# Richard Dawkins: We are going to die



## atlashunter (Nov 28, 2011)

...and that makes us the lucky ones. Love this video. It helps me to accept my mortality without the need to indulge in delusion.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 28, 2011)

Funny....the arguments in the vid are nearly the same ones that Christians make in favor of God and a creator.

"What are the odds?" he asks....


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 28, 2011)

Both deal with the odds but take it in opposite directions. Like a lottery winner who credits a superstitious belief with their winning the Christian says the odds are so great it must have been divine intervention. Dawkins contrasts the luck of his winning ticket with all of those who will never draw that ticket but could have.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 28, 2011)

I suppose my response to Dawkins is simply that the odds are so much smaller than he can fathom, it's mind blowing. 

One planet, in the midst of everything.  That spaceship would have to travel for centuries...and this one has life spring forth on it.  

I don't understand how what he says confirms "pure chance" for people.

Surely there was a poet greater than Keats.  Surely there was a mind that can grasp deeper truths than Dawkins.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 28, 2011)

To say that it isn't pure chance is to ignore all those countless potential people who will never be.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> To say that it isn't pure chance is to ignore all those countless potential people who will never be.



Why?  I do not get your logic on this point.  Those people who never were are not people, they are odds or statistic possibilities.

I loved the video.  I am with HF on this one, though.  I think it makes a great case for God.  The universe does not seem to default to a "life-friendly" position.  Somehow, our "1 in a million" planet is.....by chance?

It is this concept which kept me from becoming atheist.  I look at the evidence I have seen (which is little, I admit), I look at our planet, and life, and ask "what are the odds?"  I call it reason, not delusion.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

We don't know if life exists on our next closest planet,Mars, which is over 300 Million miles away and will take 9months to reach. How do we know our we are 1 in a million?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> We don't know if life exists on our next closest planet,Mars, which is over 300 Million miles away and will take 9months to reach. How do we know our we are 1 in a million?



That's the odds the movie claimed about life existing.  I'm just going with that.

We can understand that other climates are not hospitable to life as we understand it, I think that is the point that video is trying to make about the odds.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I loved the video.  I am with HF on this one, though.  I think it makes a great case for God.  The universe does not seem to default to a "life-friendly" position.  Somehow, our "1 in a million" planet is.....by chance?
> 
> It is this concept which kept me from becoming atheist.  I look at the evidence I have seen (which is little, I admit), I look at our planet, and life, and ask "what are the odds?"  I call it reason, not delusion.



So you're not an atheist.  Fine, but what makes you conclude that divine intervention resulted in the unlikely, observable circumstances mentioned in the video?  In other words, how exactly does that make a great case for God?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> So you're not an atheist.  Fine, but what makes you conclude that divine intervention resulted in the unlikely, observable circumstances mentioned in the video?  In other words, how exactly does that make a great case for God?



I think about life, and inanimate matter, and wonder how one became the other, and if it did by chance, why it does not continue to happen.

Atlas posted a video not too long ago explaining how it could have happened, but it seems a great leap of faith is required to assume dead material animated itself to become the complex life we see today.

The great case for God is that you have a "dead" universe and an "alive" planet.  You and I exist today....from what did that existence come from?  Did dead matter create itself and then animate......I think that requires a lot more faith then believing in God.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I think about life, and inanimate matter, and wonder how one became the other, and if it did by chance, why it does not continue to happen.



Who's to say it does not continue still?  When something happens over the course of billions of years, it's going to be difficult noticing.  Probably immeasurable if I had to guess.  Then again it may just be something that happened once and never again.  Either way makes more sense than belief in a deity to me.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Either way makes more sense than belief in a deity to me.



Ok.  We just see it differently.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 29, 2011)

Millions of planets have no life at all on them.  One planet has life and has it to as near perfection as any of us could ever conclude.
Evolution on one, but nothing on anything else.
The "one in a million chance" seems like nothing but a bitter dose of medicine to me.  It just don't go down.

Logically, this planet has been supremely touched by something that ignored all the others.

God.............. or a microscopic organism that had no beginning?    God.
And it goes even beyond that.  The "proof" has continued on since the beginning of time.  Even the total destruction of early dinasaurs, ect, are now giving us oil to power this earthly machine.
Chance?  Get outta here.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

The chance of it being the work of God or a God is as great as the chance it is random. Why is it always the work of the person's personal God?
Sure a Christian will tell you the Christian God did it (or any religion you happen to ask), but one has no more proof than the other.
This planet is "right" for it's inhabitants. Life on other planets may be thriving, but not as we would expect it to be here.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

> The chance of it being the work of God or a God is as great as the chance it is random.



The chance of it being random is so near to zero that we could not possibly give it a statistical chance or number.  

The fact that we are here, given the statitical odds of everything that would need to come together by chance is the exact reason it points to intentionality.

The only logical reason everything could possibly come together as it did/has is intent.  Chance is too strong a word for how small the odds are that randomness allowed it.

That is why the video does nothing but point to a creator IMO.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The chance of it being the work of God or a God is as great as the chance it is random..



And then, folks reason in one direction or the other.  I am not sure I have ever called atheists delusional, as the OP implied believers are.



bullethead said:


> Why is it always the work of the person's personal God?



If the personal God exists, wouldn't it be his work?  Who else's work would it be? 



bullethead said:


> Sure a Christian will tell you the Christian God did it (or any religion you happen to ask), but one has no more proof than the other.



Christians believe our God is everybody's God, universal in nature.  That being the case, the different religions are different perspectives on how to interact with that God and what form that God has.  Sure, everybody thinks they are correct, but they are at least common in a belief in a higher power.



bullethead said:


> This planet is "right" for it's inhabitants. Life on other planets may be thriving, but not as we would expect it to be here.



But it is "right" only by chance?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> The chance of it being random is so near to zero that we could not possibly give it a statistical chance or number.
> 
> The fact that we are here, given the statitical odds of everything that would need to come together by chance is the exact reason it points to intentionality.
> 
> ...



What are the odds on a creator? How near or far away from zero? Like an actual number and a source.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

9-er


How's that?





By my understanding, there are two possible explanations for how we got here.  I start with the odds that everything lined up randomly and perfectly.  They are so small that I must default to the only other possible explanation.  If the odds of randomness are infintesimally small, then the odds of the only other explanation = 100%-the odds of randomness (which I cannot put enough zeros in front of to represent).


The answer to your question is I don't have a number for you.  I only have reason and logic.  Yours leads you to where you are....I don't understand how you get there.  But I accept it.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What are the odds on a creator? How near or far away from zero? Like an actual number and a source.



Given our odds of existing without a creator, I would say the odds for a creator are pretty high.

I'll go with a 1:1 odds.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

> HF, what does 9-er mean?



"Hey baby, give me your phone number so I can call and ask you out some time..."

"Uh, 678-555-7, uh, 3, uh 9-er, 0.  Yeh....that's my number."

"Did I hear a 9-er in there?"


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

If the personal God exists, wouldn't it be his work?  Who else's work would it be?[/quote]
IF........
It certainly would be the work of a personal God, but only in that person's mind.  





JB0704 said:


> Christians believe our God is everybody's God, universal in nature.  That being the case, the different religions are different perspectives on how to interact with that God and what form that God has.  Sure, everybody thinks they are correct, but they are at least common in a belief in a higher power.


I understand your explanations, but merely having many people believe does not make it true.





JB0704 said:


> But it is "right" only by chance?


Was "right" created? Simply giving a "name" to who a person THINKS created it proves what?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Given our odds of existing without a creator, I would say the odds for a creator are pretty high.
> 
> I'll go with a 1:1 odds.



Ok, I'm looking for a credible source not guesses.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> "Hey baby, give me your phone number so I can call and ask you out some time..."
> 
> "Uh, 678-555-7, uh, 3, uh 9-er, 0.  Yeh....that's my number."
> 
> "Did I hear a 9-er in there?"



Got it.  Thought for a minute it was some statistical term.

I deleted the question because you explained most of it before I asked.

Good to see you back in here after the Big Kansas adventure.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

> Ok, I'm looking for a credible source not guesses.



X + Y = 1

Y = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

Solve for "X"

Science has the ability to measure the statistical probability of the "randomness" theory.  It does not have the capacity to measure the "odds of God".  So we start with what we can measure and solve for the other.

Math is credible enough.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Ok, I'm looking for a credible source not guesses.



A credible source? For God existing? 

Just use your logic Bullet, you're a smart fella....

the chances of randomness creating everything you see are 
1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The only other explanation we have as humans is that God created us.

You can choose between the two.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Only Two choices......?


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

> Coin toss 1 in 2
> 
> good baseball player 1 hit in three tries
> 
> ...


http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/evolutionandmath.htm


Obviously taken from a creationist website.  First example of what I was looking for that came up.  Just wanted to be clear that, yes, it's taken from a site that intends to support what I'm saying.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It certainly would be the work of a personal God, but only in that person's mind.



....unless that person was correct.




bullethead said:


> I understand your explanations, but merely having many people believe does not make it true..



I am not taking the position of majority, just pointing out that if God exists as Christians believe, then he is everybody's God.....even the indian sun worshipers, the eskimos, and the French.




bullethead said:


> Was "right" created?



Well, I tend to think so, I think you tend to disagree.  But if you are correct, then "right" was an accident.  I just can't wrap my head around the concept of this world forming by chance.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

> Only Two choices......?



If you've got another, I'm definitely open to hearing it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> X + Y = 1
> 
> Y = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
> 
> ...



Math is credible for things that exist. Understood.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

Explain the third option and your argument might have some credibility.

Solve for X.  Regardless of what X is....if there are only two options then the probability of X is very very high given that we CAN measure Y.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Only Two choices......?



I can't think of any others.  If we were placed by aliens, then aliens are our "god."  If it was the FSM, then FSM is our "god."

If we are talking about concepts, you really only have two: a god or no god.

At worst, I think we are at 50/50.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

No JB, we can measure the odds of randomness.  They don't even get anywhere close to 50%.  That's what's so troubling about the "certainty" that randomness is what happened.  The probability is zero.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> No JB, we can measure the odds of randomness.  They don't even get anywhere close to 50%.  That's what's so troubling about the "certainty" that randomness is what happened.  The probability is zero.



That's why I said "at worst we are at 50/50."

You and I can't even agree when we are on the same team


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ....unless that person was correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No accident, just is. This is what we have from what there was.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> If you've got another, I'm definitely open to hearing it.



Gravity


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Gravity



....acting on what? 

I have heard this explanation before, but it still does not explain the existence of matter, or the universe for that matter.  What did the universe exist inside of to be acted upon by gravity?

And even then, if gravity explains it all, then gravity, in concept at least, is your "god."


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Gravity



Mr.Evolution and Mrs. Natures son? The nephew to uncle Natural selection?

Gravity doesn't choose to move things into place..... and you're back to the random theory.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ....acting on what?
> 
> I have heard this explanation before, but it still does not explain the existence of matter, or the universe for that matter.  What did the universe exist inside of to be acted upon by gravity?
> 
> And even then, if gravity explains it all, then gravity, in concept at least, is your "god."



God is a word you are using to universally describe a source. That source is not my God. It is not a God, it is not God. That is your concept.
I do not worship it, bow to it, fear it or rely on it.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> God is a word you are using to universally describe a source. That source is not my God. It is not a God, it is not God. That is your concept.
> I do not worship it, bow to it, fear it or rely on it.



.....but you are willing to accept that it created you.  In concept, that which creates life is the giver of life, and wouldn't most folks refer to that as "god."  You don't have to bow or worship God for him to still be God.  His existence, or lack thereof does not rely on your acknowledgement.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Mr.Evolution and Mrs. Natures son? The nephew to uncle Natural selection?
> 
> Gravity doesn't choose to move things into place..... and you're back to the random theory.



Random Theory VS made up invisible beings. One, even so slight, has a chance.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Random Theory VS made up invisible beings.



Come on now.

Gravity is invisible too.  You are giving creedence to the possibility that, though completely lacking any form of intelligence, gravity is the creator of everything because it is gravity.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> .....but you are willing to accept that it created you.



I am a result of what is. The order in which things turn out is not governed by any intelligent source with an agenda. Still not a God.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Come on now.
> 
> Gravity is invisible too.  You are giving creedence to the possibility that, though completely lacking any form of intelligence, gravity is the creator of everything because it is gravity.



Hold a horseshoe above your head and let it go. If it hits you you'll know gravity. Do it again but pray first and let it drop. let me know who wins.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I am a result of what is. The order in which things turn out is not governed by any intelligent source with an agenda. Still not a God.



I think you get hung up on that word.  Let's call it a "prime mover."  Without which there is nothing else....right?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Hold a horseshoe above your head and let it go. If it hits you you'll know gravity. Do it again but pray first and let it drop. let me know who wins.



I am not the one denying the existence of gravity.  I had an acorn hit me in the head the other day while in a deer stand.  I just have difficulty accepting a self creative unintelligent force creating everything that is. And then, at the same time acknowledging its power to create me deny that I was created.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

> Random Theory VS made up invisible beings. One, even so slight, has a chance.



Take the "made up" out of it since you have no proof and you have Random VS Invisible.  One is impossible and one is unseeable.  In other words, one is disproven by the sheer numbers and one has yet to be proven.  

Given the option between a disproven theory and one that has yet to be proven or disproven....which should you lean toward?


I'll say it again.....solve for "X".

"even so slight"...that's what confounds me.  You're willing to accept "even so slight" even though "even so slight" actually is zero from a statistical standpoint.

Rather than "even so slight"...why not "something must have caused it"?  I cannot understand why so many are willing to accept "even so slight" simply because they can attach a number to it that is essentially zero...meaning it's not possible.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ....acting on what?
> 
> I have heard this explanation before, but it still does not explain the existence of matter, or the universe for that matter.  What did the universe exist inside of to be acted upon by gravity?
> 
> And even then, if gravity explains it all, then gravity, in concept at least, is your "god."



When I think of the concept of God, I associate a will and consciousness with that being.  Naturally I give him qualities that I observe in other beings and myself.  I also give him supernatural, theoretical abilities like flying, shape shifting and x-ray vision.  I can observe myself conceptualizing this being while simultaneously doing it and it is the same process I apply to any other fantasy.  

Mathematical "improbabilities" aside, since the beginning of time (a point which some more technically minded people have attempted to determine without the use of Moses' age) I can only come up with a vague notion of how many times a Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen atom have interacted.   I imagine I could type a "1X 10....." and hold down the "0" key from now until i died and it wouldn't come close to the number of times such a thing happened.  I imagine that I could perform the same exercise to calculate the different types of conditions that those atoms interacted.  

I've heard it said that "time" in cahoots with "chance"  are the Gods of the atheists.  Only if you think that "time" and "chance" are capable of an agenda. 

Picture a dragon.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I think you get hung up on that word.  Let's call it a "prime mover."  Without which there is nothing else....right?



Me? Hung up on "god"? I had no idea the word was so universal.
I think there is an ever going concoction of matter mingling with other matter. How/when/if it results into something we can understand is all we really can use. Anything beyond that is above our capability. I can accept that without making excuses.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I am a result of what is. The order in which things turn out is not governed by any intelligent source with an agenda. Still not a God.



You know the odds of the random theory, what makes you still think that intelligence was not involved in everything? Why are you willing to accept odds of basically zero?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I am not the one denying the existence of gravity.  I had an acorn hit me in the head the other day while in a deer stand.  I just have difficulty accepting a self creative unintelligent force creating everything that is. And then, at the same time acknowledging its power to create me deny that I was created.



Who is denying the existence of gravity? Me? I thought I said that is the 3rd option, but you told me gravity was then "god"...???


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Take the "made up" out of it since you have no proof and you have Random VS Invisible.  One is impossible and one is unseeable.  In other words, one is disproven by the sheer numbers and one has yet to be proven.
> 
> Given the option between a disproven theory and one that has yet to be proven or disproven....which should you lean toward?
> 
> ...



Yes, I am the only one with no proof to back it up....

Nuthin + Nuthin = Nuthin. We are in the same boat.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> When I think of the concept of God, I associate a will and consciousness with that being.  Naturally I give him qualities that I observe in other beings and myself.  I also give him supernatural, theoretical abilities like flying, shape shifting and x-ray vision.



Ok.  But what I am referring to is a "creator."

Is not the existence of intelligent life evidence that intelligence is possible in the universe?


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 29, 2011)

> We are in the same boat.



I agree.  What I don't understand is why choose the option that HAS been proven to be mathmatically impossible?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Take the "made up" out of it since you have no proof and you have Random VS Invisible.  One is impossible and one is unseeable.  In other words, one is disproven by the sheer numbers and one has yet to be proven.
> 
> Given the option between a disproven theory and one that has yet to be proven or disproven....which should you lean toward?
> 
> ...



Because assigning a magic being to the cause is, for me, a cop out.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Who is denying the existence of gravity? Me? I thought I said that is the 3rd option, but you told me gravity was then "god"...???



We are not understanding each other.  My fault.

You are denying the existence of God while advancing gravity as a possibility for creation.

I am admitting gravity exists while advancing the possibility of God as an explanation.

And yes, I would think anybody would conclude that if gravity is the creator of all we have and all we will ever be, then in concept, I believe gravity would have to be called "god".....or, we could avoid that term (because of the implications ambush referred to), and just call it the creator of all that we have and all we ever will be.

Or, we could plug "matter" into the sentnce where gravity is, or FSM, Ralph, of God.  The concept is the same.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  But what I am referring to is a "creator."
> 
> Is not the existence of intelligent life evidence that intelligence is possible in the universe?



Intelligence is possible.  The being you are suggesting; the type of intelligence that you are suggesting is akin to Time travel or blue, flying silicone based monkeys.  

Look at your "evidence" that goes along with your logical conclusion about a prime mover.   Be objective.  Look at the book.  Examine the tingling or whatever it is in your belly that assures you beyond the shadow of a doubt that He is real.   Then look at the book again.



Huntinfool said:


> I agree.  What I don't understand is why choose the option that HAS been proven to be mathmatically impossible?



You mean like an infinite, eternal being?  (Who speaks through a donkey)


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> We are not understanding each other.  My fault.
> 
> You are denying the existence of God while advancing gravity as a possibility for creation.
> 
> ...




YES!!!!  Amen, hallelujah!!  That is in fact what people do.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Because assigning a magic being to the cause is, for me, a cop out.



So is assigning anything to creation a cop out? Is there any explanation you could buy into? Or is it that you have made your mind up about God and will no longer give that a chance?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

I'm sorry.  I feel like I might be getting condescending.  You just have to try to realize that I find y'alls concept of God as screwy as a druids.  If you've ever chuckled at them then you know what I mean.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Intelligence is possible.  The being you are suggesting; the type of intelligence that you are suggesting is akin to Time travel or blue, flying silicone based monkeys..



Time travel is only possible if you and I exist in each moment of time in our life-span, infinite dimensions.

Silicone based flying monkeys are very possible if you and I occurred by chance.  Who is to say in a galaxy far away the nitrogen and carbon atoms didn't combine and evolve into such a being?  That claim would be more likely in your belief system than mine.

The type of being I am suggesting is possible if you and I are possible.  We are intelligent beings that make things, after all.  We have limitations, sure, but they are ours.  We cannot assign them to everything in the universe.



ambush80 said:


> Look at your "evidence" that goes along with your logical conclusion about a prime mover.   Be objective.  Look at the book.  Examine the tingling or whatever it is in your belly that assures you beyond the shadow of a doubt that He is real.   Then look at the book again.



You know I don't base my thoughts on tingling feelings.  We have discussed this before.  And I think we have discussed the book a bit also, I am not so traditional on that one.  But, the logic of my faith is there, and quite sound IMHO.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So is assigning anything to creation a cop out? Is there any explanation you could buy into? Or is it that you have made your mind up about God and will no longer give that a chance?




I suppose it's not a cop out.  At this point, all answers are valid.  Your particular one is just really screwy sounding to me.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> YES!!!!  Amen, hallelujah!!  That is in fact what people do.



Both you and me.  We both came from something, I think you would agree.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I'm sorry.  I feel like I might be getting condescending.  You just have to try to realize that I find y'alls concept of God as screwy as a druids.  If you've ever chuckled at them then you know what I mean.





ambush80 said:


> I suppose it's not a cop out.  At this point, all answers are valid.  Your particular one is just really screwy sounding to me.



 It's all good man, I hope it doesn't always sound screwy to you.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I agree.  What I don't understand is why choose the option that HAS been proven to be mathmatically impossible?



I do not base my every thought and move on a math equation. I exist so I guess my every action could boil down to a math equation. But something has to exist to have an equation.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> YES!!!!  Amen, hallelujah!!  That is in fact what people do.



Exactly!


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Time travel is only possible if you and I exist in each moment of time in our life-span, infinite dimensions.
> 
> Silicone based flying monkeys are very possible if you and I occurred by chance.  Who is to say in a galaxy far away the nitrogen and carbon atoms didn't combine and evolve into such a being?  That claim would be more likely in your belief system than mine.
> 
> The type of being I am suggesting is possible if you and I are possible.  We are intelligent beings that make things, after all.  We have limitations, sure, but they are ours.  We cannot assign them to everything in the universe.



The theoretical leap to a super version of us that makes things is understandable to me.  Meaning, I can see how one might develop that notion.  The notion itself is akin to time travel and flying monkeys.





JB0704 said:


> You know I don't base my thoughts on tingling feelings.  We have discussed this before.  And I think we have discussed the book a bit also, I am not so traditional on that one.  But, the logic of my faith is there, and quite sound IMHO.



You seem close in you thinking to my UCC in laws.  People on here would call them at very least bad Christians and at worst anti-Christians.  I can dig them.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Both you and me.  We both came from something, I think you would agree.



I don't honestly know.  All the creation myths that I'm familiar with reek of fairy tale, though.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> It's all good man, I hope it doesn't always sound screwy to you.



It's just as well it stayed that way.  I'm a bit of a zealot myself; like an ex-smoker.  I can't begin to tell you what it feels like to be released of superstition and fear of the Devil.

You can't possibly know how good it is unless you really, REALLY give it a try.  

If you try and it doesn't take then you probably didn't try right.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> It's just as well it stayed that way.  I'm a bit of a zealot myself; like an ex-smoker.  I can't begin to tell you what it feels like to be released of superstition and fear of the Devil.
> 
> You can't possibly know how good it is unless you really, REALLY give it a try.
> 
> If you try and it doesn't take then you probably didn't try right.



Can't help yourself can you? You're as bad as SMDH sometimes.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Can't help yourself can you? You're as bad as SMDH sometimes.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I can't begin to tell you what it feels like to be released of superstition and fear of the Devil.
> 
> You can't possibly know how good it is unless you really, REALLY give it a try.
> 
> If you try and it doesn't take then you probably didn't try right.



You might be right, I tried, it didn't take.  I could not get past the OC. But, it does seem that the atheists/agnostics I know are very happy with it.  Usually, they are very good folks.  I don't hold belief or lack thereof against anyone.  I just enjoy the debate.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Me? Hung up on "god"? I had no idea the word was so universal.
> I think there is an ever going concoction of matter mingling with other matter. How/when/if it results into something we can understand is all we really can use. Anything beyond that is above our capability. I can accept that without making excuses.



I'm amazed at some of the things an atheist can comfortably believe, rather than believe in God.

"ever going concoction of matter mingling with other"???


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 29, 2011)

Let's pretend.

Pretend you returned home from vacation to find you TV missing.  The doors were locked, no sign of robbery, except your TV is missing.

There are two possibilities.
1.  Someone was responsible for taking the TV.
2.  The TV left of it's own accord.  It decided it didn't want to exist in it's present state.

Which of the two happened??????
There's no proof that someone stole it is there?

What's the logical answer?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Let's pretend.
> 
> Pretend you returned home from vacation to find you TV missing.  The doors were locked, no sign of robbery, except your TV is missing.
> 
> ...



God took it. That is the only possible conclusion when nothing else makes sense.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I'm amazed at some of the things an atheist can comfortably believe, rather than believe in God.
> 
> "ever going concoction of matter mingling with other"???



Something is out there Ron but i don't think it is a super version of us. I asked you 15 times already, "who ever said I was an atheist" but you seem to keep forgetting that I never claimed to be. I just don't believe in the same God as you do. You have an Invisible Man and I have Matter and Gravity.  No magic tricks, no talking thru man, no parables and wishwashy wild claims....I think it is just what is. I have my version and you yours. The amazement you feel is mirrored on my end too.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 29, 2011)

So, you don't believe in the creator God, but you believe there is a God?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> So, you don't believe in the creator God, but you believe there is a God?



Seriously? I have explained myself numerous times on these threads. In a short, very short recap, Yes,Yes,Maybe,No.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> God is a word you are using to universally describe a source. That source is not my God. It is not a God, it is not God. That is your concept.
> I do not worship it, bow to it, fear it or rely on it.



So, do you simply dismiss the God of Israel in favor of some other all-powerful being that brought all things into being?
Or do you just believe that there is a mystery of the beginning?

I'm sorry if I should have remembered something about your beliefs that I've forgotten.  But honestly, you sound like an atheist to me.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> So, do you simply dismiss the God of Israel in favor of some other all-powerful being that brought all things into being?
> Or do you just believe that there is a mystery of the beginning?
> 
> I'm sorry if I should have remembered something about your beliefs that I've forgotten.  But honestly, you sound like an atheist to me.



The God of Israel is just that the God of Israel. That is what they came up with 6000years ago and chose to go with, despite having many gods and worshiping idols too. They were fine with multiple Gods, but someone came up with the idea of ONE. So be it. As you know it has branched off from there. No one on here adheres to the God of Israel, original version anymore anyway. 

I don't think there is some "other" all powerful being. Or any all powerful being. I think that is the wishes of man.

I spent 20 years being TOLD how to think and worship religiously. I decided to find out for myself. I have my own personal thoughts in 20 years since. Some early indoctrination has a hard hold and keeps thoughts in my brain. Then again I used to try to hide from Santa when I was told "he is watching".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Let's pretend.
> 
> Pretend you returned home from vacation to find you TV missing.  The doors were locked, no sign of robbery, except your TV is missing.
> 
> ...



HF has an equation for that and you'll find that it is the same sum that I came up with. Is it safe to use that for everything unexplainable in life, both good & bad?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 29, 2011)

Like I said before, you theists are like the lottery winner who says "The odds of my numbers winning were 1 in 1,000,000 therefore God must have answered my prayer!" or "rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot worked!" or whatever other superstition you want to plug in. But is this really any evidence at all that they are right? The odds that someone would win were 100%. A woman gets pregnant, someone is going to be born, someone won the lottery of existence. But saying that this is some miraculous event ignores the reality that 999,999 others didn't get their numbers drawn. The vast majority did in fact lose the lottery which is mathematically exactly what we would expect. Crediting a god or any other superstition amounts to nothing more than assuming a magic wand for having overcome incredible odds while ignoring all those who lost the game.

Yes it is awe inspiring to consider that if history were to be rewound and played back none of us would be here. It would be a different set of people if people at all and yet here we are. Amazing yes. Magical? No.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Like I said before, you theists are like the lottery winner who says "The odds of my numbers winning were 1 in 1,000,000 therefore God must have answered my prayer!" or "rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot worked!" or whatever other superstition you want to plug in. But is this really any evidence at all that they are right? The odds that *someone *would win were 100%. A woman gets pregnant, someone is going to be born, *someone* won the lottery of existence. But saying that this is some miraculous event ignores the reality that 999,999* others didn't get their numbers drawn*. The vast majority did in fact lose the lottery which is mathematically exactly what we would expect. Crediting a god or any other superstition amounts to nothing more than assuming a magic wand for having overcome incredible odds while ignoring* all those who lost the game*.
> 
> Yes it is awe inspiring to consider that if history were to be rewound and played back none of us would be here. It would be a different set of people if people at all and yet here we are. Amazing yes. Magical? No.



I take it you have changed your position on abortion? Cause I thought they were just cells, and if they are just cells, nobody really lost, right?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I take it you have changed your position on abortion? Cause I thought they were just cells, and if they are just cells, nobody really lost, right?



Yes just cells but each possible combination of sperm and egg represents a different potential individual. At one time "you" were one of those potential individuals. It took your mother and father coming together and an exact match of sperm and egg for you to be here. Any other match would have resulted in one of your potential siblings or half siblings being here in your place. It takes a special kind of arrogance to assume that you were somehow more special or "chosen" out of that vast pool of potential individuals. As Dawkins points out some of them surely would have made a better and more lasting mark on history than you or I ever will. Yet they lost the lottery and we won.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> As Dawkins points out some of them surely would have made a better and more lasting mark on history than you or I ever will. Yet they lost the lottery and we won.



But they never existed.  Those people are possibilities. They did not exist in order to lose anything.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> HF has an equation for that and you'll find that it is the same sum that I came up with. Is it safe to use that for everything unexplainable in life, both good & bad?



I think the point is that you know the TV is missing.  That is how a person logically concludes there is a God.  We know we exist, we understand intelligence is a possibility in the universe, and, for the most part, reject the idea of infinite matter combining with gravity (which is a product of what?) to create an infinite universe complete with intelligent life.....from nothing.

I like how the believers are often placed in camp with superstitious people.  I think one would have to believe in luck to be agnostic/atheist way more than a believer would.....isn't that the point of the OP.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I think the point is that you know the TV is missing.  That is how a person logically concludes there is a God.  We know we exist, we understand intelligence is a possibility in the universe, and, for the most part, reject the idea of infinite matter combining with gravity (which is a product of what?) to create an infinite universe complete with intelligent life.....from nothing.
> 
> I like how the believers are often placed in camp with superstitious people.  I think one would have to believe in luck to be agnostic/atheist way more than a believer would.....isn't that the point of the OP.



We don't KNOW what/who/or if MATTER is a product of. As humans we assume it is someone or something like us. We go further into narrowing down to the different religions built round those beliefs BUT WE DON"T KNOW!!!

It could be the result of that universal word "GOD", but I highly doubt "GOD" is anything like we are led to believe..

Maybe gravity( or something so unlike anything we can imagine) is "god" as you like to put it. If so then all this man written religious stuff about How and WHO and WHY  we should worship is totally TOTALLY made up. One possibility is just as plausible as another and the reason I do not choose one out of the bunch.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> We don't KNOW what/who/or if MATTER is a product of. As humans we assume it is someone or something like us. We go further into narrowing down to the different religions built round those beliefs BUT WE DON"T KNOW!!!.



No, we don't.  But it is here.  So, we can use logic or whatever to enjoy a good conversation with those of a contrary belief system.



bullethead said:


> It could be the result of that universal word "GOD", but I highly doubt "GOD" is anything like we are led to believe...



Bullet, I honestly only intend to defend the logic of my system, not influence yours.  Sometimes I get puzzled when I am called superstitious, delusional, etc. because I see something you (plural, not specifically) don't.

The difference between you and me is that I "get" your position, and understand why you have it.



bullethead said:


> Maybe gravity( or something so unlike anything we can imagine) is "god" as you like to put it. If so then all this man written religious stuff about How and WHO and WHY  we should worship is totally TOTALLY made up. One possibility is just as plausible as another and the reason I do not choose one out of the bunch.



Maybe so.  I prefer to see things differently.  I "want" to see my kids as a loved creation, not a galactic accident.  Does that influence me to some degree....absolutely, I would be lying if I said no.  But that does not discredit the logic behind my belief that God exists.

I have a tougher time defending my belief in Jesus, in order to do so I have to take the word of man as fact, but that is why I tend to view God as the one described by Christians.  However, even if I didn't beleive in Jesus, I would still believe in God.....does that make sense.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

Oh, and my use of "god" is in context of something beyond what we know that is responsible for what we are.....purposefully or not, I think that would fit the concept.  I can tell y'all aren't big on that useage, so I can swith to "prime mover" if you prefer.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> No, we don't.  But it is here.  So, we can use logic or whatever to enjoy a good conversation with those of a contrary belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I used to think and believe the same Bro! I can totally understand your position.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Oh, and my use of "god" is in context of something beyond what we know that is responsible for what we are.....purposefully or not, I think that would fit the concept.  I can tell y'all aren't big on that useage, so I can swith to "prime mover" if you prefer.



I know how your using it. My position is that sure SOMETHING out there is GOD. I am not convinced we are in its image  and I am not convinced one religion has got the facts right about what God is.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I used to think and believe the same Bro! I can totally understand your position.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I know how your using it. My position is that sure SOMETHING out there is GOD. I am not convinced we are in its image  and I am not convinced one religion has got the facts right about what God is.



Ok.  I have not been around here long enough to know who believes what on the AAA.  So, I guess that means you are agnostic?


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> We don't KNOW what/who/or if MATTER is a product of. As humans we assume it is someone or something like us. We go further into narrowing down to the different religions built round those beliefs BUT WE DON"T KNOW!!!
> 
> It could be the result of that universal word "GOD", but I highly doubt "GOD" is anything like we are led to believe..
> 
> Maybe gravity( or something so unlike anything we can imagine) is "god" as you like to put it. If so then all this man written religious stuff about How and WHO and WHY  we should worship is totally TOTALLY made up.* One possibility is just as plausible as another* and the reason I do not choose one out of the bunch.



.... and theist get called delusional all the time on here.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> .... and theist get called delusional all the time on here.



Mostly because you talk to Him and claim that He talks back.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Mostly because you talk to Him and claim that He talks back.



That's just a plausible as that lady in your avatar creating everything according to Bullet.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> That's just a plausible as that lady in your avatar creating everything according to Bullet.



But we could find and examine her and find that it is not true.  How can I examine the voices in your head?


----------



## JFS (Nov 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I "want" to see my kids as a loved creation, not a galactic accident.  Does that influence me to some degree....absolutely, I would be lying if I said no.  But that does not discredit the logic behind my belief that God exists.



It's not just you, I think that's the case for all believers.  The evolutionary fear of death drives people to justify a comforting conclusion rather than objectively assess the evidence.  But at least you are honest about it.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> But we could find and examine her and find that it is not true.  How can I examine the voices in your head?



You can't examine God speaking to me, does that make it not real?


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

JFS said:


> It's not just you, I think that's the case for all believers.  The evolutionary fear of death drives people to justify a comforting conclusion *rather than objectively assess the evidence.*  But at least you are honest about it.



The evidence for what, the random theory? I assessed the evidence and came to the objective conclusion that there is a God, seeing as the mathematical chances of the random theory are zero, the mathematical chances of God are 100% in my logic.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

JFS said:


> It's not just you, I think that's the case for all believers.  The evolutionary fear of death drives people to justify a comforting conclusion rather than objectively assess the evidence.  But at least you are honest about it.



I can't refute either argument, pro or con the Prime Mover.  When argued to their logical conclusions, they both seem like valid positions.  To make either work, you have to deal with infinity and nothingness, two notions that I have no evidence for.  My evidence leads me to "I don't know."


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You can't examine God speaking to me, does that make it not real?



It's mostly the other stuff that makes it implausible.  And why can I not examine your fruits, so to speak?


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I can't refute either argument, pro or con the Prime Mover.  When argued to their logical conclusions, they both seem like valid positions.  To make either work, you have to deal with infinity and nothingness, two notions that I have no evidence for. * My evidence leads me to "I don't know."*



....default to, what do you _want_ to believe.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> It's mostly the other stuff that makes it implausible.  And why can I not examine your fruits, so to speak?



If you knew me, I would hope you could see those fruits very clearly.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> ....default to, what do you _want_ to believe.



Sooner or later, everyone has to find a place where they can be content.
"I don't know" is as much a place of contentment as belief or disbelief.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> ....default to, what do you _want_ to believe.




I kind of want know how it all happened.  If I never find out I'm good with that too.  I want to know that I have formed my beliefs on sound, rational principles.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Sooner or later, everyone has to find a place where they can be content.
> "I don't know" is as much a place of contentment as belief or disbelief.



Content?  Is that the best we can hope for?  I think so.   

My mom says that she is content in her faith because she is too old and tired to keep wondering about the big questions.

How does Chris Angel levitate?  I'm content with "magic" as an answer and need look no further.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Content?  Is that the best we can hope for?  I think so.



It has to be.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I kind of want know how it all happened.  If I never find out I'm good with that too.  *I want to know that I have formed my beliefs on sound, rational principles.*





ambush80 said:


> Content?  Is that the best we can hope for?  I think so.
> 
> My mom says that she is content in her faith because she is too old and tired to keep wondering about the big questions.
> 
> *How does Chris Angel levitate?* * I'm content with "magic" as an answer and need look no further.*



Were you being funny?


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Sooner or later, everyone has to find a place where they can be content.
> "I don't know" is as much a place of contentment as belief or disbelief.



So it is....


BTW, your avatar is hilarious!


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> BTW, your avatar is hilarious!




Dogs, ducks and deer make me very happy.

Thanksgiving for me is the act of being quite grateful for such happiness, however it happened that all three exist at the same time in which we exist.  Since I don't know how it has come to be, I relish in the moment of knowing we do exist.
It goes by entirely too fast.

Nothing like the dedication of a good dog, huh?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Were you being funny?



Kind of.  My Chris angel comment was sarcasm but also an illustration of what people do when they don't understand something.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You can't examine God speaking to me, does that make it not real?



See Bernard Russell's teapot.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> That's just a plausible as that lady in your avatar creating everything according to Bullet.



Better go back a re-read. No mention of a 7ft blondie by me. Gravity and Matter is what I referred to.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> See Bernard Russell's teapot.



That just puts us back to the relavancy of what I believe and what you believe to be rational. 

If Bertrands' teapot analogy were to be true or not, really doesn't matter in any sense of our lives. You might say that the teapot has powers and credit the pot with having the same powers as God (see FSM), your then just giving God another name(see FSM).

I understand that the point of the analogy was to point to the fact that a rational person would not believe there was a teapot between earth and mars, but to come to the same conclusion about God from that analogy is to discount the Bible, which has stood for over 2,000 years even after being bombarded with critizism, and the rational minds of millions upon millions of people through out history, many of which were thought to be some of the most rational people who ever lived.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Better go back a re-read. No mention of a 7ft blondie by me. Gravity and Matter is what I referred to.



Gotcha, I read the sentence wrong and see what you were saying now.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Gotcha, I read the sentence wrong and see what you were saying now.



Not to say there's anything wrong with Ms. Legs....!!! It's all good String. back atcha


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Not to say there's anything wrong with Ms. Legs....!!! It's all good String. back atcha



Thats a big'ol gal Bullet! 

I don't even want to think about what happened after ambush meet her.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> That just puts us back to the relavancy of what I believe and what you believe to be rational.
> 
> If Bertrands' teapot analogy were to be true or not, really doesn't matter in any sense of our lives. You might say that the teapot has powers and credit the pot with having the same powers as God (see FSM), your then just giving God another name(see FSM).
> 
> I understand that the point of the analogy was to point to the fact that a rational person would not believe there was a teapot between earth and mars, but to come to the same conclusion about God from that analogy is to discount the Bible, which has stood for over 2,000 years even after being bombarded with critizism, and the rational minds of millions upon millions of people through out history, many of which were thought to be some of the most rational people who ever lived.



Actually it hasn't but that is besides the point. I was responding specifically to your claim about the voices in your head. Both are claims that are neither verifiable or falsifiable. They do however have medication to help you with those voices you are hearing.

Concerning delusion, if I overcome great odds and pick the winning numbers for the powerball lottery and then claim God had a hand in it that is no more rational than if I claim Zeus had a hand in it or that it was my lucky rabbits foot. Actually the rabbits foot might be slightly more rational because at least that is something known to exist which is more than can be said of God and Zeus.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Actually it hasn't but that is besides the point. I was responding specifically to your claim about the voices in your head. Both are claims that are neither verifiable or falsifiable. They do however have medication to help you with those voices you are hearing.
> 
> Concerning delusion, if I overcome great odds and pick the winning numbers for the powerball lottery and then claim God had a hand in it that is no more rational than if I claim Zeus had a hand in it or that it was my lucky rabbits foot. Actually the rabbits foot might be slightly more rational because at least that is something known to exist which is more than can be said of God and Zeus.




That brings up an interesting point.  Why would it seem more rational to attribute mystical powers to a tangible object than to a mystical being.  It would seem to me that if one were to consider the possibility of mystical powers existing then said powers would be more appropriately used by mystical beings.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Thats a big'ol gal Bullet!
> 
> I don't even want to think about what happened after ambush meet her.




I found the TRUTH!!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I found the TRUTH!!!!



I'll bet you did...


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Actually it hasn't but that is besides the point.


Oh, sorry didn't get the memo that someone debunked the myth.



> I was responding specifically to your claim about the voices in your head. Both are claims that are neither verifiable or falsifiable. *They do however have medication to help you with those voices you are hearing.*


Can we start giving out doushebag points in here?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Oh, sorry didn't get the memo that someone debunked the myth.
> 
> 
> Can we start giving out doushebag points in here?



I took some medication once that made me hear voices.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Can we start giving out doushebag points in here?



I wish they would come up with a "flag" emoticon, like in football, to use in those situations. 

I never heard voices, or had a strong intuition of anything, not sure if that is prerequisite for belief.

Strangly enough, I do know an atheist who claims to have seen a ghost......not sure how that would work.....


----------



## JFS (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You can't examine God speaking to me, does that make it not real?



People make all kind of claims.  C'est la vie.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/911-tape-woman-shot-1246520.html

*911 tape: Woman shot by police said she was God*
By Rhonda Cook 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 

A woman who killed her disabled daughter and was then fatally shot by police officers told her son she was God and would bring him and his sister back to life if they died, the woman's brother told a 911 operator in a frantic call for help on Monday.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I wish they would come up with a "flag" emoticon, like in football, to use in those situations.
> 
> I never heard voices, or had a strong intuition of anything, not sure if that is prerequisite for belief.
> 
> Strangly enough, I do know an atheist who claims to have seen a ghost......not sure how that would work.....



They probably attribute it to some natural phenomenon.  My favorite theory is that events sometimes get recorded in the Earth's magnetic field like grooves on a record.  It's stronger in some places than others; "Haunty" spots and is stronger when the energy of an event was substantial; lot's of drama.

Deists seem to have a notion of the "soul" based on their particular religious belief.  I don't claim to know what the soul could be possibly made of or how it might work if it exists at all.

I know weird things happen.  I guess the crux of the matter is: When weird things happen, are you inclined to scream "Haints!" or are you going to try to fit into a system that you and everybody else can agree on?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Oh, sorry didn't get the memo that someone debunked the myth.
> 
> 
> Can we start giving out doushebag points in here?



Seriously, what does it sound like when God talks to you?



JB0704 said:


> I wish they would come up with a "flag" emoticon, like in football, to use in those situations.
> 
> I never heard voices, or had a strong intuition of anything, not sure if that is prerequisite for belief.
> 
> Strangly enough, I do know an atheist who claims to have seen a ghost......not sure how that would work.....



How does God communicate with you?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> They probably attribute it to some natural phenomenon.  My favorite theory is that events sometimes get recorded in the Earth's magnetic field like grooves on a record.  It's stronger in some places than others; "Haunty" spots and is stronger when the energy of an event was substantial; lot's of drama.



I actually have a Christian friend who believes this theory. "Ghosts" are kind-of contradictory to some very basic principles of Christianity, so this is how he rationalizes it. He claims to have seen civil war ghosts, which would kind-of fit the mold of what you are describing....other Christians believe they are angels and demons.  I am not certain what it all is, I have never seen anything supernatural.



ambush80 said:


> Deists seem to have a notion of the "soul" based on their particular religious belief.  I don't claim to know what the soul could be possibly made of or how it might work if it exists at all.



I believe in the soul.  Now, I know this will get slammed in here, but I think that is what separates humans from animals, and rocks.  We all came from the same matter (all faiths, or non-faiths, should agree on that one).  I think the soul makes us "special." My only evidence is the fact that we pursue things outside of the natural drive for survival.....if I ever encounter a bear writing poetry I might have to re-think that one.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> How does God communicate with you?



He doesn't.  I have never "heard from God."  I have the lessons of the Bible (Proverbs, etc), and the words of Jesus.  That is how I view the interaction.  I don't expect to be communicated with outside of that.


----------



## JFS (Nov 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> My only evidence is the fact that we pursue things outside of the natural drive for survival.....if I ever encounter a bear writing poetry I might have to re-think that one.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

JFS, now that was a cool video!  I have heard of monkeys typing and signing, but never elephants painting.

Not sure if this is really what I was talking about.  I don't know if the elephant saw art and wished to be an artist.....if that makes sense.  Did it have an artistic flair in the wild?  Or was it trained to paint?  Would that elephant naturally communicate for artistic value if there was not a treat (usually food...the survival thing again) available when she finished?

Honestly, though, that might be the best example contrary to my thoughts on the subject I have seen.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I actually have a Christian friend who believes this theory. "Ghosts" are kind-of contradictory to some very basic principles of Christianity, so this is how he rationalizes it. He claims to have seen civil war ghosts, which would kind-of fit the mold of what you are describing....other Christians believe they are angels and demons.  I am not certain what it all is, I have never seen anything supernatural.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in the soul.  Now, I know this will get slammed in here, but I think that is what separates humans from animals, and rocks.  We all came from the same matter (all faiths, or non-faiths, should agree on that one).  I think the soul makes us "special." My only evidence is the fact that we pursue things outside of the natural drive for survival.....if I ever encounter a bear writing poetry I might have to re-think that one.



Isn't it amazing how when people see ghosts, the ghosts clothing and equipment are also ghosts? Hard to understand how a sword makes it through the spirit world.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Isn't it amazing how when people see ghosts, the ghosts clothing and equipment are also ghosts? Hard to understand how a sword makes it through the spirit world.





I had never thought about that.  I know some pretty credible folks who claim to have seen them.  I don't know what to think about it.  I have an easier time believing an alien claim.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Seriously, what does it sound like when God talks to you?



It doesn't "sound" like anything for me, it is usually a "sense" I get about something that ends up being true. Or a thought or idea that comes out of nowhere in a situation that I wouldn't have thought about on my own in a million years. However, I'm sure you will say that I did think about it on my own.

I will tell you a story about my dad having cancer, and no, he was not healed miraculously without doctors or anything. We were told he had cancer on a Friday, non-hotchkins lymphoma, it was in three places of his body.

If it started from the top and grew down, he would have a very short time to live, bottom to the top, he would live and they would evaluate what was needed to be done.

I told my mother about 4 days prior to finding out if he would live or die exactly what was going to happen from a "sense" that I believe came from God. That he would live and only have to have chemotherapy, he would not have to have surgery nor would he have to have radiation therapy. I told her he would be fine in a short time and not to worry.

The day came to find out the answer and I was at such an ease about the situation that I actually went to work and completly forgot about the decision that was coming my way that day, completly forgot about it. A calmness that I can't explain, on a day that any other person would have been worried to death, because I felt I knew the outcome.

He is now completly cancer free, not in remission which is different. (took about 6 months of chemo). The doctor told him he hit the lottery.

Yes, I know that you, along with most other people will dismiss this and claim it was a good guess on my part. I am not sure how you will dismiss the calmess that came on the day of the decision of my dad who taught me to hunt and fish and that I love very much. But like I said, I understand that you will dismiss it, and thats ok with me.

Thats what it "sounds" like when God speaks to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> It doesn't "sound" like anything for me, it is usually a "sense" I get about something that ends up being true. Or a thought or idea that comes out of nowhere in a situation that I wouldn't have thought about on my own in a million years. However, I'm sure you will say that I did think about it on my own.
> 
> I will tell you a story about my dad having cancer, and no, he was not healed miraculously without doctors or anything. We were told he had cancer on a Friday, non-hotchkins lymphoma, it was in three places of his body.
> 
> ...



As I said before, weird things happen.  I guess the difference is in what you attribute the cause to.  

I don't believe in haints.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> As I said before, weird things happen.  I guess the difference is in what you attribute the cause to.
> 
> *I don't believe in haints*.



I don't either.


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> As I said before, weird things happen.  I guess the difference is in what you attribute the cause to.
> 
> I don't believe in haints.



I stay consistant, firmly holding on to the "I don't know" platform.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I don't either.



Just the one?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 1, 2011)

I have purposely not opened this thread for two days....I'm glad I made that decision right now.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I have purposely not opened this thread for two days....I'm glad I made that decision right now.



Come on now, HF, this stuff is fun, weigh in on this one.....what do you think about ghosts?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 1, 2011)

I think they don't react well to Proton Packs.

Also, I think that when someone asks you if you're a god......YOU SAY YES!!!


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 1, 2011)

I do understand how atheists feel about theists now though because I've experienced that feeling while reading this mess...only from the flip side.

Total blind belief in something that not only hasn't been proven, not only can't be proven, but is 100% statistically impossible.

Funny though that critics of creation speak as if the alternative has some firm foundation and observable proof and is somehow more believable than a creator.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Also, I think that when someone asks you if you're a god......YOU SAY YES!!!



Ghostbusters?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Funny though that critics of creation speak as if the alternative has some firm foundation and observable proof and is somehow more believable than a creator.



....as in 7 day creation v. an "old Earth" perspective, or chance v. creator?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> It doesn't "sound" like anything for me, it is usually a "sense" I get about something that ends up being true. Or a thought or idea that comes out of nowhere in a situation that I wouldn't have thought about on my own in a million years. However, I'm sure you will say that I did think about it on my own.
> 
> I will tell you a story about my dad having cancer, and no, he was not healed miraculously without doctors or anything. We were told he had cancer on a Friday, non-hotchkins lymphoma, it was in three places of his body.
> 
> ...



If someone of a different religion told you the exact same story as confirmation that their deity spoke to them what would you think?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I do understand how atheists feel about theists now though because I've experienced that feeling while reading this mess...only from the flip side.
> 
> Total blind belief in something that not only hasn't been proven, not only can't be proven, but is 100% statistically impossible.
> 
> Funny though that critics of creation speak as if the alternative has some firm foundation and observable proof and is somehow more believable than a creator.



What is 100% statistically impossible?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 1, 2011)

Randomness or what most people would call Big Bang through Life as a result of random events.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If someone of a different religion told you the exact same story as confirmation that their deity spoke to them what would you think?



I'll have to wait on that to happen. To be honest,* if *a person of another faith did tell me this same story, I would believe it was my God trying to get their attention.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Randomness or what most people would call Big Bang through Life as a result of random events.



And how do you know that to be so?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I'll have to wait on that to happen. To be honest,* if *a person of another faith did tell me this same story, I would believe it was my God trying to get their attention.



The flip side of that coin is maybe it's their God trying to get your attention. Or.... maybe you're both mistaken. The question is how do you discover whether or not you are mistaken?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The flip side of that coin is maybe it's their God trying to get your attention. Or.... maybe you're both mistaken.* The question is how do you discover whether or not you are mistaken?*



I know the basis of most major religions, I have chosen Christianity, I don't think I am mistaken, so, I discovered I am not mistaken throught the Bible.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> And how do you know that to be so?



Post #27, I am sure you could do a search and find more.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I know the basis of most major religions, I have chosen Christianity, I don't think I am mistaken, so, I discovered I am not mistaken throught the Bible.



Huh?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Post #27, I am sure you could do a search and find more.



You can make a number say anything if you start out with false premises. We still don't know how life originated. Because we don't know how it originated we don't know in great detail what conditions must be present for it to originate nor what the probabilities are under those conditions in a given span of time, and we don't know how many places in the universe have those conditions. Without knowing these factors how can one possibly calculate the probability of life occurring through natural means (ie without a magic wand)? If the nature of chemistry is such that under the right conditions life is certain to form and those conditions occur only happens in one out of every billion planets it's not only a statistical possibility it's a certainty.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You can make a number say anything if you start out with false premises. We still don't know how life originated. Because we don't know how it originated we don't know in great detail what conditions must be present for it to originate nor what the probabilities are under those conditions in a given span of time, and we don't know how many places in the universe have those conditions. Without knowing these factors how can one possibly calculate the probability of life occurring through natural means (ie without a magic wand)?* If the nature of chemistry is such *that under the right conditions life is certain to form and those conditions occur only happens in one out of every billion planets it's not only a statistical possibility it's a certainty.



But thats not the nature of chemistry is it?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 1, 2011)

> If the nature of chemistry is such that under the right conditions life is certain to form and those conditions occur only happens in one out of every billion planets it's not only a statistical possibility it's a certainty.



Like you said...



> You can make a number say anything if you start out with false premises.



One in a billion is closer to 50/50 than the reality of the odds.....one in a billion doesn't even begin to touch to smallness of the odds.  A billion is only a power of nine....we're talking powers of 10's or 100's of thousands.

As I said...I'm beginning to understand how atheists think of me.  The irony of it is that it's their own beliefs that are getting me there.  Belief in God is starting to seem easier than going through the wormholes necessary to not believe.

I don't know why I let myself wade back into this.  It's not a discussion or argument that will be won either way.  My fault for getting back in.  Y'all have fun.  I will see you in other threads.  I'm trying to stay away as much as possible right now.  I don't think it's good for me to be here too much.


----------



## JFS (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Belief in God is starting to seem easier than going through the wormholes necessary to not believe.



If your alternative to unknowns or uncertainty is to just say god did it, then of course it is easier to believe in god than to figure out the unknown.   For me you have to look not just at the current state of knowledge but also at its trajectory.   Your bronze-age god used to be the solution to all kinds of unknowns for which we now know the scientific answer.   Contending that the residual unknowns still prove god's existence is an argumentative denial rivaling the Black Knight.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 1, 2011)

Best movie ever made.  Back when I was a kid, I could start at the beginning and quote it word for word to the end.

I bet I've seen it 200 times....no kidding.


Let's put it this way; science does not have an answer now and is no closer to an answer today than 200 years ago.  You are counting on the unkown as much or more than I am.  You are counting on the trajectory of science.

Ever heard of an asymptote?  Science cannot continue on its trajectory until ALL things are known.  It will continue approaching "infinity"...but will never quite get there.

There are some things that science will never explain.  I believe there's a reason for that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 1, 2011)

BTW....He's not a "bronze age god".

He is "I Am", he existed before all of this and he is the answer to the question.


It's ok with me if you think that I believe that only because there is no other explanation.  We are at opposite ends of the same boat.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> But thats not the nature of chemistry is it?



Did you ever watch the abiogenesis video I posted?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Did you ever watch the abiogenesis video I posted?



Possibly? Can you find a link to it?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool you are claiming to know more not only than you do but more than anyone knows.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 1, 2011)

> Huntinfool you are claiming to know more not only than you do but more than anyone knows.



Nope.  At least not intentionally.

I'm more pointing out that what many people accept as the "explanation" is likely statistically impossible (which is, admittedly, different that totally impossible).

One thing I will claim to know (not sure if this is what you're talking about)...it is not possible for science to explain "all things".  Science will not get there.  Just like an asymptote....it will continue to get closer (and I'm glad for it).  But it will never touch the line.


----------



## JFS (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> it is not possible for science to explain "all things".  Science will not get there



Science is a process of inquiry.  It is not perfect, but as foundation for understanding it is infinitely preferable to revelation or wishful thinking.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

JFS said:


> Science is a process of inquiry.  It is not perfect, but as foundation for understanding it is infinitely preferable to revelation or wishful thinking.



That is true. The theists claims must stand on their own merits. They don't get to just plug any answer they wish into an unknown and declare it truth. Doing so puts their claims in the same category as all other claims made without any evidence to back them up.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Possibly? Can you find a link to it?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>



Interesting, a little above my paygrade, but interesting. 


I liked the video that came after it as well...


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Nope.  At least not intentionally.
> 
> I'm more pointing out that what many people accept as the "explanation" is likely statistically impossible (which is, admittedly, different that totally impossible).



You can't say that unless you know what the statistical probability actually is and you don't. You don't have the foggiest idea. If you're going to claim that one in a billion or a million or a thousand or any other number of planets would have the conditions for life to develop is way off by orders of magnitude, how do you know that? We have no idea what the frequency of planets with earth like conditions is but even at one in every million that would mean an incredible number of earth like planets out there.




Huntinfool said:


> One thing I will claim to know (not sure if this is what you're talking about)...it is not possible for science to explain "all things".  Science will not get there.  Just like an asymptote....it will continue to get closer (and I'm glad for it).  But it will never touch the line.



I agree with you on that but history has shown superstition not only fails to further our understanding it sets us back in our efforts to better understand reality. Where answers are unknown the responsible thing to do is admit ignorance.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

string,

The points made in the video you posted are addressed in the video I posted.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

JFS said:


> If your alternative to unknowns or uncertainty is to just say god did it, then of course it is easier to believe in god than to figure out the unknown.   For me you have to look not just at the current state of knowledge but also at its trajectory.   Your bronze-age god used to be the solution to all kinds of unknowns for which we now know the scientific answer.   Contending that the residual unknowns still prove god's existence is an argumentative denial rivaling the Black Knight.



Speaking of the black knight... even if science solves the mystery of the origin of life with a natural explanation theists will then just claim that is the mechanism God used.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Speaking of the black knight... even if science solves the mystery of the origin of life with a natural explanation theists will then just claim that is the mechanism God used.



Or they might say "Look how amazing God is!  He created man and gave him the intelligence to create life!  Amen! Halleluiah!"


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Or they might say "Look how amazing God is!  He created man and gave him the intelligence to create life!  Amen! Halleluiah!"



And, if God came here and declared he created it all, you guys would say "he was a naturally occurring being created by gravity combining with matter which evolved to such amazing intelligence, Praise Nothing in Particular!!"


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> And, if God came here and declared he created it all, you guys would say "he was a naturally occurring being created by gravity combining with matter which evolved to such amazing intelligence, Praise Nothing in Particular!!"




I would have a lot of questions for him.  

I would be intrigued by some of this "heart pricking" that I've heard about enough to investigate His existence.  

I might be a vessel of wrath.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 1, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> And, if God came here and declared he created it all, you guys would say "he was a naturally occurring being created by gravity combining with matter which evolved to such amazing intelligence, Praise Nothing in Particular!!"



You're wrong about that. My desire is to understand and conform my mind with reality as it is, not as I would wish it to be. If that reality includes a God I would hope it would be a good God and not an evil one but in any case I wouldn't deny reality just because I didn't like it. And the same holds true for any other mythical being that turned out to be real.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 2, 2011)

> You can't say that unless you know what the statistical probability actually is and you don't. You don't have the foggiest idea.



Which is why I said "likely", "statistically"....impossible.  I didn't say it was impossible and I didn't say it had been proven.  What I said was that many statisticians and scientists have done the work on the evidence we DO have now and have come to the conclusion that the odds of life spontaneously generating here on earth (forget the other planets) by pure random chance is so small that it is likely statistically impossible....or very very close to zero.



> We have no idea what the frequency of planets with earth like conditions is but even at one in every million that would mean an incredible number of earth like planets out there.



...and yet you're willing to accept that it's probable, in fact likely...with no physical or verifiable evidence.

Sort of like....faith....which is why I say I'm starting to understand how athiests feel about me.  Believe in an explanation that logic says cannot be true.  

You ask me for proof and I say essentially "...for the Bible tells me so."

I ask you for proof and you say essentially "....for science will tell me so eventually."


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 2, 2011)

> You're wrong about that. My desire is to understand and conform my mind with reality as it is, not as I would wish it to be. If that reality includes a God I would hope it would be a good God and not an evil one but in any case I wouldn't deny reality just because I didn't like it.



Did you read my mind?  This is exactly what I would have written in response to what you posted about us.

Ironically enough though, you continue to use phrases like "mythical", "made up", etc...indicating that you do not leave room for God to exist.  You, in fact, don't leave the possibility that he's there open.  You give lip service to it.  But the truth, as indicated by your comments in these thread, is that you don't.

Oh how "open minded" we all are, right?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If that reality includes a God I would hope it would be a good God and not an evil one.



How would you determine which is good and which is evil?  If there is a god, like the Christian god, wouldn't god determine what constituted "good" and "evil?" Would your perspective become irrelevant to truth, or would your personal moral code still remain the arbiter of good and evil?



atlashunter said:


> but in any case I wouldn't deny reality just because I didn't like it. And the same holds true for any other mythical being that turned out to be real.



See question above.  And in reference to god being mythical: the reality of his existence, or non-existence, is not dependent upon your or my perspective.  It either is or it is not.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 2, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Which is why I said "likely", "statistically"....impossible.  I didn't say it was impossible and I didn't say it had been proven.  What I said was that many statisticians and scientists have done the work on the evidence we DO have now and have come to the conclusion that the odds of life spontaneously generating here on earth (forget the other planets) by pure random chance is so small that it is likely statistically impossible....or very very close to zero.



Right. I guess that explains why so many of them don't believe in God.




Huntinfool said:


> ...and yet you're willing to accept that it's probable, in fact likely...with no physical or verifiable evidence.
> 
> Sort of like....faith....which is why I say I'm starting to understand how athiests feel about me.  Believe in an explanation that logic says cannot be true.
> 
> ...



The bible is no more trustworthy than any other ancient myth or religious text.

What exactly are you asking me for proof of? You claimed to know the probabilities. I said we don't know the probabilities. You're claiming knowledge, not me, so the burden of proof is on you.




Huntinfool said:


> Did you read my mind?  This is exactly what I would have written in response to what you posted about us.



The difference is that there are natural phenomena that was previously thought to be supernatural and the response from theists to the natural explanation has been exactly what I said. In other words I can already point to specific examples that prove my suggestion. You can't. You're still waiting for the rapture so everyone can see that you had it right. My money says you'll be waiting to your grave for that just as others have done for the last two millenia.





Huntinfool said:


> Ironically enough though, you continue to use phrases like "mythical", "made up", etc...indicating that you do not leave room for God to exist.  You, in fact, don't leave the possibility that he's there open.  You give lip service to it.  But the truth, as indicated by your comments in these thread, is that you don't.
> 
> Oh how "open minded" we all are, right?



Do you consider Zeus to be mythical or do you leave room for him to exist? I do to the same extent that I am open to the possibility that leprechauns exist. Bring forth your evidence and make your case. If you can't do so then I'll continue to consider all of it myth.




JB0704 said:


> How would you determine which is good and which is evil?  If there is a god, like the Christian god, wouldn't god determine what constituted "good" and "evil?" Would your perspective become irrelevant to truth, or would your personal moral code still remain the arbiter of good and evil?



My personal moral evaluations would remain the arbiter for me. If God came along and said it's a good thing to rape 3 year old kids I wouldn't change my mind and agree. Would you?




JB0704 said:


> See question above.  And in reference to god being mythical: the reality of his existence, or non-existence, is not dependent upon your or my perspective.  It either is or it is not.



That's true. But I don't go through life believing everything that possibly could be really is without any evidence. Neither do you. You just aren't as consistent about it.


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 2, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...and yet you're willing to accept that it's probable, in fact likely...with no physical or verifiable evidence.



When one looks at it from a purely statistical standpoint, take for example when the Hubble Telescope takes a snapshot and 200 TRILLION stars/planets are part of it, then moves 180 degrees to snapshot another 200 TRILLION stars/planets, the odds have to reflect the chance of life existing on at least one of them is pretty good.

The evidence?  We are here, right now, existing on Earth.

Yep, some of those bright lights in space have already consumed themselves, or blown apart by the time their light has reached the objective lenses of the Hubble.  But also consider the MILLIONS more that have birthed and the light is yet to reach the lenses.

We individually may not live to know for sure what else shares our universe.  But then, some folks just might know already and are keeping it a secret for our own protection and sanity.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> My personal moral evaluations would remain the arbiter for me. If God came along and said it's a good thing to rape 3 year old kids I wouldn't change my mind and agree. Would you?.



No I wouldn't.  I just wanted to see if your perspective on morality remains constant with or without a creator defining "truth."  It was a point of curiosity.  I tend to view morality differently than most Christians, but am influenced as to what "morality" is by my faith....if that makes sense.  

That being said, the concept of an evil god is pretty foreign, I had not considered that.



atlashunter said:


> That's true. But I don't go through life believing everything that possibly could be really is without any evidence. Neither do you. You just aren't as consistent about it.



Where are the inconsistencies in my belief system.  I am one of "those" Christians that also believe in science,  but I also see logic in a conclusion that God exists.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 2, 2011)

> Do you consider Zeus to be mythical or do you leave room for him to exist?



Yes, I consider him mythical and no, I do not leave room for him to exist.  I didn't claim to be open to the existence of another deity and I am not the one claiming to be open minded.  I simply agreed with this statement...



> My desire is to understand and conform my mind with reality as it is, not as I would wish it to be.



But, since I know what the reality is, Zuess does not need to be allowed for.  So we agree...you don't actually leave room for God.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 2, 2011)

> When one looks at it from a purely statistical standpoint, take for example when the Hubble Telescope takes a snapshot and 200 TRILLION stars/planets are part of it, then moves 180 degrees to snapshot another 200 TRILLION stars/planets, the odds have to reflect the chance of life existing on at least one of them is pretty good.
> 
> The evidence? We are here, right now, existing on Earth.



I'm talking about the odds of life even being here...much less on another planet.  The odds of it happening twice or more by pure randomness are even more astronomically low.  Imagine....perfect circumstances at the perfect time and then perfect combinations of matter all at the same time....by random....twice.  To believe that requires even more imagination that believing in an unseen God.




> We individually may not live to know for sure what else shares our universe.



You are right about that.  I'd say that's just about a guarantee!  I suppose my point is simply that, regardless how it's "calculated", the odds of life forming spontaneously by random events are critically low.  Add in the requirement that the environment for survival had to be perfect....by random chance at that exact moment and you just doubled down on ridiciously low odds.

All I'm asking is for some one to finally admit that "God" is as good an explanation as "random".  Obviously, I think it's a better explanation and more logical.  I don't ask anyone to go that far if they can't.  But good grief.  "Randomness"?  That makes for a better explanation of how we got here?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 2, 2011)

Randomness may be God.


----------



## JFS (Dec 2, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Yes, I consider him mythical and no, I do not leave room for him to exist.


Reminds me of a quote...

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

_~Stephen F Roberts_


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 2, 2011)

JFS said:


> Reminds me of a quote...
> 
> "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
> 
> _~Stephen F Roberts_



Yep. There is as much evidence for the existence of Zeus as there is for Yahweh, none. Glad to see HF can relate to where we are coming from. 

HF you continue making claims about how low the odds are when you really don't know.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 2, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> All I'm asking is for some one to finally admit that "God" is as good an explanation as "random".  Obviously, I think it's a better explanation and more logical.  I don't ask anyone to go that far if they can't.  But good grief.  "Randomness"?  That makes for a better explanation of how we got here?



I can't go that far but I'll admit "God" is as good an explanation as "Zeus".

Not even sure what you mean by "randomness". The Grand Canyon is the result of natural processes so does that mean it is the result of "randomness"?


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 2, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm talking about the odds of life even being here...much less on another planet.  The odds of it happening twice or more by pure randomness are even more astronomically low.  Imagine....perfect circumstances at the perfect time and then perfect combinations of matter all at the same time....by random....twice.  To believe that requires even more imagination that believing in an unseen God.



Because our planet had the basics to become what we see today, it is almost a certainty that there are other planets/stars/worlds which have the basics for life.
That life might not be what we expect, nor may it be anything like our Earth's carbon based species.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>


Like I have said before, most of this stuff is above my paygrade, but I read this "argument against abiogenesis" tell me what you think.

1. The absence of the required atmosphere. 

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I know the basis of most major religions, I have chosen Christianity, I don't think I am mistaken, so, I discovered I am not mistaken throught the Bible.



I still can't make any sense of this. You know you aren't mistaken because you've accepted the proposition you are questioning (claims of the bible) as true? That's your logic?


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 13, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Funny....the arguments in the vid are nearly the same ones that Christians make in favor of God and a creator.
> 
> "What are the odds?" he asks....



I was thinking the same thing.  God came to earth from somewhere, we don't know where. He creates something from nothing, either by bringing things from somewhere else, seeds, animal pods...whatever or He just whipped it up out of His imagination.  Either way...looks exactly how I believe God designed this world/earth.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I still can't make any sense of this. You know you aren't mistaken because you've accepted the proposition you are questioning (claims of the bible) as true? That's your logic?



All I was trying to say was that I have made a choice to put my faith in Christianity after looking at most of the major religions. I have let the bible explain itself, kinda of like trying to explain logic to a person who doesn't know what logic is, you must use logic to explain logic, I let the bible explain itself.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 14, 2011)

Atlas, what are your thoughts on post #189?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> All I was trying to say was that I have made a choice to put my faith in Christianity after looking at most of the major religions. I have let the bible explain itself, kinda of like trying to explain logic to a person who doesn't know what logic is, you must use logic to explain logic, I let the bible explain itself.



I understand that is a choice you have made but it doesn't answer the original question about how you know it's the other guy who is mistaken about his god and not you about yours. He could do exactly what you have done to confirm his choice and in the end neither of you are any closer to figuring out who is right if either of you are. You may as well flip a coin to determine what to believe, it would be just as logical.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Atlas, what are your thoughts on post #189?



Solid. You should send that to Dr Szostak and let him know his work is in vain.


----------



## shedhead (Dec 16, 2011)

Tough subject. In truth, if you have compassion in your heart, you dont care if God exists, because it is not about yourself that God exists, its for the person you care about the most. I worry about the influence, as a person, that I may lead to a wrong understanding to the people that I love. I do a lot of things wrong in the eyes of God, but I have trouble understanding how :nono::nono::nono::nono: is meant for me because I dont follow the flock and pray in church and give 10% of my pay, and instead talk to him in a private room or in the woods. Do I love the belief God exists? According to the bible only so many saved souls will return to the maker because they are not saved. My understanding is that the bible preaches not  to congregate and relish in your salvation in private


----------

