# Heaven



## ambush80 (Mar 26, 2012)

I was looking at the "Do dogs go to Heaven?" thread upstairs and it got under my saddle a bit.  The talking donkeys and giant man eating fish are silly but this Heaven and He11 thing is downright appalling.  

More than belief in the resurrections, Devils and Gods, this notion of people believing in Heaven and He11 makes me sad for the state of mankind.  I can't believe that grown up people have the discussion of what it will be like.  

What do you think are the worst by products of believing in Heaven and He11, either from a psychological stand point or a practical stand point?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 26, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What do you think are the worst by products of believing in Heaven and He11, either from a psychological stand point or a practical stand point?



Flying a passenger plane into a building in the hopes of receiving seventy-two virgins a split second later.

That was the first thing that came to mind, anyway.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 26, 2012)

Someone says:  "Shoot! I know ol hank in up yonder in heaven hawg huntin right now.  An' he's gonna see the biggest hawg of his life.

I also acknowledge the very high number of people who want to go to heaven, they just don't want to do it today!

Also this:  "If God allowed the world to get into the horrible state it's in today, I don't think I want to go to His heaven."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 26, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Flying a passenger plane into a building in the hopes of receiving seventy-two virgins a split second later.
> 
> That was the first thing that came to mind, anyway.



That didn't pop into my mind but that's a good one.
For the most part it eases peoples mind and gives them hope, Heaven that is. He!! or fear of going their might keep some people from doing bad stuff. Growing up in the Church has kept me from doing bad things as a child & teenager because I knew God was watching and I feared him. It didn't work for everyone and not for me all the time.
But you were looking for bad byproducts. Let me think on that some more.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Flying a passenger plane into a building in the hopes of receiving seventy-two virgins a split second later.
> 
> That was the first thing that came to mind, anyway.



That is a good one.
Why do we think those responsible are going to h3ll for doing it and the ones responsible and their followers think they are going to heaven for doing it????


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 26, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I was looking at the "Do dogs go to Heaven?" thread upstairs and it got under my saddle a bit.  The talking donkeys and giant man eating fish are silly but this Heaven and He11 thing is downright appalling.
> 
> More than belief in the resurrections, Devils and Gods, this notion of people believing in Heaven and He11 makes me sad for the state of mankind.  I can't believe that grown up people have the discussion of what it will be like.
> 
> What do you think are the worst by products of believing in Heaven and He11, either from a psychological stand point or a practical stand point?



I find it interesting that you are "appalled" by someone else's beliefs.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 26, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I was looking at the "Do dogs go to Heaven?" thread upstairs and it got under my saddle a bit.



Some folks throw goats in volcanos, and some folks think it's all by chance.  Some folks think we got angels sitting on each shoulder, and some think there is an alien ship on the way.  Everybody is a little strange.  I have my opinion and you have yours. For me, it's a lot better to discuss and enjoy varying perspectives than to try and convince the world you are right and they are dumb.




ambush80 said:


> The talking donkeys and giant man eating fish are silly but this Heaven and He11 thing is downright appalling.



It's what folks do with it which defines its value, I believe.  CP gave one good example.  Sitting on a street corner and telling folks they are going to burn is another.  But.......

......Thinking a deceased loved one is waiting for you, no harm there.  Makes life a little less painful than to see death as a permanent speration.



ambush80 said:


> More than belief in the resurrections, Devils and Gods, this notion of people believing in Heaven and He11 makes me sad for the state of mankind.



Funny, many believers are sad for the state of mankind too.  Looks like you have common ground with the goat herders.



ambush80 said:


> What do you think are the worst by products of believing in Heaven and He11, either from a psychological stand point or a practical stand point?



People who believe in he11 wanting to assist folks' gettin' there (CP's example, crusades, witch hunters, etc.).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 26, 2012)

I thought of a bad byproduct example. The mother who killed her children to guarantee their souls would go to Heaven.


----------



## fish hawk (Mar 27, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I find it interesting that you are "appalled" by someone else's beliefs.



Me too!!!!


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What do you think are the worst by products of believing in Heaven and He11, either from a psychological stand point or a practical stand point?



The use of it as a form of child abuse. If you've ever seen a young child had heaven and he11 explained to them, along with original sin, it's pretty disturbing.

It might not seem that damaging at first glance, but i think child abuse is what jacks the world up, these people are going to grow up to take control of the world...


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 27, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I was looking at the "Do dogs go to Heaven?" thread upstairs and it got under my saddle a bit.  The talking donkeys and giant man eating fish are silly but this Heaven and He11 thing is downright appalling.
> 
> More than belief in the resurrections, Devils and Gods, this notion of people believing in Heaven and He11 makes me sad for the state of mankind.  I can't believe that grown up people have the discussion of what it will be like.
> 
> What do you think are the worst by products of believing in Heaven and He11, either from a psychological stand point or a practical stand point?



Grade B cowboy and war movies, bad poetry--the smell of popcorn.  A grudging tolerance of fellow pagans and athiests. Voting red or blue even when you know they are going to -HE double hockey sticks -  Knowing that He double hockey sticks will be an interesting place for everyone but you. Knowing that the best economics are the ones that correct themselves--regardless of the reality on the ground. Not believing that Heaven is an epiphany just around the corner. Believing that the corner refered to here is a street corner and not a figure of speech.

Hard hearts, entertainment news, not acknowledging a child's imaginary world. The confusions of apples for oranges. A shovel in the face is the only means of securing peace. Daring to fiddle with the sacred such as Editing! The Griswalds Family Christimas to fit the TV commercial and time slots. Belief that we are the generations of generations.

The end of Life Magazine and the belief that a thousand words are better than a picture. Belief that fools might get wiser with age. Being a dove and yet a hawk if you could use it.

Denial of the stream-of-consciousness. Anxiety. Depression and perhaps vise-versa. Not believing that short term memory  goes back 10000 yrs.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Some folks throw goats in volcanos, and some folks think it's all by chance.  Some folks think we got angels sitting on each shoulder, and some think there is an alien ship on the way.  Everybody is a little strange.  I have my opinion and you have yours. For me, it's a lot better to discuss and enjoy varying perspectives than to try and convince the world you are right and they are dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm trying to figure out what I think by hearing what other people think.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> The use of it as a form of child abuse. If you've ever seen a young child had heaven and he11 explained to them, along with original sin, it's pretty disturbing.
> 
> It might not seem that damaging at first glance, but i think child abuse is what jacks the world up, these people are going to grow up to take control of the world...



That's what I'm talking about.  I can't believe my parents allowed me to be exposed to those notions...... The damage was almost irreparable.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> The use of it as a form of child abuse. If you've ever seen a young child had heaven and he11 explained to them, along with original sin, it's pretty disturbing.
> 
> It might not seem that damaging at first glance, but i think child abuse is what jacks the world up, these people are going to grow up to take control of the world...





ambush80 said:


> That's what I'm talking about.  I can't believe my parents allowed me to be exposed to those notions...... The damage was almost irreparable.



Try explaining the naturalists' worldview to them. Let them know that while mommy and daddy love you, you don't really have any type of essential worth or value, the universe just spit you out, then you die and everything goes black, thats the hope you can look forward to.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> That's what I'm talking about.  I can't believe my parents allowed me to be exposed to those notions...... The damage was almost irreparable.



The "damage" to what? What does it _really_ mean that they exposed you to those notions? Does it really matter in the end? 

You seem to indicate that there is some other purpose for your life that didn't inclued hearing these notions.


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Try explaining the naturalists' worldview to them. Let them know that while mommy and daddy love you, you don't really have any type of essential worth or value, the universe just spit you out, then you die and everything goes black, thats the hope you can look forward to.



Children already understand the value, they love doing stuff, having fun, they love mommy and dady, the value and worth in life is obvious.

Explaining death is naturally difficult enough without adding the potential for everlasting torture.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Try explaining the naturalists' worldview to them. Let them know that while mommy and daddy love you, you don't really have any type of essential worth or value, the universe just spit you out, then you die and everything goes black, thats the hope you can look forward to.



Aside from the not having any essential worth or value part, I think that this is more than likely the harsh reality.

RW


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Try explaining the naturalists' worldview to them. Let them know that while mommy and daddy love you, you don't really have any type of essential worth or value, the universe just spit you out, then you die and everything goes black, thats the hope you can look forward to.



AND there you have hit spot on why man had to create God and in turn religion. Instead of the truth, man created a better place to ease the minds when reality sets in that once you are gone....you are gone. You will remember exactly the same after death as you did before you were born....nothing! You will return to the same place...nowhere!

But I think you have missed the mark about not having any essential worth or value. Your time spent on this earth is valued by all the people that you have made a difference to. Good, bad, or otherwise. A person can live forever through the stories about them passed on from generation to generation. In the end, it is all about the contribution you have made while you are here.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> Children already understand the value, they love doing stuff, having fun, they love mommy and dady, the value and worth in life is obvious.


"Doing stuff" and "having fun" equal value? Are you implying that the value and worth do not go beyond the particular person establishing the value and worth? I would again contend that that value and worth is valueless and worthless in any real sense of the words themselves, they mean nothing, really. 



> Explaining death is naturally difficult enough without adding the potential for everlasting torture.


The truth is difficult sometimes.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> Explaining death is naturally difficult enough without adding the potential for everlasting torture.



It's all in the presentation, then, isn't it?

There seems to be this thought that the afterlife is presented as a "believe or burn" ultimatum.  Instead, it can be presented as comfort, as in, don't be afraid of the dark, or giving a kid a teddy bear.  Everlasting torture is not really, or should not be, the motivator in any of it.

As far as telling this to a kid, we pass them our beliefs, it is the priviledge of parenting.  Would you , as an atheist, raise your kids to believe in Jesus?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I would again contend that that value and worth is valueless and worthless in any real sense of the words themselves, they mean nothing, really.



This reminds me of Ecclesiastes: "Meaningless, meaningless!" says the teacher.  "Everything is meaningless!"

I always figured Solomon was depressed when he wrote that.


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> "Doing stuff" and "having fun" equal value? Are you implying that the value and worth do not go beyond the particular person establishing the value and worth? I would again contend that that value and worth is valueless and worthless in any real sense of the words themselves, they mean nothing, really.



Ask a child if they think life has value, is it 'worth it'. They  might get confused. Life is awesome.

Yes, value can be pretty subjective.

val·ueâ€‚

1.relative worth, merit, or importance: the value of a college education; the value of a queen in chess.
2.monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade: This piece of land has greatly increased in value.
3.the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.
4.equivalent worth or return in money, material, services, etc.: to give value for value received.
5.estimated or assigned worth; valuation: a painting with a current value of $500,000.


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> As far as telling this to a kid, we pass them our beliefs, it is the priviledge of parenting.  Would you , as an atheist, raise your kids to believe in Jesus?



I was answering his question about what is the worst part about the heaven / he11 - dogma. I answered. What exactly are you contending? Of course i wont teach my child that Jesus is anything more then a fairy tale for grown ups, i see religion / superstition / spirituality as mentally damaging to children.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> What exactly are you contending?.



That one man's "child abuse" is another man's loving instruction.  Many Christians (NOT ME) might think you are abusing your (future) children by not letting them in on the whole Jesus thing.  These folks would contend you are condemning them to an everlasting torture.....and they truly believe that.  You believe they are abusing their kids by indoctrinating them with a fairy tale.

My point is that telling a kid grandma is in heaven is not really child abuse.


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That one man's "child abuse" is another man's loving instruction.  Many Christians (NOT ME) might think you are abusing your (future) children by not letting them in on the whole Jesus thing.  These folks would contend you are condemning them to an everlasting torture.....and they truly believe that.  You believe they are abusing their kids by indoctrinating them with a fairy tale.
> 
> My point is that telling a kid grandma is in heaven is not really child abuse.



Naturally, My post assumes that there is no deity, and certainly no heaven and - Ihe11.

If i actually believed in the christian dogma it would be abuse not to give my child every chance they could to get to heaven.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Try explaining the naturalists' worldview to them. Let them know that while mommy and daddy love you, you don't really have any type of essential worth or value, the universe just spit you out, then you die and everything goes black, thats the hope you can look forward to.



This is the damage thats done.  I do not want my kids growing up thinking this way. I want them to find value in LIFE and the connections they make along the way.  I want them to think that life is infinitely more valuable then death, and that our actions in life determine who and what we are, not what happens when we die.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I want them to find value in LIFE and the connections they make along the way.  I want them to think that life is infinitely more valuable then death, and that our actions in life determine who and what we are, not what happens when we die.



Even though I am a Christian, I agree with this statement.  There are those who can understand that, though heaven waits, life is a gift while we have it, and every second should be appreciated.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> If i actually believed in the christian dogma it would be abuse not to give my child every chance they could to get to heaven.



I think we are on the same page as far as perspective is concerned, I just don't see the "abuse" in passing along a belief system.  Many good, productive, healthy citizens have been believers.  

There was absolutely damage in the way faith was presented to me as a child, but I was raised more in the "believe or burn" mentality.  There are other, and I believe more appropriate, ways to pass these things along.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

Ridge Walker said:


> Aside from the not having any essential worth or value part, I think that this is more than likely the harsh reality.
> 
> RW



Do you think humans have essential worth and value? If so, then that is most likely not the harsh reality.


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think humans have essential worth and value? If so, then that is most likely not the harsh reality.



You bring this up a lot in bits and pieces. What is your position on worth / value in human life?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> AND there you have hit spot on why man had to create God and in turn religion. Instead of the truth, man created a better place to ease the minds when reality sets in that once *you are gone*....*you are gone*. You will remember exactly the same after death as you did before you were born....nothing! *You will return to the same place*...nowhere!


How can you go nowhere? If you go, that implies that you are going somewhere. So, when you say "you are gone" where are you going? Maybe you should say, "that person no longer exists'"



> But I think you have missed the mark about not having any essential worth or value.


Essential meaning necessary, is worth or value really necessary if we are but a spawn of an indiferent universe?



> Your time spent on this earth is valued by all the people that you have made a difference to. Good, bad, or otherwise.


I agree, but does that value really mean anything other than what a particular person wants it to be? If that be the case, what if a man picks a certian person, places no value on that life, and murders them? He assigned the value he wanted for that life.



> A person can live forever through the stories about them passed on from generation to generation.


I think you should have put the words live forever in quotations, meaning they can't really live forever. I will agree with your statement and will ask, so? Does that really mean anything to the person who stories are being told after they die? It goes back to the question of what does it really mean to have value and worth while one is here, if it's all meaningless in the end, does it really matter in the grand scheme?



> In the end, it is all about the contribution you have made while you are here.



I can partially agree with you here, I think we just differ on who we are contributing to. It think I am contributing to a personal God who loves me and I think you are ultimately contributing to a self admitted lost cause.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> You bring this up a lot in bits and pieces. What is your position on worth / value in human life?



I think we, as humans, get worth and value from God, by being created in His image and by the love and gracet that He offers us. I think it makes life sacred, along with a lot of other things.

I can think of no other way of inherent value, worth or sacredness without a loving God.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> You bring this up a lot in bits and pieces. What is your position on worth / value in human life?



Also, I bring it up a lot because many points and arguments are made from simply assuming value,worth,rights,purpose and sacredness of life.

There are many points that can be argued about where we get these descriptions of life from, but I like to find out where people get their premise from in an argument.


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I think we, as humans, get worth and value from God, by being created in His image and by the love and gracet that He offers us. I think it makes life sacred, along with a lot of other things.
> 
> I can think of no other way of inherent value, worth or sacredness without a loving God.



So by being created by god, something becomes valuable?

You're defining things such that an atheist can never meet your criteria, much like you do with morality. You cannot continue to ask how an atheists defines morality and how an atheist finds value in life when your definition of morality is gods will and your definition of value is granted by god.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Also, I bring it up a lot because many points and arguments are made from simply assuming value,worth,rights,purpose and sacredness of life.
> 
> There are many points that can be argued about where we get these descriptions of life from, but I like to find out where people get their premise from in an argument.



Yet you get everything you get by first assuming god. Which is an infinitely larger assumption then assuming those values based on just life.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> This is the damage thats done.  I do not want my kids growing up thinking this way. I want them to find value in LIFE and the connections they make along the way.  I want them to think that life is infinitely more valuable then death, and that our actions in life determine who and what we are, not what happens when we die.



I second what JB says about this post. As a christian I agree with it also.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Yet you get everything you get by first assuming god. Which is an infinitely larger assumption then assuming those values based on just life.



I am not just assuming God, I have many reasons to believe in God, and can draw conclusions about life based on that. 

Assuming is more along the lines of saying, "humans have great value". The assumption is that we get value from something but where? Other than what we make up in our minds.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

Four said:


> So by being created by god, something becomes valuable?


Humans become valuable, because we are made in His image.



> You're defining things such that an atheist can never meet your criteria, much like you do with morality. You cannot continue to ask how an atheists defines morality and how an atheist finds value in life when your definition of morality is gods will and your definition of value is granted by god.



It isn't my criteria, to me, it's logic's criteria. How do humans have worth or value that _really_ mean something apart from God? If we are a product of an indifferent universe, we mean nothing, we are worth nothing, we have no ulitimate purpose, there is no ultimate justice for anything, and so on and so on.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How can you go nowhere? If you go, that implies that you are going somewhere. So, when you say "you are gone" where are you going? Maybe you should say, "that person no longer exists'"
> 
> 
> Essential meaning necessary, is worth or value really necessary if we are but a spawn of an indiferent universe?
> ...



String, you make it way more technical than it needs to be. You(everyone) are either alive or dead. Before you were alive where were you and what do you remember? It is going to be the same once dead.

Your time alive will define who you were for future generations. You will be remembered for your deeds by the people those actions have touched. It can be positive or negative or somewhere in between. It is up to the individual to lead the life that they want remembered because when dead, memories of you by the living is all that is left. It may be how a person lives eternally.... through the memories of others. A person that has died could be praised or cursed for as long as they are remembered.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It isn't my criteria, to me, it's logic's criteria. How do humans have worth or value that _really_ mean something apart from God? If we are a product of an indifferent universe, we mean nothing, we are worth nothing, we have no ulitimate purpose, there is no ultimate justice for anything, and so on and so on.



Its like telling a blind person you can get from point a to point b by following the red line on the floor.  To them there is no red line so they go a different route but you continue to yell at them saying you cannot get there unless you follow the red line!


----------



## pjmax (Mar 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> ...Your time spent on this earth is valued by all the people that you have made a difference to. Good, bad, or otherwise. A person can live forever through the stories about them passed on from generation to generation. In the end, it is all about the contribution you have made while you are here.



Yes. 

Certainly not the worst by product, but waiting on a reward when it's a fine day seems a waste. I think you got one shot and little time.



ambush80 said:


> I can't help it if someone thinks that I am burning in He11.  That's their problem



From a previous thread.  I agreed. Also not the worst by product but obviously troubling if they not just think but they also care.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> *String, you make it way more technical than it needs to be*. You(everyone) are either alive or dead. Before you were alive where were you and what do you remember? It is going to be the same once dead.


I make life more complicated than it needs to be? I don't have a clue how complicated it really is.



> Your time alive will define who you were for future generations. You will be remembered for your deeds by the people those actions have touched. It can be positive or negative or somewhere in between. It is up to the individual to lead the life that they want remembered because when dead, memories of you by the living is all that is left. It may be how a person lives eternally.... through the memories of others. A person that has died could be praised or cursed for as long as they are remembered.


Agreed. I'm not really talking about memories though, I am speaking more of value and worth.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Its like telling a blind person you can get from point a to point b by following the red line on the floor.  To them there is no red line so they go a different route but you continue to yell at them saying you cannot get there unless you follow the red line!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

pjmax said:


> Yes.
> 
> Certainly not the worst by product, but waiting on a reward when it's a fine day seems a waste. I think you got one shot and little time.


I don't think enjoying or "seizng" the day is a bad things in any way, I think it is a great think, but I add the hope of whats to come after the day.





> From a previous thread.  I agreed. Also not the worst by product* but obviously troubling if they not just think but they also care.*



Not sure what you mean here.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I am not just assuming God, I have many reasons to believe in God, and can draw conclusions about life based on that.
> That is rationalizing an assumption.
> Assuming is more along the lines of saying, "humans have great value". The assumption is that we get value from something but where? Other than what we make up in our minds.



Humans themselves have only the value they build in the relationships with other humans.  Value is assesed by how they percieve themselves to be worth compared to what others value their worth to them.  We are all created equal, but our value changes.  LIFE has great value, to the individual possesing it, and values life that is of importance to that individual.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Humans themselves have only the value they build in the relationships with other humans.  *Value is assesed by how they percieve themselves to be worth compared to what others value their worth to them*.  We are all created equal, but our value changes.  LIFE has great value, to the individual possesing it, and values life that is of importance to that individual.



I am speaking more along the lines of grand scheme value and worth, not necessarily that you value your neighbor for helping you in the yard. If a person does not have instrinsic value or worth then the value or worth placed on a particular human by other humans means nothing. 

Why is it so bad to believe in a God who loves everyone?


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I am speaking more along the lines of grand scheme value and worth, not necessarily that you value your neighbor for helping you in the yard. If a person does not have instrinsic value or worth then the value or worth placed on a particular human by other humans means nothing.



What grand scheme?  Why does there have to be one? What would really change? 

If you found out for a fact that there is no god, would you value your loved ones any less? Does your wife / child / parents need to have been created in a divine image for you to value them? Do you think you would have no value if not for divine creation?



stringmusic said:


> Why is it so bad to believe in a God who loves everyone?



Without the terrible bible baggage, i see it as not that bad. Much like i see believing in Santa... that's not me being condescending, that is genuinely how i see belief in god.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I am speaking more along the lines of grand scheme value and worth, not necessarily that you value your neighbor for helping you in the yard. If a person does not have instrinsic value (we don't) or worth then the value or worth placed on a particular human by other humans means nothing. (It means something to them)
> Why is it so bad to believe in a God who loves everyone?



There is no inherent evil in believing anything.  It is the application of belief that can be problematic.  Your beleif is not everyones belief. Using your belief to justify morals, ethics, values or any other relative term, you immediately nulliffy any definition of those terms that do not start with your god. It is impossible to validate _any_ universal principal for mankind if we cannot start with a common denomintor.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I make life more complicated than it needs to be? I don't have a clue how complicated it really is.
> 
> 
> Agreed. I'm not really talking about memories though, I am speaking more of value and worth.



Not life, my answers to the previous questions.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Humans become valuable, because we are made in His image.



I think it is sad that this is what it takes for you to see value in human life. If you're wrong in this assumption and the reality is there is no god to be made in the image of, that we are just one of many species that evolved without any supernatural intervention then life becomes meaningless and without value for you?


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Mar 27, 2012)

...


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 27, 2012)

Jeff Phillips said:


> ...



I like it.
Today, there are thousands of experts on the 'boom of nothing'.

If I were atheist, there's no way I could believe it.  I would have to plead dumb on the entire subject of the beginning.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 27, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I like it.



But will our atheist friends?  Methinks they will take issue with it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2012)

Some atheists think there has always been something.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 27, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What do you think are the worst by products of believing in Heaven and He11, either from a psychological stand point or a practical stand point?



Fear, especially at a young age when one is vulnerable and impressionable.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 27, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Fear, especially at a young age when one is vulnerable and impressionable.


My parents scared me with all kinds of stories. Besides Heaven & He11, they told me if i ventured into the woods the boogerman would get me. They also told me that "N" word people would cut my "minner" off if i ventured into where they were.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2012)

I am a Christian that does not believe in eternal torment. Let me give an example. I have a friend who's father died about 5 years ago. Most respected man. Yet this man was not a Christian. Now if I were to try to sell him [the son/my friend] the "get saved or burn", what do you think that he would think. If that were true, then he would have to accept that his honorable father was burning in he11 right now. Being punished by God. Would this make him say, wow I'd better convert, or would it make him hate God. I say the latter. This "burn"   notion is not from God.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I am a Christian that does not believe in eternal torment. Let me give an example. I have a friend who's father died about 5 years ago. Most respected man. Yet this man was not a Christian. Now if I were to try to sell him [the son/my friend] the "get saved or burn", what do you think that he would think. If that were true, then he would have to accept that his honorable father was burning in he11 right now. Being punished by God. Would this make him say, wow I'd better convert, or would it make him hate God. I say the latter. This "burn"   notion is not from God.



Another good example about how religion is adapting to the morality of the culture.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

Jeff Phillips said:


> ...



I can play!


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I am a Christian that does not believe in eternal torment. Let me give an example. I have a friend who's father died about 5 years ago. Most respected man. Yet this man was not a Christian. Now if I were to try to sell him [the son/my friend] the "get saved or burn", what do you think that he would think. If that were true, then he would have to accept that his honorable father was burning in he11 right now. Being punished by God. Would this make him say, wow I'd better convert, or would it make him hate God. I say the latter. This "burn"   notion is not from God.



This is exactly what I was thinking as I stood by my grandfathers coffin last year. He happened to be an Assembly of God pastor for many years. He was the finest man I've ever known. For me to believe I would have to believe that this fine man if he had not believed in Jesus would deserve to burn in the most horrible place imaginable for all eternity. Complete and utter nonsense. The people that made up this garbage hung themselves with their own rope.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I can play!



I think we can we find abstract and ridiculous ways to ridicule any belief, or non-belief, system.  Everybody who has a system thinks the other guy's is crazy.  It all sounds goofy if we don't think beyond the insults (which go both ways on this forum).


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Fear, especially at a young age when one is vulnerable and impressionable.



And the self loathing that comes from being taught that one is born worthy of eternal punishment of the worst kind because of Adam.   That definitely causes psychological damage.



JB0704 said:


> I think we can we find abstract and ridiculous ways to ridicule any belief, or non-belief, system.  Everybody who has a system thinks the other guy's is crazy.  It all sounds goofy if we don't think beyond the insults (which go both ways on this forum).



Which parts of those things that Four posted were incorrect?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Which parts of those things that Four posted were incorrect?



None but it's all out of context. You have to have it in the right context for it to make sense.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> None but it's all out of context. You have to have it in the right context for it to make sense.




You mean the context of "If it says that it happened that way in the Book then it's true"?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You mean the context of "If it says that it happened that way in the Book then it's true"?



"God said it, I believe it."


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> And the self loathing that comes from being taught that one is born worthy of eternal punishment of the worst kind because of Adam.   That definitely causes psychological damage.



I agree. Thankfully, the damage is not irreparable. Fear is the means by which religion controls the masses. If you take away fear and reward, the religious hucksters would go out of business.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I agree. Thankfully, the damage is not irreparable. Fear is the means by which religion controls the masses. If you take away fear and reward, the religious hucksters would go out of business.



That's also why they target children.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Which parts of those things that Four posted were incorrect?



Which parts of those things that JP posted were incorrect? 

The point is that the ridiculous factor is relevant to the perspective of the individual making such a judgement.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You mean the context of "If it says that it happened that way in the Book then it's true"?



Isn't context everything in these discussions?  

You believe in nothing creating everything.  Some would find a logical fallacy in such a position.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Some atheists think there has always been something.



http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=675195&highlight=

"Moreover, this completed set of causes is highly structured in time and in ontic dependence, through relationships which are irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive. Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed and specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds it place. Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. That is, there is in it at least one "cause," one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.

If this were not so, Voyager's passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of events. In simplest terms, its causes would never "get to" it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before dominoe x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it.) Since Voyager II is past Triton, there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it. Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: a being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent."


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> That's also why they target children.



Absolutely. When it comes to soul winning, or acquiring professions of faith, the younger the better. I was raised in that system of religion. My parents enrolled me into the church nursery. They allocated their responsibility of protecting me, to others.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> They allocated their responsibility of protecting me, to others.



Do you believe using a nursery is a negative?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 28, 2012)

Four said:


> What grand scheme?  Why does there have to be one? What would really change?


The universe,life,humans,relationships, the whole shabang.
I don't know why there is a one, but we are here, so there is one. 



> If you found out for a fact that there is no god, would you value your loved ones any less? Does your wife / child / parents need to have been created in a divine image for you to value them? Do you think you would have no value if not for divine creation?



I would still value my loved ones, it just wouldn't mean anything outside of my little world.

Yes, I would have no value if not for being created by God. Who or what would place that value? People? again, that doesn't really mean there is any real value there.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Which parts of those things that JP posted were incorrect?
> 
> The point is that the ridiculous factor is relevant to the perspective of the individual making such a judgement.



The most obvious to me is that atheism makes no claims to physics abiogenesis or the origins of the universe. So the title is mislabeled.

If we assume maybe we replace the term atheist with 'known science' or some such, we can then point out that the nothings should be replaced, that the magic should be replaced, that "no reason" isn't scientifically relevent...


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I think it is sad that this is what it takes for you to see value in human life. If you're wrong in this assumption and the reality is there is no god to be made in the image of, that we are just one of many species that evolved without any supernatural intervention *then life becomes meaningless and without value for you*?



I guess I could make some stuff up.

What if I decide that the meaning I want is to murder Jews and the value they have is worthless? Who's to say I'm wrong in my value and meaning judgement? You could give me a great article again on secular ethics or UPB's, put I don't have to buy that stuff, it matters not in the end, right?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=675195&highlight=
> 
> ...



Put all those words in a hat, shake em up and dump em on the floor and it would read about the same to me.
Explain that in layman's term for me String.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The univers,life,humans,relationships, the whole shabang.
> I don't know why there is a one, but we are here, so there is one.



You're just describing life, not the scheme, you make it sound like there is a big plan, Why is that a requirement for value? If you accidently conceived a child, is it worth less because it wasn't apart of a plan?



stringmusic said:


> I would still value my loved ones, it just wouldn't mean anything outside of my little world.



You would love them... but they wouldn't have value, so love isn't valuable?



stringmusic said:


> Yes, I would have no value if not for being created by God. Who or what would place that value? People? again, that doesn't really mean there is any real value there.



Why do you only see value as legitimate if given by a deity? What makes a deity more qualified to assign value than a person.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I guess I could make some stuff up.
> 
> What if I decide that the meaning I want is to murder Jews and the value they have is worthless? Who's to say I'm wrong in my value and meaning judgement? You could give me a great article again on secular ethics or UPB's, put I don't have to buy that stuff, it matters not in the end, right?



sounds like the bible is the only thing keeping you from being a moral nihilist at best, and a psychopath at worst 

Maybe it's just you have a hard time understanding the idea of organisation without authority?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I guess I could make some stuff up.
> 
> What if I decide that the meaning I want is to murder Jews and the value they have is worthless? Who's to say I'm wrong in my value and meaning judgement? You could give me a great article again on secular ethics or UPB's, (b)ut I don't have to buy that stuff, it matters not in the end, right?



Then you would be denying logic and reason, things we ALL have equal access to, and become the moral arbiter.  You may even claim that you get your morality from your interpretation of a book, any book; like you are now.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Do you believe using a nursery is a negative?



I believe it can be and it doesn't end there. A few years ago, I worked for a company where child pornography was found on the general manager's computer. He was also the youth director of a large church in the Atlanta area. Instead of calling the police, the owner of the business took it to the man's pastor. He admitted his addiction to his wife and his pastor. He resigned his position. I don't know where he is today but he may very well be a youth director somewhere.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

Four said:


> If we assume maybe we replace the term atheist with 'known science' or some such, we can then point out that the nothings should be replaced, that the magic should be replaced, that "no reason" isn't scientifically relevent...



...and I could bring up the words zombie and magic.  It goes both ways.

But, I would think atheism assumes abiogensis.  It would have to.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ...and I could bring up the words zombie and magic.  It goes both ways.



...Words that fall into the realm of the supernatural; which is what you believe in.



JB0704 said:


> But, I would think atheism assumes abiogensis.  It would have to.



Not really.  There are MANY different theories held by many different atheists. They're based on logical deductions and theoretical hypothesis.  None of which include the supernatural.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ...and I could bring up the words zombie and magic.  It goes both ways.
> 
> But, I would think atheism assumes abiogensis.  It would have to.



I think the term magic is apropriate.. from webster 



> an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source



Zombie is certainly somewhat accurate depending on who you ask, the walking dead, reanimation of a body, dieing and coming back to life...  obviously both these terms are concepts for things that don't exist, so there is a fairly wide margin for the definitions. Also i agree the words were used to make it seem as silly as possible.

Also to note abiogenisis is a field, not a theory... although it might be easy to say that atheism assumes abiogenesis, atheism makes no claims in and of itself about these things.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I believe it can be and it doesn't end there. A few years ago, I worked for a company where child pornography was found on the general manager's computer. He was also the youth director of a large church in the Atlanta area. Instead of calling the police, the owner of the business took it to the man's pastor. He admitted his addiction to his wife and his pastor. He resigned his position. I don't know where he is today but he may very well be a youth director somewhere.



I agree, it's very important for the emotional development of a child to spend as much time as possible while developing with it's parents.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I guess I could make some stuff up.
> 
> What if I decide that the meaning I want is to murder Jews and the value they have is worthless? Who's to say I'm wrong in my value and meaning judgement? You could give me a great article again on secular ethics or UPB's, put I don't have to buy that stuff, it matters not in the end, right?



And you very well could do that.  But you would be held accountable by society, not for improperly assessing their value but by violating their RIGHTS!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I guess I could make some stuff up.
> 
> What if I decide that the meaning I want is to murder Jews and the value they have is worthless? Who's to say I'm wrong in my value and meaning judgement? You could give me a great article again on secular ethics or UPB's, put I don't have to buy that stuff, it matters not in the end, right?



...or interpret it from a book, or have it revealed to you telepathically from the sky by a being of unfathomable size and power.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> ...Words that fall into the realm of the supernatural; which is what you believe in..



I believe we both do.  We have argued that point many times.



ambush80 said:


> ...Not really.  There are MANY different theories held by many different atheists. They're based on logical deductions and theoretical hypothesis.  None of which include the supernatural.



Without a creator, how did life get here or anywhere?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I think the term magic is apropriate.. from webster........ Zombie is certainly somewhat accurate depending on who you ask, the walking dead, reanimation of a body, dieing and coming back to life...  obviously both these terms are concepts for things that don't exist, so there is a fairly wide margin for the definitions. Also i agree the words were used to make it seem as silly as possible..



In red:  That is my point.  It goes both ways.  We can both use linguistically correct terms to make each other's position sound as ridiculous as we want.  It does neither side any good, IMHO, except the percieved intellectual superiority gained by the one doing the mocking. 



Four said:


> Also to note abiogenisis is a field, not a theory... although it might be easy to say that atheism assumes abiogenesis, atheism makes no claims in and of itself about these things.



Yes, but without a creator, it created itself.  One would have to believe in the other.  I understand the atheist position does not state a claim, but it has to accept such a claim to be atheist....otherwise, it is agnostic.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I believe we both do.  We have argued that point many times.



And as Four pointed out, if it happened in the natural world then it is a natural process.  No supernatural claims about anything needed.





JB0704 said:


> Without a creator, how did life get here or anywhere?



Who knows?  The only requirement for something to be an atheistic position is that it doesn't include god (or FSM or Geneva tea pot).


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> In red:  That is my point.  It goes both ways.  We can both use linguistically correct terms to make each other's position sound as ridiculous as we want.  It does neither side any good, IMHO, except the percieved intellectual superiority gained by the one doing the mocking.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but without a creator, it created itself.  One would have to believe in the other.  I understand the atheist position does not state a claim, but it has to accept such a claim to be atheist....otherwise, it is agnostic.



The theory that all the matter has always been is atheistic.  I don't subscribe to it because I don't personally have a reference for the Infinite.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> And as Four pointed out, if it happened in the natural world then it is a natural process.  No supernatural claims about anything needed.



If God happened in the natural world then God is a natural process as well.



ambush80 said:


> Who knows?  The only requirement for something to be an atheistic position is that it doesn't include god (or FSM or Geneva tea pot).



Wouldn't abiogenesis have to have occured somewhere if there was never a catalyst (God) involved?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The theory that all the matter has always been is atheistic.  I don't subscribe to it because I don't personally have a reference for the Infinite.



Then, are you agnostic, or do I not grasp atheism the way you do?  Just curious.......


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If God happened in the natural world then God is a natural process as well.



True that.  Wouldn't be anything supernatural about him.  




JB0704 said:


> Wouldn't abiogenesis have to have occured somewhere if there was never a catalyst (God) involved?



See post #90


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Then, are you agnostic, or do I not grasp atheism the way you do?  Just curious.......



I have never seen evidence of god or unicorns and I don't believe in unicorns.  I think you can see where this goes.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 28, 2012)

There was a creator we just don't know what it is, and it does not have to be a diety.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If God happened in the natural world then God is a natural process as well.



Yup



JB0704 said:


> Wouldn't abiogenesis have to have occured somewhere if there was never a catalyst (God) involved?



abiogenesis is the study of the inorganic to organic, i guess you could believe that organic compounds always existed and still be a atheist, although science would disagree.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

Four said:


> Yup.



And, if one is to believe God is part of the natural world, then all of this "supernatural" is actually natural, and a bit easier to "buy," much in the same manner many atheists believe in infinite qualities of matter.   Infinite anything is more than we currently know, we only hypothesize.  I don't see how one position is intellectually superior to the other.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And, if one is to believe God is part of the natural world, then all of this "supernatural" is actually natural, and a bit easier to "buy," much in the same manner many atheists believe in infinite qualities of matter.   Infinite anything is more than we currently know, we only hypothesize.  I don't see how one position is intellectually superior to the other.



Yea, that's one of the paradoxes of god. You might say God is supernatural, but by definition, the supernatural doesn't exist. If it did, it would be natural.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And, if one is to believe God is part of the natural world, then all of this "supernatural" is actually natural, and a bit easier to "buy,"



Like resurrection and other miracles?  Then I suppose it's time to talk about the probability that it could have happened or review any documentation.  We tried that with the talking donkey thread and much to my disappointment, very little evidence was brought forth.




JB0704 said:


> much in the same manner many atheists believe in infinite qualities of matter.   Infinite anything is more than we currently know, we only hypothesize.  I don't see how one position is intellectually superior to the other.



I think adding a "deity" or "conscious force" to the equation is a pretty tall leap and one which we have absolutely no reference for.  I've heard theories that suggest that the Universe expands and contracts.  That would explain the evidence of a "starting point" but not necessarily something from nothing.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Like resurrection and other miracles?  Then I suppose it's time to talk about the probability that it could have happened or review any documentation.



Now, plug any of the current theories which hypothesize about the origins of existence where you have "resurection and other miracles."  You can ask anybody who makes such a claim "show me the proof." They will also meet the dead ends believers run into. I have documentation, just not a smoking gun.  But, it's all an exercise in logic.




ambush80 said:


> I think adding a "deity" or "conscious force" to the equation is a pretty tall leap and one which we have absolutely no reference for. .



Is a "deity" any more illogical than infinite matter or matter "poofing" itself into existence? I will ask for proof of both positions, and get jsut as much as you did with the talking donkey thread. Existence is the starting point for both systems.



ambush80 said:


> I've heard theories that suggest that the Universe expands and contracts.  That would explain the evidence of a "starting point" but not necessarily something from nothing.



And that's the problem.  It doesn't explain where it all came from.  It's all outside the realm of known possibility.  Existence itself is "supernatural" when we consider it from that perspective.  Or it is "natural," but no more than a God would be.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Now, plug any of the current theories which hypothesize about the origins of existence where you have "resurection and other miracles."  You can ask anybody who makes such a claim "show me the proof." They will also meet the dead ends believers run into. I have documentation, just not a smoking gun.  But, it's all an exercise in logic.



Theorizing about the origins of the universe is a very different thing than claiming that a person rose from the dead.  We have reference that indicates that such a thing isn't possible.  Never happened, never will; except in certain books. 




JB0704 said:


> Is a "deity" any more illogical than infinite matter or matter "poofing" itself into existence? I will ask for proof of both positions, and get jsut as much as you did with the talking donkey thread. Existence is the starting point for both systems.



The notion of a deity is a complete fabrication.  There is no reference for it.  Nothing in our world is similar to it or indicates that it exists.




JB0704 said:


> And that's the problem.  It doesn't explain where it all came from.  It's all outside the realm of known possibility.  Existence itself is "supernatural" when we consider it from that perspective.  Or it is "natural," but no more than a God would be.



Your last statement would be true if god ( or unicorns or leprechauns) were real.  There just isn't any sufficient proof of them.  I'd have to take your word for it or "feel it" for myself I suppose.  But I have to "feel it" before I can "feel it", right?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Theorizing about the origins of the universe is a very different thing than claiming that a person rose from the dead.  We have reference that indicates that such a thing isn't possible.  Never happened, never will; except in certain books.



We are going in circles here, but, when was the last time matter "poofed" itself into existence. 



ambush80 said:


> The notion of a deity is a complete fabrication. .



Or, it is the answer we are looking for.



ambush80 said:


> There is no reference for it.  Nothing in our world is similar to it or indicates that it exists.?



We see things that are here, and we know they got here from somewhere.  Within our known universe we understand that things are created.  The planets were created.  The sun was created.  Who or what created it is the question.  But the existence is the reference point.  




ambush80 said:


> Your last statement would be true if god ( or unicorns or leprechauns) were real.  There just isn't any sufficient proof of them.  I'd have to take your word for it or "feel it" for myself I suppose.  But I have to "feel it" before I can "feel it", right?



Ambush, I have never used my "feelings" in any of these conversations with you.  I personally don't think any "feeling" is necessary to believe in God.  It is a logical conclusion based on the fact of existence.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Theorizing about the origins of the universe is a very different thing than claiming that a person rose from the dead.  We have reference that indicates that such a thing isn't possible.  Never happened, never will; except in certain books.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have to know that you're in the minority(worldwide) with practically all the above comments.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 28, 2012)

As I began reading all the posts that began rather early this morning and continued through the morning, I realized how thankful I am that I can be assured that I'm not the pathetic, moron that many of the atheist were depicting me to be.
Otherwise, it could effect my ego.

.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You have to know that you're in the minority(worldwide) with practically all the above comments.



So would the 10yr old and under children that do not believe in Santa, compared to the other children 10 and under worldwide that do.........

So is your point because more believe that somehow majority makes it true?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I guess I could make some stuff up.



Sure. Wouldn't be the first time. 




stringmusic said:


> What if I decide that the meaning I want is to murder Jews and the value they have is worthless? Who's to say I'm wrong in my value and meaning judgement? You could give me a great article again on secular ethics or UPB's, put I don't have to buy that stuff, it matters not in the end, right?



Basically adopt the ethics of Saddam Hussein... Well you certainly have the freedom to do that don't you? Whether your god really exists or not you can go that route. In fact what's to stop you from claiming that god told you to murder Moabites and the value they have is worthless? Who's to say you're wrong or your god is wrong assuming those voices in your head amount to more than a case of schizophrenia? No one apparently because you have already conceded your acceptance of divine command theory. Now if you are taking such a position as a mere mortal you are free to do so but in so doing you remove yourself from the reciprocal claim making process and expect others to make an exception on your behalf, holding you outside the moral principles that you expect them to remain within. It boils down to nothing more than a case of special pleading. And if you're a Saddam Hussein type maybe you can muster enough force to impose your will but from the standpoint of rational ethics you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So would the 10yr old and under children that do not believe in Santa, compared to the other children 10 and under worldwide that do.........
> 
> So is your point because more believe that somehow majority makes it true?



Not at all.
But narrative often sounds as though it's the head of the class talking to the two dummies of the class.
There is a remote possibility that isn't the case.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Not at all.
> But narrative often sounds as though it's the head of the class talking to the two dummies of the class.
> There is a remote possibility that isn't the case.



Yep. No less remote than the myriad cultures throughout history where you and your religious views would be a minority...


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 28, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You have to know that you're in the minority(worldwide) with practically all the above comments.



The majority of humans lack intelligence (see 2008 election). If thinking like that puts him in the minority, count me in.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 28, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> The majority of humans lack intelligence (see 2008 election). If thinking like that puts him in the minority, count me in.



I can't argue that point!
But that isn't the type parallel I was trying to draw.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> We are going in circles here, but, when was the last time matter "poofed" itself into existence.



I have no experience with such a thing.  But I have less experience with gods "poofing" things, except in literature, all of it, arguably should belong in the fiction section.




JB0704 said:


> Or, it is the answer we are looking for.



It's neither elegant or simple.  




JB0704 said:


> We see things that are here, and we know they got here from somewhere.  Within our known universe we understand that things are created.  The planets were created.  The sun was created.  Who or what created it is the question.  But the existence is the reference point.



What are your thoughts about the theory that the universe expands and contracts continuously?  Is it possible?  Do we not have examples of how things happen in repeated patterns?



JB0704 said:


> Ambush, I have never used my "feelings" in any of these conversations with you.  I personally don't think any "feeling" is necessary to believe in God.  It is a logical conclusion based on the fact of existence.



Is "faith" a better word?  I believe that 'faith' and 'feelings' have alot in common.  I think they could be used interchangeably in this discussion.  Your 'logical' conclusion is predicated by faith.  God isn't a given.  Ever.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What are your thoughts about the theory that the universe expands and contracts continuously?  Is it possible?  Do we not have examples of how things happen in repeated patterns?.



I think it is very possible, but it still leaves the OC issue unresolved.  I do not know how God "created the heavens and the Earth."  For all I know he very well could have created a "god particle" and then let things roll on from there understanding that life would evolve here (and quite possibly elsewhere).  Science helps us understand many of the "how's" it just doesn't give us an answer to "from where."   You call it God of the gaps, I call it a logical conclusion.  It is an assumption, but based on what we do know....we are here, we came from somewhere or something.




ambush80 said:


> Is "faith" a better word?  I believe that 'faith' and 'feelings' have alot in common.  I think they could be used interchangeably in this discussion.  Your 'logical' conclusion is predicated by faith.  God isn't a given.  Ever.



Some folks will say they "feel" that they are correct.  I do not base my core belief in God on feelings.  I believe in God, as explained, as a logical conclusion to the "where did we come from" question.  But, my faith in Jesus is predicated by faith in the documentation we have of the man's life and ministry.

So, God isn't a given.  When it comes to origins the only "given" we have is our current existence, then we work backwards in time with logic and science to reach the conclusion that makes the most sense.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I think it is very possible, but it still leaves the OC issue unresolved.  I do not know how God "created the heavens and the Earth."  For all I know he very well could have created a "god particle" and then let things roll on from there understanding that life would evolve here (and quite possibly elsewhere).  Science helps us understand many of the "how's" it just doesn't give us an answer to "from where."   You call it God of the gaps, I call it a logical conclusion.  It is an assumption, but based on what we do know....we are here, we came from somewhere or something.



How does replacing a universe that has always existed with a god that has always existed? It seems like adding an additional variable that doesn't actually help the problem.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> How does replacing a universe that has always existed with a god that has always existed? It seems like adding an additional variable that doesn't actually help the problem.



There is still an uncaused cause in the whole scenario however you look at it.  Instead of adding a variable, I am hypothesizing the source cause.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> How does replacing a universe that has always existed with a god that has always existed ? It seems like adding an additional variable that doesn't actually help the problem.



It actually complicates the problem.  Now there's this "being" involved, with a conscience and a will?  What does he want?  How will I know? Is he nice?  Should we burn up a goat for him?  Why is that simple and elegant or logical?

Simple and elegant is "We're here because we're here".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> There is still an uncaused cause in the whole scenario however you look at it.  Instead of adding a variable, I am hypothesizing the source cause.



Is that REALLY necessary?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Simple and elegant is "We're here because we're here".



Where did we come from?  Not so simple anymore.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Where did we come from?  Not so simple anymore.



We've (all the stuff) always been here.  Simple enough?


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> There is still an uncaused cause in the whole scenario however you look at it.  Instead of adding a variable, I am hypothesizing the source cause.



Well we KNOW the universe exists... but we dont KNOW god exists, so speculating about a diety to explain a god we know exist isn't helpful.

It doesn't solve the uncaused cause problem, so what does it solve? I only see it adding unnecessary complexity with no benefit.

You might as well hypothesize that the source cause is the universe itself, why add god? We could add a god that created a god too, but that to doesnt help.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> We've (all the stuff) always been here.  Simple enough?



Everything is infinite?

Ok, as long as you can stop making fun of my belief in an infinite God.   You have your infinite matter (OC), and I have an infinite God (OC).


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Is that REALLY necessary?



I believe so.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> It doesn't solve the uncaused cause problem, so what does it solve? I only see it adding unnecessary complexity with no benefit..



It gives us a cause....



Four said:


> You might as well hypothesize that the source cause is the universe itself, why add god? We could add a god that created a god too, but that to doesnt help.



The universe is a tangible, unintelligent thing.  You believe a tangible unintelligent thing created itself, and my belief in God is unreasonable?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Everything is infinite?
> 
> Ok, as long as you can stop making fun of my belief in an infinite God.   You have your infinite matter (OC), and I have an infinite God (OC).



I don't "believe" in the infinite.  I guess I'm just saying what Four said.  You can make up a god that made god and then one before that or you could just say the stuff was here.  That's kind of what I see from my naturalistic experience.  I showed up and the stuff was here.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It gives us a cause....
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is a tangible, unintelligent thing.  You believe a tangible unintelligent thing created itself, and my belief in God is unreasonable?



Things happen.  That's my observation.  You can assign whatever cause you like to a "bump in the night".


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It gives us a cause....



eh? so it boils down to it gives you a warm fuzzy?



JB0704 said:


> The universe is a tangible, unintelligent thing.  You believe a tangible unintelligent thing created itself, and my belief in God is unreasonable?



You're creating a straw man. I never said any of that.

We've got a question, right? We know there exists the universe. We want to know how it got hear, was it created? did it already exist? are we in a multi-verse? Whatever. The question is regarding the origins (if any) of the universe.

You put forth the problem of "but what happened before then" You then postulated that a deity created the universe. I simply criticized this solution because that doesn't help solve the question you posed. Adding another unknown variable and placing it before the creation of the universe get's us no closer than we were before, it's a distraction.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I don't "believe" in the infinite.  I guess I'm just saying what Four said.  You can make up a god that made god and then one before that or you could just say the stuff was here.  That's kind of what I see from my naturalistic experience.  I showed up and the stuff was here.



I follow.  I understand that stuff was here when I got here, but I know I and it wasn't always there.  The Earth is about 13 billion years old.  But it did have a beginning.  So, that leads me to believe that stuff begins and ends.  Just like you and me.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> eh? so it boils down to it gives you a warm fuzzy?



No.  Again, everything I am aware of a beginning, I believe science can explain that the universe had a beginning.  Like I said to Ambush, things begin and end, but what was the original cause?





Four said:


> You're creating a straw man. I never said any of that.?



You said that I might as well hypothesize that the source of the universe is the universe.  I demonstrated why such a position would not be logical for me.  Not a straw man, just a response.



Four said:


> You put forth the problem of "but what happened before then" You then postulated that a deity created the universe. I simply criticized this solution because that doesn't help solve the question you posed. Adding another unknown variable and placing it before the creation of the universe get's us no closer than we were before, it's a distraction.



I disagree.  Whether we are just one iniverse in a system of many, or the next universe in a series of many, we will always have a question as to where did it come from.  I, understanding how things begin and end, believe everything has a beginning.  An uncaused cause.  If there is no "God," (your position), then "stuff" is the original cause.  I tend to reject such a position because of the unintelligent, non-creative qualities of the "stuff" in the universe.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I follow.  I understand that stuff was here when I got here, but I know I and it wasn't always there.  The Earth is about 13 billion years old.  But it did have a beginning.  So, that leads me to believe that stuff begins and ends.  Just like you and me.



When I say "stuff" I mean all the particles and energy, the stuff that I'm made of.  I suppose that would mean that "I" might have been here the whole time just changing my arrangement.  Kind of poetic.  It gives me the warm fuzzies.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> When I say "stuff" I mean all the particles and energy, the stuff that I'm made of.  I suppose that would mean that "I" might have been here the whole time.



But, how many different types of particles must be infinite in order for such a position to be accurate?  To me, the odds get less favorable to such a position because we would have to have mroe than one infinite "thing" in our universe.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No.  Again, everything I am aware of had a beginning, I believe science can explain that the universe had a beginning.  Like I said to Ambush, things begin and end, but what was the original cause?



You're creating an axiom, then violating it. 

1. Everything has a beginning and end
2. there exists something that doesn't have a beginning or end.

If we create the axiom 1. then there cannot be 2. By asking what was the original cause, you break your axiom.

So which is it? does everything have a beginning and an end or was there an original cause?



JB0704 said:


> I disagree.  Whether we are just one iniverse in a system of many, or the next universe in a series of many, we will always have a question as to where did it come from.  I, understanding how things begin and end, believe everything has a beginning.  An uncaused cause.  If there is no "God," (your position), then "stuff" is the original cause.  I tend to reject such a position because of the unintelligent, non-creative qualities of the "stuff" in the universe.



Again, your creating an axiom then breaking it. If you believe in an uncaused cause, you don't/cannot believe that everything has a beginning.

Even if we assume there is an uncaused cause, why would we assume it is a diety, which we have very little / no evidence for, instead of the universe itself, which we know to exist?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But, how many different types of particles must be infinite in order for such a position to be accurate?  To me, the odds get less favorable to such a position because we would have to have mroe than one infinite "thing" in our universe.



How many is too many, since we're talking about made up ideas?


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> You're creating an axiom, then violating it.
> 
> 1. Everything has a beginning and end
> 2. there exists something that doesn't have a beginning or end.
> ...



Good post.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> 1. Everything has a beginning and end



Yes.  From what I understand, even the amount of energy in the universe is slowly diminishing.  That which we aware of is progressing to an end.  Does an end imply a beginning?



Four said:


> 2. there exists something that doesn't have a beginning or end.



Yes, if everything begins and ends, and everything exists, then it's existence must be from another end's beginning, which leads to infinite regress, but each end requires a beginning.....or something which does not operate under the rules which we are aware of.



Four said:


> So which is it? does everything have a beginning and an end or was there an original cause??



Both. As explained.  Name something we know of which exists which did not begin.  The universe, I believe, has been proven to have a beginning.  So, we understand that it started somewhere, and could be the 13 billionth universe to have ever existed, but, from where did the existence come from originally.  No motter how many times you regress, eventually there must be an original cause.



Four said:


> Again, your creating an axiom then breaking it. If you believe in an uncaused cause, you don't/cannot believe that everything has a beginning.?



Yes I can.  Let's define "everything" as the knowns or knowables.  They are tangible, and available for observation.  They came from somewhere. 



Four said:


> Even if we assume there is an uncaused cause, why would we assume it is a diety, which we have very little / no evidence for, instead of the universe itself, which we know to exist?



Because matter and energy do not create themselves.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How many is too many, since we're talking about made up ideas?



Not sure, but each one adds another variable, thus diminishing possibility, doesn't it?

Didn't you present the idea of everything being infinite?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I follow.  I understand that stuff was here when I got here, but I know I and it wasn't always there.  The Earth is about 13 billion years old.  But it did have a beginning.  So, that leads me to believe that stuff begins and ends.  Just like you and me.



How do you know that?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  From what I understand, even the amount of energy in the universe is slowly diminishing.  That which we aware of is progressing to an end.  Does an end imply a beginning?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Some hypothesize that it expands and contracts.   It's slowing down now, will stop expanding, contract to a point and then expand again.  At some point during that expansion, 13billion years later perhaps, some bipedal apes will wonder where they came from and invent god.




JB0704 said:


> Because matter and energy do not create themselves.



Because, why?



JB0704 said:


> Not sure, but each one adds another variable, thus diminishing possibility, doesn't it?
> 
> Didn't you present the idea of everything being infinite?



It's an idea.  I didn't make it up but I can apply it to energy or matter or unicorns (which I don't have any evidence for).


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> How do you know that?



Science.  I believe it is pretty well known that the Earth began about 13 billion years ago.  I am pretty sure I began about 32 years ago.  I can't remember how old they think the universe is, but scientifically, we can pretty much prove the universe began at one point, as it is currently expanding, which implies it is expanding from somewhere.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Some hypothesize that it expands and contracts.   It's slowing down now, will stop expanding, contract to a point and then expand again.  At some point during that expansion, 13billion years later perhaps, some bipedal apes will wonder where they came from and invent god.



Was there a first expansion?




ambush80 said:


> Because, why?



Could you fill me in on a situation where matter and energy created themselves from nothing?  I am pretty sure if we create a vacuum, with no matter or energy, we will never see it crete itself.  It's just logic.




ambush80 said:


> It's an idea.  I didn't make it up but I can apply it to energy or matter or unicorns (which I don't have any evidence for).



Ok.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  From what I understand, even the amount of energy in the universe is slowly diminishing.  That which we aware of is progressing to an end.  Does an end imply a beginning?



All this means is that unless energy stops decreasing, there will be a heat death of the universe. Some speculate a universe contracting, but i think the expansion of the universe is outpacing the strength of gravity.

However, we don't really need to argue that it had a beginning. I was willing to accept your premise.



JB0704 said:


> Yes, if everything begins and ends, and everything exists, then it's existence must be from another end's beginning, which leads to infinite regress, but each end requires a beginning.....or something which does not operate under the rules which we are aware of.



You see the contradiction? Yes the rules might change, but you can use a rule to support something that violates the rule, it doesnt make sense.



JB0704 said:


> Both. As explained.  Name something we know of which exists which did not begin.  The universe, I believe, has been proven to have a beginning.  So, we understand that it started somewhere, and could be the 13 billionth universe to have ever existed, but, from where did the existence come from originally.  No motter how many times you regress, eventually there must be an original cause.




I don't think the universe has proven to have a beginning, but like i said, we'll run with it.



JB0704 said:


> No matter how many times you regress, eventually there must be an original cause.



Again, if this is true, than not everything has a beginning and an end, which invalidates your premise.



JB0704 said:


> Yes I can.  Let's define "everything" as the knowns or knowables.  They are tangible, and available for observation.  They came from somewhere.



No, you cant, you cant create a universal rule, then break it, because to do so makes the rule not universal. Also, i don't want to define everything as the knowns or knowables, everything is everything, known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.



JB0704 said:


> Because matter and energy do not create themselves.



Then what is god? and how would it create anything without energy or matter? You cant make up a 'god' that can create itself / everything but say that it's impossible for the universe to.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704, this is the form of your argument.

1. All humans are mammel -> Universal rule
2. Jim is not a mammel -> claim that invalidates universal rule 
3. Jim is human -> non sequitur


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Again, if this is true, than not everything has a beginning and an end, which invalidates your premise..



No. We are on different pages here.  Everything (stuff) begins and ends.   Natural cycles.  What started it.

My answer = God (the OC)
Your answer = nothing (the OC)

I am saying that the rules are what they are.  And if something which exists came from nothing, then there must be something beyond nothing to have created something.  It's not my axiom, it just is what it is.  



Four said:


> No, you cant, you cant create a universal rule, then break it, because to do so makes the rule not universal. Also, i don't want to define everything as the knowns or knowables, everything is everything, known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns..



Then let's go with that.  Assume there is no God.  Everything is starting and stopping.  What then is the cause which made it start starting?  If everything is infinite, isn't that more complicated then saying something (God) is infinite?



Four said:


> Then what is god? and how would it create anything without energy or matter? You cant make up a 'god' that can create itself / everything but say that it's impossible for the universe to.



I am not making up a God here.  I have asked the question many times, and have only gotten responses about universes and my poor creation of universal rules.

What are the givens:
1. We exist.
2. We came from the Earth
3. The Earth came from dust
4. The dust came from the universe

......where did the univere come from?  Everything in the line comes from something else.

I am saying there is a singular infinite.  The only alternative is infinite matter (every type of particle) being infinite.  Why is God so hard to accept if that is the only other alternative?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> JB0704, this is the form of your argument.
> 
> 1. All humans are mammel -> Universal rule
> 2. Jim is not a mammel -> claim that invalidates universal rule
> 3. Jim is human -> non sequitur



I like the way I laid it out better. See my last post.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Was there a first expansion?



Don't know but not necessarily. 



JB0704 said:


> Could you fill me in on a situation where matter and energy created themselves from nothing?  I am pretty sure if we create a vacuum, with no matter or energy, we will never see it crete itself.  It's just logic.




That would be something, wouldn't it?  If it happened would we irrefutably have to say that god did it?  

If anything "poofed" before your eyes would "god did it" be your explanation?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If anything "poofed" before your eyes would "god did it" be your explanation?



Depends on what was "poofing," I suppose, and what valid explanations would exist to the contrary.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No. We are on different pages here.  Everything (stuff) begins and ends.   Natural cycles.  What started it.
> 
> My answer = God (the OC)
> Your answer = nothing (the OC)
> ...



I see that stuff gets recycled; conservation of energy, anyone?



JB0704 said:


> Depends on what was "poofing," I suppose, and what valid explanations would exist to the contrary.



Could be anything.  A plasma field, a flying spaghetti monster, whatever.  I suppose the more fantastical, the more suspicious it would be.  What if a kid with polio poofed into your yard?  would you say god did it?

Maybe it just happened?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe it just happened?



Which is more logical than it being caused?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I see that stuff gets recycled; conservation of energy, anyone?



Did it ever get recycled the first time?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Science.  I believe it is pretty well known that the Earth began about 13 billion years ago.  I am pretty sure I began about 32 years ago.  I can't remember how old they think the universe is, but scientifically, we can pretty much prove the universe began at one point, as it is currently expanding, which implies it is expanding from somewhere.



You are just a new arrangement of pre-existing matter and energy. So is the earth (may want to check those dates but that is beside the point). Every atom comprising your body did not begin with you, they already were. So where is this beginning that you speak of?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Which is more logical than it being caused?



If an acorn poofed onto my keyboard right now as I am typing I would look for a cause.  "who threw that acorn at me".  Seeing no one else around and no hole in the roof I would assume that there was something wrong with my perception.  If the MRI and the psychological exam came out fine I would say  "an acorn poofed onto my desk".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Did it ever get recycled the first time?



It's really weird.  You insist on a 'first time' except for god.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You are just a new arrangement of pre-existing matter and energy. So is the earth (may want to check those dates but that is beside the point). Every atom comprising your body did not begin with you, they already were. So where is this beginning that you speak of?



Ok.  The Earth is 4.6 billion years old.  Thanks for the correction.  I am pretty certain I am 32, though.

Beginnings:

I was born
The Earth was born

Is your premise that every atom that exists is infinite, And an infinite God is somewhat unrealistic


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's really weird.  You insist on a 'first time' except for god.



I am only asking you which is more logical, that everything, every atom, always was, or one thing always was.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I am only asking you which is more logical, that everything, every atom, always was, or one thing always was.



The numbers don't really matter when we're talking about a notion that only exists in theory.  What seems unlikely and what we REALLY have no reference for is a deity.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What seems unlikely and what we REALLY have no reference for is a deity.



Nor do we have a reference for infinite.  Everything we see begins and ends.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

You guys like to make fun of believers for making stuff up, but your responses are_ infinite _unintelligent "stuff" acted on itself to create all the "stuff" we see.  Or, that everything just "poofed" itself into existence.

I would like for somebody to fill me in on how that is any more logical than my position.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Nor do we have a reference for infinite.  Everything we see begins and ends.





JB0704 said:


> You guys like to make fun of believers for making stuff up, but your responses are_ infinite _unintelligent "stuff" acted on itself to create all the "stuff" we see.  Or, that everything just "poofed" itself into existence.
> 
> I would like for somebody to fill me in on how that is any more logical than my position.



What do we have more reference for, a zillion ever lasting particles or one, single magic bean?


Do you know of any time that energy has been destroyed; vanished from existence?  What does logic tell you about how long energy has been around?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  The Earth is 4.6 billion years old.  Thanks for the correction.  I am pretty certain I am 32, though.
> 
> Beginnings:
> 
> ...



My premise is that we know of no case where something had a true beginning that wasn't preceded by something. If you trace everything in the universe back to the big bang you get to a point where all energy and space consolidates to one point. Everything was there. If you take a step back from that point it's a question mark. We don't know if the source was a previous universe that collapsed on itself and then expanded in part of a never ending cycle. We don't know if this universe was birthed out of some eternal multiverse. We don't know if it popped out of absolutely nothing. We don't know if Zeus lit the fuse, or Yaweh, or any other myriad gods. Perhaps an alien in some other universe had a science experiment go wrong... or right... I think you get the point. The bottom line is we cannot currently point to a known absolute beginning for anything. What we do know though is that over every horizon we have managed to peek up to this point the landscape only stretched even further. Now we are looking at a horizon called the big bang. You want to say with certainty that that is the final horizon beyond which can only be your god. That's ok if that is what you want to do but let's at least have the honesty to admit it for the speculation that it is. And had we accepted such answers in previous times we wouldn't have even got to this horizon.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What do we have more reference for, a zillion ever lasting particles or one, single magic bean??



Neither.  So, which position is superior?  I only bring it up because I see a lot of percieved intellectual superiority in this forum sometimes.




ambush80 said:


> Do you know of any time that energy has been destroyed; vanished from existence?  What does logic tell you about how long energy has been around?



Two questions here:
1. No. 
2. A very long time.

Now, if I can follow up with a few questions for you:
1. Do you know of any time that energy has created itself?
2. What does logic tell you about infinite unintelligent "stuff" creating "stuff."

I am pretty certain the amount of energy in the universe is being disorder slowly, and in effect diminishing, which implies that it is effectively not infinite.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> The bottom line is we cannot currently point to a known absolute beginning for anything. What we do know though is that over every horizon we have managed to peek up to this point the landscape only stretched even further. Now we are looking at a horizon called the big bang. You want to say with certainty that that is the final horizon beyond which can only be your god.



No, if you read back you will find that I have said it could be the 13 billionth big band.  My point is that it was a beginning.  The natural cycle is beginnings and endings.  



atlashunter said:


> That's ok if that is what you want to do but let's at least have the honesty to admit it for the speculation that it is. And had we accepted such answers in previous times we wouldn't have even got to this horizon.



I tend to believe it is a logical conclusion based on speculation about the origins of existence.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No. We are on different pages here.  Everything (stuff) begins and ends.   Natural cycles.  What started it.
> 
> My answer = God (the OC)
> Your answer = nothing (the OC)
> ...



So can we agree that not everything has a start and an end? Because regardless either the universe itself must not have a beginning, or god doesnt have a beginning.



JB0704 said:


> Then let's go with that.  Assume there is no God.  Everything is starting and stopping.  What then is the cause which made it start starting?  If everything is infinite, isn't that more complicated then saying something (God) is infinite?



When you say everything is starting and stopping, you mean that matter is rearranging itself constantly. After all, we're all stardust 

I say that an infinite god is more complicated and unnecessary than an infinite universe.  At least we know the universe exists (we're in it!) We even have the law of conservation of matter (it cannot be created or destroyed, only changed)

note: when i saw infinite universe i just mean that the total matter has always exited.



JB0704 said:


> I am not making up a God here.  I have asked the question many times, and have only gotten responses about universes and my poor creation of universal rules.
> 
> What are the givens:
> 1. We exist.
> ...



Matter / energy exists, it cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. the observable universe is 13.7 or so billion years old, if there exists something farther than 13.7 billion light years away, the light hasn't reached us yet.

If we just roll with the vanilla big bang theory, we assume that at some point the entire universe was a small spec on infinitely dense energy. You could even say the universe did not exist at this point.. or that the universe was the size of a pin head.

Now, all that matter within that pinhead is the same matter that we are made up of, as well as everything else. at the point of explosion, it formed the first matter atoms (hydrogen, helium, etc)

Now the question is posed... what happened before that? The answer is, i don't know, and neither do you. Was it a big contraction? Maybe it always existed? It was certainly the beginning of time, as time requires movement and distance. Hawking has said that if there was time before the big bang, it would forever be inaccessible to us, and irrelevant to posture as it would have no effect on us.

However, adding a deity answers no questions, and just muddy s the water.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I am pretty certain the amount of energy in the universe is being disorder slowly, and in effect diminishing, which implies that it is effectively not infinite.



Its not going away though, its being turned into matter.

You can go back and forth turning matter into energy and vica verca.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> You can go back and forth turning matter into energy and vica verca.



Yep, beginnings and endings.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yep, beginnings and endings.



yet conserved, indefinately


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> So can we agree that not everything has a start and an end? Because regardless either the universe itself must not have a beginning, or god doesnt have a beginning.



http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=6829362&postcount=70


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> yet conserved, indefinately



Ok, so we are left with infinite unintelligent particles (which I do not accept, as it seems if things transfer from one to the other, from which point did they begin?) or an infinite God creating the universe.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok, so we are left with infinite unintelligent particles or an infinite God creating the universe.



We are left with a limited amount of matter/energy that has always existed. Or a divine creator that has always existed.

That is a dichotomy that we've created in our discussion.... I would not be so bold as to say that those are the only possibilities as i might be leaving myself open for someone who studies this professionally to smack me around 

Also, you seem to be using the term 'unintelligent a lot, why are you stressing intelligence as it relates to matter / energy. So far as i know intelligence is fairly subjective, but even then the only forms of known intelligent matter are human beings...



JB0704 said:


> (which I do not accept, as it seems if things transfer from one to the other, from which point did they begin?)



From which point does a circle begin? Once again i find you putting an intense amount of scrutiny on anything that might not have a beginning EXCEPT a deity, which seems completely immune


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Neither.  So, which position is superior?



You and I both know about particles.  Neither of us know anything about magic beans except what we have read in books.  If by superior you mean based on something we know about, have extensive evidence for and have been studied tested and documented then......



JB0704 said:


> I only bring it up because I see a lot of perceived intellectual superiority in this forum sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As far as I know, energy has never been created or destroyed.  Creation implies a will; a motive.  Why is that so important to you?  Is the simpler answer to my question about the acorn appearing out of nowhere 'god'?   Really?  If all the energy/matter has been here does it change the way that you live?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> My premise is that we know of no case where something had a true beginning that wasn't preceded by something. If you trace everything in the universe back to the big bang you get to a point where all energy and space consolidates to one point. Everything was there. If you take a step back from that point it's a question mark. We don't know if the source was a previous universe that collapsed on itself and then expanded in part of a never ending cycle. We don't know if this universe was birthed out of some eternal multiverse. We don't know if it popped out of absolutely nothing. We don't know if Zeus lit the fuse, or Yaweh, or any other myriad gods. Perhaps an alien in some other universe had a science experiment go wrong... or right... I think you get the point. The bottom line is we cannot currently point to a known absolute beginning for anything. What we do know though is that over every horizon we have managed to peek up to this point the landscape only stretched even further. Now we are looking at a horizon called the big bang. You want to say with certainty that that is the final horizon beyond which can only be your god. That's ok if that is what you want to do but let's at least have the honesty to admit it for the speculation that it is. And had we accepted such answers in previous times we wouldn't have even got to this horizon.



As my dad would say "intellectually rich but spiritually bankrupt".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No, if you read back you will find that I have said it could be the 13 billionth big band.  My point is that it was a beginning.  The natural cycle is beginnings and endings.
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to believe it is a logical conclusion based on speculation about the origins of existence.



The natural cycle is to recycle.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=6829362&postcount=70



Willard's a boob.  Asath took him apart.  You should find another hero.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No, if you read back you will find that I have said it could be the 13 billionth big band.  My point is that it was a beginning.  The natural cycle is beginnings and endings.



What you are calling beginnings and endings is really transformations. Nothing magical about that. So what exactly is your point?



JB0704 said:


> I tend to believe it is a logical conclusion based on speculation about the origins of existence.



No more logical than any other speculative explanation that has no supporting evidence. I gotta say, the god of the gaps doesn't have a track record to be proud of. Time after time the theists explanations for natural phenomena have been proven wrong. Their response? Give god the credit for the natural explanation and move on to the next gap in our knowledge. I remember quite well growing up in a christian home and attending churches where the big bang theory was ridiculed as a bunch of nonsense. Funny to now see christians giving god the credit for it.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> So what exactly is your point?.



You say the universe is recycling the same stuff repeatedly.  You also say that there is no way to see beyond the first bang.  By default, from our perspective, the first bang would be a beginning then, wouldn't it.

My point is that you are claiming a position which is no more supportable than mine.  Your (pl) position seems to be "I don't know how it happened, but it wasn't God."

In the words of Atlashunter: "How do you know that?"



atlashunter said:


> No more logical than any other speculative explanation that has no supporting evidence.



Again, my evidence is beginnings.  Which you (pl) seem to think you have nullified by stating energy is infinite, and so is matter.  I simply do not see the logic in such a position.  It seems a long way to go to assume an infinite amount of particles have been in existence for infinity.  Thats a lot of speculation, and no more comprehensible than the existence of a creator.

I will claim God, and you (pl) can stick with the magical mystery infinite particles.  I am sure we will both sleep well.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The natural cycle is to recycle.



Then how could it all be infinite?  It starts and stops.  There had to be a first start.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> As far as I know, energy has never been created or destroyed.  Creation implies a will; a motive.  Why is that so important to you?  Is the simpler answer to my question about the acorn appearing out of nowhere 'god'?   Really?  If all the energy/matter has been here does it change the way that you live?



No, it doesn't change the way I live.  But, I simply do not agree that infinite everything is simpler than a single infinite cause.  I don't know how else to say it.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> That is a dichotomy that we've created in our discussion.... I would not be so bold as to say that those are the only possibilities as i might be leaving myself open for someone who studies this professionally to smack me around



It is interesting that you willingly rule out one while giving credibility to the other.



Four said:


> Also, you seem to be using the term 'unintelligent a lot, why are you stressing intelligence as it relates to matter / energy. So far as i know intelligence is fairly subjective, but even then the only forms of known intelligent matter are human beings...:



Yes, because if you are correct, the universe is an unimagineable circumstance of chance.  All the laws / energy / particles that exist would be here for nothing, to do nothing, yet they did everything.  I don't see why that makes sense.  Existence is not a universal mandate.   Why would there be infinite energy to begin with?  Unintelligent stuff with no reason for existing is given a lot of power in your system




Four said:


> From which point does a circle begin? Once again i find you putting an intense amount of scrutiny on anything that might not have a beginning EXCEPT a deity, which seems completely immune



The circle begins where I beging to draw it, or build it.  It does not exist on it's own.  It is created.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> I was answering his question about what is the worst part about the heaven / he11 - dogma. I answered. What exactly are you contending? Of course i wont teach my child that Jesus is anything more then a fairy tale for grown ups, i see religion / superstition / spirituality as mentally damaging to children.



And if you're wrong you'll eternally be seperated from God, you and your kid. Try explaining that to them of how you got there....and they didn't even have a choice, a choice what they wanted to do with their body or their soul.

Life is amazing yes, maybe to you and me. But I know kids whose life is not amazing.....you couldn't even find the mercy to tell them that it gets better, even if you don't believe it will? Or is it possible you could make it better for them? Do you? At least they could get thru this life with hope, and they won't know the difference after they die, if in fact you are right....but life may be better for them, if they thought maybe someone was coming to save them or they had hope.  What a sad and lonely life it must be for starving children in Africa for example who at least might live on hope for something better. But since you think life is amazing, they may never have anyone to save them, not even us, because we assume life is simply amazing....


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It is interesting that you willingly rule out one while giving credibility to the other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Speaking of prochoice of how you'd like to live your life. Let's hide this from them......and God have mercy if you are wrong. You can choose abortion, you can choose to be gay,but for God's sake don't choose religion don't choose Jesus. Speaking of doublemindedness.....the only bad thing is religion....Lord have mercy Jesus.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Willard's a boob.  Asath took him apart.  You should find another hero.



Took him apart, as in WWE smackdown.....now there's reality for ya.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Willard's a boob.  Asath took him apart.  You should find another hero.



Find another hero, like yours for example...Asath. 
Count on him...believe him, trust him, maybe you've found your god after all.  Speaking of sheep.....


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Its not going away though, its being turned into matter.
> 
> You can go back and forth turning matter into energy and vica verca.



Who's you?

I can't go back and forth turning matter into energy, can you? If so I'd like to know how to do it.
I believe someone can, I just don't believe it's us. But if you have a secret about that that we don't know, please teach us how to do it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What do we have more reference for, a zillion ever lasting particles or one, single magic bean?
> 
> 
> Do you know of any time that energy has been destroyed; vanished from existence?  What does logic tell you about how long energy has been around?



Why don't you tell us? Since you obviously think you know. I'd like to hear the answers to your own questions, even though I know I won't.  

How long has energy been around?

What magic bean do YOU speak of?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> You say the universe is recycling the same stuff repeatedly.



Yep. Science has yet to confirm an exception to that rule. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist. You seem to think one does and science backs up the claim. I think you're mistaken on that point.



JB0704 said:


> You also say that there is no way to see beyond the first bang.



No, there may be a way. I think that question remains unanswered. I likened it to a horizon which we have yet to see beyond. Maybe we eventually will, or maybe not.



JB0704 said:


> By default, from our perspective, the first bang would be a beginning then, wouldn't it.



Again that is an open question. If you don't know what, if anything preceded the big bang then how can you make a determination as to whether it was truly a beginning in absolute terms or if it had some prior cause like everything else that we know of?



JB0704 said:


> My point is that you are claiming a position which is no more supportable than mine.  Your (pl) position seems to be "I don't know how it happened, but it wasn't God."



How is stating "we don't know" when in fact we don't on equal footing with the claim "God did it" when we not only do not know any such thing but have no more evidence supporting such a claim than "Zeus did it"?

Here is my position. I don't know what if anything preceded or caused the big bang. It could have been God. By the same token it could have been a purple leprechaun. I can't disprove either theory. Neither can you. And each has a big goose egg in terms of reason to believe the claim true so my default position is to accept neither. I also can point to a track record in which numerous times in the past the unexplained was explained away with God and then turned out to be wrong. So the logical position is not to accept the latest God of the gaps but to reject it. Anyone who wants to make the claim that "God did it" will be expected to back up that claim with evidence just as would be expected of someone promoting any other explanation.



JB0704 said:


> In the words of Atlashunter: "How do you know that?"



I don't know nor do I claim to. I just find the odds against it for the reasons already explained. I'm not beyond convincing though for those who are able to actually back up their claims.



JB0704 said:


> Again, my evidence is beginnings.



You'll need to show that there was such a beginning before anyone should accept the assertion as evidence. You continue to point to non-beginnings, call it a beginning all while acknowledging it was actually a transformation from something pre-existing, and then claim that as evidence.



JB0704 said:


> Which you (pl) seem to think you have nullified by stating energy is infinite, and so is matter.  I simply do not see the logic in such a position.



We can demonstrate that energy exists (unlike the God that is claimed to be the ultimate cause of everything). Energy can be neither created nor destroyed according to our understanding of science. The logical conclusion from those two points would be that energy is eternal.




JB0704 said:


> I will claim God, and you (pl) can stick with the magical mystery infinite particles.  I am sure we will both sleep well.



No magic here.  I'll leave that to you.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2012)

And we continue to argue religous beliefs within the confines of science. This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> And we continue to argue religous beliefs within the confines of science. This is getting ridiculous.



Lingerie, Fishing tackle and food court three floors up.  Thanks for visiting.


----------



## Four (Mar 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It is interesting that you willingly rule out one while giving credibility to the other.



Because like i said before, the deity doesn't help solve the problem, it's an added variable that creates more questions than it answers. We could somewhat change the definition of god to be the original creator, and strip it of all the religious mumbo-jumbo like being all powerful, all knowing, and interacting with humans etc. Like if you proposed that there was some thing that started the universe, a trigger if you will, I would say that's a possibility.  I think that would hardly be called a deity though, that would be stretching the term a bit.



JB0704 said:


> Yes, because if you are correct, the universe is an unimagineable circumstance of chance.  All the laws / energy / particles that exist would be here for nothing, to do nothing, yet they did everything.  I don't see why that makes sense.  Existence is not a universal mandate.   Why would there be infinite energy to begin with?  Unintelligent stuff with no reason for existing is given a lot of power in your system



This makes me want to make a new thread about theistic comfort in divinity. I've been finding more and more people on the forum bring up that a world without god is a world without meaning, that there has to  be 'a point' to everything... I just don't share this feeling and i have a hard time empathizing 

I just find it pretty cool that we're around because stars exploded, and i feel lucky and happy that my sperm made it there first!


----------



## Four (Mar 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> And if you're wrong you'll eternally be seperated from God, you and your kid. Try explaining that to them of how you got there....and they didn't even have a choice, a choice what they wanted to do with their body or their soul.



They'll certainly have a choice, it's not like im going to lock them in a basement and force them and read textbooks if they say they believe in an afterlife. However, i am certainly going to teach them how to discern truth from falsehood, and do my best to give them the problem solving skills they need to make the right choice.

Also, here is a good question your post brings up in me. How can heaven be the perfect wonderful place if it doesnt contain your loved ones, both saved and unsaved... If you go to heaven but one of your children does not, will you be able to enjoy it?



mtnwoman said:


> Life is amazing yes, maybe to you and me. But I know kids whose life is not amazing.....you couldn't even find the mercy to tell them that it gets better, even if you don't believe it will? Or is it possible you could make it better for them? Do you? At least they could get thru this life with hope, and they won't know the difference after they die, if in fact you are right....but life may be better for them, if they thought maybe someone was coming to save them or they had hope.  What a sad and lonely life it must be for starving children in Africa for example who at least might live on hope for something better. But since you think life is amazing, they may never have anyone to save them, not even us, because we assume life is simply amazing....



I have a extremely happy and fulfilling life as something who does not believe in an afterlife, so I dont see belief in an after life to be a pre-requisite for hope / happiness. Any comfort that i would tell them comes from death is that they wont even know it happened. I'd ask them if they were unhappy before they were born...

On giving comfort... I do admit i hold back from speaking out very loudly about my atheism to the sick or old. I wont lie to them and tell them i believe in god, or that there is an afterlife.. but the mental conversion from theism to atheism can be, in the short run, fairly painful. So i see no point in it for someone who it on the back end of life.

Also to note mtn, your posts seem to have a knack for getting just tangential enough to make me think up questions about slightly different topics..


----------



## Four (Mar 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Who's you?
> 
> I can't go back and forth turning matter into energy, can you? If so I'd like to know how to do it.
> I believe someone can, I just don't believe it's us. But if you have a secret about that that we don't know, please teach us how to do it.



It takes a bit of machinery 

going from matter to energy, you need to split an atom (e=mc^2) means energy = matter*speed of light squared

going from energy to matter you need a particle accelerator


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2012)

Back to the original question concerning the negative effects of a belief in heaven and (insert forbidden hot place word here, why is this word blocked?).

Tertullian manages to express openly what we frequently hear others only hint at.



> What there excites my admiration? what my derision? Which sight gives me joy? which rouses me to exultation?â€”as I see so many illustrious monarchs, whose reception into the heavens was publicly announced, groaning now in the lowest darkness with great Jove himself, and those, too, who bore witness of their exultation; governors of provinces, too, who persecuted the Christian name, in fires more fierce than those with which in the days of their pride they raged against the followers of Christ. What worldâ€™s wise men besides, the very philosophers, in fact, who taught their followers that God had no concern in aught that is sublunary, and were wont to assure them that either they had no souls, or that they would never return to the bodies which at death they had left, now covered with shame before the poor deluded ones, as one fire consumes them! Poets also, trembling not before the judgment-seat of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the unexpected Christ! I shall have a better opportunity then of hearing the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; of viewing the play-actors, much more â€œdissoluteâ€� in the dissolving flame; of looking upon the charioteer, all glowing in his chariot of fire; of beholding the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows; unless even then I shall not care to attend to such ministers of sin, in my eager wish rather to fix a gaze insatiable on those whose fury vented itself against the Lord. â€œThis,â€� I shall say, â€œthis is that carpenterâ€™s or hirelingâ€™s son, that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and devil-possessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! This is He whom you struck with reed and fist, whom you contemptuously spat upon, to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink! This is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants!â€� What quæstor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favour of seeing and exulting in such things as these? And yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Who's you?
> 
> I can't go back and forth turning matter into energy, can you? If so I'd like to know how to do it.
> I believe someone can, I just don't believe it's us. But if you have a secret about that that we don't know, please teach us how to do it.



Actually you can and do every day.  You eat don't you?  Your body takes that matter and turns it into enrgy that runs your body.  You body then converts that matter from matter to energy and then to waste matter.  You ever built a fire?  You took matter and converted it to heat energy, in the process created different matter, ash.  

We take matter and convert it to energy everday. That is how everything works.


----------



## Four (Mar 30, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Actually you can and do every day.  You eat don't you?  You body takes that matter and turns it into enrgy that runs your body.  You body then converts that matter from matter to energy and then to waste matter.  You ever built a fire?  You took matter and converted it to heat energy, in the process created different matter, ash.
> 
> We take matter and convert it to energy everday. That is how everything works.



Bah! Your response was better


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Speaking of prochoice of how you'd like to live your life. Let's hide this from them......and God have mercy if you are wrong. You can choose abortion, you can choose to be gay,but for God's sake don't choose religion don't choose Jesus. Speaking of doublemindedness.....the only bad thing is religion.....



That's kind-of my thoughts too here, open mindedness is only valued if it is not in context of a created universe. Only the believers are wrong for thinking they are correct.

Either way, I am more at ease (logically) with the concept of infinite being creating energy / space / time than energy / space / time creating itself or everything everywhere being infinite.  

Like I have said in this thread many x's, I don't see how infinite everything is more logical than infinite one thing.  I certainly don't see the logic in ruling out the infinite one thing.  

It is what it is.  We are desinged or we are chance.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 30, 2012)

Four said:


> We could somewhat change the definition of god to be the original creator, and strip it of all the religious mumbo-jumbo like being all powerful, all knowing, and interacting with humans etc. Like if you proposed that there was some thing that started the universe, a trigger if you will, I would say that's a possibility.  I think that would hardly be called a deity though, that would be stretching the term a bit.!



Why would you be willing to accept one trigger and not the other?  Could the source of all the energy be God or the trigger (big bang)?



Four said:


> This makes me want to make a new thread about theistic comfort in divinity. I've been finding more and more people on the forum bring up that a world without god is a world without meaning, that there has to  be 'a point' to everything... I just don't share this feeling and i have a hard time empathizing



Meaning is found by the individual.  You can have meaning in anything.  My point was that everything in your system is by circumstance, and no mandate for existence led to existence.  There must have been infinite energy and matter for no reason. That purposeless infinite matter must have interacted in such a way that everything happened the way it did.  

What if the laws of the universe were not such as they are?  What are the odds that the uncreated universe full of eternal particles would have laws which mandate energy not be created or destroyed?  Then existence would not exist.  

What I am saying is that there is no reason for existence absent an original cause. I don't see how this concept of infinite energy and matter accidentally having "laws" and then by circustance creating the universe is any more logical than thinking a green leprechaun got together with the FSM and created a God particle that exploded.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I don't see how this concept of infinite energy and matter accidentally having "laws" and then by circustance creating the universe is any more logical than thinking a green leprechaun got together with the FSM and created a God particle that exploded.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 30, 2012)

Atlas, I have no idea what your point with that video was other than to say Carl Sagan is a dork.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Willard's a boob.  Asath took him apart.  You should find another hero.



Asath took him apart...

Go re-read the thread Ambush, Asath didn't say much of anything in all his typing.


Why were you the only one that would have a decent conversation about it?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


>



http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=6829362&postcount=70


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Atlas, I have no idea what your point with that video was other than to say Carl Sagan is a dork.



The point is that adding a mythical creator only creates a new question, what created the creator? If the answer is nothing, then why not skip that step altogether and apply it to nature? It's a simpler explanation and at least we know nature exists. Again, magic has repeatedly been cited as an explanation for questions about the natural world only to later be dismissed when the natural explanation was discovered. So was it really just as logical to assume a supernatural explanation over a natural explanation? How many times must the theists fall short on their explanations before their credibility is destroyed? And why would they need additional chances to get it right if the source of their claims really was divine revelation?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> The point is that adding a mythical creator only creates a new question, what created the creator? If the answer is nothing, then why not skip that step altogether and apply it to nature?



Can we conclude that something is uncreated?  Energy / matter or a creative force.  The reason I can't apply it to nature is because it makes no sense logically for every particle that exists to have infinite qualities, or be self creative.  One creative force, or an infinite amount of creative (unknowingly of course) particles.  



atlashunter said:


> It's a simpler explanation and at least we know nature exists.?



I do not think assigning "infinite" qualities to an infinite amount of particles is simpler than supposing something beyond that which we know might be the driving force behind existence.



atlashunter said:


> Again, magic has repeatedly been cited as an explanation for questions about the natural world only to later be dismissed when the natural explanation was discovered. So was it really just as logical to assume a supernatural explanation over a natural explanation? How many times must the theists fall short on their explanations before their credibility is destroyed? And why would they need additional chances to get it right if the source of their claims really was divine revelation?



I believe we covered the fact that if God existed, he would be natural, and any effect of his presence would be natural also.  So, from a believer's perspective, it is no more "supernatural" than an atheists thoughts on infinite matter and energy is "natural."  We both are willing to accept the possibility of infinite existence, you are just willing to accept much more of it than I am.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Lingerie, Fishing tackle and food court three floors up.  Thanks for visiting.




Are all those things on the same floor? Why?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=6829362&postcount=70



Your constant re-posting of Willard's ramblings(that not even you could put into lay-mans terms) has not swayed even one person here. The only thing Willard's ramblings are missing is an actual factual being. Replace God with any other made up entity and the ramblings are still the same. Please, move on already.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2012)

I've highlighted the self contradiction in your view. I trust it is as apparent to others as it is to me. If you can't manage to see it now there isn't much more to be said that hasn't been already.



JB0704 said:


> Can we conclude that something is uncreated?  Energy / matter or a creative force.  The reason I can't apply it to nature is because it makes no sense logically for every particle that exists to have infinite qualities, or be self creative.  One creative force, or an infinite amount of creative (unknowingly of course) particles.





JB0704 said:


> I believe we covered the fact that if God existed, he would be natural, and any effect of his presence would be natural also.  So, from a believer's perspective, it is no more "supernatural" than an atheists thoughts on infinite matter and energy is "natural."  We both are willing to accept the possibility of infinite existence, you are just willing to accept much more of it than I am.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I've highlighted the self contradiction in your view. I trust it is as apparent to others as it is to me. If you can't manage to see it now there isn't much more to be said that hasn't been already.





But, to make it clear:

"Nature," in the context of the first sentence, was referencing the infinite _amount_ of particles which we currently know to exist.

"Natural" in the second sentence, is referencing that which occurs (exists) in nature.

"God" being a single infinite  intelligent being.

So, for those who need further clarification, I will rephrase it:

"The reason I can't apply it to the infinite _amount_ of particles we currently know exist is because it makes no sense logically for every particle that exists to have infinite qualities, or be self creative."

"If a single infinite intelligent being exists, the single infinite intelligent being would be occurring or existing in nature (the real world), and any effect of the single infinite intelligent being presence would be occuring or existing in nature (the real world) also."

One "natural" element or ininite "natural" elements.  The effect of neither would be supernatural.  No contradiction here.  Both sentences were addressing different things.  Thats why the paragraphs are separated.

However, if you would like to discuss contradictions, let's try explaining how you can "know" there is no God.....or are you an agnostic.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Are all those things on the same floor? Why?





Faith.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But, to make it clear:
> 
> "Nature," in the context of the first sentence, was referencing the infinite _amount_ of particles which we currently know to exist.
> 
> ...



I know that people don't rise from the dead three days later. (and donkeys don't talk and the Earth never stopped turning and no staves were turned into serpents and there is no boat full of every creature, two of each kind, no talking serpent and no manna from Heaven).


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> However, if you would like to discuss contradictions, let's try explaining how you can "know" there is no God.....or are you an agnostic.



That has already been answered in this thread.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Faith.



Roger that, I just don't need any lingerie.


----------



## Asath (Mar 30, 2012)

“Heaven is a prophecy uttered by the lips of despair, but h3ll in an inference from analogy.”

Ambrose Bierce.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> That has already been answered in this thread.



I don't know, everybody seems to avoid labels around here.  Reference your comments in post 182:



> Here is my position. I don't know what if anything preceded or caused the big bang. It could have been God. By the same token it could have been a purple leprechaun. I can't disprove either theory. Neither can you.



Sounds a bit like this......


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I know that people don't rise from the dead three days later. (and donkeys don't talk and the Earth never stopped turning and no staves were turned into serpents and there is no boat full of every creature, two of each kind, no talking serpent and no manna from Heaven).



How do you know that?  If a donkey talked in front of you (I don't believe donkeys talked either, but follow me here), would you think it a natural phenomena or that it was the work of a deity?  You asked about things appearing out of nowhere, since you know donkeys don't talk, much like I know energy does not create itself, how would you explain such a circumstance?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> How do you know that?  If a donkey talked in front of you (I don't believe donkeys talked either, but follow me here), would you think it a natural phenomena or that it was the work of a deity?  You asked about things appearing out of nowhere, since you know donkeys don't talk, much like I know energy does not create itself, how would you explain such a circumstance?



Reasons NOT to assume that paranormal activity is god:

1. He has a bad track record.  As knowledge grows the gaps he fills get smaller.  There were many things attributed to deities or monsters or ghosties that we eventually understood.

2. There is no reference for god(s) except in made up stories. No one has seen one, taken a picture of one or recorded one in any way.

Most of the 'miracles' that I have heard about from people involve some sort of 'change' in their lives.  Maybe they stopped drinking or looking at porn or beating their kids.  Maybe they are now filled with a sense of purpose instead of the fear that they don't know what will happen to them when they die.  Guess what?  People do those things all the time without god.  Assigning cause of anything to a god is simply an unnecessary and oft proven erroneous measure.


----------



## Asath (Apr 1, 2012)

“. . . much like I know energy does not create itself . . . “

Hate to be a party-pooper, yet again, but in a terribly complicated way that would make everyone’s eyes water if I tried to explain it properly here, it is increasingly starting to look like energy DID create itself.  The theory started out being laughed out of town forty years ago, but the experimental results are incrementally accumulating, and with the Large Hadron Collider we’re learning some astounding things rather quickly.  

Asking us to believe in the impossible, while we’re busy studying the possible, is getting to be more and more a stretch of credulity . . .


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

Asath said:


> “. . . much like I know energy does not create itself . . . “
> 
> Hate to be a party-pooper, yet again, but in a terribly complicated way that would make everyone’s eyes water if I tried to explain it properly here, it is increasingly starting to look like energy DID create itself.  The theory started out being laughed out of town forty years ago, but the experimental results are incrementally accumulating, and with the Large Hadron Collider we’re learning some astounding things rather quickly.
> 
> Asking us to believe in the impossible, while we’re busy studying the possible, is getting to be more and more a stretch of credulity . . .



I don't think believers understand the word 'create'. I think they are stuck on the notion that something created had to have a 'will' behind it.  I don't think its true by definition.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think believers understand the word 'create'. I think they are stuck on the notion that something created had to have a 'will' behind it.  I don't think its true by definition.



Can lightning create fire?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think believers understand the word 'create'. I think they are stuck on the notion that something created had to have a 'will' behind it.  I don't think its true by definition.



No.  You are the one implying the will.   

I am looking into energy creating itself.  It would be something if it can be reproduced in a vacuum minus any outside influence.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Can lightning create fire?



Yes, but lightning is the catalyst.  And that is what I am saying about this whole thing.  I believe there must be a catalyst beyond what we currently know because I do not buy the idea of every particle in the entire universe being infinite.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, but lightning is the catalyst.  And that is what I am saying about this whole thing.  I believe there must be a catalyst beyond what we currently know because I do not buy the idea of every particle in the entire universe being infinite.



So if something poofed it had to be caused by god?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So if something poofed it had to be caused by god?



It would have to be caused by something, I would think.  Since I believe in God, that would be my initial conclusion outside any scientific explanation to the contrary.  If a scientific explanation presented itself, I would assume it would be a cause of nature.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It would have to be caused by something, I would think.  Since I believe in God, that would be my initial conclusion outside any scientific explanation to the contrary.  If a scientific explanation presented itself, I would assume it would be a cause of nature.



Well.  There you go.  God is your initial conclusion for anything unexplained.  That's what our ancestors who cowered at the the lightning did.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Well.  There you go.  God is your initial conclusion for anything unexplained.  That's what our ancestors who cowered at the the lightning did.



That's pretty much what it boils down to. Still grasping a  lottery ticket that has never been a winner swearing the next time will be different.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Well.  There you go.  God is your initial conclusion for anything unexplained.  That's what our ancestors who cowered at the the lightning did.



Ok. Maybe they were on to something (follow a chain of events to a cause, that is).  Again, it would have to be caused by something.  What would your initial conclusion be?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> That's pretty much what it boils down to. Still grasping a  lottery ticket that has never been a winner swearing the next time will be different.



Except there are known, calculable odds that a number will come up.  What are the odds of god existing;  I mean real number odds?



JB0704 said:


> Ok. Maybe they were on to something (follow a chain of events to a cause, that is).  Again, it would have to be caused by something.  What would your initial conclusion be?




History has shown over and over that whatever advancements in culture or knowledge that people have made were at the expense of their mysticism and superstitions.  Even with good, sound information some people still insist on a young Earth creation.  That should be an indication of just how strong of a mind job That stuff puts on people.  Anything with the ability to make people abandon their reason should be looked at with extreme suspicion.


----------



## Asath (Apr 3, 2012)

Well, short of going into a few pages of equations here – the current evidence looks like this:  Our universe currently contains quite a lot of matter that is characterized by a quality that we call mass.  Previously it was thought that matter could not be created or destroyed, but merely changed in form.  So by this view, the very existence of matter was a violation of the law of conservation of mass unless there had been a miracle – a Creation, at some point.

But then Einstein came along and messed all that up by being right (the jerk).  He showed that matter can be created out of energy and can disappear into energy.  The E in the famous equation is the energy of a mass that is at rest (equivalent rest energy).  When the mass is moving it carries an additional kinetic energy.  In chemical and especially in nuclear reactions kinetic energy can be converted into rest energy, which CREATES mass.  The reverse also happens, unfortunately, which is why nuclear reactions can be used to blow things up.  So the existence of mass doesn’t violate any laws of nature or require any miracles.  Mass can come from energy.

So where did the energy come from?  Conservation of energy law requires that energy also come from somewhere.  So if conservation of energy was violated, then THAT is the miracle of Creation!  But, unfortunately, that isn’t the case either.  It gets a little more complicated here, but the first law of thermodynamics allows energy to convert from one type to another so long as the TOTAL for a closed system remains fixed.  Oddly enough, as Stephen Hawking pointed out, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero.  If the universe is approximately uniform in space, the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels out the positive energy that the matter represents.  Experiments and observations show that within a tiny degree of mathematical error, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from a zero energy state.  

Now we could go on and on, into Planck lengths (1.6 x 10 to the minus 35 meters) and Planck time (6.4 x 10 to the minus 44 seconds), and the 13.7-odd billion year reverse extrapolation, and maximum entropy as a function of the size of the system under observation, and all manner of PhD level explanations, but the bottom line here is that it is perfectly plausible for the universe to be here without the aid of a supernatural creator.

In fact, if you follow the physics far enough, it turns out that ‘nothing’ is highly unstable, and there is a 60 percent higher likelihood that ‘something’ should exist than that ‘nothing’ would.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 4, 2012)

Asath said:


> Well, short of going into a few pages of equations here – the current evidence looks like this:  Our universe currently contains quite a lot of matter that is characterized by a quality that we call mass.  Previously it was thought that matter could not be created or destroyed, but merely changed in form.  So by this view, the very existence of matter was a violation of the law of conservation of mass unless there had been a miracle – a Creation, at some point.
> 
> But then Einstein came along and messed all that up by being right (the jerk).  He showed that matter can be created out of energy and can disappear into energy.  The E in the famous equation is the energy of a mass that is at rest (equivalent rest energy).  When the mass is moving it carries an additional kinetic energy.  In chemical and especially in nuclear reactions kinetic energy can be converted into rest energy, which CREATES mass.  The reverse also happens, unfortunately, which is why nuclear reactions can be used to blow things up.  So the existence of mass doesn’t violate any laws of nature or require any miracles.  Mass can come from energy.
> 
> ...



Where do resurrections fit in all of this mumbo jumbo?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Where do resurrections fit in all of this mumbo jumbo?



I'll have to get back to you on that one. I am still chewing on "In fact, if you follow the physics far enough, it turns out that ‘nothing’ is highly unstable, and there is a 60 percent higher likelihood that ‘something’ should exist than that ‘nothing’ would."


----------



## Asath (Apr 4, 2012)

“Where do resurrections fit in all of this mumbo jumbo?”

Funny you should ask.

In the closed system of the universe, YOU are a resurrection.  In fact, we all are, which is odd, but true.   Closer at hand, in the (nearly, but not quite) closed system of the planet, every atom and molecule in your body, and in everything at all, originated from (literally) stardust.  There is no mystery here.  The planet was formed by the slow accumulation of gases and particles and (yes) energy that bound together over billions of years.  You and I are the product of that accumulation, and contain not a single element that is not also contained elsewhere.  That things came together in the sequence they did, in the fashion that led to US, is not so much a mystery, since in a universe this large it had to happen somewhere, and perhaps has happened in millions of other places throughout the universe.  Since the universe is pretty big, and ATT hasn’t conquered even this small part of it yet, we can’t call up the other critters and ask their opinion on existence.  

We CAN say, without hesitation, that our existence is transitory, and our measurements indicate that the star that sustains us is growing ever hotter, which is an indication that it, too, is a natural occurrence, which will eventually use up the fuel available to it and either burn out or blow up.  By observing similar stars we currently think that it won’t blow up, but rather burn out.  Not that either one will matter much to us --  the best math on the matter indicates that it will be about another four billion years before we need to deal with that problem, and by then it probably won’t be something you need to think much about.

So, as far as resurrections are concerned, we’ve each and all already experienced ours, by our very existence.  If someone desires yet another one, I’m afraid that they are out of luck.  Once the body (mass) that you currently call you reverts back into the atoms and molecules whence it came, that energy and that mass will become something else.  If you wish fervently that it will become you again, then I’m afraid you are also out of luck.  The system will still remain fairly closed, and will still obey the physical constraints – but you won’t be around to know about it.

My advice would be to enjoy your resurrection while you have it, since another one is literally and physically impossible.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Where do resurrections fit in all of this mumbo jumbo?”
> 
> Funny you should ask.
> 
> ...



Wow. Do you read this stuff back to yourself before you hit the post button? I, for one, am glad you have it all figured out.


----------



## Asath (Apr 7, 2012)

I could offer the ENTIRE education that leads to rational conclusions, but the Mods would probably get annoyed at me for trying to post the whole of the education that many here seem to have neglected.  Besides, it isn’t my problem.

If some wish to live entirely inside a construct of superstitions that were handed to them in childhood, and forgot to look around, then I suppose that is their own problem.  I’m not a preacher, and I’m not charged with converting anyone to my point of view simply in order to earn my living off of their gullibility and resulting cash contributions, without offering a single new, original, or valid thought.  That sort of thing is the job of the Churchmen, lacking any skills of their own.  

I merely observe that if THAT is all you have – a pure willingness to Believe, regardless of contrary facts, or even an objective reading of a single Book – then there is very little to ‘discuss.’  Ignorance is one thing – stubborn, willful ignorance, in the face of facts, is quite another.  The Earth stopped being flat, and stopped being the center of the universe quite a long time ago.  And, stubborn insistence that the few remaining ‘Gaps’ in science somehow ‘prove’ the supernatural explanation flies in the face of the actual history of organized religions.  If religion can adapt to ever-evolving knowledge, which it has clearly done time and time again, then it cannot be the newly verified ‘science’ that was wrong to begin with.  One cannot change one’s world-view, and one’s universal view yearly, as more is learned and actually proven,  and still claim legitimacy and veracity.  Ignorant paranoia notwithstanding, science is not ‘attacking’ any selfish and self-serving doctrine at all --  it is merely seeking actual answers, and ignoring those who claim to have those answers already and would have all of us living as ancient desert-tribes beholden only to themselves and their ancient superstitions, which seemed to be enough for them.  

We’ve progressed a bit.          

And if ‘having it all figured out’ is the exclusive territory of the Believers in ancient and more than highly questionable nonsense, then I feel that it is fair to ask more than a few questions.  If the answers to those questions, well thought and fairly asked, not only remain immune to facts but attempt to make up new ones, or if the answer to those questions relies on some sort of ‘revelation,’ or on some sort of interpretation, or is emotionally rather than factually based in any way, then I think I have the option of rejecting them as nonsensical and illogical.  Either something can be proven to be true, or it cannot.  If it cannot, then it isn’t true.  Simply turning the argument around, and claiming that your own personal unicorn can’t be conclusively DISPROVEN is little more than an exercise in childishness.       

Not knowing – personally --  is not a validation of Truth, but is rather an admission that you have no idea what is true, and assume that the same condition afflicts all of us --  it doesn’t. 

In the case of ‘Belief,’ the many various adherents and preachers have been proven wrong so many times that it is a wonder they bother to keep trying.  In the case of the individual . . . well, hey, whatever gets you through the night.  There are more than the two options – Believe as WE DO or be tortured for all of eternity.  Really?  It is an interesting bit of convoluted thinking, this whole ‘belief’ thing, but a simple look around indicates that it has been ever so.  Witness the Parthenon – folks have always been gullible in the face of presumed power, and WANT to be led.  

One might think that actual leadership does not allow illusions to trump facts, and there one would also be wrong.  History is littered with the debris and atrocities of all sorts of ‘belief,’  from the belief in various gods to the belief in various men and god-like beings, from Pharaoh to Apollo to Zeus to Kim Il Jung to (yes) Abraham.       

Really?  No other options?  Heaven or H3ll?  Is that all you’ve got?

Sad.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 7, 2012)

Asath said:


> Really?  No other options?  Heaven or H3ll?  Is that all you’ve got?
> 
> Sad.



Well, that's all I got.....whatchu got? Just wondering. Maybe I'm missing something. Fill me in, I'm all ears. Since my journey with all this, I am definately open minded.

Whatcha got? Where do/can I go from here? and how do I get there with joy and peace. Seriously I'm open.


----------

