# The question is then posed...



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 18, 2015)




----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2015)

We are human, we look for patterns, it's what we do.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 18, 2015)

I'm struggling mightily through Max Tegmark's book _Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality_.  I'm not halfway through yet and I was confused after the first chapter. He's trying to make theoretical math as accessible as possible for a layperson but it's still mind boggling.  I'm trudging through not fully comprehending everything he's talking about but what I notice is that he's very clear about where these theories come from. Anyone with the patience can fully understand what those mathematicians are doing.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> We are human, we look for patterns, it's what we do.



Duh... that's obvious. The interesting thing is that we actually find them when there is no reason why they should be there at all.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 18, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Duh... that's obvious. The interesting thing is that we actually find them when there is no reason why they should be there at all.



Certain crystals form in hexagonal clusters others form in sheets.  It's based on the shape of the molecules that they're made of.

Trying to suggest that this indicates a "Creator" is equivalent to suggesting that certain crystals can alleviate abdominal pain whereas others are good for athlete's foot.  It's just wishful thinking.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I'm struggling mightily through Max Tegmark's book _Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality_.  I'm not halfway through yet and I was confused after the first chapter. He's trying to make theoretical math as accessible as possible for a layperson but it's still mind boggling.  I'm trudging through not fully comprehending everything he's talking about but what I notice is that he's very clear about where these theories come from. Anyone with the patience can fully understand what those mathematicians are doing.



I read a book some time ago called Emblems of Mind: Where music and Mathematics meet (or something like that). I've not read the book you mentioned but if I can work through my current reading list, I'll probably read it sometime next year. 

The main crux of the argument in the video is the an argument that has been around ever since man could comprehend nature mathematically: Why does it follow these relations? The answer leading to the idea that the universe is composed of these relations, looking strangely like a fixed game; or, this math stuff is just something we made up in our own minds and says nothing of the organization, or lack-thereof, of the universe. Mathematicians and physicists tend toward the former, Engineers the later; laymen will choose based upon their beliefs, usually.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Duh... that's obvious. The interesting thing is that we actually find them when there is no reason why they should be there at all.



Like Jesus on toast and men in clouds. Yes. So interesting.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Certain crystals form in hexagonal clusters others form in sheets.  It's based on the shape of the molecules that they're made of.
> 
> Trying to suggest that this indicates a "Creator" is equivalent to suggesting that certain crystals can alleviate abdominal pain whereas others are good for athlete's foot.  It's just wishful thinking.



Why do they form in such shapes? Why do the charges of protons and electrons not vary? Shouldn't they? It would make sense if they did. Why do the fundamental forces behave as they do? What is energy?

The more I study and learn, the more I am convinced that this Universe is not a stochastic place. It has pattern and symmetry, and that on scales which we have yet to even begin to comprehend IMO. But, none of that matters because "they just happen to fall in place because they're shaped that way".


----------



## Madman (Nov 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Certain crystals form in hexagonal clusters others form in sheets.  It's based on the shape of the molecules that they're made of.
> 
> Trying to suggest that this indicates a "Creator" is equivalent to suggesting that certain crystals can alleviate abdominal pain whereas others are good for athlete's foot.  It's just wishful thinking.



I missed the comparison of Crystalline structure and informational code.

That is not what is being discussed.  the argument is language, code, must come from intelligence. 

Accept it or don't, most believe it is a valid argument.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Like Jesus on toast and men in clouds. Yes. So interesting.



That's cute. Carry on, I'll disturb you no longer.


----------



## j_seph (Nov 18, 2015)

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1362.cfm


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 18, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why do they form in such shapes? Why do the charges of protons and electrons not vary? Shouldn't they? It would make sense if they did. Why do the fundamental forces behave as they do? What is energy?
> 
> The more I study and learn, the more I am convinced that this Universe is not a stochastic place. It has pattern and symmetry, and that on scales which we have yet to even begin to comprehend IMO. But, none of that matters because "they just happen to fall in place because they're shaped that way".



Why does the universe have to make sense?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 18, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why do they form in such shapes? Why do the charges of protons and electrons not vary? Shouldn't they? It would make sense if they did. Why do the fundamental forces behave as they do? What is energy?
> 
> The more I study and learn, the more I am convinced that this Universe is not a stochastic place. It has pattern and symmetry, and that on scales which we have yet to even begin to comprehend IMO. But, none of that matters because "they just happen to fall in place because they're shaped that way".



What you're really getting at at is "Why anything?"

Why not?  

Actually Tegmark's book so far seems to lean towards "It's more likely for there to be something than not." (mathematically, of course).  Then again, he's not getting his data from revelation......or is he?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What you're really getting at at is "Why anything?"



That's an over simplification, but, yes, essentially. As to your 'why not' question, you're smart enough to know that.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why does the universe have to make sense?



It doesn't have to, that's the point.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 18, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> That's an over simplification, but, yes, essentially. As to your 'why not' question, you're smart enough to know that.



Honestly, the math is making a strong argument to me that this universe is more likely to exist than not.  Like I said, I don't completely understand it all but the parts I do understand lead in that direction.



EverGreen1231 said:


> It doesn't have to, that's the point.



If by "It doesn't have to make sense" includes a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old Earth I would say that if the Biblical God exists, I agree with you.  If the Biblical God exists, the apparent laws of the Universe are rendered moot since they can be altered or suspended at any time.  If special relativity or even theoretical math could somehow point to a talking donkey I would consider your position more compelling.  Unfortunately, since the Bible is the only reference material that makes claims about talking donkeys, I feel compelled to disregard it.  

What's more interesting is that ALL the other major religions make their own specific claims about supernatural events that are unsupported by science.  Perhaps you've been given a revelation as to the reasons for that.  If you have, would you share?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Honestly, the math is making a strong argument to me that this universe is more likely to exist than not.  Like I said, I don't completely understand it all but the parts I do understand lead in that direction.



Getting into Hawking's stuff? That's some serious theory (hypothesis, actually, but I digress).



ambush80 said:


> If by "It doesn't have to make sense" includes a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old Earth I would say that if the Biblical God exists, I agree with you.  If the Biblical God exists, the apparent laws of the Universe are rendered moot since they can be altered or suspended at any time.  If special relativity or even theoretical math could somehow point to a talking donkey I would consider your position more compelling.  Unfortunately, since the Bible is the only reference material that makes claims about talking donkeys, I feel compelled to disregard it.
> 
> What's more interesting is that ALL the other major religions make their own specific claims about supernatural events that are unsupported by science.  Perhaps you've been given a revelation as to the reasons for that.  If you have, would you share?



Sure, but like I said, you already know: Science doesn't know everything, nor will it IMO.

You expect mathematics to tell you anything about a talking donkey? Maybe you should read that book of yours a little more slowly.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 18, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Getting into Hawking's stuff? That's some serious theory (hypothesis, actually, but I digress).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know, it's funny, right?

But if a donkey talked then there should be an explanation and that explanation should be describable by math or some other science.

I mean,  that's the whole point of apologetics, isn't it?  Make a rational argument for, say, living in a fish for three days or resurrection.

Did Jesus' body not decay in the tomb?  Did it decay and was restored?  I should think that that kind of information would be useful in the here and now.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I know, it's funny, right?
> 
> But if a donkey talked then there should be an explanation and that explanation should be describable by math or some other science.
> 
> ...



Find me a mathematical theory for evolution. All I've been presented has been descriptive evidence of fragments of fossils that have been constructed into entire creatures that just 'happen' to fit in some proposed timeline.




> I should think that that kind of information would be useful in the here and now.



Why?


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 19, 2015)

The medium is the message.

Gentlemen find and start your mediums.

Mine is: John 6:15 and the rest is all fractal geometry.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Find me a mathematical theory for evolution. All I've been presented has been descriptive evidence of fragments of fossils that have been constructed into entire creatures that just 'happen' to fit in some proposed timeline.



Well.. there's also the fact that we have observed speciation occur in laboratory conditions. The number of fields of science that have made observations that fall in line with exactly what evolutionary theory would predict is simply insurmountable for scientists. Interestingly the main folks that seem overly concerned about evolution are those whose belief system is threatened by the things it tells us about our world.. namely that it is MUCH older than 6000 years old, and that our ancestors were not human in the way that we think of ourselves now. It kind of throws a bone into the whole idea of us being magicked into existence in our present form.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Well.. there's also the fact that we have observed speciation occur in laboratory conditions.



I just reda the entire wikipedia page on speciation.  There could be a whole dang series of threads on that topic.



MiGGeLLo said:


> It kind of throws a bone into the whole idea of us being magicked into existence in our present form.



For some reason, that ^^^ reminded me of Asath.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 1, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Well.. there's also the fact that we have observed speciation occur in laboratory conditions. The number of fields of science that have made observations that fall in line with exactly what evolutionary theory would predict is simply insurmountable for scientists. Interestingly the main folks that seem overly concerned about evolution are those whose belief system is threatened by the things it tells us about our world.. namely that it is MUCH older than 6000 years old, and that our ancestors were not human in the way that we think of ourselves now. It kind of throws a bone into the whole idea of us being magicked into existence in our present form.



I reject evolutionary biology as a science since it lacks any rigor that one would expect from a science. The evolutionary line will change depending upon which biologist or anthropologist you happen to be conversing with at the time; there isn't even an agreed definition of what a species _is_ much less how one could have been derived from another. The point is that pattern and symmetry, which is present and takes mighty big blinders to ignore, do not happen naturally and without direction... period. If there is code, someone wrote it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I just reda the entire wikipedia page on speciation.  There could be a whole dang series of threads on that topic.
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason, that ^^^ reminded me of Asath.



Asath is still around.  He last posted in March.

"Magicked" is a term that atheists seem to use quite often.  I don't know who started it. Maybe Richard Dawkins (who also coined the term Meme).  I like to say "Poofed" myself.  Both terms adequately describe the process of creation as described by creation myths and both imply a well deserved"Taaa-Daaaaaaaa" at the end.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I reject evolutionary biology as a science since it lacks any rigor that one would expect from a science. The evolutionary line will change depending upon which biologist or anthropologist you happen to be conversing with at the time; there isn't even an agreed definition of what a species _is_ much less how one could have been derived from another. The point is that pattern and symmetry, which is present and takes mighty big blinders to ignore, do not happen naturally and without direction... period. If there is code, someone wrote it.



I suppose the scientific thing to do if one were to hypothesize a creator would be to run experiments that would reveal said creator.  I don't think that relying on any of the various creation myths is good science.

As well, a good creationist scientist would try to disprove a creator.  He would explore all the explanations that don't require a creator.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 1, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I reject evolutionary biology as a science since it lacks any rigor that one would expect from a science.



I'm not certain what you mean by this? There is a pretty significant body of evidence for evolution. There are plenty of debates about evolution in the scientific community.. but they are about how specifically it occurs, and which hypothesis seem to hold water, not about whether or not it occurs. That it occurs has already been essentially proven to the point of being a non-sequitur. I'm not going to waste time compiling this evidence for you, but if you put in even a slight effort to look into it I have no doubt you will find it.



> There isn't even an agreed definition of what a species _is_ much less how one could have been derived from another.



And here I thought we had a pretty robust definition for species as any group of genetically similar animals who can reproduce with one another. Of course there are some edge cases such as asexually reproducing organisms, but they can largely still be determined to be the same species by their near identical genetic makeup (in the case of asexual organisms this usually only varies due to mutations, rather than a mixing of genetic makeup from each of the parents). The whole theory of evolution by natural selection is precisely about how one species can branch off into different species. A good example is over a very short period of evolutionary time we have selectively bred dogs to produce the plethora of breeds we have today. Currently dog breeds can interbreed and are considered the same species, but eventually they may become genetically distinct enough that interbreeding is impossible, and thus speciation will have occurred.

Again speciation is something that has actually been observed with creatures with very short lifespans in laboratory conditions. It also occurs as a result of the same forces that have led to the problems we have at present with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution isn't contentious among biologists. 



> The point is that pattern and symmetry, which is present and takes mighty big blinders to ignore, do not happen naturally and without direction... period. If there is code, someone wrote it.



I agree there seem to be some fundamental laws of physics that bring order to our world, and the whole purpose of science is largely to understand more about those laws and the emergent effects of them. Why must there be a creator? And if there must, who created the creator? This creation must have a creator argument showcases the circular reasoning and special pleading logical fallacies perfectly.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 1, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I'm not certain what you mean by this? There is a pretty significant body of evidence for evolution. There are plenty of debates about evolution in the scientific community.. but they are about how specifically it occurs, and which hypothesis seem to hold water, not about whether or not it occurs. That it occurs has already been essentially proven to the point of being a non-sequitur. I'm not going to waste time compiling this evidence for you, but if you put in even a slight effort to look into it I have no doubt you will find it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Changes happen, anyone can see this. It is not observed or supported that said changes lead to new species. I have put effort into it, and that is why I'm able to describe this 'significant body of evidence' in post #18.



MiGGeLLo said:


> I agree there seem to be some fundamental laws of physics that bring order to our world, and the whole purpose of science is largely to understand more about those laws and the emergent effects of them. Why must there be a creator? And if there must, who created the creator? This creation must have a creator argument showcases the circular reasoning and special pleading logical fallacies perfectly.



Since Einstein, there's been a consensus that the Universe began; the very next question that one then asks is... how? Some say, for personal reasons, essentially, 'God did it'; others, again, for personal reasons, say, essentially, 'It just happened'. The former then asks the latter, 'How can that be'? To which the latter responds, 'Oh, yeah, well... how did God get there'. The latter argue like children.

If I were you, I wouldn't make 'The God Delusion' the reference text for the thesis of my arguments.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Since Einstein, there's been a consensus that the Universe began; the very next question that one then asks is... how? Some say, for personal reasons, essentially, 'God did it'; others, again, for personal reasons, say, essentially, 'It just happened'. The former then asks the latter, 'How can that be'? To which the latter responds, 'Oh, yeah, well... how did God get there'. The latter argue like children.
> 
> If I were you, I wouldn't make 'The God Delusion' the reference text for the thesis of my arguments.



Why is the question "Who made God" a childish argument?

Honestly,  why do you even care what science does?  If one day we're able to understand what happened before the Big Bang;  if we find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that the nature of reality is a self sustained, self perpetuating, eternal cycle, you can STILL say "God did it" because the beauty of the _belief_ in God is that it needs no explanation.  You just "believe".


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 1, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It is not observed or supported that said changes lead to new species.



Yes it is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html




> Since Einstein, there's been a consensus that the Universe began; the very next question that one then asks is... how? Some say, for personal reasons, essentially, 'God did it'; others, again, for personal reasons, say, essentially, 'It just happened'. The former then asks the latter, 'How can that be'? To which the latter responds, 'Oh, yeah, well... how did God get there'. The latter argue like children.
> 
> If I were you, I wouldn't make 'The God Delusion' the reference text for the thesis of my arguments.



The God Delusion was not referenced, and as a matter of fact I haven't read it yet, although it is on my short-list. I don't agree that the answer to the question "How did the universe begin?" is "It just happened" or "God did it". Both of these are equally unsatisfactory to me because they come from a place of ignorance. The proper response to questions we as yet do not know the answer to is "I don't know". Is God to be the explanation for everything we don't yet know the answer to? If he fills that niche what then will you do when we DO find the answers?

I am admittedly unsophisticated in my knowledge of physics, so I won't attempt to go into the big bang theory, but to my knowledge it speaks of a phenomenon that we are fairly certain happened due to the presence of cosmic background radiation and the fact that the universe appears to be expanding. What this theory does not attempt to answer is how the 'cosmic egg' got their to begin with. The answer here is "I don't know". Note this answer is decidedly different from "I don't know, therefore it must be God."

Perhaps you have personal revelations that have revealed Gods existence to you, but I have had no such revelations or seen any such proof that couldn't be otherwise explained, and I tend to be suspicious of those who claim otherwise in much the same way that I doubt the stories of the countless people who claim to have experienced being abducted by aliens.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 1, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why is the question "Who made God" a childish argument?
> 
> Honestly,  why do you even care what science does?  If one day we're able to understand what happened before the Big Bang;  if we find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that the nature of reality is a self sustained, self perpetuating, eternal cycle, you can STILL say "God did it" because the beauty of the _belief_ in God is that it needs no explanation.  You just "believe".



Fully agreed:

Special Pleading: Everything needs to have a perfect explanation and proof to be accepted as truth.. except God. Nevermind the huge body of verifiable evidence of evolution, it must be a hoax spawned from an illegitimate science because it conflicts with what I choose to believe.
Also accept my argument that creation needs a creator because something cannot exist from nothing, but don't use that same logic on my God, it doesn't apply to him and suggesting that he should be subjected to the same standards of proof as something as petty as the beginning of the universe is uncalled for and childish.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 1, 2015)

> The God Delusion was not referenced, and as a matter of fact I haven't read it yet, although it is on my short-list. I don't agree that the answer to the question "How did the universe begin?" is "It just happened" or "God did it". Both of these are equally unsatisfactory to me because they come from a place of ignorance. The proper response to questions we as yet do not know the answer to is "I don't know". Is God to be the explanation for everything we don't yet know the answer to? If he fills that niche what then will you do when we DO find the answers?



The answer is known. Has been for a while.



> I am admittedly unsophisticated in my knowledge of physics, so I won't attempt to go into the big bang theory, but to my knowledge it speaks of a phenomenon that we are fairly certain happened due to the presence of cosmic background radiation and the fact that the universe appears to be expanding. What this theory does not attempt to answer is how the 'cosmic egg' got their to begin with. The answer here is "I don't know". Note this answer is decidedly different from "I don't know, therefore it must be God."



I study what physics I know in my spare time, so I'm no 'expert'. But I will say, it's not really that difficult to understand if you can do the math.



> Perhaps you have personal revelations that have revealed Gods existence to you, but I have had no such revelations or seen any such proof that couldn't be otherwise explained, and I tend to be suspicious of those who claim otherwise in much the same way that I doubt the stories of the countless people who claim to have experienced being abducted by aliens.




I've doubted. There was a time when I thought the same as you do. It seemed very sensible, at the time. But I found Him, and He chose me.

I hope you experience the same, one day.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 1, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why is the question "Who made God" a childish argument?



Because, it's usually used in a way that is defensive. Like an 'I know you are, but what am I' type thing. The argument itself is not childish, but, rather, the way it's usually used.



> Honestly,  why do you even care what science does?  If one day we're able to understand what happened before the Big Bang;  if we find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that the nature of reality is a self sustained, self perpetuating, eternal cycle, you can STILL say "God did it" because the beauty of the _belief_ in God is that it needs no explanation.  You just "believe".



I don't really care what science does or says. It's interesting to learn, but my faith lies not in Science or my reasoning and logic. He's told me things that make no sense, yet, are right.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Because, it's usually used in a way that is defensive. Like an 'I know you are, but what am I' type thing. The argument itself is not childish, but, rather, the way it's usually used.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care what science does or says. It's interesting to learn, but my faith lies not in Science or my reasoning and logic. He's told me things that make no sense, yet, are right.



How?  In what ways, specifically?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The answer is known. Has been for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rock solid.  Can't possibly argue against that.  Sorry for the sarcasm, but that's not a very good basis for a discussion.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 3, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How?  In what ways, specifically?



Through his Bible; in a sunrise; by a dying loved one; on a still lake; in a church service; in fall leaves and green grass on the hillside near home; on a chalk board littered with scribbles, speaking of some great physical law; in the glittering of fireflies just before dark; in the depth and movement of a night sky; through the work of great masters of the arts, old along with new; and here: He is all in all.

He speaks continually; the trouble is, despite my best intentions, I seldom listen.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 3, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Through his Bible; in a sunrise; by a dying loved one; on a still lake; in a church service; in fall leaves and green grass on the hillside near home; on a chalk board littered with scribbles, speaking of some great physical law; in the glittering of fireflies just before dark; in the depth and movement of a night sky; through the work of great masters of the arts, old along with new; and here: He is all in all.
> 
> He speaks continually; the trouble is, despite my best intentions, I seldom listen.



Very nice. I see you pick the good out of nature just as you do the bible. 
I guess we all do. Nature can be beautiful but, mostly it is harsh.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 3, 2015)

660griz said:


> Very nice. I see you pick the good out of nature just as you do the bible.
> I guess we all do. Nature can be beautiful but, mostly it is harsh.



I'm sure you've sat by a dying relative, or simply someone you care for deeply... that is nothing if not harsh.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 3, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'm sure you've sat by a dying relative, or simply someone you care for deeply... that is nothing if not harsh.



My mother actually. I have also seen animals born and immediately torn apart. I have seen some of the worst nature has to offer. Luckily, I don't have to live like the rest of the animal kingdom. It is tough out there.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 3, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Through his Bible; in a sunrise; by a dying loved one; on a still lake; in a church service; in fall leaves and green grass on the hillside near home; on a chalk board littered with scribbles, speaking of some great physical law; in the glittering of fireflies just before dark; in the depth and movement of a night sky; through the work of great masters of the arts, old along with new; and here: He is all in all.
> 
> He speaks continually; the trouble is, despite my best intentions, I seldom listen.



Okay, but if he's all in all, he's not just int he good, he's also in the bad. 

That means he was in Auschwitz, and San Bernardino, and the towers on 9/11. 

I understand the appeal of seeing God in a sunrise, or a pleasant event, but I can't bring myself to understand his darker side, especially once one accepts the premise of him being all-powerful. 

If you had to impose a message on the 3 examples I gave above, Auschwitz et al., what would it/they be?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 3, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If you had to impose a message on the 3 examples I gave above, Auschwitz et al., what would it/they be?



Let me guess.
1) The lord works in mysterious ways.
2) We cannot understand is plan.
3) Trials and tribulations are part of his plan. 

Yet, prayers are placed everyday to change his 'plan'.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 3, 2015)

660griz said:


> Let me guess.
> 1) The lord works in mysterious ways.
> 2) We cannot understand is plan.
> 3) Trials and tribulations are part of his plan.
> ...



I would guess something along those lines, myself, but I'd still like to hear the actual answer.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 3, 2015)

660griz said:


> Let me guess.
> 1) The lord works in mysterious ways.
> 2) We cannot understand is plan.
> 3) Trials and tribulations are part of his plan.
> ...



Jesus prayed that the cup of crucifixion be passed from him, but he also said, "Nevertheless, thy will be done." There's nothing wrong with wanting things to change.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, but if he's all in all, he's not just int he good, he's also in the bad.
> 
> That means he was in Auschwitz, and San Bernardino, and the towers on 9/11.
> 
> ...



Job was upright before God, yet God allowed his suffering. Job answered his wife and said, "Shall we receive good from God and shall we not receive evil." In another place he also said "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord." 

It's common for believers to attribute only good things to God. This is a misunderstanding from what I read and see. God will give, and God will take; both as He sees fit.

"Where is wisdom to be found?" The conclusion is that it's hidden from us.

I could attempt to answer your questions more lucidly, and may just do so when time allows, but I doubt I'll give you anything that'll be satisfactory; not because it isn't there to be given, but that I simply don't understand.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Job was upright before God, yet God allowed his suffering. Job answered his wife and said, "Shall we receive good from God and shall we not receive evil." In another place he also said "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord."
> 
> It's common for believers to attribute only good things to God. This is a misunderstanding from what I read and see. God will give, and God will take; both as He sees fit.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 4, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It's common for believers to attribute only good things to God. This is a misunderstanding from what I read and see. God will give, and God will take; both as He sees fit.



This is a sentiment I see on occasion, but it seems somewhat contradictory to the assertion that Christians sometimes make that there is no objective morality without God. If God is capable and willing to do both things that we consider good and things that we consider evil then it doesn't seem he is a very good meter for what we should strive for. We want to avoid suffering as much as possible and build a society that is good for everyone, but the christian God just wants his way. It's a very petty sort of morality and way of thinking of the world to me that I expect from many people, but if there is in fact a creator of the universe who is interested in our well being I would hope for better from her.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> We want to avoid suffering as much as possible and build a society that is good for everyone, but the christian God just wants his way.



What should a God want?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I understand the appeal of seeing God in a sunrise, or a pleasant event, but I can't bring myself to understand his darker side, especially once one accepts the premise of him being all-powerful.



I find comfort in the belief that the universe is controlled.  Otherwise, we could all be space dust tomorrow.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> This is a sentiment I see on occasion, but it seems somewhat contradictory to the assertion that Christians sometimes make that there is no objective morality without God. If God is capable and willing to do both things that we consider good and things that we consider evil then it doesn't seem he is a very good meter for what we should strive for. We want to avoid suffering as much as possible and build a society that is good for everyone, but the christian God just wants his way. It's a very petty sort of morality and way of thinking of the world to me that I expect from many people, but if there is in fact a creator of the universe who is interested in our well being I would hope for better from her.



If God is real then what you hope or expect from him/her doesn't really figure into the equation.

If God came down and said "I am the all powerful God and all that I do is good and just and loving" then proceeded to tear my daughter limb from limb I might argue with Him/Her that He/She isn't using those words correctly.   And if he/she said "Those words don't apply to me that way they do to you" how could I argue against that?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I find comfort in the belief that the universe is controlled.  Otherwise, we could all be space dust tomorrow.



We could all be space dust tomorrow anyway.  The reasons that one would prefer that there be a "plan" or "no plan" have more to do with individual psychological make-up, I think.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I find comfort in the belief that the universe is controlled.  Otherwise, we could all be space dust tomorrow.




List, in your opinion, the best parts of believing that there is a plan.  Top 3.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I find comfort in the belief that the universe is controlled.  Otherwise, we could all be space dust tomorrow.



I get that. I was scared when I started looking at the world from this perspective. 

What really clenched it for me was when the worst happened, in anything I could possibly imagine, and I still woke up the next day. 

But here's the kicker, we're nothing more than advanced forms of space dust now...


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> List, in your opinion, the best parts of believing that there is a plan.  Top 3.



Purpose
Design (removing chaos from the equation)
Hope


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But here's the kicker, we're nothing more than advanced forms of space dust now...



True.  But space dust that gets to experience being space dust.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If God is real then what you hope or expect from him/her doesn't really figure into the equation.



I certainly haven't taken the position that a god is real. My point is essentially that if we are to believe god is responsible for both Good and Evil things, how can it simultaneously be claimed that objective morality is impossible without God since we clearly already consider things to be morally right or wrong outside of the purely divine command theory sense of "It's good if God says it is".

As far as I'm aware EverGreen hasn't stated a position on this, I'm simply wondering if he holds such a position on right and wrong being directly inspired by God, and if so how he reconciles it with his admission that God does things that we would consider wrong (Having a bear maul a bunch of kids for making fun of Paul comes to mind).




> If God came down and said "I am the all powerful God and all that I do is good and just and loving" then proceeded to tear my daughter limb from limb I might argue with Him/Her that He/She isn't using those words correctly.   And if he/she said "Those words don't apply to me that way they do to you" how could I argue against that?



You can't. But let's remain calm in the knowledge that in all likelihood.. no such entity exists, and even those who claim it does don't have any clear idea of what it considers to be good or bad, and seem to generally have a moral compass that isn't grounded entirely in their belief of what their god concept considers right or wrong.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 4, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> What should a God want?



I suppose whatever it wants. However we seem to be under no obligation to believe whatever choices such an entity makes are morally right.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> True.  But space dust that gets to experience being space dust.



Who's to say that the remainder of space dust doesn't have similar experiences? We just don't know that it does because we can't communicate with it, and that's a presumption based on it not being "like us."


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Purpose
> Design (removing chaos from the equation)
> Hope



Purpose and hope can be had without belief.  Design by it's definition implies a designer which feeds into purpose, but purpose can be had without design. 

I've been reading about all this multiverse and string business and I thought to myself that if a believer read this that they would think that the writer was just trying to explain reality without having to use God.  But in actuality, they're just trying to get at what's real.  If they find God they will publish that finding.  So far, it seems that what we understand doesn't require a presumption of either a God or No God so in that sense, belief is subjective; a matter of taste.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I certainly haven't taken the position that a god is real. My point is essentially that if we are to believe god is responsible for both Good and Evil things, how can it simultaneously be claimed that objective morality is impossible without God since we clearly already consider things to be morally right or wrong outside of the purely divine command theory sense of "It's good if God says it is".
> 
> As far as I'm aware EverGreen hasn't stated a position on this, I'm simply wondering if he holds such a position on right and wrong being directly inspired by God, and if so how he reconciles it with his admission that God does things that we would consider wrong (Having a bear maul a bunch of kids for making fun of Paul comes to mind).
> 
> ...



What they will claim to have is Revelation; that they are interpreting the cryptic messages correctly.  Something that non-believers are not equipped to do.

Sounds dangerous.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> This is a sentiment I see on occasion, but it seems somewhat contradictory to the assertion that Christians sometimes make that there is no objective morality without God. If God is capable and willing to do both things that we consider good and things that we consider evil then it doesn't seem he is a very good meter for what we should strive for. We want to avoid suffering as much as possible and build a society that is good for everyone, but the christian God just wants his way. It's a very petty sort of morality and way of thinking of the world to me that I expect from many people, but if there is in fact a creator of the universe who is interested in our well being I would hope for better from her.



His way is perfect, we are not; differences in motives and purpose are to be expected.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I certainly haven't taken the position that a god is real. My point is essentially that if we are to believe god is responsible for both Good and Evil things, how can it simultaneously be claimed that objective morality is impossible without God since we clearly already consider things to be morally right or wrong outside of the purely divine command theory sense of "It's good if God says it is".
> 
> As far as I'm aware EverGreen hasn't stated a position on this, I'm simply wondering if he holds such a position on right and wrong being directly inspired by God, and if so how he reconciles it with his admission that God does things that we would consider wrong (Having a bear maul a bunch of kids for making fun of Paul comes to mind).



God is the author truth. What you and I think is wrong or right has no weight.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> His way is perfect,



Forgive me for not telling a childhood cancer patient, or someone who has just lost a spouse to a violent crime, that God made this happen and that his way is perfect.


----------



## Madman (Dec 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why is the question "Who made God" a childish argument?



Not sure it is childish but it certainly is not logical.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2015)

Madman said:


> Not sure it is childish but it certainly is not logical.



That's a familiar dead-end in here.


----------



## Madman (Dec 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I've been reading about all this multiverse and string business and I thought to myself that if a believer read this that they would think that the writer was just trying to explain reality without having to use God.



I have studied string theorem and to date have not seen anything that makes me believe that all this happened without God, in fact the more I study the more evidence I see of an eternal, self sustaining, being.

Some of the things that have lead me to that are, nothing comes from nothing, everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder, information sciences, etc.

If anyone believes that is foolish, so be it.  I find the opposing view untenable.

"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:18-20

I see evidence of a god, others don't.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 4, 2015)

Madman said:


> Not sure it is childish but it certainly is not logical.



Person 1: 'Every complex thing has a creator, thus the universe must have been created by God.'

Person 2: 'If every complex thing has a creator, and God created the universe, he must be a very complex thing, under your logic who created God?'

Person 2 in this conversation isn't saying that it is logical that something must have created God, they are simply pointing out that Person 1's logic in arguing that the Universe's existence is evidence for God is in fact illogical. So your point about it being an illogical question is correct.. although that is in fact the very point of asking the question.


----------



## Madman (Dec 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Also accept my argument that creation needs a creator because something cannot exist from nothing, but don't use that same logic on my God, it doesn't apply to him and suggesting that he should be subjected to the same standards of proof as something as petty as the beginning of the universe is uncalled for and childish.



Your logic is flawed, nowhere does logic require everything to need a cause, only an effect needs a cause. You and I are effects.

If God is as he claims, Alpha and Omega, then he is eternal and needs no cause.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 4, 2015)

Madman said:


> Your logic is flawed, nowhere does logic require everything to need a cause, only an effect needs a cause. You and I are effects.
> 
> If God is as he claims, Alpha and Omega, then he is eternal and needs no cause.



Edit: It isn't my position that everything needs a cause. There are some things (such as all of the matter and energy in our Universe), that I have no idea if it was caused or always was. That is a component in the argument put forth by many Christians for the existence of God.

Would it be correct to summarize your position as "Creation needs a creator, but my holy text says that the creator is the only thing not created." ?

The problem is there is no plausible evidence from which I can believe that God even exists. Even if there was proof of his existence, why should we accept that he is the only thing in existence that wasn't derived from something else? Are you sure God doesn't report to Boss God?

Why not just say we don't know if the universe always existed or at some point was started by something else?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2015)

It is a matter of no one really knowing anything solid about either, but convincing one self that they know all about an unknowable being helps em get through life.


----------



## Madman (Dec 5, 2015)

bullethead said:


> but convincing one self that they know all about an unknowable being helps em get through life.



or convincing oneself that there is no god allows them to lead a life believing the only rules, restrictions, and calls on their life are those they impose.

"Your are not the boss of me."


----------



## Madman (Dec 5, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Edit: It isn't my position that everything needs a cause. There are some things (such as all of the matter and energy in our Universe), that I have no idea if it was caused or always was. That is a component in the argument put forth by many Christians for the existence of God.



And that is a component put forth by nonbelievers.   What if there was a cause?

_"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:3_



MiGGeLLo said:


> Would it be correct to summarize your position as "Creation needs a creator, but my holy text says that the creator is the only thing not created." ?



My position is that every effect needs a cause, and matter is an effect.



MiGGeLLo said:


> The problem is there is no plausible evidence from which I can believe that God even exists.



I see evidence of a creator everywhere.

_"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20_



MiGGeLLo said:


> Even if there was proof of his existence, why should we accept that he is the only thing in existence that wasn't derived from something else? Are you sure God doesn't report to Boss God?



All of my "gods" do report to a "Boss God".  Those things that are in my life that draw me away from Him should be subordinate to Him.  I should love Him first and most.  
_
"God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church."  Ephesians 1:22
_



MiGGeLLo said:


> Why not just say we don't know if the universe always existed



Because I believe that to be illogical and scientifically impossible.



MiGGeLLo said:


> or at some point was started by something else?




I do say it was started by something else.

_For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.  Colossians 1:16_



In short I see no evidence that mater or energy has always existed, I know from my engineering education and background that "nothing comes from nothing", I also know from my education that information comes from intelligence, that everything moves from a state of order to disorder.  

There is an order to reality, it follows "laws" and rules, that prevent the chaos that would exist without a designer.


The only thing in all of science and creation that fits into those scientific facts is a self sustaining, creator, being I call God.

I know that He loves me because while I was His enemy he pursued me and called me to Himself by the power of the Holy Spirit through the blood of my Lord Jesus Christ.

And I know if anyone, including you, will earnestly seek Him, He will reveal Himself to them and accept them a His Child.

My prayer is that The God of Creation will reveal Himself to you in a powerful way, that your understanding may be complete.  Not because it is a crutch to help in the bad times but because He first loved you.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 5, 2015)

Madman said:


> or convincing oneself that there is no god allows them to lead a life believing the only rules, restrictions, and calls on their life are those they impose.
> 
> "Your are not the boss of me."


Over 7 billion people on the planet and which god is involved in their lives? Who is their boss? 
There have been people killed in the names of gods since people made these gods up. If your god is boss he is inept at his duties.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 5, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Over 7 billion people on the planet and which god is involved in their lives? Who is their boss?
> There have been people killed in the names of gods since people made these gods up. If your god is boss he is inept at his duties.



Well, the old Bullethead is back...


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Well, the old Bullethead is back...


I've never left. I can bite my tongue when necessary but I will say my piece when the ridiculously untrue god claims blatantly do not match the reality of the world.
I have no problem pointing out that because one believer thinks things work out that way for him and bases his flawed broad claims off of that most certainly is not nearly the case worldwide. The caring, loving, "boss" , that  is claimed to govern this non chaotic organized world and universe is AWOL.  None of the claims match reality.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 6, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I've never left. I can bite my tongue when necessary but I will say my piece when the ridiculously untrue god claims blatantly do not match the reality of the world.
> I have no problem pointing out that because one believer thinks things work out that way for him and bases his flawed broad claims off of that most certainly is not nearly the case worldwide. The caring, loving, "boss" , that  is claimed to govern this non chaotic organized world and universe is AWOL.  None of the claims match reality.



Maybe you are not considering that God only reveals Himself spiritually to those that are His.And,of those that ARE His,He reveals Himself at different time periods and in different degrees.
In other words,for example,you may encounter a 30 year old whom God has been working on since he was 8,who is far more spiritually mature than a 70 year old whom God has only been working on since he was 64.To complicate things even more,some people are much slower learners than others(like myself).But God is longsuffering with those.He just keeps running them through that wringer washer over and over til they learn.

I said all this to say,you are going to encounter many different levels of spiritual maturity in the world.All the way from 0 to 9.9 .But you'll never find one perfect on this earth.When you put all the people with different levels of maturity together,you are bound to have conflict,contradictions,arguments,even wars.Even among the "believers".It's inevitable.This is where love and patience must come in.If we were all on the same plane,it wouldn't be that way.But that's not His design.

It seems complicated,but it's not really.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Maybe you are not considering that God only reveals Himself spiritually to those that are His.And,of those that ARE His,He reveals Himself at different time periods and in different degrees.
> In other words,for example,you may encounter a 30 year old whom God has been working on since he was 8,who is far more spiritually mature than a 70 year old whom God has only been working on since he was 64.To complicate things even more,some people are much slower learners than others(like myself).But God is longsuffering with those.He just keeps running them through that wringer washer over and over til they learn.
> 
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Maybe you are not considering that God only reveals Himself spiritually to those that are His.And,of those that ARE His,He reveals Himself at different time periods and in different degrees.
> In other words,for example,you may encounter a 30 year old whom God has been working on since he was 8,who is far more spiritually mature than a 70 year old whom God has only been working on since he was 64.To complicate things even more,some people are much slower learners than others(like myself).But God is longsuffering with those.He just keeps running them through that wringer washer over and over til they learn.
> 
> I said all this to say,you are going to encounter many different levels of spiritual maturity in the world.All the way from 0 to 9.9 .But you'll never find one perfect on this earth.When you put all the people with different levels of maturity together,you are bound to have conflict,contradictions,arguments,even wars.Even among the "believers".It's inevitable.This is where love and patience must come in.If we were all on the same plane,it wouldn't be that way.But that's not His design.
> ...


What i did consider is that you do not know any more about a god than me or anyone else in this planet.
God of peace and love. ...IF your chosen to be loved.
Total
Utter
Nonsense excuses made up to try to explain the make believe.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 6, 2015)

bullethead said:


> What i did consider is that you do not know any more about a god than me or anyone else in this planet.
> God of peace and love. ...IF your chosen to be loved.
> Total
> Utter
> Nonsense excuses made up to try to explain the make believe.




John 1:1-18. Try reading the sentences from  18 to 1. Read it slowly backwards.

I believe that with all my being and by the witness of all that I can appreciate-the good, the bad, grace and sin etc...that for the choice of grace given by myself to accept God, the God John talks about in his gospel, the Christian God, that in turn the God John talks about has through his grace  witnessed to me meaning in existence and concerning existence and on life that I would otherwise never have known. 

I have asked. I have received. Having received I was asked. I did not ask for knowledge. I asked for a secure place to plant my feet. Room was offered at the foot of the cross. I set out for it. And before I could but make a few steps-- a rare kingdom was my home and peace! such that no science or knowledge did give me.

And such is my witness of God, who is invisible to me, yet makes the visible clear to me, His creation as per His manners.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> John 1:1-18. Try reading the sentences from  18 to 1. Read it slowly backwards.
> 
> I believe that with all my being and by the witness of all that I can appreciate-the good, the bad, grace and sin etc...that for the choice of grace given by myself to accept God, the God John talks about in his gospel, the Christian God, that in turn the God John talks about has through his grace  witnessed to me meaning in existence and concerning existence and on life that I would otherwise never have known.
> 
> ...


Ok I've read it.
The same nonsense is written in every religious book that MAN has penned.

Man has written all of these stories. They were detailed and scientific and intelligent and at the same time errant and innaccurate and unscientific and unintelligent and no god was involved. A couple thousand years before it religious text was written and it took a few more thousand years for yours to be written and the same has been penned afterwards. The bible took thousands of years of writings to make up one book. ALL the mans versions of gods have them just as yours. Try reading some others if you do not belive me. 
There have been just as many insightful lines in the Star Wars scripts. Man is VERY intelligent.
What you have posted above that is of your own words from your feelings is awesome. Great writing.
It is NO different than what every other person has written about their god. If you are to be believed then so must they.

All these religions . All these witnesses. All these experts.
Just no gods to show for any of it.
None


----------



## welderguy (Dec 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> No.



Uhh?? No what?


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Uhh?? No what?



Just apply it to anything you've posted here.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Just apply it to anything you've posted here.



No.


----------

