You can look for mathematical possibilities, I will see design......as I would in any system I examined.



Things are the way they are, the Systems, because this is the "available chemistry set".  This is how this incarnation of the Universe occurred.  If you subscribe to or at least grant the possibility of the Multiverse theory then it's no surprise that a Universe exists exactly like ours, in fact it was impossible for it not to.  

Lets leave Multiverse alone.

Do you see how saying that there must be a designer because you can't imagine another way isn't a good reason?  Don't you recognize that history is filled with things that were previously believed to be of supernatural origin and were later understood as natural phenomena as information became available?  That's the trend.  It's incontrovertible.  It's too soon to throw up your hands and say "God did it".  That's the old way.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

I miss this forum.....much more entertaining than the debate


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Don't think of it as  someone or something creating air or dirt in order for the tree to live, the tree lives because there happens to be air and dirt. At some point that tree wouldn't have survived in previous air or dirt. It survives now because that is what conditions allow.



You see a coincidence, I do not.



bullethead said:


> A tree and a trex do not necessarily share the same originating cell or cells.
> Our planet right this second is constantly being bombarded by matter from outer space.
> Everything from comets and meteors to literally billions of incredibly small particles that pass through your body every second.
> A lot of research makes a good argument for panspermia where matter and cells may have(because we know it still does) come from distant planets and origins in space and mixed with matter and cells here and certain combinations under certain conditions were responsible for certain things, again though as combinations and conditions and chemicals and time allows not everything necessarily had to come from one cell.



Bullet, do you see the point that you are looking for outside activity to impact the system?  What we know is that there are plants, and there are animals.  Life, as we know it, comes from life.  Yet, all of these various forms, from various sources, are interdependent.  As I mentioned earlier, the circle of life is perfect.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> You said it was like home.  I asked which parts of home?  Like when you were five waking up Christmas Morning?  When you were five getting your tail whooped cause you almost burnt down the house?  What does God sound like?  Does he have a voice that you are certain is His?  Is it disembodied and sounds like it's in the room with you or does it sound like when a thought comes into your head? Does he have an accent?  What would happen if when he talked to you next time you imposed a British accent on Him?  You know I'm not making light, right?  These are serious questions to me, things that I ponder often.  I can only hope that a believer might be able to answer them.



I can't relate to Christmas morning because my folks wouldn't let me believe in Santa.  I would say more like 5 years old in a PA farmhouse waking up to a cold floor n one of those white kerosene heaters.  That heat provided a comfort that cannot be really articulated.  Or, 13 in the attic of an amish farmhouse I lived in waking up to seeing my breath but under a heavy duty quilt.  That's a comfort that I can't really describe.  It's just......home.

I have never heard God audibly.







ambush80 said:


> Things are the way they are, the Systems, because this is the "available chemistry set".  This is how this incarnation of the Universe occurred.  If you subscribe to or at least grant the possibility of the Multiverse theory then it's no surprise that a Universe exists exactly like ours, in fact it was impossible for it not to.
> 
> Lets leave Multiverse alone.
> 
> Do you see how saying that there must be a designer because you can't imagine another way isn't a good reason?  Don't you recognize that history is filled with things that were previously believed to be of supernatural origin and were later understood as natural phenomena as information became available?  That's the trend.  It's incontrovertible.  It's too soon to throw up your hands and say "God did it".  That's the old way.



I do recognize that.  But you can also recognize that systems, in all other aspects of our lives, involve a designer and do not happen on accident.  Like a car, yet we are discussing things much more intricate, and miraculous, than an automobile.  I am not saying that life could not have evolved, I am saying that life is so intertwined with other life and the universe around it I cannot fathom how such a thing could have occurred by a random collection of stardust.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I can see why you believe in a god, I just wonder how picked one specific god with the conflicting information you acknowledge.



My culture and heritage likely influenced that decision.  I am confident I would at least be a deist in any circumstances.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> You see a coincidence, I do not.


It is not coincidence. There is no plan.
What you see is the sum of the available parts. Nothing more. Nothing less.




JB0704 said:


> Bullet, do you see the point that you are looking for outside activity to impact the system?  What we know is that there are plants, and there are animals.  Life, as we know it, comes from life.  Yet, all of these various forms, from various sources, are interdependent.  As I mentioned earlier, the circle of life is perfect.


The universe is the system. Nothing is needed from the outside. Everything on this planet is comprised of matter found elsewhere within the Universe. Life comes from the available components. What can happen will happen.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

Bullet, I do not see how you cannot see a God in that.....if not "God," at least a driving force.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> My culture and heritage likely influenced that decision.  I am confident I would at least be a deist in any circumstances.


Sure culture and heritage influence is understandable. I can fully appreciate a deist mentality. What I find hard to pinpoint is how someone who acknowledges the inconsistencies or information given in the bible that does not line up with current knowledge also then continues to believe in the god of that bible. I mean if a god cannot provide 100% factual information that absolutely cannot be challened why believe THAT is the god responsible for everything else?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, I do not see how you cannot see a God in that.....if not "God," at least a driving force.


I have always said energy is the thing that has to be most responsible for getting this Universe rolling. I just dont give it human qualities, I dont pretend to know what it thinks or that it speaks to me. I do not think it persuaded anyone to write it's guidelines. It is chaotic as it is serene. No love. No hate. No plan. It is what it is based off of what can be.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Art, Just to cut to the chase, can you back up your declarative statement that humans are made in the image of the God you worship?
> I do not know what your god looks like and I am curious to know how you do?
> 
> Is it possible you may be mistaken?



I'm not sure it's that important what God looks like. In Romans people made idols that looked like mere people and birds and animals. So I'm guessing on one hand God doesn't look like a man. Maybe our image of him is something beyond human traits and we will become like him only when we see him as he is.

It's a bit of a mystery, I agree. Maybe it's a spiritual image or an energy field image. When we die physically we become a part of that image. Perhaps it's where we came from to start with. Perhaps this energy(Spirit) is God and has always been made of parts of the whole.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not sure it's that important what God looks like. In Romans people made idols that looked like mere people and birds and animals. So I'm guessing on one hand God doesn't look like a man. Maybe our image of him is something beyond human traits and we will become like him only when we see him as he is.
> 
> It's a bit of a mystery, I agree. Maybe it's a spiritual image or an energy field image. When we die physically we become a part of that image. Perhaps it's where we came from to start with. Perhaps this energy(Spirit) is God and has always been made of parts of the whole.


But you said we are made in his image.

The Jews in the OT worshipped more than one god and made idols in many images.
Even the God of Abraham acknowledges other gods according to scripture. That was old world thinking.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> What I find hard to pinpoint is how someone who acknowledges the inconsistencies or information given in the bible that does not line up with current knowledge also then continues to believe in the god of that bible. I mean if a god cannot provide 100% factual information that absolutely cannot be challened why believe THAT is the god responsible for everything else?



Perspective and expectations.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Perspective and expectations.



No doubt


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I can't relate to Christmas morning because my folks wouldn't let me believe in Santa.  I would say more like 5 years old in a PA farmhouse waking up to a cold floor n one of those white kerosene heaters.  That heat provided a comfort that cannot be really articulated.  Or, 13 in the attic of an amish farmhouse I lived in waking up to seeing my breath but under a heavy duty quilt.  That's a comfort that I can't really describe.  It's just......home.
> 
> I have never heard God audibly.
> 
> ...



So can you attack the theories that give explanations of how inert matter could have randomly assembled into RNA and then into proteins and then into cells?  Can you explain how those theories are absolutely impossible?

A car is an improvement on the wheel as the eye is an improvement on a photo receptive cell.  In a different type of environment, say a gaseous one, maybe a wheel and thus a car wouldn't develop because they wouldn't be useful, nor would an eye develop in a place of darkness.  There are examples of eye designs that didn't work and dead ended.  Does that support a designer?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

Show of hands: 

It is more important to believe in God because you simply prefer to than for purely rational reasons.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I can't relate to Christmas morning because my folks wouldn't let me believe in Santa.  I would say more like 5 years old in a PA farmhouse waking up to a cold floor n one of those white kerosene heaters.  That heat provided a comfort that cannot be really articulated.  Or, 13 in the attic of an amish farmhouse I lived in waking up to seeing my breath but under a heavy duty quilt.  That's a comfort that I can't really describe.  It's just......home.
> 
> I have never heard God audibly.
> .



And that's what your faith in God feels like to you?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> So can you attack the theories that give explanations of how inert matter could have randomly assembled into RNA and then into proteins and then into cells?  Can you explain how those theories are absolutely impossible?



I am not sure I would attack them, I would just say that they are theories born of a premise that there must be a reason the circle of life got started......so we start looking for coulda's n mighta's to get the pieces to fit.  The same things your side might attack the Bible over, yet, because it's got a scientific basis, it is immediately given more credibility though the premise could very well be flawed.




ambush80 said:


> A car is an improvement on the wheel as the eye is an improvement on a photo receptive cell.  In a different type of environment, say a gaseous one, maybe a wheel and thus a car wouldn't develop because they wouldn't be useful, nor would an eye develop in a place of darkness.  There are examples of eye designs that didn't work and dead ended.  Does that support a designer?



Sure.  Much like the multiple auto designs that never hit the market.  Does it imply a God who messed up on that one, or a design that outlived it's usefulness?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> And that's what your faith in God feels like to you?



Yes........even in the bad times, and even when I see bad things.  Evidence of a creator gives purpose and meaning to everything inside the system.  That doesn't mean it ends well, it just means it's not all for nothing.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I am not sure I would attack them, I would just say that they are theories born of a premise that there must be a reason the circle of life got started......so we start looking for coulda's n mighta's to get the pieces to fit.  The same things your side might attack the Bible over, yet, because it's got a scientific basis, it is immediately given more credibility though the premise could very well be flawed.



They don't really speak to a reason.  They just give a possible explanation of how inert matter could result in living matter.  If you wanted to, you could accept their theory as a possibility and still simply say that you believe that God did it.  That will be an applicable statement, completely beyond reproach, even if in the future kids play with "Lets Make Some Life" chemistry sets.  It still wouldn't make it true.  Unless God shows himself somehow and convinces that entirety of the scientific community that He is responsible for all that his believers claim he is responsible for, saying "He did" it will always be unfounded.

OK lets take a claim about the natural world that the Bible makes and do some coulda/mighta.  Lets do walking on water.  I've tried this exercise and nobody cares how He did it.  They just say that they believe that he did.  Is that better than science?  To say "it's a miracle, duh", isn't that truly a flawed premise? 






JB0704 said:


> Sure.  Much like the multiple auto designs that never hit the market.  Does it imply a God who messed up on that one, or a design that outlived it's usefulness?



There's alot of "models" that seem to be mistakes.  It seems more like the attempts at making flying machines.  Nature makes some clunkers.  I can't see how not to interpret it as trial and error.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Yes........even in the bad times, and even when I see bad things.  Evidence of a creator gives purpose and meaning to everything inside the system.  That doesn't mean it ends well, it just means it's not all for nothing.



Wanting there to be a reason doesn't make it so.  There's a way to accept the possibility that "there is no reason" that can still give comfort, and there are ways to believe that there are reasons or "someone at the helm" that could lead one to utter despair.  

The worst thing I can see with believing that "someone" up there has a plan is that it can cause a person to either feel as if their actions are ordained or that they are not responsible because there is "someone" in control, someone whose motives are "mysterious".  It diminishes the sense of duty we have as sole agents for good or bad and places it in the hands of mysterious forces.


----------



## Israel (Sep 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> This is the best argument for the existence of God I can come up with.
> 
> I have read about the Multiverse Theory and though I don't completely understand it, I feel as if I understand enough of what the theory is based on to say that it seems plausible.
> 
> ...


You're not reading slowly enough.

If you can't read and understand your own words, how will you ever understand anyone elses?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Wanting there to be a reason doesn't make it so.  There's a way to accept the possibility that "there is no reason" that can still give comfort, and there are ways to believe that there are reasons or "someone at the helm" that could lead one to utter despair.



The question was directed to me on a personal level, and I answered as such.  A person could find comfort in many things, heck, I find comfort in cold beer, but we are discussing what my faith feels like.  I did not anticipate you relating or agreeing.



ambush80 said:


> The worst thing I can see with believing that "someone" up there has a plan is that it can cause a person to either feel as if their actions are ordained or that they are not responsible because there is "someone" in control, someone whose motives are "mysterious".  It diminishes the sense of duty we have as sole agents for good or bad and places it in the hands of mysterious forces.



It depends on how you apply the purpose, for sure.  I believe in a plan, and individual responsibility.  Folks will do bad things for many reasons, God makes a convenient excuse sometimes.   People will find the most compelling reason they can to justify the actions they wish to take.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> OK lets take a claim about the natural world that the Bible makes and do some coulda/mighta.  Lets do walking on water.  I've tried this exercise and nobody cares how He did it.  They just say that they believe that he did.  Is that better than science?  To say "it's a miracle, duh", isn't that truly a flawed premise?



I think I offered canoe shoes once.  But, that would kinda eliminate the point of the story.

Imagine a God, any god you prefer, or many Gods.  Given they are Gods, in your reasoning, can they walk on water?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Show of hands:
> 
> It is more important to believe in God because you simply prefer to than for purely rational reasons.



Rational reasons, and you have been given a few here in this thread.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2016)

Israel said:


> You're not reading slowly enough.
> 
> If you can't read and understand your own words, how will you ever understand anyone elses?



I think I make sense or I wouldn't have said it. If you disagree, point out why.  

Why are you so cryptic?  It's almost like a game.  A game that I'm getting tired of playing.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I think I offered canoe shoes once.  But, that would kinda eliminate the point of the story.
> 
> Imagine a God, any god you prefer, or many Gods.  Given they are Gods, in your reasoning, can they walk on water?



I suppose they could.  I suppose they could do all sorts of things, shoot heat rays out of their eyes, fly and such.  Is it unreasonable to ask how?  

But lets start at the beginning.  Why would anyone think that an event occurred which clearly and grossly, GROSSLY violates the known laws of physics?  I would think that for such an event to be given merit that there would have to be a mountain of evidence that such a thing actually happened.  I would think that it would have been so well documented that it would be beyond question that such a thing happened and it would be included in science books and taught as unquestioned fact, like gravity.  Why is it not like that?  Why would people believe that something happened merely because it says so in one single very odd book, full of many other claims of the same nature?  Why is the veracity and authenticity of the claims in that book not under higher scrutiny?  Why do people simply take that one source as being true without investigating it with great scrutiny as they would ANY other report of such things happening from any other source?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Rational reasons, and you have been given a few here in this thread.



I think I offered a fair rebuttal of why I don't think those reasons are rational.

1.  The long, well documented history of science proving that forces that were once thought of as supernatural are not so.  The evidence NEVER points _back_ towards the supernatural.  It never has, only the other way around.

2.  The lack of evidence that supernatural being exists.  Like infinity or Multiverse theory, it's just a working concept; unconfirmed and theoretical and it should be considered as such.  It's premature to claim it as true but people do, vehemently.  Their proof is an interpretation of natural phenomena that isn't based on science but based on traditional wisdoms, wisdoms that are constantly being eroded.  

3.  The evidence points not to design but to random trials of organization that sometime work, sometimes are built upon and sometimes go to the dustbin.  I think it points to lack of a designer and I find it difficult to interpret it any other way.

The task for a believer is to disprove any of these arguments.  The claim is that God exists.  The burden of proof is on the claimant.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I think I offered a fair rebuttal of why I don't think those reasons are rational.
> 
> 1.  The long, well documented history of science proving that forces that were once thought of as supernatural are not so.  The evidence NEVER points _back_ towards the supernatural.  It never has, only the other way around.



You are removing God from natural.  God is not supernatural, particularly if he created the natural world.....science is exploring the mechanics of his design.



ambush80 said:


> 2.  The lack of evidence that supernatural being exists.  Like infinity or Multiverse theory, it's just a working concept; unconfirmed and theoretical and it should be considered as such.  It's premature to claim it as true but people do, vehemently.  Their proof is an interpretation of natural phenomena that isn't based on science but based on traditional wisdoms, wisdoms that are constantly being eroded.



Again, scientific discovery, to me at least, explores Gods creation more than explains God away.  Once believers get that, they are able to stop viewing science as an enemy, and instead, can enjoy and embrace discovery.




ambush80 said:


> 3.  The evidence points not to design but to random trials of organization that sometime work, sometimes are built upon and sometimes go to the dustbin.  I think it points to lack of a designer and I find it difficult to interpret it any other way.
> 
> The task for a believer is to disprove any of these arguments.  The claim is that God exists.  The burden of proof is on the claimant.



We see it differently.  I carry no burden.  This is what I believe and have presented it to you when asked.  The things you say point away from God do the opposite when I view them.  I don't know how to change that perspective.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 27, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Again, scientific discovery, to me at least, explores Gods creation more than explains God away.  Once believers get that, they are able to stop viewing science as an enemy, and instead, can enjoy and embrace discovery.



Do you believe God created a creature that evolved into a human?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> You are removing God from natural.  God is not supernatural, particularly if he created the natural world.....science is exploring the mechanics of his design.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess you would have to convince me that the working theory of God is based on scientific, mathematical concepts, in the same way that I find Special relativity and Multiverse theory plausible.  

I understand the baseis for the belief in God to be tradition and traditional wisdoms, as well as the the human tendency to erroneously apply agency to unknown phenomena and to develop superstitions.  If you don't think that those forces are at work in human psyche that's one thing.  If you believe that people are susceptible to those forces then it becomes clear how belief in God could arise.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> You are removing God from natural.  God is not supernatural, particularly if he created the natural world.....science is exploring the mechanics of his design.




Actually, It seems Multiverse Theory places God soundly in the realm of the Natural. If, as I understand it, all things that are conceivable exist then God absolutely exists.

I posed the same assertion in another forum, a bit different in demographic than this one:

https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/68668/


----------



## Israel (Sep 28, 2016)

cryp·tic
Ëˆkriptik/Submit
adjective
adjective: cryptic
1.
having a meaning that is mysterious or obscure.
"he found his boss's utterances too cryptic"
synonyms:	enigmatic, mysterious, confusing, mystifying, perplexing, puzzling, obscure, abstruse, arcane, oracular, Delphic, ambiguous, elliptical, oblique; informalas clear as mud
"she leaves cryptic messages on his answering machine"
antonyms:	clear
(of a crossword) having difficult clues that indicate the solutions indirectly.
2.
ZOOLOGY
(of coloration or markings) serving to camouflage an animal in its natural environment.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2016)

Israel said:


> cryp·tic
> Ëˆkriptik/Submit
> adjective
> adjective: cryptic
> ...


Clear as mud is about right.

What is the definition for a person that purposely  posts replies that are as clear as mud?


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I suppose they could.  I suppose they could do all sorts of things, shoot heat rays out of their eyes, fly and such.  Is it unreasonable to ask how?
> 
> But lets start at the beginning.  Why would anyone think that an event occurred which clearly and grossly, GROSSLY violates the known laws of physics?  I would think that for such an event to be given merit that there would have to be a mountain of evidence that such a thing actually happened.  I would think that it would have been so well documented that it would be beyond question that such a thing happened and it would be included in science books and taught as unquestioned fact, like gravity.  Why is it not like that?  Why would people believe that something happened merely because it says so in one single very odd book, full of many other claims of the same nature?  Why is the veracity and authenticity of the claims in that book not under higher scrutiny?  Why do people simply take that one source as being true without investigating it with great scrutiny as they would ANY other report of such things happening from any other source?



If you were to believe that the God of the bible was real, and believed that what the bible said about him were true, then there is no issue with that God violating the laws of physics, because those laws are his to begin with. 

It also seems to me that many have investigated the source with great scrutiny, and many of them find it satisfactory.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> If you were to believe that the God of the bible was real, and believed that what the bible said about him were true, then there is no issue with that God violating the laws of physics, because those laws are his to begin with.
> 
> It also seems to me that many have investigated the source with great scrutiny, and many of them find it satisfactory.


That is understandable but I liken it to Hillary and Trump supporters.  No matter what either candidate says or does and despite all the facts that prove otherwise the supporter...believers if you will... belive in exactly whatever information that soothes their own wants and needs and disregards all the rest.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

bullethead said:


> That is understandable but I liken it to Hillary and Trump supporters.  No matter what either candidate says or does and despite all the facts that prove otherwise the supporter...believers if you will... belive in exactly whatever information that soothes their own wants and needs and disregards all the rest.



For what it's worth, I've not disregarded all the rest. I realize that there are issues within a biblical framework of understanding. I have my own, mainly within the creation account. 

Of course I can also find issues withing the scientific /rational approach to life.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> For what it's worth, I've not disregarded all the rest. I realize that there are issues within a biblical framework of understanding. I have my own, mainly within the creation account.
> 
> Of course I can also find issues withing the scientific /rational approach to life.



It was a slow process for me but eventually I went from full blown believer, to skeptical believer to full blown skeptic.
Main reason being that a god or its word should be the pinnacle of truth.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

bullethead said:


> It was a slow process for me but eventually I went from full blown believer, to skeptical believer to full blown skeptic.
> Main reason being that a god or its word should be the pinnacle of truth.



I understand. I'm not a skeptic. I just don't understand everything and I'm ok with that, because what I have found to be for sure true in the bible has convinced me that the things I don't understand, I don't need to.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I understand. I'm not a skeptic. I just don't understand everything and I'm ok with that, because what I have found to be for sure true in the bible has convinced me that the things I don't understand, I don't need to.



I know. See my initial Hillary/Trump supporter post. As long as you are ok with the ok things you feel it is all ok. The rest you don't need to worry about.
I go a step further.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I know. See my initial Hillary/Trump supporter post. As long as you are ok with the ok things you feel it is all ok. The rest you don't need to worry about.
> I go a step further.



I worry about it. At least to the point that I can't reconcile it. I can't reconcile what the bible says about creation versus what science says. Anyone who is honest will admit that. 

What I can say is that what the bible says doesn't necessarily rule out what science says, and that is what I am ok with.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2016)

Jmharris, I am convinced that you are certain God is capable of everything possible and all that is impossible could be made possible through him.
Why, in your opinion, do you think "his" book,..the guide for all of mankind that is his direct link to humans.. contains anything that is unable to be understood, confusing, or able to be interpreted in more than one way?
Let alone the things that are just flat out false, inaccurate, disproven, and are found to be total fabrications?
Why do you think a god that loves his children would allow so many deaths based off of the contents of his book?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2016)

Do you feel that the contents of the bible was the best that God could do? Or is it possible that it was the best that writers of the times (over thousands of years) could do?


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Jmharris, I am convinced that you are certain God is capable of everything possible and all that is impossible could be made possible through him.
> Why, in your opinion, do you think "his" book,..the guide for all of mankind that is his direct link to humans.. contains anything that is unable to be understood, confusing, or able to be interpreted in more than one way?
> 
> I don't find it unable to be understood and when read within the right framework.
> ...



This one I have no answer for except that according to the bible, men screw up a lot of stuff


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> This one I have no answer for except that according to the bible, men screw up a lot of stuff


Sure men screw things up. Did they get God's words wrong and somewhere do you think there is an original master edition penned by God that would be universally understood by every human that ever read it?

In post #61 you said you didnt understand and within the spiritual forums there are many people who understand the contents differently or not at all, and worlwide there seems to be lots that is not understood. Am I incorrect to think that you do not agree that if not you at least some people do not understand the contents?
Why are the contents of the book not immediately universal to all that read it?

Regarding the  "explained in a way that doesn't damage faith"...
My faith was damaged. Do you think I was unlucky to be unable to find the right person to explain it to me better? And if so, who can ask that could do it for me?


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

I should probably say upfront that I believe the NT was written to the church and the OT was written to the people of Israel. 

I don't think it can be understood completely outside of that framework. 

I think that what God intends to be understood outside of that framework is the meta-narrative of scripture which is that man is broken, the world is broken, and a remedy to that brokenness exists in the person of Christ. 

In it's simplest form that is the message of the bible. I don't believe that the rest of it is easily understood unless it's read with that as the basis for understanding. 


In post # 63 I said specifically what I don't understand is how the biblical account of creation lines up with what science clearly proves. That's what I don't understand, it doesn't mean it they can't coincide. 


I do think men act of misunderstandings from reading the bible, but it's due to the fact that it is being read outside of the intended framework. 

Honestly, and I mean no hard feelings in this. I don't believe you ever had faith. 


I don't mind answering your questions but we both know we're just going to go round and round.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

I gotta go pick up my girls, so I'll come back tomorrow. I didn't want you to think I jumped ship.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I should probably say upfront that I believe the NT was written to the church and the OT was written to the people of Israel.
> 
> I don't think it can be understood completely outside of that framework.
> 
> ...


Hope yall dont mind me barging in but jm youve said a couple really intersting things Id like to ask about.
What is your basis for believing the NT was written to the church?
Ive read and understood the same thing but almost never hear that in discussion on here so Im wondering why you think that?
And do you think Bullet never had faith because you shouldnt be able to "think/research" your way out of it?


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

Ya'll keep in mind that all of my answers are given through a biblical lens. With that said, the reason I believe the NT was written to the church is because the majority of it addresses the church. Only the gospels are written to unbelievers to tell the story of Christ, what he did, and why.

Also from a biblical understanding I believe if a person has true faith, then there is no reason or desire to think or reason your way out of it. 

People typically think and reason there way out of a "faith" that was built on something besides a true conversion.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I should probably say upfront that I believe the NT was written to the church and the OT was written to the people of Israel.
> 
> I don't think it can be understood completely outside of that framework.
> 
> ...


No hard feelings taken but it is an insight to the conclusions you make about me, someone who exists, someone you are able to converse with, and someone who shared his early religious life  And the conclusions you make about someone you missed by 1,983 years and 10,380 miles from information that others wrote.
You have accurate real time information from THE source and you do not believe it. 
You have the writings written 1900+ years by anonymous authors and you believe it.

Since you do not think that I ever had faith are you refusing to recommend a person to me where the things can be explained  because I am unworthy?
Or is it that  you not know of someone that could do it?

How does me never having faith compare to all of the faithful that question and disagree in the spiritual forums?

Do you feel that you "get it" more than others and because of that your faith is greater?


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 28, 2016)

bullethead said:


> No hard feelings taken but it is an insight to the conclusions you make about me, someone who exists, someone you are able to converse with, and someone who shared his early religious life  And the conclusions you make about someone you missed by 1,983 years and 10,380 miles from information that others wrote.
> You have accurate real time information from THE source and you do not believe it.
> You have the writings written 1900+ years by anonymous authors and you believe it.
> 
> ...



I believe it because I believe it came from God. Obviously. 

I am certainly not refusing to attempt to explain what I believe. I just accidentally skipped over that question. 

I honestly don't know of anyone who could explain it in a way that you might believe it. That said I absolutely believe That you  are worthy because you are a fellow human being and I believe all people are of worth.

 I wish I could explain it in a way that you found believable but I don't see how I can. You're a smart guy, probably smarter than me and you've came to your conclusions and they are strong. 

If you're interested though, I thought this sermon series by Andy Stanley was thought provoking and you may enjoy it? 

http://northpoint.org/messages/who-needs-god/


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 28, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> This is the best argument for the existence of God I can come up with.
> 
> I have read about the Multiverse Theory and though I don't completely understand it, I feel as if I understand enough of what the theory is based on to say that it seems plausible.
> 
> ...



I've pondered this as well.....
In my understanding of the idea of multiple, infinite  universes, even when the odds of something is EXTREMELY low, lets say 1 in a googol (a 1 with a hundred zeros behind it) then it is not only possible, but mathematically very probable to occur many, many times. Lets forget about the multiverse theory for a second and just think of our single, infinite universe.  If our universe truly is infinite, then mathematically speaking, there is another swampstalker24 on another GON form, on another earth, in another milkyway, typing this very same post, at this very same moment in time.  And not just one other swampstalker24, but an INFINITE number of swampstaker24s.....  

I do not, however, think that this means that any thing that is conceivable is possible, as you state in the OP.  I think its best, when pondering these type questions, to keep the supernatural world separate from the natural world.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> Ya'll keep in mind that all of my answers are given through a biblical lens. With that said, the reason I believe the NT was written to the church is because the majority of it addresses the church. Only the gospels are written to unbelievers to tell the story of Christ, what he did, and why.
> 
> Also from a biblical understanding I believe if a person has true faith, then there is no reason or desire to think or reason your way out of it.
> 
> People typically think and reason there way out of a "faith" that was built on something besides a true conversion.


Yeah conversion doesnt really fit my circumstance. I was indoctrinated from birth.
Starting them young has its positives and negatives.
It always bothered me that the desire to think and reason could only go in one direction when it came to faith.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Sep 28, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> Ya'll keep in mind that all of my answers are given through a biblical lens. With that said, the reason I believe the NT was written to the church is because the majority of it addresses the church. Only the gospels are written to unbelievers to tell the story of Christ, what he did, and why.
> 
> *Also from a biblical understanding I believe if a person has true faith, then there is no reason or desire to think or reason your way out of it. *
> 
> People typically think and reason there way out of a "faith" that was built on something besides a true conversion.



This is probably exactly what the guys who invented religion wanted its followers to think.....
Just how the wizard of oz didn't want anybody peeking behind the curtains!


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 28, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> It always bothered me that the desire to think and reason could only go in one direction when it came to faith.



Just had a situation come up with my son where he had been taking some things black and white literal that even the most hardened believer would not.  It concerned me to see how it was impacting him, so I asked him who taught him such a thing.  He told me, so I requested that he asked them to expand upon the snippets he had heard, so that he could find the "rest of the story."  After multiple conversations, including those he had with people I knew I would disagree with, my son has settled into a much more reasonable place.

I guess my point is that even knowing he would hear conflicting testimony from multiple sources, eventually, he would come to a healthy conclusion.  And I told him, very clearly, that he should always gather as much information as possible before settling on a position.  I'm not afraid of testing his faith.  Further, I am not concerned that he had pushed back against some things that I had taught him, I felt this was ultimately a healthy exercise in his ability to reason as an adult.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 28, 2016)

swampstalker24 said:


> This is probably exactly what the guys who invented religion wanted its followers to think.....
> Just how the wizard of oz didn't want anybody peeking behind the curtains!



The opposite is true.  Believers are told to always be prepared to give a defense of the faith.......this involves understanding as much as possible.  I could not defend my faith if I hadn't turned it every which way possible to examine every corner.  

Believe it or not, the AAA forum is the most productive place I have found to do this.


----------



## Israel (Sep 28, 2016)

swampstalker24 said:


> I've pondered this as well.....
> In my understanding of the idea of multiple, infinite  universes, even when the odds of something is EXTREMELY low, lets say 1 in a googol (a 1 with a hundred zeros behind it) then it is not only possible, but mathematically very probable to occur many, many times. Lets forget about the multiverse theory for a second and just think of our single, infinite universe.  If our universe truly is infinite, then mathematically speaking, there is another swampstalker24 on another GON form, on another earth, in another milkyway, typing this very same post, at this very same moment in time.  And not just one other swampstalker24, but an INFINITE number of swampstaker24s.....
> 
> I do not, however, think that this means that any thing that is conceivable is possible, as you state in the OP.  I think its best, when pondering these type questions, to keep the supernatural world separate from the natural world.



Funny, I found some folks yesterday to which I could say just that. I've worked with them for years...but opportunities to say something like that seem few, if ever, presented. 
What was odder still is that the neurosurgeon couldn't hear it. I have some surmisings about that, they might be worth holding in reserve. Hopefully to be abandoned, in time.
But yes, if something can exist, and can be identified to exist, in infinitude, they'd be infinitely repeated. I am glad to read your post...but that's "just me"...but just _which me _ I'd leave to you to determine.

I should add that when asked in particular of the matter...each easily agreed, they were the only  "one"  of them...that is.
We also got a bit into "self identity"...but I could see their eyes glazing over a bit.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2016)

JM,

Glad to see you back, friend.  What about the Bible in particular makes you trust it so much?  How about a top 5 list?  Confirmed prophesy?  Accurate representation of natural phenomena?  

I'd like to hear anyone's answer.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Just had a situation come up with my son where he had been taking some things black and white literal that even the most hardened believer would not.  It concerned me to see how it was impacting him, so I asked him who taught him such a thing.  He told me, so I requested that he asked them to expand upon the snippets he had heard, so that he could find the "rest of the story."  After multiple conversations, including those he had with people I knew I would disagree with, my son has settled into a much more reasonable place.
> 
> I guess my point is that even knowing he would hear conflicting testimony from multiple sources, eventually, he would come to a healthy conclusion.  And I told him, very clearly, that he should always gather as much information as possible before settling on a position.  I'm not afraid of testing his faith.  Further, I am not concerned that he had pushed back against some things that I had taught him, I felt this was ultimately a healthy exercise in his ability to reason as an adult.


Heres the thing -
While its certainly commendable to encourage your son to think and reason he is still doing it from within a religous box.
There are many times (at least for me) where thinking and reasoning lead outside of that box. So to avoid that, and to stay true to your religous beliefs, thinking and reasoning are either suspended or purposely "customized" to stay within that box and to be able to satisfy yourself that you are still thinking and reasoning. Example -
Is it reasonable to believe your God is the one true god and all others are false?
Of course not. 
You get to that position by suspending reasoning and thought and go with "the Bible sayss so".
Your son is aware of what you believe.
He is aware of what you teach him.
He is aware of how you would feel if his thinking and reasoning took him in another MAJOR direction.
He is aware he might end up in he11.
He is aware he might never see you again "upstairs".
He is aware......
All of those things affect and limit thought and reasoning.
So there ends up being a choice. Free yourself from the box or conform your thoughts and reasoning to be able to stay within the box.
And of course this is just how I see it.
But you did say something interesting -
"Im not afraid to test his faith".
That means your expectation is or you are confident that "he can think and reason all he wants but he will remain in that box".
And im confident (and hoping) we know each other well enough that I can say these things and you will take them at face value and in no way are meant as disrespectful to you or him.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Heres the thing -
> While its certainly commendable to encourage your son to think and reason he is still doing it from within a religous box.
> There are many times (at least for me) where thinking and reasoning lead outside of that box. So to avoid that, and to stay true to your religous beliefs, thinking and reasoning are either suspended or purposely "customized" to stay within that box and to be able to satisfy yourself that you are still thinking and reasoning. Example -
> Is it reasonable to believe your God is the one true god and all others are false?
> ...




I'm glad we can all talk about this stuff.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Heres the thing -
> While its certainly commendable to encourage your son to think and reason he is still doing it from within a religous box.



True, but, I would never discourage him from speaking to non-believers.  This specific situation was relevant to religious doctrine, so the "box" was limited to those who believe to start with, then all angles were presented.  

He is not like me very much.  Not near as cynical, not near as bitter towards religion.  So, he would not naturally leave the box.  In this situation I had to force him out, in the context of the topic, in order to get him re-oriented to a healthy place.





WaltL1 said:


> But you did say something interesting -
> "Im not afraid to test his faith".
> That means your expectation is or you are confident that "he can think and reason all he wants but he will remain in that box".
> And im confident (and hoping) we know each other well enough that I can say these things and you will take them at face value and in no way are meant as disrespectful to you or him.



Thanks Walt, I know your intent, never any disrespect perceived.  

Yes, I am confident he will remain a believer......you just have to know the kid to understand that point.  Because I am a believer would hope for my kids to be so as well.  However, I would not discourage him from exploring outside that box in an effort to find "truth."  I believe what I believe for a reason, and I think it stands against scrutiny.  So I have confidence of my convictions.  I would have no problem with the kid having an origins discussion with a non-believer, or any type of discussion.  It would be healthy for him.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> i'm glad we can all talk about this stuff.



x2.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 29, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> JM,
> 
> Glad to see you back, friend.  What about the Bible in particular makes you trust it so much?  How about a top 5 list?  Confirmed prophesy?  Accurate representation of natural phenomena?
> 
> I'd like to hear anyone's answer.



1. I believe in the historical person of Jesus Christ

2. I believe that the gospels included in the bible are a reliable testimony of who he was and what he did. 

3. The Jesus of the bible believed the OT was true, therefore so do I. 


That's a real simple answer but pretty much the basis for my belief in Scripture. 

I am strengthened in my belief by other facts that I find less important.

Such as and in no particular order: 

1. There are around 5000 Greek manuscripts, hundreds of papyri, almost 350 Syriac copies (most dating to the 400s). On top of this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from quotations in the early church fathers; 32,000 such quotations exist before the Council of Nicaea in AD325, for example.

Many of the manuscripts that have been found are reasonably close to the originals. For example, the John Rylands fragment (P52) dates to around AD120. Codex Sinaiticus dates to about 350AD and contains virtually all of the New Testament.

2. There are multiple and reliable witnesses. In the New Testament, for example, there are multiple authors writing about the life of Jesus. Critical scholars would count at least six — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and probably also “Q”, a collection of sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke referred to.

These sources are all very early. Most scholars date the Gospels to the 60s, 70s and 80s AD, although some argue that Mark, especially, is much earlier. 

British New Testament scholar James Crossley believes Mark was written in the late 30s or early 40s — that’s within a decade of Jesus. Another very early witness is Paul, who is writing his letters between AD48 and AD65, well within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. 

3. The history of the early church to me is also a testimony to the validity of the bible. It had to come from somewhere and if Jesus’ life and career didn’t play out as the Gospels claim, one has to explain where it did come from. 

4. Archaeology has validated much of what is in the bible. 

5. Fulfilled prophecies 

6. Then there is this:The Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.




This is probably my longest post ever on here and I am sure you have a rebuttal for everything I've written, but you asked and here it is


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 29, 2016)

swampstalker24 said:


> This is probably exactly what the guys who invented religion wanted its followers to think.....
> Just how the wizard of oz didn't want anybody peeking behind the curtains!



Probably so....


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> This is probably my longest post ever on here and I am sure you have a rebuttal for everything I've written, but you asked and here it is



Well done


----------



## 660griz (Sep 29, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> This is probably my longest post ever on here and I am sure you have a rebuttal for everything I've written, but you asked and here it is



Yep. Since the rebuttals have been posted a lot. I will not rehash but, thanks for taking the time.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 29, 2016)

660griz said:


> Yep. Since the rebuttals have been posted a lot. I will not rehash but, thanks for taking the time.



No problem


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2016)

660griz said:


> Yep. Since the rebuttals have been posted a lot. I will not rehash but, thanks for taking the time.





jmharris23 said:


> No problem



Yeah.  Lets not rehash the rebuttals ( I don't know if Bullet can resist).  Lets just agree that there _are_ rebuttals.  To what degree do you think the information is accurate?   As likely as the existence of Caligula and as accurate as any recording of things he may have done?  If so, would you believe it if somewhere, maybe even in several places, there were claims that Caligula rose from the dead and ascended into the sky?   Would you say that the Biblical proof is as good as the proof given for Mohammad's ascension?  Why or why not?

I don't think it's the archeological evidence that sways you guys.  You had a personal experience with the Spirit of Christ.  The rest is just window dressing.  So lets talk about the personal experience.  Explain it in such a away that it makes sense.  Explain it in a way that it's incontrovertible.  Explain it so that anyone hearing it is compelled to helplessly believe, so that anyone in denial must clearly be insane.

Things that are true are easily demonstrated.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 29, 2016)

Bullet can resist.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 29, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  Lets not rehash the rebuttals ( I don't know if Bullet can resist).  Lets just agree that there _are_ rebuttals.  To what degree do you think the information is accurate?   As likely as the existence of Caligula and as accurate as any recording of things he may have done?  If so, would you believe it if somewhere, maybe even in several places, there were claims that Caligula rose from the dead and ascended into the sky?   Would you say that the Biblical proof is as good as the proof given for Mohammad's ascension?  Why or why not?
> 
> I don't think it's the archeological evidence that sways you guys.  You had a personal experience with the Spirit of Christ.  The rest is just window dressing.  So lets talk about the personal experience.  Explain it in such a away that it makes sense.  Explain it in a way that it's incontrovertible.  Explain it so that anyone hearing it is compelled to helplessly believe, so that anyone in denial must clearly be insane.
> 
> Things that are true are easily demonstrated.




I don't necessarily agree that things that are true are easily demonstrated. There are lots of things that are true that I can't easily understand. 

I can also believe in things that I haven't personally experienced. 

My answer is simply this. I believe there was a historical Jesus. I believe he did what the Bible says he did. I believe that the gospels which tell that story are historically reliable. I believe I have had a personal experience with that Jesus. 

You can call me delusional, weak, or just simply misinformed. 

I believe all those things and have experienced what I believe is a Supernatural work of The God of the Bible in my life. 

I can't prove I have. I don't believe that you can prove I haven't. 

I'm not trying to dodge your questions but I don't like running in circles, so I chose to try and cut to the chase.


----------



## Merkeller (Sep 30, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> To me that means anything that's conceivable (including an inconceivable being) exists somewhere, even the God of Abraham. Coincidentally, Allah exists in some Universe and Buddah in another and in some Universe they all exist at the same time and in every other permutation possible.



Isn't Allah the God of Abraham (Ibrahim) to begin with?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2016)

Merkeller said:


> Isn't Allah the God of Abraham (Ibrahim) to begin with?


If you go with the facts, yes.
If you go with beliefs, no.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2016)

How come god was so involved for about 6000 years and as soon as the camera was invented, especially the video camera, and double super especially the cell phone and it's almost instant access to the user, this god has not been seen since?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

bullethead said:


> How come god was so involved for about 6000 years and as soon as the camera was invented, especially the video camera, and double super especially the cell phone and it's almost instant access to the user, this god has not been seen since?





Because He wanted us to believe by faith (and word of mouth), not by good, solid, incontrovertible proof.   He's testing us.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I don't necessarily agree that things that are true are easily demonstrated. There are lots of things that are true that I can't easily understand.
> 
> I can also believe in things that I haven't personally experienced.
> 
> ...



That's the meat that I'm talking about.  How did you know it was "His" influence?  How did you determine it was "Him"?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Because He wanted us to believe by faith (and word of mouth), not by good, solid, incontrovertible proof.   He's testing us.


Yeah I am well aware of the excuses,.
We need rational answers


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I don't necessarily agree that things that are true are easily demonstrated. There are lots of things that are true that I can't easily understand.



Like what?  

Like some crazy theoretical math proof?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Yeah I am well aware of the excuses,.
> We need rational answers



They're not necessary.  

"Mysterious ways", "His ways not our ways", "You can't understand His methods",  "He doesn't have to do things your way", "Can't understand with your carnal mind".

They are being told not to question.  That makes me think there's something that needs questioning.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Bullet can resist.



This give me a good laugh


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> The existence of anything is the best argument for God, that and the systematic nature of existence.



Have you ever Googled "matter from nothing"?  Try it and look at one theory.  If it sucks, let's discuss why point by point.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2016)

I will Ambush.  If I recall, these theories use energy as the source of matter, right?  If energy makes matter, where does energy come from?  And so on........I will do the google thing.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 30, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I will Ambush.  If I recall, these theories use energy as the source of matter, right?  If energy makes matter, where does energy come from?  And so on........I will do the google thing.



A vacuum. Where does the vacuum come from? Nothing.
Where does nothing come from? God! So, God created nothing.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I will Ambush.  If I recall, these theories use energy as the source of matter, right?  If energy makes matter, where does energy come from?  And so on........I will do the google thing.




Some of them say that all it takes is a "vibration" for energy/matter to arise and that vibrations are unavoidable.  Some of them say that there's no such thing as "nothing" as we understand it.

Even if what they say is true and like I said before, even if one day Milton Bradley sells "Create Life In a Test Tube" kits for children 8 and up, a believer can still say "God still did it".

It's a philosophical position, impossible to prove.  What I continue to wonder is why someone would opt for such a bizarre philosophical position?  Adding a "guy" into the mix seems so unscientific and superstitious.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

660griz said:


> A vacuum. Where does the vacuum come from? Nothing.
> Where does nothing come from? God! So, God created nothing.



Quite.

One can insert God at any time simply because they want to and it's beyond reproach.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

JB,

Do you take into account any of the theories about _how_ the idea of God(s) might have arisen?  Do you think they make sense?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> JB,
> 
> Do you take into account any of the theories about _how_ the idea of God(s) might have arisen?  Do you think they make sense?



Sure.  But, all the digging, in any part of the world, reveals a culture that believes in a higher power.  Now, either our belief is an evolutionary mechanism, or, we begin with an understanding (made in his image reinforces this).


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> It's a philosophical position, impossible to prove.  What I continue to wonder is why someone would opt for such a bizarre philosophical position?  Adding a "guy" into the mix seems so unscientific and superstitious.



I am not sure it is bizarre if it is the common belief.  Where we disconnect is science. I believe it reinforces my philosophical position, and you see it as deconstructing it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  But, all the digging, in any part of the world, reveals a culture that believes in a higher power.  Now, either our belief is an evolutionary mechanism, or, we begin with an understanding (made in his image reinforces this).





JB0704 said:


> I am not sure it is bizarre if it is the common belief.  Where we disconnect is science. I believe it reinforces my philosophical position, and you see it as deconstructing it.



People have always ascribed agency to natural phenomena that they don't understand.  Almost all those prior beliefs have ended up in the dustbin.  That is a fact.  People still believe in Dragons; real, live dragons, and they've been doing it for the entirety of oral and written history.  That doesn't make them true or add validity to the belief.

Would I be oversimplifying your position if I said that you're proof for God is basically "The God of the Gaps" argument, in that you see complexity and order in the Universe to such a degree that you can't even imagine the possibility of it not being the result of a conscious "being"?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I am not sure it is bizarre if it is the common belief.  Where we disconnect is science. I believe it reinforces my philosophical position, and you see it as deconstructing it.




If you look at some of the beliefs about the causes of illness before Germ Theory was discovered you would call them truly bizarre.  In their day they were cutting edge science.  Do you think it's possible that one day  our descendants might view our belief in God(s) as equally bizarre?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Would I be oversimplifying your position if I said that you're proof for God is basically "The God of the Gaps" argument, in that you see complexity and order in the Universe to such a degree that you can't even imagine the possibility of it not being the result of a conscious "being"?



I think so.  Because God does not reside in the gaps.......and I don't believe he is the magical dot connector.  I believe God is the creator of the universe.  And the "gaps" that science discovers over time reveal the mechanics of creation.  

Lets consider primitive cultures who believed their was a rain God up in the sky that got angry from time to time bringing drought.  I also believe there is a "rain God" up in the sky........the only difference is I believe the "rain God" is the same God of everything else too.  And sure, he can make or stop rain.  That doesn't mean that meteorological advances explaining why droughts occur from a physical perspective are wrong, it just shows how things are done.

So, I see no problem in praying for rain, even though I know I can get the forecast from the weather channel.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think it's possible that one day  our descendants might view our belief in God(s) as equally bizarre?



Yes.  It is possible.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I think so.  Because God does not reside in the gaps.......and I don't believe he is the magical dot connector.  I believe God is the creator of the universe.  And the "gaps" that science discovers over time reveal the mechanics of creation.
> 
> Lets consider primitive cultures who believed their was a rain God up in the sky that got angry from time to time bringing drought.  I also believe there is a "rain God" up in the sky........the only difference is I believe the "rain God" is the same God of everything else too.  And sure, he can make or stop rain.  That doesn't mean that meteorological advances explaining why droughts occur from a physical perspective are wrong, it just shows how things are done.
> 
> So, I see no problem in praying for rain, even though I know I can get the forecast from the weather channel.



I cant get around asking Why?
Why cause the drought? What twisted need is satisfied by kids, women etc starving to death?
Because He got angry? And apparently only angry at those particular people in that particular region for a particular amount of time? Kind of like a temper tantrum?
Worship that? I could acknowledge it, respect the power, fear it etc but worship it?
Not me.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I cant get around asking Why?
> Why cause the drought? What twisted need is satisfied by kids, women etc starving to death?
> Because He got angry? And apparently only angry at those particular people in that particular region for a particular amount of time? Kind of like a temper tantrum?
> Worship that? I could acknowledge it, respect the power, fear it etc but worship it?
> Not me.



Im not sure he always causes the drought.  I don't know if the wheel is spinning and the cycle of nature takes place, or if there is intervention or expansion of the cycle from time to time.  I really don't know.

I do know that understanding negative allows us to experience positive.  I know this gets us nowhere in here, but it is a fact that we would have no joy in the good things if good did not have an alternative.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Im not sure he always causes the drought.  I don't know if the wheel is spinning and the cycle of nature takes place, or if there is intervention or expansion of the cycle from time to time.  I really don't know.
> 
> I do know that understanding negative allows us to experience positive.  I know this gets us nowhere in here, but it is a fact that we would have no joy in the good things if good did not have an alternative.


Sure. If everything was "positive" the word positive wouldnt even need to exist.
I guess it boils down to how much negative one is willing to overlook to be able to still call something positive.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I guess it boils down to how much negative one is willing to overlook to be able to still call something positive.



Yes.  Perspective is everything, it seems.  I think people are very egocentric, not saying that as a negative, but we have a lot of trouble rationalizing beyond our own experiences (see the PF on any discussion of any const. amendment other than the 2nd).  

Our perspective makes us believe the universe revolves around us, and why wouldn't it?  Our experiences are all we have.  But, I would think God's perspective is very different.  I can't justify any of the horrible things you guys will throw back at that, but, I can say that I must assume there is a major impact to positive and negative looking at it from that angle.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2016)

I found this online and it made sense.

A religion which strongly reflects the beliefs of its time is more likely to be a product of its time than of revelation. If a given religion was purely the invention of human beings, we would expect that that religion would bear similarities to its culture of origin. On the other hand, a transcendent or all-knowing deity, or even one that was merely far wiser than human beings, would not be limited by what was known or believed at the time he dispensed a revelation, but could provide new information of which people were not previously aware and which did not correspond to any concepts in their experience. However, when we examine religions, we find that the former and not the latter situation invariably applies. 

Christianity, again, is a perfect example of this. The theology of this religion blends apocalyptic fears, Jewish monotheistic ideals, Greek ethical philosophy, and the worship practices and beliefs of the mystery cults at precisely the time when those things were mixing at a cosmopolitan crossroads of the Roman Empire. Granted, God could decide to reveal his wisdom to humanity at a time and place when it would exactly resemble a syncretistic fusion of the prevailing theologies of the day. However, all else being equal, the principle of Occam's Razor should lead us to conclude that it is nothing more than that. Positing a deity is an extra assumption that is not necessary and gives no additional explanatory power to any attempt to explain the origins of the Christian religion. 

Another way in which this aspect of the Argument from Locality applies is in regard to those religious tenets which state beliefs and approve practices that were widely agreed upon at the time, but that today are recognized to be false or morally wrong. One particularly glaring example is the way the Christian and Jewish scriptures both implicitly and explicitly approve of the practices of human slavery and the institutional inequality of women. Likewise, these writings show no special insight into the workings of the universe other than what was widely known to the people of their time, and make many mistakes common to those who lived in that era - for example, the belief that mental illness and physical disability were caused by demon possession. Again, under the Argument from Locality this is exactly what we should expect: these religions, being the product of those time periods, cannot be expected to show knowledge advanced beyond what the people of those periods possessed. 

In closing, consider what would refute the Argument from Locality. We could have found ourselves living in a world with only one religion, spread throughout the globe, with prophets from among every people. We could have found that, when we first contacted isolated native tribes, their religion was identical to one that already existed rather than being entirely their own. We could have found religions that bore no resemblance to the culture of their time and place of origin, in possession of advanced scientific knowledge or advanced ethical principles totally unlike what was commonly believed at the time. These are reasonable things to expect if there really was a god genuinely interested in revealing itself to humanity and being worshipped. 

But in reality, we find none of these things. What we find are numerous contradictory and conflicting religions, some with specific "chosen" races or ethnicities, and the further separated they are in time and space, the more their beliefs clash. When we encounter previously isolated tribes, their religions are always new and unique. When we examine the ethical codes and scientific knowledge of religions, they always bear strong resemblances to the times and places where those religions originated. Under the assumption of atheism, this is precisely what we should expect. 

One could, of course, argue that this does not prove anything, that God deliberately intended things to be this way. Maybe he has reasons of his own, unknowable to us, for sending his messengers to only one people. Maybe he decided not to disclose advanced knowledge to primitive people. Maybe he allows evil spirits to delude people into creating false religions. Maybe, maybe, maybe - but that is precisely the point. When one believes in supernatural beings that can violate the laws of nature at will and that have motivations inscrutable to humans, all grounds for believing one proposition over another vanish, all knowledge disappears. There is no longer any reason to expect any state of affairs rather than any other. Such a doctrine is impossible to falsify and leads to nothing but epistemic chaos. In explaining anything, theism turns out to explain nothing. 

But atheism does not have the luxury of infinitely imaginative explanations unconstrained by fact. Given a few first principles - physical laws and observations whose existence no one disputes - atheism requires that the world can only be one way, and that is the way we in fact find it to be. Believers may argue why God set up the world in just the one way we would expect it to be if he did not exist, but for a freethinker, the conclusion is obvious.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 30, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I found this online and it made sense.
> 
> A religion which strongly reflects the beliefs of its time is more likely to be a product of its time than of revelation. If a given religion was purely the invention of human beings, we would expect that that religion would bear similarities to its culture of origin. On the other hand, a transcendent or all-knowing deity, or even one that was merely far wiser than human beings, would not be limited by what was known or believed at the time he dispensed a revelation, but could provide new information of which people were not previously aware and which did not correspond to any concepts in their experience. However, when we examine religions, we find that the former and not the latter situation invariably applies.
> 
> ...



Durn, Israel.  I ain't got time to read all dat.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Durn, Israel.  I ain't got time to read all dat.


No problem tigwelderman.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 1, 2016)

bullethead said:


> No problem tigwelderman.



Hey. That's below the belt.


----------



## Israel (Oct 1, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I found this online and it made sense.
> 
> A religion which strongly reflects the beliefs of its time is more likely to be a product of its time than of revelation. If a given religion was purely the invention of human beings, we would expect that that religion would bear similarities to its culture of origin. On the other hand, a transcendent or all-knowing deity, or even one that was merely far wiser than human beings, would not be limited by what was known or believed at the time he dispensed a revelation, but could provide new information of which people were not previously aware and which did not correspond to any concepts in their experience. However, when we examine religions, we find that the former and not the latter situation invariably applies.
> 
> ...





There is that can hold all the contradictions, and shows their origin.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 1, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Durn, Israel.  I ain't got time to read all dat.



Read it as fast as you can.   Don't try to understand it.  The important parts will stick.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2016)

Israel said:


> There is that can hold all the contradictions, and shows their origin.



Yes your stance is well documented.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Hey. That's below the belt.



Mills Lane would have issued each of us a warning.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Read it as fast as you can.   Don't try to understand it.  The important parts will stick.



The first paragraph sets the stage and the rest is examples to back it up.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 1, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Yes your stance is well documented.




Perfect.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> A religion which strongly reflects the beliefs of its time is more likely to be a product of its time than of revelation.
> 
> Christianity, again, is a perfect example of this. The theology of this religion blends apocalyptic fears, Jewish monotheistic ideals, Greek ethical philosophy, and the worship practices and beliefs of the mystery cults at precisely the time when those things were mixing at a cosmopolitan crossroads of the Roman Empire.
> 
> ...




Good stuff, Bullet.

To summarize, if there is one God/one creator, who yearned to be worshipped by his creation, and wanted his creation to follow a set of rules, all of his creation would worship the same God, same rules, same facts.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> But atheism does not have the luxury of infinitely imaginative explanations unconstrained by fact.



 Abiogenisis theories?  Multiverse?  Not to make light of it all, but.........we can fill any gap we want with an explanation if the test for said theory is "possible."  this applies to both sides of this debate.



> atheism requires that the world can only be one way, and that is the way we in fact find it to be. Believers may argue why God set up the world in just the one way we would expect it to be if he did not exist, but for a freethinker, the conclusion is obvious.



For the author to declare what "free thinkers" ought conclude indicates his bias against alternative conclusions, and in doing so, diminishes his entire argument by defining what is possible and realistic through his own lens.   He is using the advantage of hindsight to say "see, I expect this to happen, and since it happened, I am right."  

There are many flaws in his case.  The most obvious is the convenient overlook of the fact that tribes buried deep in jungles have religions also.  Somehow, men evolved on many different continents to worship a higher power?  I think there may have only been one or two purely atheistic tribes ever found.  I don't care how much of a "free thinker" one is, this has to be a big hurdle to cross unless you believe there is an inherent weakness or flaw in our thinking.  

Wouldn't evolution favor the more profitable mindset?  "Free thinkers" over 1000's of years should have won out in the battle for the fittest, and one would expect, using the author's reasoning, to discover multiple atheistic tribes.  These "stronger" tribes should have used reason and scientific advancement to eliminate the weaker thinkers who competed for the same resources.  This should have played out in South America where there was not a lot of outside influence for 10's of 1000's of years.  Yet we found an entire continent of deists. 

Any case can be deconstructed.  I liked the article until the last paragraph, then it became condescending and "preachy."


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Abiogenisis theories?  Multiverse?  Not to make light of it all, but.........we can fill any gap we want with an explanation if the test for said theory is "possible."  this applies to both sides of this debate.


Are those theories of Atheism?





JB0704 said:


> For the author to declare what "free thinkers" ought conclude indicates his bias against alternative conclusions, and in doing so, diminishes his entire argument by defining what is possible and realistic through his own lens.   He is using the advantage of hindsight to say "see, I expect this to happen, and since it happened, I am right."


He is just saying what is, is what can be. What we see and observe is a product of the available chemistry set. 



JB0704 said:


> There are many flaws in his case.  The most obvious is the convenient overlook of the fact that tribes buried deep in jungles have religions also.  Somehow, men evolved on many different continents to worship a higher power?  I think there may have only been one or two purely atheistic tribes ever found.  I don't care how much of a "free thinker" one is, this has to be a big hurdle to cross unless you believe there is an inherent weakness or flaw in our thinking.


We have had in depth discussions that have made great cases about how religion started. To cut to the chase and make it a quick summary, people remember the dead and the dead become god (s). The stories enhance from there.



JB0704 said:


> Wouldn't evolution favor the more profitable mindset?  "Free thinkers" over 1000's of years should have won out in the battle for the fittest, and one would expect, using the author's reasoning, to discover multiple atheistic tribes.  These "stronger" tribes should have used reason and scientific advancement to eliminate the weaker thinkers who competed for the same resources.  This should have played out in South America where there was not a lot of outside influence for 10's of 1000's of years.  Yet we found an entire continent of deists.


Well, religion..organized religion has a good hold on the massses for thousands of years. Simply remembering and honoring the dead turned into worshiping gods when religious leaders realized how profitable and controlling it is. It seems that as people get more advanced there is an evolutionary trend towards less belief in gods. 6000 years ago until as recently as 200 years ago EVERY culture told of dragons, monsters, devils, gods, spells, smites, witches, warlocks, mythical beasts, half men half gods, wizards, magical powers etc etc etc etc....until advancements in capturing and recording RELIABLE evidence seemed to scare all these gods etc into hiding. 
Deep jungle tribes today do not have the outside influences of organized religion or cameras and video and their practices largely resemble the basic beliefs that have gone on for thousands of years. Dead relatives become gods. Forces of nature become gods.
They go with whatever they can understand the best and teach their children to pass it on. 



JB0704 said:


> Any case can be deconstructed.  I liked the article until the last paragraph, then it became condescending and "preachy."


 agreed


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2016)

Bullet, I am not sure I have been part of the discussion including the deceased becoming Gods.  Very interesting thought.......


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

10 Common Misconceptions About Atheism
JONATHAN H. KANTOR SEPTEMBER 30, 
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Because atheism can be construed as antithetical to religion, numerous misconceptions have risen about atheists that simply aren’t factual. Here are ten examples of the most common misconceptions people have about atheists and atheism as a whole.

10 Atheism Is A Religion
The term “religion” is difficult to define. In the United States, a religion is defined as an institution that has a recognized creed, form and place of worship, congregation, and ordained ministers. This definition has nothing to do with a god, but most religions that do worship a god fit this definition. Because atheism is a lack of belief in something, there are no places to worship (or anything to worship), no creed, no congregation, and no ministers.Many people point to atheists on the Internet speaking of the persecution of atheists and other aspects of society they consider to conflict with whatever constitution might govern them as a religion, but that doesn’t work either. Because there is no set of rules or creed tying atheists together, they don’t congregate beyond a simple agreement on something not existing.



9 Atheists Worship The Devil
The belief that atheists worship the Devil stems from the Christian belief that anyone against God is a follower of the Devil. This interpretation is not held by the majority of Christians, but it is prevalent in some communities. Because the Devil falls under the auspices of a god, atheists do not believe it exists. Simply put: One cannot worship a Devil they don’t believe in. The Church of Satan has helped to perpetuate this misconception. The name itself implies that members of the organization worship Satan, but that is not the case. Satanists are atheists and agnostics who don’t worship anything but have instead created an association that follows the belief that, “Man—using his brain—invented all the Gods. [ . . . ] We Satanists are thus our own ‘Gods.’ ” The decision to model the iconography after a devilish form was chosen to mock Christianity and its adherents.

8 Atheists Are Unhappy, Angry People
It is difficult to quantify whether an entire group of nonbelievers is happy or not, but this misconception comes from the Christian belief that a person cannot be happy without God in their lives. There are atheists all over the planet who are unhappy for a plethora of reasons, but the same is true of theists as well.Atheists who voice their opinions can do so with vitriol and seem unhappy. Authors and scientists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins appear to be angry during interviews, but in a lot of ways, they were simply frustrated with the nature of the discussion. Atheists who understand the basics of evolution and cosmology do not want to discuss theology as an opposing viewpoint because it is not applicable to the discussion. When someone tries to bring up the idea of a Crocoduck in a discussion about evolution, an atheist often reacts with frustration and even anger, but that doesn’t mean that they’re generally unhappy people.


7 Atheists Worship At The Altar Of Science
Online discussions with atheists tend to involve topics related to evolution and cosmology. The names of scientists and authors such as Darwin, Hawking, Hitchens, and Dawkins are tossed around as “prophets” of the “religion of atheism,” but not every atheist is scientifically literate. Many are apathetic to the conversation and are not included in the discussion, but the ones who are vocal online tend to be literate of various scientific theories brought up by Creationists and other theists who attempt to use science to justify their theistic world view. Ironically, this has led more people to become scientifically literate so that they can engage in these online discussions. While no atheist would claim to “worship at the altar of science,” many do learn what they can so that they are better informed about the world around them.

6 Atheists Have No Morals
How could anyone have morality without God? That is a question asked by theists who believe that morality is derived from religion. This may be true for them, but there are many people who don’t share religious beliefs but do share the same moral beliefs. Many theists believe that atheists lack a moral compass due to their disbelief in any god and conclude that “there is no such thing as a good atheist,” but this is a broad generalization with no merit whatsoever. Morality is difficult to define because there are countless theories explaining it as a sociobiological evolution or even a logical conclusion. A person’s morality tends to express itself in how they treat other people, and many atheists appear to live according to the policy of treating others as they would like to be treated, also known as the Golden Rule.
5 There Are No Atheists In Foxholes
As an Active Duty Soldier who is also an atheist, I take this misconception personally. Having deployed to combat zones multiple times without suddenly realizing a need for God even while under fire, I can honestly say that I am an atheist in a foxhole.This misconception comes from the belief that a person who is facing imminent danger or death will turn to God. A similar theory is Pascal’s Wager, which is an argument in Christian apologetics which stipulates that a rational person should either seek to believe in God or live as if God exists because if they are wrong, they could suffer eternal CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation, while accepting the wager allows for acceptance into Heaven.It may be true that some have found religion on their deathbeds or even in combat, but there are many who say otherwise, including the author of this list.


4 Atheists Are Intolerant Of Theists
Many believe that there is a general intolerance of theists among all atheists, but this is simply untrue. Online conversations may indicate a specific person whom someone may be intolerant of, but a general dislike of believers is not held throughout the “atheist community.” Conversely, atheists are the least tolerated and trusted group of people in the United States. Many politicians have called for religious tests and the firing of nonbelievers, which is illegal (but still tolerated) “hate speech.” Polls and scientific studies show that religious communities distrust atheists due to their lack of belief and would prefer that they stay out of politics and other public areas.

3 Atheists Are Ignorant When It Comes To Religion(s)
This misconception stems from the belief that someone who doesn’t believe in God is ignorant to His teachings. Because of this, people often proselytize atheists, hoping to educate and convert them. The truth is that most atheists are well-informed when it comes to religions and are usually familiar with several, while most theists are only familiar with their own and may often know less than the atheist they are hoping to convert.A recent study on religious knowledge in the United States found that atheists and agnostics know more about religions than any other group. Many people who now call themselves atheist or agnostic were once active members in a church of some type. Further study of their own religion may have pushed them to look elsewhere and find that they either desired another faith or didn’t believe at all. This thirst for knowledge tends to lead people out of the church and into an atheistic world view.

2 Atheists Are Angry Rebels Who Hate/Oppose God(s)
Many see atheists as rebels who either hate or oppose God, but this misconception fails the logic test. For someone to turn away from their god and religion, they usually come to the conclusion that they simply do not believe. Without belief, there can be no hatred or opposition. This is similar to the misconception that atheists worship Satan. In the same way that a person cannot worship something they don’t believe in, they cannot hate or oppose it, either. This misconception stems from the belief that atheists truly do believe in God and want to rebel against Him. Even if an atheist says otherwise, many believe that because God is in everyone, it is not possible to disbelieve in Him, so an atheist must be rebelling, like Satan, against God.

1 Atheism Is Responsible For The Worst Genocides In Historyhitler

This misconception attempts to place the blame of inhuman acts like the Holocaust on atheism because many dictators of the age were atheists. This is known as the Atheist Atrocities Fallacy and is most often used by theists to prove the evil of atheism with statements like, “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler? They were atheists, and they killed millions!”Those dictators were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but that’s not because they were atheists. In fact, Hitler wasn’t an atheist; he was a devout Christian by his own testament. Stalin was an atheist, but he never killed anyone “in the name of atheism" but rather solely to acheive political or nationalistic goals.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Are those theories of Atheism?



They are theories which examine what is, and conclude what cannot be, then work towards what is possible.  "What cannot be" in many cases is a creative force.



bullethead said:


> He is just saying what is, is what can be. What we see and observe is a product of the available chemistry set.



But, as we always discuss on here, science is constantly pushing the edges of what can and cannot be.......there will always be "unknown unknowns."

To the discussion on deceased evolving into Gods, there is still the hurdle of almost universal application.  How did remote tribes of South America end up in the same places, belief wise, as those in Greenland on the total opposite side of the world?  Unless you accept that all people evolved from a single source (which I think supports our side more than yours), it seems incredibly coincidental that we all tend to think alike.  This goes back to the soul, made in his image, sort of stuff.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, I am not sure I have been part of the discussion including the deceased becoming Gods.  Very interesting thought.......



It makes sense, and we still do it today...as far as talking to the deceased, asking them for guidance, looking up into the sky to acknowledge a friend or family member that has passed.
Now imagine an early tribe that loses a leader and the son now takes over. He asks for guidance from his "father"..the others in the tribe always respected and feared the "father". They give him a burial and place of burial and ceremony that is more grand than the usual  ones. The dead "father" now rules through the son because the son reflects back to "what would dad do?" Or the entire clan gathers together to ask for guidance from their great but deceased leader. In ages where superstition and fear of the unknown truly influenced daily life it is not hard to see how they would do that and if things turned out for the good obviously their dead leader helped them out and if things dod not turn out well obviously they had angered him along the way. Take it and run with that for generations and man becomes legend and legend becomes god all with superstition and the embellishments that follow.

Two tribes meet and now there are two competing gods. Strongest tribe wins...with the help of their god of course...


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> They are theories which examine what is, and conclude what cannot be, then work towards what is possible.  "What cannot be" in many cases is a creative force.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do not think tribes that spread out from each other end up in the same place at all.

There has been research that recently observed Chimpanzee's involved in rituals that involve the placement of sticks and rocks and certain body movements that are similar in style  by many members of the group that would be considered a dance or ritual when it rains. 
One source? Souls? Made in HIS image?

Or

They are primates just like us and do similar things.?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> 10 Atheism Is A Religion



There are similarities to how each side approaches it's belief system.  Sam HArris, for instance, carries a lot of weight with atheists, as the Pope does for many deists.  Add into that patterns of thought and behavior which will adhere to a code (intellectual honesty v spiritual purity type stuff) there are some equivalencies to be found.



bullethead said:


> 9 Atheists Worship The Devil



YEa, I never got that.  Also, I am aware that actual satan worshipers are atheists......it was a very enlightening moment for me in my teenage years when I discovered that.  I realized a lot of what I had been taught was non-sense.



bullethead said:


> 8 Atheists Are Unhappy, Angry People



Nah, I've met and spoken with too many atheists to buy into this one.  Y'all good folks, just see things different than me.  I will say that atheists are almost universally rebelling against something.




bullethead said:


> 7 Atheists Worship At The Altar Of Science



Now this I will agree with in a generic sense.......see NAcho Libre: "I don't believe in God, I believe in SCI-ENCE."  But, there is a strong tendency to take comfort in believing that science will work it out one day.



bullethead said:


> 6 Atheists Have No Morals



My position on this is well documented.



bullethead said:


> 5 There Are No Atheists In Foxholes



I think the author is taking a generic statement too literally.  As we discussed recently, certain situations tend to lead to conversions more so than others.



bullethead said:


> 4 Atheists Are Intolerant Of Theists



Obviously not!  See this forum   I will say that you guys push back on any integration of faith based systems into society.  Sometimes it is almost as militant as the NRA's defense of the 2nd.  In many cases I will agree with your side on this, but sometimes I just scratch my head.



bullethead said:


> 3 Atheists Are Ignorant When It Comes To Religion(s)



Heck no......how else can you guys argue against it if you don't understand it.  In fact, I think most of y'all are converted from another religion (see rebellion comments). 




bullethead said:


> 2 Atheists Are Angry Rebels Who Hate/Oppose God(s)



Angry, no.  Rebels, yes.  Not sure why the author needs to make everything so personal.  But, yes, I do think many of y'all either had negative experiences with faith through family, church, etc. which influenced you to take another look.  It could be the passing of a family member, abuse, neglect, whatever.  I do know of one atheist who says he just couldn't buy it from the get go, but he seems to be the exception (he was raised muslim too, making his atheism very interesting to me, and he is a very good dude).




bullethead said:


> 1 Atheism Is Responsible For The Worst Genocides In Historyhitler



Genocide is generally about power, and religion / non-religion is just the most convenient excuse the perpetrator could find.  I agree with the author on this one.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I do not think tribes that spread out drom each other end up in the same place at all.



Almost universally deist?  I think that is really close given the total disconnect between regions.  Most of the world didn't even know about many of these tribes until 550 years ago.  Crazy how long these people groups were disconnected.  Yet, they all end up worshiping.



bullethead said:


> There has been research that recently observed Chimpanzee's involved in rituals that involve the placement of sticks and rocks and certain body movements that are similar in style  by many members of the group that would be considered a dance or ritual when it rains.



This strikes me as a convenient observation.  WE could also say that wild turkeys are engaging in religious rituals, but the reality is they do that sorta thing when they are looking for love.  This is a primitive instinct directly related to the survival of the species.  Not sure about the chimps, but, I am thinking it's one of those "can't be this so must be this" type things......at first thought.  I am open to reading more.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

Link to chimp article.
http://marketbusinessnews.com/chimpanzees-worship-idols-like-scientists-shocked-fascinated/127551


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> There are similarities to how each side approaches it's belief system.  Sam HArris, for instance, carries a lot of weight with atheists, as the Pope does for many deists.  Add into that patterns of thought and behavior which will adhere to a code (intellectual honesty v spiritual purity type stuff) there are some equivalencies to be found.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are and have been in here the exception to the rule.
You can see those arguments made in these forums many times over by believers.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Almost universally deist?  I think that is really close given the total disconnect between regions.  Most of the world didn't even know about many of these tribes until 550 years ago.  Crazy how long these people groups were disconnected.  Yet, they all end up worshiping.


Well, they all have different deities and that stems from having different relatives that died and became greater in death than they were in life.

Imagine a father, young teenage son and two young woman of the sons age that were swept off course and onto an unihabitated Island that can sustain their needs. This takes place 7000 years ago.
The father is injured and succumbs to his injuries but not before he teaches the other two how to survive. As time goes on the young son reflects back daily on his fathers teachings. He talks about his father with the two women. They have children and they pass on those teachings.  The father is responsible for now generations of family that all made it due to his initial teachings. He is elevated to god like status even if they never worshiped a god before that. Add in hundreds of years and  embellishments to stories and it is now a type of religion.  Problem is the ones in Greenland also have a similar story but it is a different leader they are worshiping.  Same but very different. No actual god cane to set them straight that HE was the one they should be worshiping and that is why they will kill each other if they ever meet because they each think the other is worshiping the "wrong" god.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> This strikes me as a convenient observation.  WE could also say that wild turkeys are engaging in religious rituals, but the reality is they do that sorta thing when they are looking for love.  This is a primitive instinct directly related to the survival of the species.  Not sure about the chimps, but, I am thinking it's one of those "can't be this so must be this" type things......at first thought.  I am open to reading more.



And that certainly is easy to conclude as you and I have never observed a single chimp in the wild let alone have spent years observing a family of chimps in the wild.

Fast foward a short 5 million years later and two of those chimps, one called jb0704 and another called bullethead are typing to each other about a couple of bonobos that hold hands and walk around a crooked stick every full moon...


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2016)

Relevant to deceased relatives becoming gods, it's an interesting thought, Bullet.  Im going to have to ponder a while.  In all honestly, I will not conclude it is correct, but, it is probably the best response to the question I have ever read.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Relevant to deceased relatives becoming gods, it's an interesting thought, Bullet.  Im going to have to ponder a while.  In all honestly, I will not conclude it is correct, but, it is probably the best response to the question I have ever read.




Even I continue to give a look up in the air and thank my grandmother, grandfather and even my mother in law when something that they have told me, taught me or an item that they have left for me has gotten me through the task at hand.
Do I honestly believe that they stepped in and actually did anything at that moment...no.  But certainly they had an influence with what was told to me or given to me prior. But I can see how and why people truly believe a more almost devine influence actually stepped in to intercede.

My gram was an organized handywoman. She had dozens of old coffee cans and tins filled with with nuts, bolts screws, tacks, nails, hooks and any odds or ends you can think of. All seperated and labeled. She kept this stuff (and believe me when i tell you i have no idea how in the world she accumulated all these things because my Pop on that side was a Stamp collector and he was not the handy man type) in an outdoor metal shed with every gardening tool imaginable.  I cannot tell you exactly how many times I am in the middle of a project and i need some oddball screw or nut or tool and a quick trip to my basement yields exactly what i need from Grams stash. "Thank you Grace, you saved my behind yet again" has been muttered a hundred times already.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Relevant to deceased relatives becoming gods, it's an interesting thought, Bullet.  Im going to have to ponder a while.  In all honestly, I will not conclude it is correct, but, it is probably the best response to the question I have ever read.



Do some research on how religions started and who was worshiped early on. It is fascinating reading.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Even I continue to give a look up in the air and thank my grandmother, grandfather and even my mother in law when something that they have told me, taught me or an item that they have left for me has gotten me through the task at hand.
> Do I honestly believe that they stepped in and actually did anything at that moment...no.  But certainly they had an influence with what was told to me or given to me prior. But I can see how and why people truly believe a more almost devine influence actually stepped in to intercede.
> 
> My gram was an organized handywoman. She had dozens of old coffee cans and tins filled with with nuts, bolts screws, tacks, nails, hooks and any odds or ends you can think of. All seperated and labeled. She kept this stuff (and believe me when i tell you i have no idea how in the world she accumulated all these things because my Pop on that side was a Stamp collector and he was not the handy man type) in an outdoor metal shed with every gardening tool imaginable.  I cannot tell you exactly how many times I am in the middle of a project and i need some oddball screw or nut or tool and a quick trip to my basement yields exactly what i need from Grams stash. "Thank you Grace, you saved my behind yet again" has been muttered a hundred times already.



Great story, Bullet.  Funny that is was your Gram who was the handywoman......stories like that usually involve gramps.  

I like to think and ponder the "ripples" we make.  It's an amazing concept to me how our influence will trickle down for 100's of years.  We are the product of our experiences, and those experiences are influenced directly by those we encounter, and the legacy we leave will continue on, regardless of whether or not we lived conscience of the fact.  The whole concept influences so much of everything that I do.

I recently had to have a conversation with a few teachers about some negative "ripples."  Each was certain, and rightly so, that the result was an unintended consequence of words taken very much out of context.  I sympathized with them, but ultimately said "teachers, parents, and ministers make big splashes."   They agreed, and were extremely helpful to the solution.

I am still turning over this idea of the deceased as gods.  Unfortunately, I do not have any great positive influences who have passed on as far as relatives go.  I have had some very close friends pass, a few in particular I'll "reach out to" from time to time, even though this is contradictory to my belief system (I seriously don't think they can hear me).  It's interesting how and why we do the things we do.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Do some research on how religions started and who was worshiped early on. It is fascinating reading.



Will do.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Great story, Bullet.  Funny that is was your Gram who was the handywoman......stories like that usually involve gramps.
> 
> I like to think and ponder the "ripples" we make.  It's an amazing concept to me how our influence will trickle down for 100's of years.  We are the product of our experiences, and those experiences are influenced directly by those we encounter, and the legacy we leave will continue on, regardless of whether or not we lived conscience of the fact.  The whole concept influences so much of everything that I do.
> 
> ...


I have been of the mindset that the afterlife is totally unknown as to if there is one and what it may be. I feel that even if I was lucky enough to live a healthy happy 100yrs it really is not a lot of time. Good, bad or otherwise my actions now will define me long after I am gone and I try to make as positive of an influence to my Sons, family and friends as I can. Hopefully the generations will be kind to my contributions.

I think it will be so cool to have my sons or their children go to the coffee cans of hardware and find just the right part needed to get them through a project. Thanks Grace.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2016)

@the deceased as gods...
It may have taken generations for the deceased person to be frequently thought of and referenced enough by people that knew them directly to elevate them into a god like status later by people who didn't know them.

Take your closest friends for example, have some stories ever been embellished a bit? Not enough to change outcomes but to add a little something over the 50 times you've told it?  Maybe he popped a wheelie on a bicycle or motorcycle and rode it for 10ft, 10 years later at a reunion picnic it turned into 3 car lengths, 20 years later and 4 or 5 beers he rode the wheelie out for a half a block in one sneaker!


----------

