# A 'religious' answer to 'Why Does Math 'Work' " ~ 4min.45sec.Vid link.



## RegularJoe (Aug 5, 2021)

Alert: This vid was produced by a Christian apologetics author/speaker 
(by the name of William Lane Craig.).
The title of the vid is "_The (Un)Reasonablenss of Mathematics._"  
At 1min. 37sec. the vid poses the question, "_Why does mathematics work?_"
I am not posting this with the notion of  defending it ... 
I am posting it merely as a point of view offered for those of us who might have an interest.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2021)




----------



## Liberty (Aug 5, 2021)

I’ve never thought about it that way, but God is orderly and never changing. His word as recorded in scripture remains as relevant and correct today as 2000 years ago.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2021)

Was very interesting right up until "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics provides powerful evidence for the existence of God".
There have been ~2500 gods throughout human history.
And of course mathematics is evidence of only 1 of them. Which just so happens to be the one god the speaker believes in.
Meh.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 5, 2021)

I can't see where math or science proves God or disproves God. All that I see it proving is that if there is a God, then He uses math and science. In other words God himself is the Great Mathematician or Great Scientist.

I do like that at least he is showing that math and science show God or prove God instead of saying that it's all just a way for man to explain God as so many people say.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2021)

https://toolateforthegods.com/2020/...ane-craigs-argument-for-god-from-mathematics/


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 5, 2021)

_Why does mathematics work_  is the question.

And the statement is - "The effectiveness of mathematics in describing the physical world is literally a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God"

I believe in God but that ^^^^^ is nothing more than me saying my belief in God is evidence for the existence of God.

Maybe a better mathematical approach would have been to challenge the earths age with erosion / land area loss rates - don`t focus on proving God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Was very interesting right up until "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics provides powerful evidence for the existence of God".
> There have been ~2500 gods throughout human history.
> And of course mathematics is evidence of only 1 of them. Which just so happens to be the one god the speaker believes in.
> Meh.



Just a couple of thoughts

1) Mathematics can be thought of as a language.  It's articulate, intelligent/intelligible, and just happens to be rationally true.  Language is communication between at least 2 persons: a speaker and a hearer.  So there's that.

2) It only takes 1 God out of that 2500(and there's infinitely more than that in all reality) to exist for atheism to be wrong, regardless of the speakers personal beliefs.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> _Why does mathematics work_  is the question.
> 
> And the statement is - "The effectiveness of mathematics in describing the physical world is literally a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God"
> 
> ...



No.  No it's not.  See above.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just a couple of thoughts
> 
> 1) Mathematics can be thought of as a language.  It's articulate, intelligent/intelligible, and just happens to be rationally true.  Language is communication between at least 2 persons: a speaker and a hearer.  So there's that.
> 
> 2) It only takes 1 God out of that 2500(and there's infinitely more than that in all reality) to exist for atheism to be wrong, regardless of the speakers personal beliefs.


Yup, 1 is all it will take and yup it will be regardless of the speakers personal beliefs.
Now what?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Yup, 1 is all it will take and yup it will be regardless of the speakers personal beliefs.
> Now what?



Well,an explanation of the origin of an intelligible language: mathematics, if I’m an AA.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well,an explanation of the origin of an intelligible language: mathematics, if I’m an AA.


Do you realize you are in effect saying that ANY god that is proven to exist, THAT god is responsible for mathematics?


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 6, 2021)

Math is a man made construct.  The fact that it works to describe and predict events in the universe suggests that the universe has some order to it, rather than pure chaos. The order itself suggests the existence of a deity or deities, not necessarily the math used to describe it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you realize you are in effect saying that ANY god that is proven to exist, THAT god is responsible for mathematics?



How so?  Not following.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> Math is a man made construct.  The fact that it works to describe and predict events in the universe suggests that the universe has some order to it, rather than pure chaos. The order itself suggests the existence of a deity or deities, not necessarily the math used to describe it.



See 1) post 8


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> How so?  Not following.


If this 1 (remember it only takes 1) god was proven to exist -
*



			Kokopelli
		
Click to expand...

*


> was a god of agriculture, fertility and trickery worshiped by the Native Americans of the South West United States.


AAs would be wrong.
Before we start going around in circles, yes it would only take universal PROOF of 1 god for AAs to be wrong. On this we agree. Post #10
What does that 1 particular god have to do with mathematics?


> Well, an explanation of the origin of an intelligible language: mathematics, if I’m an AA.


And of course the answer to that question is - mathematics is man made.
Thats the only answer there is until proven otherwise.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> Math is a man made construct.  The fact that it works to describe and predict events in the universe suggests that the universe has some order to it, rather than pure chaos. The order itself suggests the existence of a deity or deities, not necessarily the math used to describe it.


Order is periods in between chaos. Chaos is periods in between order.
Can you explain how any of it points to a deity or deities instead of just asserting that a god or gods are responsible for it? And then to take it further,  how can anyone tell which specific god or gods are responsible?


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 6, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Order is periods in between chaos. Chaos is periods in between order.



Not sure I follow.  I speak of order in the sense that the apparent existence of universal laws(gravity, electrostatic attraction, etc.) govern the behavior of matter and systems in very predictable ways.  An astronomer can make observations of a star system and make accurate predictions about its behavior in the future.  In a truly chaotic system this wouldn't be possible.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> Not sure I follow.  I speak of order in the sense that the apparent existence of universal laws(gravity, electrostatic attraction, etc.) govern the behavior of matter and systems in very predictable ways.  An astronomer can make observations of a star system and make accurate predictions about its behavior in the future.  In a truly chaotic system this wouldn't be possible.


And that ^ suggests a deity or deities? 
Or it only suggests a deity(s) to someone who believes in a deity that has the powers to create that?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> Not sure I follow.  I speak of order in the sense that the apparent existence of universal laws(gravity, electrostatic attraction, etc.) govern the behavior of matter and systems in very predictable ways.  An astronomer can make observations of a star system and make accurate predictions about its behavior in the future.  In a truly chaotic system this wouldn't be possible.


And, in an instant a rogue asteroid can smack our planet and kill every living thing. Nothing predictable or orderly about that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2021)

bullethead said:


> And, in an instant a rogue asteroid can smack our planet and kill every living thing. Nothing predictable or orderly about that.


Thats ^ what I was thinking.
Seems to me there are elements of predictability and elements of chaos at the same time.


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 6, 2021)

bullethead said:


> And, in an instant a rogue asteroid can smack our planet and kill every living thing. Nothing predictable or orderly about that.



The asteroid will fly towards Earth guided by the gravitational fields of celestial bodies.  It’s very predictable, just not very preventable.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 6, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  No it's not.  See above.


Probability of existence isn’t any more evidence than the probability of non existence.

The “apologetic” argument “The effectiveness of mathematics in describing the physical world is literally a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God" disguised under the title of a religious view of why math works doesn’t prove God exist any more than the miracle of child birth proves God exist. Or better put, the statement has been made that it proves  God but there’s no “how” there. 

A believer could be on board with it, but that’s because something else prior made them believe - faith. It’s through faith, not math.


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 6, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> And that ^ suggests a deity or deities?
> Or it only suggests a deity(s) to someone who believes in a deity that has the powers to create that?



Chicken or the egg argument.  Did the appreciation of the order cause belief or did the belief cause the appreciation of the the order?  In my case definitely the former, but I suppose that’s different for everyone.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> Chicken or the egg argument.  Did the appreciation of the order cause belief or did the belief cause the appreciation of the the order?  In my case definitely the former, but I suppose that’s different for everyone.


Not sure about the chicken or the egg argument. Chickens in fact exist. Eggs in fact exist.
I think while someone may BELIEVE with every ounce of their being, thats different than in fact exists. Except for maybe to them.


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 6, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure about the chicken or the egg argument. Chickens in fact exist. Eggs in fact exist.
> I think while someone may BELIEVE with every ounce of their being, thats different than in fact exists. Except for maybe to them.



All I’ll say is that it seems more likely that a deity would exist in a universe with order rather than one which was completely without order.  Is that proof?  Definitely not.  But if anyone can say that the order evident doesn’t even raise the possibility in their minds a notch or two I’d say no way.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> All I’ll say is that it seems more likely that a deity would exist in a universe with order rather than one which was completely without order.  Is that proof?  Definitely not.  But if anyone can say that the order evident doesn’t even raise the possibility in their minds a notch or two I’d say no way.


It seems you are assuming a deity would WANT order. Would purposely create order.
Thats a big assumption isnt it? 
And Im open to all possibilities. But a possibility is just that - possible.
Most anything is possible when the answer is unknown.
And "order" is a human concept. Its definition is based on what humans would consider orderly. A teenager might have their clothes scattered all over their room and consider it "orderly" if they know exactly where their cleanest dirty shirt is.. The parent might not agree and tell them to clean this mess up.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> The asteroid will fly towards Earth guided by the gravitational fields of celestial bodies.  It’s very predictable, just not very preventable.


Which leaves the place which was supposedly created by a deity for his children extremely vulnerable and teetering on the verge of extinction.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> The asteroid will fly towards Earth guided by the gravitational fields of celestial bodies.  It’s very predictable, just not very preventable.


How about the asteroids themselves?
"Leftovers" are flying around up there. Some of them smash into each other. Depending on the speed they are moving they can either stick together forming a bigger asteroid or smash apart forming more smaller asteroids.
Seems you want to avoid the smashing into each other part and focus on the predicting their path part so you can call it "orderly".
My opinion - you are only focusing on that which you think supports your beliefs.


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2021)

> It seems you are assuming a deity would WANT order. Would purposely create order.
> Thats a big assumption isnt it?
> And Im open to all possibilities. But a possibility is just that - possible.
> Most anything is possible when the answer is unknown.
> And "order" is a human concept. Its definition is based on what humans would consider orderly. A teenager might have their clothes scattered all over their room and consider it "orderly" if they know exactly where their cleanest dirty shirt is.. The parent might not agree and tell them to clean this mess up.





> Which leaves the place which was supposedly created by a deity for his children extremely vulnerable and teetering on the verge of extinction.



I can't afford a synthesizer, I need a free one to make any music.


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> All I’ll say is that it seems more likely that a deity would exist in a universe with order rather than one which was completely without order.  Is that proof?  Definitely not.  But if anyone can say that the order evident doesn’t even raise the possibility in their minds a notch or two I’d say no way.


Shakin' the bushes here, boss.


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2021)

Could chaos even recognize...chaos?


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 7, 2021)

Israel said:


> Shakin' the bushes here, boss.



Yeah Israel, shaking the bushes…


----------



## RegularJoe (Aug 7, 2021)

1. I just can't not wonder how come 'order' exists at all, deity or not. What gives?
2. Meanwhile, changing a little to a related subject above, re. 'math being a man-made construct' ..... 
Not being a mathematician or linguist...
Question: then math would be a language that seems to speak in _measured_ fashion of the orderliness that _is_ found???


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> 1. I just can't not wonder how come 'order' exists at all, deity or not. What gives?
> 2. Meanwhile, changing a little to a related subject above, re. 'math being a man-made construct' .....
> Not being a mathematician or linguist...
> Question: then math would be a language that seems to speak in _measured_ fashion of the orderliness that _is_ found???


First Joe...wouldn't we have to have something informing us such a thing as "order" exists? What I mean is if there is no "prior order" to inform our consciousness we could have no notion of it, we'd be just random thought generators...and that is even assuming thought is a real thing, and even that random, as a concept, exists. And those are big assumptions...or minuscule...cause without a "standard" accepted...nothing means anything...or conversely...anything means nothing. (Again, assuming such things as nothing and anything...exists) Ha ha ha.

Obviously none of this proves anything in regards to establishing a Creator, nor could it...but it might show the futility of imagining what we "use" for any basis for contentions is ultimately useful in this matter.
If we use "thought" we are left with having to establish its validity. Reason, no less. For if reason is a faculty...a "tool" so to speak...used for an establishing as standard of, or for, fact and/or truth...if it itself is a product of unknown design, or to the extreme...a product of random design...of what use is it? Do you board an airplane where the pilot says "we'll be flying today with a randomly assembled altimeter"?

"Hey! it's even more random than monkeys could do!"


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> 1. I just can't not wonder how come 'order' exists at all, deity or not. What gives?
> 2. Meanwhile, changing a little to a related subject above, re. 'math being a man-made construct' .....
> Not being a mathematician or linguist...
> Question: then math would be a language that seems to speak in _measured_ fashion of the orderliness that _is_ found???





> 1. I just can't not wonder how come 'order' exists at all, deity or not. What gives?


See, I would wonder if there _wasnt_ elements of "order".


> Question: then math would be a language that seems to speak in _measured_ fashion of the orderliness that _is_ found???


If Im understanding your question correctly and thats a big if... I would say thats ^ one of the uses of math.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Which leaves the place which was supposedly created by a deity for his children extremely vulnerable and teetering on the verge of extinction.


On the flip side, He has already done the flood thing. Round 2 might be death by asteroid.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> If this 1 (remember it only takes 1) god was proven to exist -
> 
> AAs would be wrong.
> Before we start going around in circles, yes it would only take universal PROOF of 1 god for AAs to be wrong. On this we agree. Post #10
> ...



Gotcha.  Take a look at this link:https://www.thoughtco.com/why-mathematics-is-a-language-4158142.  its a pretty interesting read.  It reminds me of the movie Contact.  Remember how we contacted them and they contacted us?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Gotcha.  Take a look at this link:https://www.thoughtco.com/why-mathematics-is-a-language-4158142.  its a pretty interesting read.  It reminds me of the movie Contact.  Remember how we contacted them and they contacted us?


I actually dont have a problem with calling math a language.
Back in the "old days" and I would assume even today, traders who spoke different languages could easily convey "your 1 sheep is worth these 3 ducks" without speaking a word. The math did the talking. 1 of those = 3 of these.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> 1. I just can't not wonder how come 'order' exists at all, deity or not. What gives?
> 2. Meanwhile, changing a little to a related subject above, re. 'math being a man-made construct' .....
> Not being a mathematician or linguist...
> Question: then math would be a language that seems to speak in _measured_ fashion of the orderliness that _is_ found???


What we see, experience, discover are all things that exist because the conditions allow them to. That is why we can live on Earth and not on Mars. That is why we live on land and not under water. We can breathe Oxygen and not Nitrogen. Its seems as normal and orderly when everything is going right. Crack a window to get a breath of Order on the Space Station and it will get disorderly in a hurry.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> On the flip side, He has already done the flood thing. Round 2 might be death by asteroid.


Lets get on with it then.


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 7, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Lets get on with it then.


I’m in no hurry.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> I’m in no hurry.


Why? The next life is supposed to be way better.


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 7, 2021)

The existence of God and the existence of an afterlife are two different things.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> The existence of God and the existence of an afterlife are two different things.


Depends on what God though right?
Do you worship a God?
Would you care to share which one or ones if so?


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2021)

There's no hurry in eternal life.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2021)

Israel said:


> There's no hurry in eternal life.


I'd rather start over and then start over and then start over ....
Eternal life, if such a thing exists, would be too long for me.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 7, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> 1. I just can't not wonder how come 'order' exists at all, deity or not. What gives?
> 2. Meanwhile, changing a little to a related subject above, re. 'math being a man-made construct' .....
> Not being a mathematician or linguist...
> Question: then math would be a language that seems to speak in _measured_ fashion of the orderliness that _is_ found???



Your wondering and questions are legitimate.


RegularJoe said:


> 1. I just can't not wonder how come 'order' exists at all, deity or not



As a Christian I credit God for order along with many other attributes. For me “order” exist because God ordered / ordained it to. I don’t think you’ll find anyone that’ll argue that order doesn’t exist, the debate will cone down to the source of “what / who” caused order to exist. 


> 2.
> Question: then math would be a language that seems to speak in _measured_ fashion of the orderliness that _is_ found???


Math can be a language. 

What “order” along with many other attributes credited to God can’t do is prove God to anyone other than the individual that can see God in that attribute.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 7, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Your wondering and questions are legitimate.
> 
> 
> As a Christian I credit God for order along with many other attributes. For me “order” exist because God ordered / ordained it to. I don’t think you’ll find anyone that’ll argue that order doesn’t exist, the debate will cone down to the source of “what / who” caused order to exist.
> ...


I like to use the miracle of life example. To me it shows God's power and plan using His science. It's His plan. This birth is also pregnancy which is science. Not just humans but all life to include adaptations and evolution.
To me I can't see it happening without God and His science. To an Atheist he can see it with just the science explanation.

Now lets go to the dark side and see cancer or illness. That is the same science and same God. That too is a negative miracle of God's science.
We can't give the good stuff to God's creation and the bad stuff to just science.
The Atheist see both examples as just science.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 7, 2021)

Artfuldodger said:


> I like to use the miracle of life example. To me it shows God's power and plan using His science. It's His plan. This birth is also pregnancy which is science. Not just humans but all life to include adaptations and evolution.
> To me I can't see it happening without God and His science. To an Atheist he can see it with just the science explanation.
> 
> Now lets go to the dark side and see cancer or illness. That is the same science and same God. That too is a negative miracle of God's science.
> ...





> We can't give the good stuff to God's creation and the bad stuff to just science.


Absolutely. I don’t have to understand his work in order to understand he’s in control and has a plan.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> I’m in no hurry.


I'm with you on this one


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> The existence of God and the existence of an afterlife are two different things.


I will 2nd Bullets question -


> Would you care to share which one or ones if so?


You have given hints of believing in Christianity/the Christian God however your above statement throws a bit of a monkey wrench in that.
Since beliefs can vary widely, I/we dont want to make wrong assumptions on what you may or may not believe.


----------



## Qazaq15 (Aug 8, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Depends on what God though right?
> Do you worship a God?
> Would you care to share which one or ones if so?



If I was going to pick a label, Deism resonates with me the most.  The belief that God exists, but He doesn’t interfere in our lives directly.  On the topic of the afterlife,  even some Christian faiths believe in oblivion after death, like Jehovahs witnesses.  I think it’s a bit presumptuous to assume that belief in God assumes Christianity and everything that goes with it.


----------



## Israel (Aug 8, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I'd rather start over and then start over and then start over ....
> Eternal life, if such a thing exists, would be too long for me.



OK...would you accept a 1/2 off special?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2021)

Israel said:


> OK...would you accept a 1/2 off special?


----------



## Israel (Aug 8, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


>


You know I was being facetious, right?

But, of course!

Eternal life is a quality rather than just a simple length. And if I understand what Bullet is saying, or may be hinting at...sheer length would indeed become tedious without any understanding of its quality. Or actually better (because it is all dependent upon this)...from whom it is given.

If Bullet is reading I would ask him..."Are you opting (as if there were "options") for the starting over and over because it would appear in that there is an always refreshing of discovery...of finding new and engaging things..."again"...rather than the coming to where all would become tedious?"

As he once kinda put it...you can only be thrilled so many times with a perfect 1000 yard shot. Or a 15 lb bass. But that would be if there was a "limit" of discovery of pleasurable things (which we so often measure against what we find pleasurable) or most pleasurable "of this life".

For some heavenly life/eternal life might appear like that..."Think of the thing(s) you best enjoy and multiply it by..." But we all know...eventually, no matter how engaging (and we would also ask, doesn't the risk of failing add a little to the "thrill"?) I mean..."I might not make this shot...but man, if I do!"

But take that away; to where every shot is guaranteed perfect, every cast right into a bucketmouth's hiding place, well...it's already boring to consider! We enjoy "aiming for perfection" without a guarantee, but simultaneously embracing some form of an _engaging of disappointment _as possibility that for us "keeps it interesting" as every contest has. I want to triumph...but will I? It will "say" something if I do. But man, who doesn't hate what it says...when we don't?

Loser.

It seems such _possible joy_ when balanced against _possible failure_...then becomes a "wash". Think of that computer from the movie "War Games", trying every possible permutation where everything ends in stalemate. Stale. Futile. Meaningless to even start to play. Contests are such. What thrills the gambler knows. What despairs the gambler knows. Is it just to, by the experiences...serve to only keep him distracted from a greater underlying truth..."Why even start the game of chance?" A way to "pass the time"?

But what if, as that thing I may wrongly infer from Bullet's preference for "starting over and over" as inclusive of that thing of "fresh discovery" which is attractive...eternal life meant engaging with a "thing"/form of life (for me, simply a person) of limitless depth and discovery so that time even gets lost in "always new" discovery? No need to start over...because the end of discovery is never reached, the childlike thrill never grows stale, and (dare I say it?)...one doesn't have to turn from the most passionate gaze and say..."Honey as much as I could stare into your eyes all night, I've got an early shift tomorrow".

Now, admittedly...if that "gaze" (do you remember it?) eventually loses its appeal of holding...(do you remember) and begins to lose out to other things (like early shifts)...do we each at least remember when there was a time...maybe only a few, maybe finite to whatever degree..."early shift be darned...I'm not looking away for anything"? And "staying awake" was not even a choice...or chore?

Being awakened to eternal life is engaging with what is never "old", can never grow old, and is an ever ascending into freshness and the inexhaustible...and can take hold...even here...where opposition presents itself as the more "real" and permanent...but where even that...must give way to the infinite depths and heights only found in what is "not of this world".

I see how futile I am in my words...but I find if all is reduced I am learning (as much as I enjoy so many things)...the getting to know the one who created me to enjoy them...even desired I do... and compared as much as they may be in my pleasures (Oh, how I love sitting lakeside around a campfire! didja hear that? Man that fish jumped close to shore!)...the One who made me to enjoy such a thing...is far more wondrous.

And I have not even begun to touch the even more wondrous I have been given to know and enjoy...by which campfires pale...but with whom I can share them, too.

Some things really are too wondrous for words.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2021)

Israel said:


> You know I was being facetious, right?
> 
> But, of course!
> 
> ...


Beautiful children.

You are somewhat right at getting what I meant but a few sentences in when you assert what Eternal life is (based off of?????) I have a hard time taking your word for it.

At what age in our earthly life does our Eternal life start?
Are we 50+ years old wise and 18-25 yrs old strong?
What follows through with a person? The good times? The Sorrow? Both

I've been there and done that already. No need or want to spend Eternity trying to continue what I've already accomplished.

I've been with the same woman since I am 16, going on 52 shortly...I love her..I really do, but not THAT much!!!! Spend a lifetime together.. sign me up, Spend eternity together..check please! ?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2021)

Math is comprised of Axioms. 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2021)

https://medium.com/the-liturgical-l...god-s-existence-from-mathematics-a30bdd30d6bd


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Beautiful children.
> 
> You are somewhat right at getting what I meant but a few sentences in when you assert what Eternal life is (based off of?????) I have a hard time taking your word for it.
> 
> ...


If life is eternal, does it have a beginning? Usually eternal things have no beginning nor end.


----------



## Israel (Aug 10, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Beautiful children.
> 
> You are somewhat right at getting what I meant but a few sentences in when you assert what Eternal life is (based off of?????) I have a hard time taking your word for it.
> 
> ...



I'm all with you there in the



> I have a hard time taking your word for it.



And that's because I too have a "hard time" taking another's word for how things are.
God knows (as I am convinced God knows) in all my matters of what we would call "the faith" and anything to which I might believe I have seen to some, or any attaining has all been a result of being dragged "kicking and screaming".

Not one iota has been a result of "Oh, that makes perfect sense Jesus, you make your case perfectly to me" or some innate disposition of mine to be obedient to Jesus Christ. If God had a dictionary it would be my picture next to His definition of reluctance. Or pigheadedness, or rebellious nature.

And if after these short years I do find some sense in the how of "how" God has worked with me (in a patience defying all my own reasoning) it is only because He again, has dragged me to that place of seeing it.

I too well relate to these guys, who being fishermen, and having fished fruitlessly all night are told to again, let down their nets. I know all my arguments against (well, actually that is probably presumption) this.

"I am a fisherman, I know better than anyone how this works. When a hundred times I have let down my nets all night, and a hundred times they have come up empty...it means plainly _there are no fish here now_".

If I could explain how to get to "Nevertheless at thy word" without some argument I surely would...but I cannot...for I know I have offered any and every argument (as I have known them) for "how" "you can't be right...at least about this, and this now, Jesus".

Or, the two sons. One says "Yes" he's going to go work in the field as his Father instructs...but doesn't go. The other says "No"...but later thinks better of it, and goes. Jesus uses the second as the example of doing the will of the Father.

Now, I understand it could seem I am proposing by my interpretation "always say 'no'"...but that would be an entirely wrong inference. But I have been convinced (and I am made glad by Jesus' example) of how he knows us so well, and how, despite how we may think "we are" in relationship to command and instruction...Jesus always knows better. I don't think I am anymore inclined to being told "how things are" than you, or any other man..."Thanks but no thanks, I'll find out for myself".

This goes for everything I believe I hear. Even...no...most especially for those things I (to myself...and probably to others appear) in relationship to those matters I may seem to "so easily" approve. I think it was CS Lewis who said something like

"Everyone agrees forgiveness is a wonderful idea...until there is something to forgive".

Now, it doesn't mean "Nothing can be learned...ever" or that there is no growth nor maturing. (Not claiming any for myself, I am just a beginner at this)...but that I find that regardless of what I may think I know, or have obtained...there is another always, so to speak...upping the ante...so that the moment I think I have grasped or secured something of "forgive" or "love your enemies" or "have faith" or "fear not" I am brought to a situation where all my arguing (even despite what I have seen of any miraculous working) becomes..."but surely you cannot mean in this instance!"..."This couldn't be a situation you saw coming for the application of that!".
There are no fish here.

But then again...it could well be the "ante" is never upped, but only to me seems so. Maybe in truth the lesson is "You've never really trusted me, or forgiven, or loved...but...don't worry. I'm not done yet with you. No one knows better than me how impossible it is for man...but with me, all things are possible...even that!"

I don't much (at first) like finding out I am the most common of men anymore than you probably appreciated my saying how much alike we are. Yeah! I get it.

How could I bristle at being found "suspect" in that saying...when He who knows all knows exactly how "suspect" I have found Him! Surely Lord...in this instance...you must be a little bit "off"! I don't see how this could "work" here..._I better do something myself. _

Sure Lord, (I say in such grandiosity) I grant you (ha ha ha ha ha)...you were right about, and in, those "other things"...but here...now...this calls for me to do something! (there's not enough ha ha's)




"OK, but I gotta know for myself"

Yeah, I get that.

And even for as much as the too many times I have been shown wrong to the Lord's being right "about things"...forcing me past all my arguments (I don't know how else to put it) I still can't "bottle" how He does it. He just...does.

I am, and seem, slowly being persuaded (and could well be at best for a place that His patience is made able to shine) that the "yes" man I once thought I was to be, was even supposed to be...even fondly (O! the vanity) liked to think myself as possibly being...is _far more_ the "no man" than the man who says "no".

I have found slowly, and I don't believe I am done yet (I'm still breathing)...............................................yep, I just checked...still....................
most useless at the very moment _I believe_ I can be _a help._


"OK...but I still gotta know for myself!"

Don't we all?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2021)

Israel said:


> And that's because I too have a "hard time" taking another's word for how things are.


Israel it was YOU who introduced a claim/assertion about what Eternity consists of. Like 99.999% of your posts those claims are made without you then taking the time to back up what you say with factual examples that even remotely lend credit towards what you are saying.
Below, if that is an attempt to clarify your claim about Eternity (which is why I said that I have a hard time taking your word for it), is some rant about you likening yourself to ancient fishermen.
About the only Eternity that I can get out of the rest of it is the amount of time it takes to read through and then decipher if there is an explanation about the topic at hand.





Israel said:


> God knows (as I am convinced God knows) in all my matters of what we would call "the faith" and anything to which I might believe I have seen to some, or any attaining has all been a result of being dragged "kicking and screaming".
> 
> Not one iota has been a result of "Oh, that makes perfect sense Jesus, you make your case perfectly to me" or some innate disposition of mine to be obedient to Jesus Christ. If God had a dictionary it would be my picture next to His definition of reluctance. Or pigheadedness, or rebellious nature.
> 
> ...



Try using facts and data to explain current claims instead of trying to intertwine what is written in an ancient book with current happenings.
If Jesus "said to Peter" (for example) it's because he was talking to Peter,  for a specific purpose in that particular moment about a specific situation and or point.
From that line all you "know" is what one guy supposedly said to another guy according to an author who wasn't there to hear it. You "knowing" anything more about it is your imagination and it shows when you not only constantly pretend to "know" all about dead people's thoughts,wants, needs and emotions but then leap them forward into a modern conversation in which NONE of them are presently involved in except when you have to introduce them into it as a distraction to lead anyone reading away from the fact that you cannot explain YOUR claims. You just make them.
Twice you bowed out and went MIA when asked to directly make an apologist attempt at discussing the requirements for Messiah.
Now you are back and fishing with the boys of 2000 years ago. The reason the nets are empty is because you elude to stocking your pond with big fish but none ever actually make it in the water
Thats great.
Now that we got that out of the way tell us what you know, what you've learned from experience about Eternity which allows you to portray a persona that leads us to believe you "know"... Or is it a figure of speech so you can go on with your personal writings in the hopes that someone buys into it and believes you like you believe the ancient authors?

When asked for an explanation USUALLY the person asking is expecting the explanation pertaining to the subject/topic at hand...the one in this instance YOU made about Eternity. In my case regarding me asking you about an explanation for Eternity I in fact was asking for a reply which had to do with your Eternity claim, not just ANY explanation about ANY subject with tangents that found it's way into your fingers.

Is it too much for me to expect you to be be able to just explain if not back up your claims and assertions?
If so just tell me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2021)

Israel said:


> You know I was being facetious, right?
> 
> But, of course!
> 
> ...


Israel, Ive been meaning to ask but keep forgetting - is that a pic of your grandkids?


----------



## Israel (Aug 11, 2021)

those are the great grandkids...children of the grandchildren my wife had when I married her.

But I have not known them as anything but "mine" (as gift) and they have never known me as anything but their Boompah for both better and worse from their births.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2021)

Israel said:


> those are the great grandkids...children of the grandchildren my wife had when I married her.
> 
> But I have not known them as anything but "mine" (as gift) and they have never known me as anything but their Boompah for both better and worse from their births.


Awesome!
Im never going to be able to read your posts again without thinking "Boompah" 
And Im diggin' that young man's shark shorts!


----------



## Israel (Aug 11, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Israel it was YOU who introduced a claim/assertion about what Eternity consists of. Like 99.999% of your posts those claims are made without you then taking the time to back up what you say with factual examples that even remotely lend credit towards what you are saying.
> Below, if that is an attempt to clarify your claim about Eternity (which is why I said that I have a hard time taking your word for it), is some rant about you likening yourself to ancient fishermen.
> About the only Eternity that I can get out of the rest of it is the amount of time it takes to read through and then decipher if there is an explanation about the topic at hand.
> 
> ...




Of course I have already conceded to believing in matters related by men and men's writings who were not physically present. Why go so far to make that case as though to me (or anyone else) it's a veiled thing? An "aha!" moment. Or that I do not realize we may be coming at this from two very distinct places.

I stipulate to it from the get go. I stipulate to that from "In the beginning God...", and also do many of my brothers. The Author always present, the amanuensis making his appearance subsequent to that.

I testify of spirit, and that Spirit of God which is truth that alone supports anything regarded as facts. You, on the other hand appear as one who believes truth is solely supported by facts. Yes, we come at it quite differently. I might say God first...all other doings in and of creation subsequent are supported by that truth...whereas you (or some other) might be left to sort through all that appears in consequence to that. Thinking that, unless verifiable by means of man's verification's would either support or refute.

Yes, I stipulate to the futility of that best phrased here:

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 

I do not seek, nor can I rely upon my reason to "reason back" to God, instead being persuaded (in ways you seem not yet ready to receive) that all reason is already established...and that if there be any "of mine" it is completely dependent (and bounder-ed) according to that already established reason.

And I have no issue with assertions as some might seem to want to heap some _deserved issue to_; as being less than valid currency. All assumptions are assertions, simply of an unstated variety. The man who believes (assumes) his reasoning is perfectly sound is no less subject to a deconstructing no matter how he claims his reasonings are established to an exquisite accuracy. Preponderance of evidence, multiple sources...etc. 

I am in that sense perhaps a bit different from some, but surely not all; I see it best (though often with some consternation, I cannot deny) for men to speak all that is in their hearts. Make every assertion (their assumptions are plain to this) known to themselves for the knowing, contest, deny, refute...and even agree where such seems true to each; only because I am persuaded the hearer of all things is always both present and ready to either dissuade or further establish.  

Some would say "But we need to make sure He is here, first". And I get that, but I am already persuaded of His primacy. And of course, I am not alone.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I understand how many think "if I would just see something truly miraculous (to me)...inexplicable by any other means...then, oh yes, then...I would believe"

I no longer harbor any such illusion (that leads to delusion)...but that the miracle takes place in and upon the man and is not a something he is ( by his own reasoning) willing to "take in"...but he himself is made ...first...miraculously able to see.

I will not seek to establish this solely as the working of that miracle, for here chicken and egg thinking is not casually discerned to a formula, but also I will not deny some immanence to it. 

"They have Moses and the prophets"...a conviction that there is a righteousness being made known in a place that otherwise has no testimony of it from itself. Where all is lie and deceit...yet, the conviction comes despite this...that there is a true righteousness. To myself, I'm that place. Where I find nothing of truth in myself, I am yet convicted truth is, righteousness is, life is (of that quality, eternal), where justice and mercy are not exclusive of one another...and that there's a true reconciling of _all that is not God_...with God.

Of course I expect more often than not..."Prove it!"


But there's only one place I am relieved of all burden, even burden of proof, and to that I hope to testify and do assert...Jesus is Lord.

I'm not only still amazed...but even more amazed as "things" progress that this testimony would be placed in a husk such as this as privilege, not duty...even though it is as I am finding, only right duty for it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2021)

Israel said:


> Of course I have already conceded to believing in matters related by men and men's writings who were not physically present. Why go so far to make that case as though to me (or anyone else) it's a veiled thing? An "aha!" moment. Or that I do not realize we may be coming at this from two very distinct places.
> 
> I stipulate to it from the get go. I stipulate to that from "In the beginning God...", and also do many of my brothers. The Author always present, the amanuensis making his appearance subsequent to that.
> 
> ...


I cannot find an explanation about what Eternity is in there anywhere.


----------



## Israel (Aug 13, 2021)

The absence of time. Maybe better the timelessness where all is new, never aging nor old...always fresh.

Though I may not have been on all the same pages with Prince's theology, His seeking to engage in music and through music a translation of what is tasted comes close...especially in its title.


----------



## 1gr8buildit (Aug 17, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> Alert: This vid was produced by a Christian apologetics author/speaker
> (by the name of William Lane Craig.).
> The title of the vid is "_The (Un)Reasonablenss of Mathematics._"
> At 1min. 37sec. the vid poses the question, "_Why does mathematics work?_"
> ...


After his walk of his perceived brillant deduction.... give him a year.... and he will come back with another such.... Gravity proves God


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2021)

1gr8buildit said:


> After his walk of his perceived brillant deduction.... give him a year.... and he will come back with another such.... Gravity proves God


New name????


----------



## 1gr8buildit (Aug 18, 2021)

bullethead said:


> New name????


LOL, Forgot my password and was linked to an abandoned email account so I had to re-register.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 23, 2021)

Qazaq15 said:


> Not sure I follow.  I speak of order in the sense that the apparent existence of universal laws(gravity, electrostatic attraction, etc.) govern the behavior of matter and systems in very predictable ways.  An astronomer can make observations of a star system and make accurate predictions about its behavior in the future.  In a truly chaotic system this wouldn't be possible.



In a_ truly _chaotic system humans wouldn't be here to discuss it.


----------



## Israel (Aug 24, 2021)

oldfella1962 said:


> In a_ truly _chaotic system humans wouldn't be here to discuss it.


Thank you for that.

Does it not then beg the question/consideration of the existence (and/or operation in this creation)_ at all_, of _any_ chaos?

And no less importantly...if one were to be able to make some sort of argument that would somehow include partial order/partial chaos (which on its face seems absurd) wouldn't one be left in the untenable position of making such; not knowing whether their device making such statement (mind/consciousness) is product unknowing of its own origins?

My personal conviction (such as it is) is that any introduction of what might appear to any man's judgment as chaos, is purposely introduced into this system in a perfectly orderly manner. (As is all else)


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2010/09/universe-chaotic-from-beginning.html


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

To coin the term chaotic there must be chaos. Humans have existed for a very short time and their very nature is chaotic because nature is chaotic.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

https://www.livescience.com/50941-s...em to degenerate into a more disordered state.

The laws of thermodynamics describe the relationships between thermal energy, or heat, and other forms of energy, and how energy affects matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total _quantity_ of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the _quality_ of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.


----------



## RegularJoe (Aug 24, 2021)

Am I interpreting accurately what the scientists in BULLETHEAD's Link are stating?
That:
1. Before the 'big bang,' the universe was in scientifically defined 'chaos.'
2. After the 'big bang,' it was not ... there was 'order' in the wake of the 'big bang,' though some of that 'order' is 'relative.'  
3. Maybe someone could help me with this, as well: Are the scientists saying that post 'big bang' the universe is 100% orderly, i.e., leaving no room for any 'chaos?'
Thx.



bullethead said:


> https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2010/09/universe-chaotic-from-beginning.html


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2021)

Israel said:


> Thank you for that.
> 
> Does it not then beg the question/consideration of the existence (and/or operation in this creation)_ at all_, of _any_ chaos?
> 
> ...





> not knowing whether their device making such statement (mind/consciousness) is product unknowing of its own origins?


Isnt that ^ pretty much where we (humanity) stand?
We have Theories, we have beliefs, we have educated guesses etc...
But nobody has PROVEN anything.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2021)

I still have a problem with the terms "chaos" and "orderly".
Both are terms assigned to what man considers to be chaotic and orderly. Judgement calls. What man considers those terms to mean/apply to.
What we (man) consider chaotic could be exactly as it could only be. Is that then chaotic?


----------



## Israel (Aug 24, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> I still have a problem with the terms "chaos" and "orderly".
> Both are terms assigned to what man considers to be chaotic and orderly. Judgement calls. What man considers those terms to mean/apply to.
> What we (man) consider chaotic could be exactly as it could only be. Is that then chaotic?


I am convinced at this point of the peculiarly and exquisitely ordered matter of what we may call faith. It precedes all a man might say, or even_ know for the saying_ to any other man. In this place sitting together for comparative discussion is not only futile, but absurdly foolish. It is that place each man has where he gives an answer to "Do I perceive order" or "Is order perceived"?

It is everything that cannot be made subject to consensus. Cannot be buttressed by the opinions of others nor diminished by others.  The matter is so personal that it even matters not whether the man admits to responding, is conscious of his response, or _claims to reject_ the question altogether. For the moment a man opens his mouth for the exchange of any information he has tacitly made known his inward stance.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> Am I interpreting accurately what the scientists in BULLETHEAD's Link are stating?
> That:
> 1. Before the 'big bang,' the universe was in scientifically defined 'chaos.'
> 2. After the 'big bang,' it was not ... there was 'order' in the wake of the 'big bang,' though some of that 'order' is 'relative.'
> ...


Where does it mention what was going on Pre-Big Bang?
And,
"Though the initial studies failed to show that an arbitrary initial state of the universe would eventually converge to its current form, researchers found something potentially even more interesting: the possibility that the universe as a whole was born inherently chaotic."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

Israel said:


> I am convinced at this point of the peculiarly and exquisitely ordered matter of what we may call faith. It precedes all a man might say, or even_ know for the saying_ to any other man. In this place sitting together for comparative discussion is not only futile, but absurdly foolish. It is that place each man has where he gives an answer to "Do I perceive order" or "Is order perceived"?
> 
> It is everything that cannot be made subject to consensus. Cannot be buttressed by the opinions of others nor diminished by others.  The matter is so personal that it even matters not whether the man admits to responding, is conscious of his response, or _claims to reject_ the question altogether. For the moment a man opens his mouth for the exchange of any information he has tacitly made known his inward stance.


That does not account for a person's stance and willingness to alter their stance when their stance is guided by the best possible evidence at the time.


----------



## Israel (Aug 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> That does not account for a person's stance and willingness to alter their stance when their stance is guided by the best possible evidence at the time.


There's no need to account for anything...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

Israel said:


> There's no need to account for anything...


No, Not when you assert only one possibility as fact.
Reality is different than that though.


----------



## Israel (Aug 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> No, Not when you assert only one possibility as fact.
> 
> 
> Reality is different than that though.



How so? Is it chaos, or order(ed). If the first what matter? If the second, what would you like to add?

Do I sound as funny to you as you do to me when you talk about "reality"?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

Israel said:


> How so? Is it chaos, or order(ed). If the first what matter? If the second, what would you like to add?
> 
> Do I sound as funny to you as you do to me when you talk about "reality"?


The reality in this case is that there is more than the one option you assert. It does not matter whether or not it is funny to you.


> For the moment a man opens his mouth for the exchange of any information he has tacitly made known his inward stance.


That is not accurate. There are factors that you did not account for.


----------



## Israel (Aug 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The reality in this case is that there is more than the one option you assert. It does not matter whether or not it is funny to you.
> 
> That is not accurate. There are factors that you did not account for.


Feel free to say. Add away.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2021)

Israel said:


> Feel free to say. Add away.


A person could be purposely deceitful, lying.


----------



## Israel (Aug 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> A person could be purposely deceitful, lying.


OK.

But how would that work in the matter of chaos and order in regards to inner conviction of either?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2021)

Israel said:


> OK.
> 
> But how would that work in the matter of chaos and order in regards to inner conviction of either?


My statement is in regards to this:


> For the moment a man opens his mouth for the exchange of any information he has tacitly made known his inward stance.


In reference to your statement above answer these two questions:
Who would the man have made his inward stance known to? And how would they know his inward stance unless he was telling the truth?

If the man was telling the truth there would be order.
If he was lying to be deceitful then he is introducing disorder/chaos.


----------



## RegularJoe (Aug 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Where does it mention what was going on Pre-Big Bang?


In the opening paragraph? ...
_"EVANSTON, Ill. --- Seven years ago Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe 
at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic. 
Now he and a colleague 
have proven it using rigorous mathematical arguments."_


bullethead said:


> https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2010/09/universe-chaotic-from-beginning.html


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> In the opening paragraph? ...
> _"EVANSTON, Ill. --- Seven years ago Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe
> at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic.
> Now he and a colleague
> have proven it using rigorous mathematical arguments."_


It clearly says At The Time Of...
No mention of Pre Big Bang.


----------



## Israel (Aug 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> My statement is in regards to this:
> 
> In reference to your statement above answer these two questions:
> Who would the man have made his inward stance known to? And how would they know his inward stance unless he was telling the truth?
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly.

The scriptures have a phrase for this...

Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness... or "holds the truth in unrighteousness".

The man believing he holds/contains enough of order to judge life in the creation yet maintains to others there is no order to it.

The only consistent position for the "true" nihilist is silence at all times and in all matters.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 25, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> In the opening paragraph? ...
> _"EVANSTON, Ill. --- Seven years ago Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe
> at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic.
> Now he and a colleague
> have proven it using rigorous mathematical arguments."_


Yeah, as Bullet noted, I read that as.... at the moment in time of the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe was highly chaotic.
I dont read it as commenting on anything before that moment in time.
Not saying Im "right", just saying how I personally read it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2021)

Israel said:


> I agree wholeheartedly.


You didn't answer my two questions that I asked you.



Israel said:


> The scriptures have a phrase for this...


People apply scripture to everything  and anything they need to when most times scripture was meant for the moment at hand in scripture. 



Israel said:


> Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness... or "holds the truth in unrighteousness".
> 
> The man believing he holds/contains enough of order to judge life in the creation yet maintains to others there is no order to it.


Which man says there is strictly No Order to it?



Israel said:


> The only consistent position for the "true" nihilist is silence at all times and in all matters.


 oohhhh kaaayyyyyy


----------



## RegularJoe (Aug 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It clearly says At The Time Of...
> No mention of Pre Big Bang.


Right.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2021)

RegularJoe said:


> Am I interpreting accurately what the scientists in BULLETHEAD's Link are stating?
> That:
> 1. Before the 'big bang,' the universe was in scientifically defined 'chaos.'
> 2. After the 'big bang,' it was not ... there was 'order' in the wake of the 'big bang,' though some of that 'order' is 'relative.'
> ...


Here you were asking about if before the Big Bang there was chaos and if after the Big Bang there was order.
The article didn't say either of those things.
I pointed out what the article did say.


----------



## RegularJoe (Aug 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Here you were asking about if before the Big Bang there was chaos and if after the Big Bang there was order.
> The article didn't say either of those things.
> I pointed out what the article did say.


You are right: I inquired.
You are right: You replied.
Thank you.


----------



## Israel (Aug 25, 2021)

Of itself, he wouldn't be compelled to make his stance/conviction known to anyone.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 25, 2021)

Israel said:


> Of itself, he wouldn't be compelled to make his stance/conviction known to anyone.


Would be a really boring AAA participant


----------



## Israel (Aug 25, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Would be a really boring AAA participant




That's funny Walt, though I am not implying anyone here is a nihilist unless one cares to maintain that...that life is meaningless, indeed that all that might be considered is ultimately meaningless, in which case I could only find one salient question  "then why bother to tell anyone?"


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2021)

I didn't worry about this life until I was born into it and I am spending my time on this life for as long as I can. It has worked for me so far. 
If there is a Part II, I will deal with that when and if it happens.
This life is much too short for me to spend my time trying to cover all of possibilities of what may come after it. If my actions now don't get me into the 2nd round so be it.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I didn't worry about this life until I was born into it and I am spending my time on this life for as long as I can. It has worked for me so far.
> If there is a Part II, I will deal with that when and if it happens.
> This life is much too short for me to spend my time trying to cover all of possibilities of what may come after it. If my actions now don't get me into the 2nd round so be it.





> I am spending my time on this life for as long as I can.


Same here - I am enjoying everyday to the fullest. My wife nags at me all the time about my sleep habits. She said the average person needs 8 hours of sleep per day. I told her that was 1/3 of a mans life - I said if I lived to be 60, that means I was only awake for 40 years! I ain`t sleeping 1/3 of my life away. 


> If there is a Part II,


I believe there is. I have hope that there is, but I don`t live in insecurity worrying about it.  



> This life is much too short for me to spend my time trying to cover all of possibilities of what may come after it


Ditto. Except I only consider one possibility - the rest are insignificant for me.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Same here - I am enjoying everyday to the fullest. My wife nags at me all the time about my sleep habits. She said the average person needs 8 hours of sleep per day. I told her that was 1/3 of a mans life - I said if I lived to be 60, that means I was only awake for 40 years! I ain`t sleeping 1/3 of my life away.
> 
> I believe there is. I have hope that there is, but I don`t live in insecurity worrying about it.
> 
> ...


I just have one less significant thing to worry about than you my man! ?


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I just have one less significant thing to worry about than you my man! ?


Bout the only thing I worry with these days is finding reloading supplies lol


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Bout the only thing I worry with these days is finding reloading supplies lol


Come up North for a weekend, I will get you what you need.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 25, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Come up North for a weekend, I will get you what you need.


I will definitely do that!! Will text you soon and set something up. You know we can’t drive in snow so I gotta do it before winter hits lol


----------

