# Evolution debate will soon be history



## bullethead (May 29, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/scientist-evolution-debate-soon-history-155252505.html

NEW YORK (AP) — Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.

Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

Leakey, a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island, recently spent several weeks in New York promoting the Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya. The institute, where Leakey spends most of his time, welcomes researchers and scientists from around the world dedicated to unearthing the origins of mankind in an area rich with fossils.

His friend, Paul Simon, performed at a May 2 fundraiser for the institute in Manhattan that collected more than $2 million. A National Geographic documentary on his work at Turkana aired this month on public television.

Now 67, Leakey is the son of the late Louis and Mary Leakey and conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise. The family claims to have unearthed "much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution."

On the eve of his return to Africa earlier this week, Leakey spoke to The Associated Press in New York City about the past and the future.

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one."

Any hope for mankind's future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.

"If we're spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?" he asked.

"If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."

Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.

"If you tell me, well, people really need a faith ... I understand that," he said.

"I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife ...."

Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s. His team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as "Turkana Boy," the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature.

In the late 1980s, Leakey began a career in government service in Kenya, heading the Kenya Wildlife Service. He led the quest to protect elephants from poachers who were killing the animals at an alarming rate in order to harvest their valuable ivory tusks. He gathered 12 tons of confiscated ivory in Nairobi National Park and set it afire in a 1989 demonstration that attracted worldwide headlines.

In 1993, Leakey crashed a small propeller-driven plane; his lower legs were later amputated and he now gets around on artificial limbs. There were suspicions the plane had been sabotaged by his political enemies, but it was never proven.

About a decade ago, he visited Stony Brook University on eastern Long Island, a part of the State University of New York, as a guest lecturer. Then-President Shirley Strum Kenny began lobbying Leakey to join the faculty. It was a process that took about two years; he relented after returning to the campus to accept an honorary degree.

Kenny convinced him that he could remain in Kenya most of the time, where Stony Brook anthropology students could visit and learn about his work. And the college founded in 1957 would benefit from the gravitas of such a noted professor on its faculty.

"It was much easier to work with a new university that didn't have a 200-year-old image where it was so set in its ways like some of the Ivy League schools that you couldn't really change what they did and what they thought," he said.

Earlier this month, Paul Simon performed at a benefit dinner for the Turkana Basin Institute. IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond and his wife, Peggy Bonapace Gelfond, and billionaire hedge fund investor Jim Simons and his wife, Marilyn, were among those attending the exclusive show in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood.

Simon agreed to allow his music to be performed on the National Geographic documentary airing on PBS and donated an autographed guitar at the fundraiser that sold for nearly $20,000.

Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about the future.

"We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."


----------



## ambush80 (May 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/scientist-evolution-debate-soon-history-155252505.html
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) — Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
> 
> ...



Information like this is trumped by belief in talking donkeys.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2012)

Makes sense, faith will yield to evidence / science eventually, it's just a bit stubborn, this isn't the first nor last time it'll happen either.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 30, 2012)

I don't think man created planet change. I'm sure it is happening on every planet in our solar system. Just a small detail of the article I guess.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't think man created planet change. I'm sure it is happening on every planet in our solar system. Just a small detail of the article I guess.



I agree to an extent. Its a little dumb to say man invented climate change / planet change. Change is a constant, things changed before man, things change after man.

There is however no doubt that the human species has had a huge environmental effect on the planet. Just look around.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 30, 2012)

I agree that we've affected it, but I don't think in as much of an impactful way as most think. I think global warming and holes in the ozone would have happened any way and in pretty much the same timeline. Of course I could be wrong and I don't think anyone can say for sure.


----------



## Four (May 30, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> I agree that we've affected it, but I don't think in as much of an impactful way as most think. I think global warming and holes in the ozone would have happened any way and in pretty much the same timeline. Of course I could be wrong and I don't think anyone can say for sure.



More to the point, i don't think it's completely relevant whether or not negative environmental changes are man-made or not... if we have the power to stop or slow them, we should. Regardless..


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 30, 2012)

I guess none of this is the point of the thread... but something, whatever that might be, by 100 years, 1,000 years? That's not really much at all. Good for humans I guess but not anything for the planet.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Information like this is trumped by belief in talking donkeys.



When did you convert? You are absolutely CORRECT!!!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 31, 2012)

Four said:


> Makes sense, faith will yield to evidence / science eventually, it's just a bit stubborn, this isn't the first nor last time it'll happen either.



And it is being led by another Kenyan. We have first hand experience of how trustworthy they are here in the US now don't we?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 31, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And it is being led by another Kenyan. We have first hand experience of how trustworthy they are here in the US now don't we?



Why is the political forum full of  polite people these days? Spinning is at an all time low.... what gives?


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2012)

Go back far enough and we might all be Kenyans.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Go back far enough and we might all be Kenyans.



Kenya is a tad too far south for the anthropological evidenced beginnings of the earliest known civilizations.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 1, 2012)

And some folks believe anything and everything they read over the internet!!!


----------



## Worley (Jun 1, 2012)

*Question*

And the 200 year old ivy league schools , reckon why at the time would not consider the thoughts mentioned...I guess they were not at smart as the young ethiopian or because they believed in the bible... Just a question to ponder, reckon the Ethiopian ever been wrong at any time in his evaluations, I sure have been many times...not tying to stir anything, just skeptical of youthful evaluations that describe the complexity of creation...if something came from nothing, a creation without a creator and a design without a designer it would certainly be a phenomena that i have never observed...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Kenya is a tad too far south for the anthropological evidenced beginnings of the earliest known civilizations.



Now we are getting somewhere.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

Worley said:


> And the 200 year old ivy league schools , reckon why at the time would not consider the thoughts mentioned...I guess they were not at smart as the young ethiopian or because they believed in the bible... Just a question to ponder, reckon the Ethiopian ever been wrong at any time in his evaluations, I sure have been many times...not tying to stir anything, just skeptical of youthful evaluations that describe the complexity of creation...if something came from nothing, a creation without a creator and a design without a designer it would certainly be a phenomena that i have never observed...



What other things have you never observed?


----------



## Worley (Jun 1, 2012)

*Observations*



bullethead said:


> What other things have you never observed?



Well that was worded with room for such a comment...lots of things I've never observed, but since the whole topic comes from "personal observation " it would be relative to our discussion right...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

Worley said:


> And the 200 year old ivy league schools , reckon why at the time would not consider the thoughts mentioned...I guess they were not at smart as the young ethiopian or because they believed in the bible... Just a question to ponder, reckon the Ethiopian ever been wrong at any time in his evaluations, I sure have been many times...not tying to stir anything, just skeptical of youthful evaluations that describe the complexity of creation...if something came from nothing, a creation without a creator and a design without a designer it would certainly be a phenomena that i have never observed...



Is the designer and creator a God? Which God? Does one religions account accurately portray creation more correctly than the others? In your observations, just how old are the things beyond our universe and how long have they existed?


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

I feel i have to mention AGAIN.

If your problem is an entity that is uncreated, placing a god that doesn't have a creator, to explain why everything must be created is paradoxical.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> I feel i have to mention AGAIN.
> 
> If your problem is an entity that is uncreated, placing a god that doesn't have a creator, to explain why everything must be created is paradoxical.



YEP!

Everything MUST have been created. That is the argument used to somehow explain a God. Yet when asked "who created God?"....all of a sudden not Everything needed a creator.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

Worley said:


> Well that was worded with room for such a comment...lots of things I've never observed, but since the whole topic comes from "personal observation " it would be relative to our discussion right...



Lets leave the wording to precise points about what you know and what you can prove to back that knowledge. I am happy to have a minister in here to talk to. I am hoping you have some inside information that sways my line of thought. Scripture quotes and roomy wording isn't going to accomplish it though but if you have something concrete please share it.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> I feel i have to mention AGAIN.
> 
> If your problem is an entity that is uncreated, placing a god that doesn't have a creator, to explain why everything must be created is paradoxical.



A Kenyan from the oldest continent on the planet claiming to soon have info that will solve evolution, all while living in one of the poorest countries in the world, that has had the longest time span to advance in civilization is paradoxical.

Tribe on tribe violence still exists after thousands of years of perpetual ignorance in their country. I would submit that it would be more beneficial for this "observant" young man to concert his efforts to the more dire social issues within his country, and surrounding countries than to worry about how he came about to begin with.

Some studies and opinions just aren't worth the effort and benefit society nothing in the end.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> A Kenyan from the oldest continent on the planet claiming to soon have info that will solve evolution, all while living in one of the poorest countries in the world, that has had the longest time span to advance in civilization is paradoxical.
> 
> Tribe on tribe violence still exists after thousands of years of perpetual ignorance in their country. I would submit that it would be more beneficial for this "observant" young man to concert his efforts to the more dire social issues within his country, and surrounding countries than to worry about how he came about to begin with.
> 
> Some studies and opinions just aren't worth the effort and benefit society nothing in the end.



Yeah, origin of the human race......un-beneficial.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> YEP!
> 
> Everything MUST have been created. That is the argument used to somehow explain a God. Yet when asked "who created God?"....all of a sudden not Everything needed a creator.


 
How our finite minds can reckon Him who always WAS is an impossibility. There has to be some things about Him we will never fully grasp (there's that faith thing again that seems to trip a lot of ya'll up ), otherwise, He would not be the "I AM" of the bible. 
When you were 2, or 20, did you 'know' all that your earthly father knew?  of course not. But just as it is with earthly fathers ... with time ... we will know Him who truely is.  A few will have _eternity_ to understand the rest (because it will take something beyond _time_ to grasp), because that's how grand a scale His love/grace is.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, origin of the human race......un-beneficial.



From your life long experience of observations, exactly what disease will it cure, what social issues will it solve, how many wars will it stop?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> How our finite minds can reckon Him who always WAS is an impossibility. There has to be some things about Him we will never fully grasp (there's that faith thing again that seems to trip a lot of ya'll up ), otherwise, He would not be the "I AM" of the bible.
> When you were 2, or 20, did you 'know' all that your earthly father knew?  of course not. But just as it is with earthly fathers ... with time ... we will know Him who truely is.  A few will have _eternity_ to understand the rest (because it will take something beyond _time_ to grasp), because that's how grand a scale His love/grace is.



I can see how that would move some people, but I am not one of them. I need more than just hollow statements and thoughts of an individual to sway me.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> From your life long experience of observations, exactly what disease will it cure, what social issues will it solve, how many wars will it stop?



Exactly as many as the religion you worship has. Possibly, if his work leads to an understanding about our origins, there could be less wars based on the beliefs within religion.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I need more than just hollow statements and thoughts of an individual to sway me.



And you're hanging it on this? 



> "Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."



A yet to be proven sentiment that might happen in the next 15 to 30 years?



That is rich...


----------



## Worley (Jun 1, 2012)

*Discussion*



bullethead said:


> Lets leave the wording to precise points about what you know and what you can prove to back that knowledge. I am happy to have a minister in here to talk to. I am hoping you have some inside information that sways my line of thought. Scripture quotes and roomy wording isn't going to accomplish it though but if you have something concrete please share it.



Well not sure my comments will sway your opinion but I would be open to conversations with ya...but scripture will obviously be in the context of topics discussed.  I was just stating a point about the young Ethiopian....feel
Free to shoot me a pm about anything you would like to discuss, would be good for both us to think critically.  Look forward to it....have a great weekend


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Exactly as many as the religion you worship has. Possibly, if his work leads to an understanding about our origins, there could be less wars based on the beliefs within religion.



Obviously you don't listen to what you are saying, or don't believe half of it yourself, thus the paradigm created when you type.

Have fun with this, you have now come full circle.


----------



## Worley (Jun 1, 2012)

*Define*



Four said:


> I feel i have to mention AGAIN.
> 
> If your problem is an entity that is uncreated, placing a god that doesn't have a creator, to explain why everything must be created is paradoxical.



No problems sir...could u explain un-created?  Really would like to hear your thought on that?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Obviously you don't listen to what you are saying, or don't believe half of it yourself, thus the paradigm created when you type.
> 
> Have fun with this, you have now come full circle.



Ok. Bye-Bye then


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> A Kenyan from the oldest continent on the planet claiming to soon have info that will solve evolution, all while living in one of the poorest countries in the world, that has had the longest time span to advance in civilization is paradoxical.



Im not sure what your driving at but none of what yous aid is paradoxical. A square circle is paradoxical.



Miguel Cervantes said:


> Tribe on tribe violence still exists after thousands of years of perpetual ignorance in their country. I would submit that it would be more beneficial for this "observant" young man to concert his efforts to the more dire social issues within his country, and surrounding countries than to worry about how he came about to begin with.



Perhaps, but so what? some people think science is cool and just want to figure stuff out, some people think it will help the world. Nearly nobody sells all there possessions to live a purely altruistic life.



Miguel Cervantes said:


> Some studies and opinions just aren't worth the effort and benefit society nothing in the end.



Evolution is certainly a benefit to society, being responsible for nearly if not all modern medicine. All knowledge is a beneficial.

Also, who is to say if something is worth the effort, it was worth the effort to him, if he enjoys it he'll do it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> I feel i have to mention AGAIN.
> 
> If your problem is an entity that is uncreated, placing a god that doesn't have a creator, to explain why everything must be created is paradoxical.



Not if the natural world is not eternal.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

Worley said:


> No problems sir...could u explain un-created?  Really would like to hear your thought on that?



Uncreated, not created, not having been created.

In this context it is a proposed attribute of a deity.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Not if the natural world is not eternal.



making a statement that says everything must be created, yet proposing that there exists something that has not been created is a paradoxical statement, regardless.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> making a statement that says everything must be created, yet proposing that there exists something that has not been created is a paradoxical statement, regardless.



Yes, if the"everything" and the "something" are both physical and natural. Which in my case, they are not.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 1, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> From your life long experience of observations, exactly what disease will it cure, what social issues will it solve, how many wars will it stop?



Hardening of the arteries? Psychopathic and sociopathic blindness? Political Spin Teckniques disease? Ringing of the ear and flash backback from a shovel in the face disease? Rotten Cotton disease?

The war between Tree Dwellers People and the Right to Hunt Squirrels on traditional squirrel hunting grounds people will be avoided. The lifestyle of the squirrel hunter will be judged more civilized than the realestate investments of them blind or short sighted, spit slinging, forked tongue spinning Tree Dwellers.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, if the"everything" and the "something" are both physical and natural. Which in my case, they are not.



I see.. your defining everything to not be everything, yes?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> I see.. your defining everything to not be everything, yes?



If I make the statement that "everything" was created, the definition I use for "everything" is physical.

If you want use the definition of "everything" as both the physical and the non, then my answer would be no, everything was not created.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If I make the statement that "everything" was created, the definition I use for "everything" is physical.
> 
> If you want use the definition of "everything" as both the physical and the non, then my answer would be no, everything was not created.



Ah, then please be more specific next time, i think most people think everything when someone says everything.

I would even argue that there is no such thing as a non-physical thing, unless we're talking about concepts, etc. But i think that would just cause us to go round and round with differing definitions.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> *Ah, then please be more specific next time, i think most people think everything when someone says everything.*
> 
> I would even argue that there is no such thing as a non-physical thing, unless we're talking about concepts, etc. But i think that would just cause us to go round and round with differing definitions.



I wasn't not specific this time, because I didn't make the statement that everything is created.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I wasn't not specific this time, because I didn't make the statement that everything is created.



lol i do suppose that wasn't you this time


----------



## Worley (Jun 1, 2012)

*Creation*



Four said:


> Uncreated, not created, not having been created.
> 
> In this context it is a proposed attribute of a deity.



Just wanted to make sure I had right starting point...we will discuss "deity" in a few...but for now would u agree that everything observable has a creator...key word here I'm using is "observable." Now for science and medicine I am thankful for both of them, but some of them would be 
from the "creationist" point of view wouldnt they?  When handled correctly the bible is a handbook for social justice, and critical thinkers...unfortunately many people have used it for discussion and not application.  not referring to you here, most of the ones I mention are on my side...sad but true.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

Worley said:


> Just wanted to make sure I had right starting point...we will discuss "deity" in a few...but for now would u agree that everything observable has a creator...key word here I'm using is "observable."



Define creator please. But at first glance I would say no i dont agree. But it's likely a weird difference in definitions.



Worley said:


> Now for science and medicine I am thankful for both of them, but some of them would be
> from the "creationist" point of view wouldnt they?



I don't really know what you're talking about.  Could you rephrase?



Worley said:


> When handled correctly the bible is a handbook for social justice, and critical thinkers...unfortunately many people have used it for discussion and not application.  not referring to you here, most of the ones I mention are on my side...sad but true.



I suppose that's somewhat true. I would argue that it's a poor social justice book, but i suppose that's besides the point. I certainly use it for discussion and not application, but mostly because i don't like how it applies, or at least don't see a consistent way to apply it for a net positive.. validity of it's divinity aside of course.


----------



## Worley (Jun 1, 2012)

*Creator*

Creator- One who has created a specific thing with a specific purpose...

bible and social justice=orphan care, rights of poor, give to the poor, care for widows...these are just a few we teach and practice from the bible in our church..


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

Worley said:


> Creator- One who has created a specific thing with a specific purpose...



Than no, i don't believe everything i see has a creator.



Worley said:


> bible and social justice=orphan care, rights of poor, give to the poor, care for widows...these are just a few we teach and practice from the bible in our church..



Like I said, i don't think it can be applied consistently taking the whole bible, but i recognize enough good bits and pieces that I could likely re-write some parts and cut a bunch of stuff out and turn it into a fairly decent social justice book.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 1, 2012)

So my soul has always been around? And god just decided to create a suit for it to take me out of wherever I was (or wasn't) before? So the conciousness that I have wasn't created either?


edit - @String.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> So my soul has always been around? And god just decided to create a suit for it to take me out of wherever I was (or wasn't) before? So the conciousness that I have wasn't created either?



Who is your question direct to and what comment?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 1, 2012)

Probably String. I had the window open for a few minutes and my response ended up going way down.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> So my soul has always been around? And god just decided to create a suit for it to take me out of wherever I was (or wasn't) before? So the conciousness that I have wasn't created either?
> 
> 
> edit - @String.



I would say your soul was created. I don't know how long it's been around or where it came from. I would also say your conciousness was created as well.

I didn't mean to indicate that I thought everything non physical was eternal. I believe that one uncaused non physical being is a necessary for the physical world, if the physical world is not eternal.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2012)

There is no debate in the scientific community and I doubt any amount of further discovery is going to budge the creationist die hards. Their book says it and that settles it.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 1, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> There is no debate in the scientific community and I doubt any amount of further discovery is going to budge the creationist die hards. Their book says it and that settles it.


 
We are in agreement , 'cept for a bunch of scientific-creationists who might say not all science swings a certain way


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> We are in agreement , 'cept for a bunch of scientific-creationists who might say not all science swings a certain way



Like Francis Collins?


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 1, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Like Francis Collins?





Alfred Russel Wallace would disagree with you on "there's no debate in the scientific community"  , a prominent scientist and longtime friend of Charles Darwin who immediately disagreed with Darwin’s conclusions. You see, science hasn’t always been naturalistic materialism. Throughout the advancement of science very prominent scientists have held beliefs in God. This is contrary to the belief that all dignified scientist must adhere to today, that is the belief that all things that exist are purely physical in nature. This new ideology for science, the one that marries materialism, isn’t as popular and exclusive in the scientific committee as you may think. 

Consider Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who said “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Or perhaps Albert Einstein (1879-1955) of whom The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

Basically your point is right, but it’s right due to circular reasoning. “There is no debate in the scientific community”… truly there is much debate, but if those debating are "foolish" enough to go outside the physical realm, then they aren’t in your “scientific community”.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> Than no, i don't believe everything i see has a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, i don't think it can be applied consistently taking the whole bible, but i recognize enough good bits and pieces that I could likely re-write some parts and cut a bunch of stuff out and turn it into a fairly decent social justice book.





What do you mean by "good" bits? Is this a universal good or just a culmination of all the random atoms from billions of years that has finally come to form you and your “belief” in what is good? I guess what I’m asking is by what standard do you deem parts of the bible “good” or “poor” social justices? By the same token, doing what is Just is synonymous with doing what is fair, or right. How do you decide fairness or rightness?  After all, justice is the concept of moral rightness.


----------



## Worley (Jun 2, 2012)

*Book*



atlashunter said:


> There is no debate in the scientific community and I doubt any amount of further discovery is going to budge the creationist die hards. Their book says it and that settles it.



I would perceive u are speaking of the bible, if so what are your perceptions of the "book" and it's correlation with evolution/ creation discussion.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 2, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Alfred Russel Wallace would disagree with you on "there's no debate in the scientific community"  , a prominent scientist and longtime friend of Charles Darwin who immediately disagreed with Darwin’s conclusions. You see, science hasn’t always been naturalistic materialism. Throughout the advancement of science very prominent scientists have held beliefs in God. This is contrary to the belief that all dignified scientist must adhere to today, that is the belief that all things that exist are purely physical in nature. This new ideology for science, the one that marries materialism, isn’t as popular and exclusive in the scientific committee as you may think.
> 
> Consider Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who said “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Or perhaps Albert Einstein (1879-1955) of whom The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
> 
> Basically your point is right, but it’s right due to circular reasoning. “There is no debate in the scientific community”… truly there is much debate, but if those debating are "foolish" enough to go outside the physical realm, then they aren’t in your “scientific community”.



You make my point for me. Alfred Russel Wallace has been dead for nearly a hundred years. Newton was a theist. He was also an alchemist. One of the most brilliant men to have ever lived but not infallible for sure. Besides, he had already been dead for well over a century before Darwin came on the scene so what does he have to do with this topic? As for Einstein you may want to do a little reading on Spinoza's God.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 2, 2012)

Robert you also should cite your source if you are going to do a word for word copy and paste from another website.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You make my point for me. Alfred Russel Wallace has been dead for nearly a hundred years. Newton was a theist. He was also an alchemist. One of the most brilliant men to have ever lived but not infallible for sure. Besides, he had already been dead for well over a century before Darwin came on the scene so what does he have to do with this topic? As for Einstein you may want to do a little reading on Spinoza's God.



I’m sorry; I must have misunderstood your point. I thought your point was “there is no debate in the scientific community” regarding evolution. Now I made some assumptions from here I admit, I assumed you knew that there are many modern scientists that hold to the Biblical creation account, (see one list of such persons here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ ). If I take your point at face value, that there “is no debate in the scientific community”, your point is proven wrong by such a list that was referenced above. Technically, I would only have to find one scientist who disagreed with evolution to disprove your point.  

Instead of posting the above information and just saying “you’re wrong”, I felt I would tackle the bigger issue behind what you said. My assumption was that you believe any scientist that doesn’t divorce himself from the theistic viewpoint isn’t a true scientist, and thus disavowed from you’re “scientific community”. This is why I gave the examples of two foundational scientists that held a view in God in harmony with their scientific pursuits. I never claimed Einstein or Newton were Christian converts, that wasn’t their purpose as examples in my argument.

So in conclusion, I feel your point is easily disproven; finding just one scientist that doesn’t agree with evolution renders your statement false, and since there are in fact many who don’t agree, it’s handily shown as false.



atlashunter said:


> Robert you also should cite your source if you are going to do a word for word copy and paste from another website.



Per your request, the quotes I got from Newton and Einstein were from www.godandscience.org. Article: www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html.  

I'm enjoying our conversation, hope your having a good weekend : )


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 2, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> I’m sorry; I must have misunderstood your point. I thought your point was “there is no debate in the scientific community” regarding evolution. Now I made some assumptions from here I admit, I assumed you knew that there are many modern scientists that hold to the Biblical creation account, (see one list of such persons here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ ). If I take your point at face value, that there “is no debate in the scientific community”, your point is proven wrong by such a list that was referenced above. Technically, I would only have to find one scientist who disagreed with evolution to disprove your point.
> 
> Instead of posting the above information and just saying “you’re wrong”, I felt I would tackle the bigger issue behind what you said. My assumption was that you believe any scientist that doesn’t divorce himself from the theistic viewpoint isn’t a true scientist, and thus disavowed from you’re “scientific community”. This is why I gave the examples of two foundational scientists that held a view in God in harmony with their scientific pursuits. I never claimed Einstein or Newton were Christian converts, that wasn’t their purpose as examples in my argument.
> 
> So in conclusion, I feel your point is easily disproven; finding just one scientist that doesn’t agree with evolution renders your statement false, and since there are in fact many who don’t agree, it’s handily shown as false.



I know you think you just made an ironclad case. Question. If I find a scientist that believes there is something to astrology does that prove there is debate in the scientific community over the validity of astrology?

Does science depend on lists of scientists? Because if it does you lose hands down.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Maybe you think it some grand conspiracy among scientists to deny creationism. If I cite a prominent biologist that is an atheist like Richard Dawkins you might be inclined to dismiss him as biased. But what about Francis Collins? He is one of the most prominent bible believing biologists in the world. He headed the human genome project. Here is what he had to say.



> As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
> 
> It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
> 
> ...


----------



## JFS (Jun 3, 2012)

Yikes, very scary:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/H...cation&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics


----------



## Asath (Jun 3, 2012)

"If I make the statement that "everything" was created, the definition I use for "everything" is physical."

You can't buy this sort of thing.  It works like this, to draw a direct quote from Tom Robbins --

"The distinctions are subtle, all right, Too subtle for the rational mind.  Only the political mind can grasp them.  I suspect there's a a bid for empowerment behind it all, the power going to whoever seizes the right to coin the names.  In a reality made of language, the people who get to name things have psychological ownership of those things.  Couples name their pets and children, Madison Avenue names the products that dominate our desires, theologians name the deities that dominate our spirit - 'Yahweh' changed to 'Jehovah' changed to plain ol' generic 'God' - kids name the latest cultural trends or rename the old ones to make them theirs; politicians name streets and schools and airports after one another or after the enemies they've successfully eliminated: they took Martin Luther King's life, for example, and then by naming their pork-barrel projects after him, took posession of his memory.  In a way we're like linguistic wolves, lifting our legs on patches of cultural ground to mark them with verbal urine as territiory that we alone control."

Creating new definitions of things, unfortunately, won't make the REAL definitions go away -- except perhaps within one's own congregation of gullible folks . . .


----------



## Asath (Jun 3, 2012)

'EVERYTHING,' unfortunately, will continue to mean Everything.  

One cannot unilaterally change that to mean 'Some things, but NOT others.'

That is dishonest, revisionist, and wildly hopeful.

NOTHING, so far as the evidence is concerned, was simply 'created.'  There is much that we cannot explain (yet), from our rather limited perspective, but the vast body of the evidence, which tests out to be true and repeatable, is that stuff just happened.  We're still working on just how, and may never work it out fully, but we're making remarkable inroads, and this computer I'm using is just one of millions of examples of just how much progress we've made into just how things actually work, and the uses we can make of that knowledge.

Folks who wish to cling to belief-based explanations of the world around them, drawn from ancient 'Sacred' texts that they will defend as all that needs to be known, have NO right to embrace ANY modern advance and try to co-opt progress as part of their Gods' plan -- There isn't a single word in ANY Sacred Text to support their position.

From that point forward, there is only bald-faced hypocricy and sniveling rationalizations.  Unless one can live only and exactly according to the strictures found in one's own particular HOLY BOOK, which NOBODY can or will do, then all that is happening is that you have already abandoned that BOOK as insufficient, and are then merely making interpretations and excuses that are yours alone.

Your religion is no longer the religion of the BOOK at hand or the GOD at hand -- it is a religion of YOU.  So quit trying to snow us with YOUR take on what YOU think GOD said -- You're clueless, and each and every one of you is making this crap up as you go along, no longer Believing, but simply reacting against overwhelming truth to the contrary.  

Folks have a perfect right to lie to themselves, and 'believe' whatever helps them through the day, but foisting that sort of crap on others takes a sort of egotism and self-delusion that is normally described in Abnormal Psychology textbooks.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 4, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I know you think you just made an ironclad case. Question. If I find a scientist that believes there is something to astrology does that prove there is debate in the scientific community over the validity of astrology?



My intention was to point out the rhetorical flare in your wording (in this case, speaking in absolutes when they don’t apply because it sounds more convincing. "There is no debate"). Of course there’s debate in the scientific community, as my simple reference of prominent scientists has shown. And yes, by rule of the logic of absolutes, there would be a debate if only one person debated the other side. Maybe what you mean is there is no reasonable debate for creationism? But that doesn't sound nearly as good. Of course, there is far more than one creationist, but you still in confidence disregard them and hold to "no debate". To compare the number of doctoral recipients who disagree with you to one scientist who believes in astrology is a rank disparagement of those scientists.



atlashunter said:


> Does science depend on lists of scientists? Because if it does you lose hands down.
> 
> http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve



I’m not sure what you mean here. Whether something is scientific or not certainly doesn’t depend on lists. Again, I was showing that there are in fact modern scientists that don’t agree with you. Your core objection, that “there is no debate in the scientific community”, at this point has been reduced down to who has a bigger list of scientists. Ergo, your reasoning is reduced to an “I have more people on my side, so I’m right” kind of argument.  Of course, to a rational person this kind of “logic” is discarded. In fact, its very unscientific. 



atlashunter said:


> Maybe you think it some grand conspiracy among scientists to deny creationism. If I cite a prominent biologist that is an atheist like Richard Dawkins you might be inclined to dismiss him as biased. But what about Francis Collins? He is one of the most prominent bible believing biologists in the world. He headed the human genome project.



No grand conspiracy, just a trending ideology that science and God don't mix. Thus, people who feel the scientific evidence gives credence to a creator are mocked and shunned by the scientists who believe in materialism instead of theism. Atheists conveniently dismiss all opposition to evolution, since their opposition don't believe in the same materialistic ideology as they do. Once they've weeded out the beliefs that don't align with their own, they feel free to say things like "there's no debate" while university after university hosts "debates" on these very topics with leading scientists with PHDs on both sides of the argument. Meanwhile the debate continues on the platform of books and published articles. 



atlashunter said:


> Here is what he had to say.



The quote from this source is for sure a good topic, and I’m certain I would enjoy a discussion on why you feel he is right and why I feel he is wrong in his conclusions. 

Suffice it to say your premise that "there is no debate in the scientific community” isn’t proven by this source either, and this premise is what I’m arguing against. Lets be clear, I don't agree with Francis Collins' conclusion, but that's not what I'm arguing. 

Of course I can quote and link prominent Christian biologists who believe opposite of your source. I personally like Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design. However, I would be getting side tracked from the topic at hand, whether or not there is discussion in the scientific community. (Even though a best-seller by a Dr. from Cambridge University on why macro-evolution is false seems to give excellent credence to my side of the argument, that there is a debate in the scientific community)  

I would understand you feeling that there is a debate but the other side is wrong, or stupid, or superstitious; but to deny the debate all together is unfounded and simply put, false.  

May I submit a similar but, I feel, more accurate statement on your behalf? "There is no debate in the atheistic scientific community that macro-evolution took place."


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 4, 2012)

Asath said:


> 'EVERYTHING,' unfortunately, will continue to mean Everything.
> 
> One cannot unilaterally change that to mean 'Some things, but NOT others.'
> 
> ...



Just an observation, this comes off as hate speech. It’s not really centered on a thesis, and that thought defended through winsome points in an effort to persuade. It’s more like a rant, not far removed from some "Christians" who fit the description of the very things you were expressing contempt towards. I’m not trying to be arrogant; but surely you speak out from passion, and hopefully a desire to help others see more clearly your view and adopt it as their own, thus helping that person in your eyes. I’m just saying, if you want to persuade, try being a little more winsome in your approach. Better, clearer conversations are made this way.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 4, 2012)

JFS said:


> Yikes, very scary:
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/H...cation&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics



Ok I've got to know : )  What do you mean by yikes, very scary? 

No matter your response, I thank you for posting the link. Its some very interesting and relevant information to this discussion thread. 

My personal take away:

"Implications

Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question."

How very interesting, compared to 30 years ago, even more people believe in the creation account today.


----------



## Four (Jun 5, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> How very interesting, compared to 30 years ago, even more people believe in the creation account today.



Except for perhaps in the youth demographic as seen here by a recent PEW server. Millennial are far less religious. The future is the youth.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-6-religion-and-social-values/


----------



## Asath (Jun 6, 2012)

“I’m just saying, if you want to persuade, try being a little more winsome in your approach.”

Thank you for the advice.  ‘Winsome, adj.; sweetly or innocently charming.”

Sorry.  It goes like this, so far as the ‘debate’ is concerned: 

Creationists: ‘God did it!  We have a Book that SAYS SO!’
Skeptics: ‘Really?  What ELSE does that Book say?’

Creationists: ‘It says How HE did it, and When HE did it, and EVERYTHING!’
Skeptics: ‘Really?  EVERYTHING?’

Creationists: ‘Well, not really.  There’s some stuff that isn’t quite right.’
Skeptics: ‘So, how does the stuff that isn’t quite right explain EVERYTHING?’

Creationists: ‘You just have to interpret it right, and look at it OUR way!’
Skeptics: ‘Really?  Your Evidence is your interpretation of an ancient Book?’

Creationists: ‘No!  We’ve established our own Universities, and give each other PhD’s in agreeing with each other!  We’re Scientists Now!’
Skeptics: ‘Really? Explain your research methodologies, and submit the raw data of your research and methods for independent testing.’

Creationists: ‘No! You are unworthy by having asked, and doubting US!’
Skeptics:  ‘ Really? If your methods and evidence and assumptions and results are solid, then the conclusions are held as clear – what’s the problem here?’

Creationists: ‘Blasphemy!  You must be yet another angry Hater of Christians to DARE ask us to justify ourselves – you will be condemned for all eternity, for it is in the Book.’
Skeptics: ‘Really?  Among the thousands of Books we’ve read, yours is certainly one of them, and it says nothing of the sort.’

Creationists: ‘Science is just a lame attempt to discredit Christians, who have been endlessly persecuted, so you are just another persecutor, and a tool of Satan – the Book says so!’
Skeptics:  ‘Really?  What ELSE does that Book say?’

See - y’all are caught in an endless loop of hopelessly recursive self-identification, not because you lack intellect, or because you lack the ability to escape this loop, or because you are somehow trapped in a web not of your making – though each of these have become self evident in much of the excuse-making – but in my opinion largely because of the hopeful idealism of it all.  

Nobody with even a third-grade exposure to actual reality can possibly accept the contention that all of the universe was simply winked into existence at some date-certain by some huge and invisible Being.  Perhaps that Being was just bored that day, and grew tired of inventing new Solitaire games over the eternity of being uncreated and eternal.  Makes sense that it would be a sort of lonely thing, so maybe having a universe to play with would relieve some of the boredom?

It may be comforting, perhaps, when one looks around at the actual horror of being alive on this planet, and confronting the knowledge that it won’t end well, to invent some sort of ending or purpose or reason that makes sense to oneself in order to deflect the reality of it.  But EVERYONE in all of human history has done that.  And has said that THEY were right, and everyone else was wrong.  How does one suppose that worked out?  Want to revise both history AND science to suit what is, in the end, an unsupportable superstition and an idealistic fantasy?

Winsome thoughts are for fairy tales and Disney movies.  There have been so many Gods proposed throughout human history (and a very bloody history those Gods have delivered), that perhaps the very word ‘GOD’ has been rendered meaningless.  Maybe the Believers need to start over, and quit borrowing nonsense from each other, then compounding it with new twists on old arguments that have already proven useless.

Might be time to leave the old Book behind and write a new one.  One based on what is now known, and what is now real, and what is now considered righteous.  The old Book doesn’t hold up to those standards, so one can scarcely be surprised when Believers throw it at Skeptics and are soundly rebuffed with the very Words they quote as Scripture.

Charming enough?  [innocent smile.]


----------



## JABBO (Jun 6, 2012)

Another good post!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2012)

That post should be a STICKY!


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 6, 2012)

What is it called when one assimilates an argument based on false assumptions, then uses those false assumptions to prove one side of that argument wrong?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What is it called when one assimilates an argument based on false assumptions, then uses those false assumptions to prove one side of that argument wrong?



religion


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> religion



Wrong, religion is not an argument.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Wrong, religion is not an argument.



To me it is. So, again I say Religion.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 6, 2012)

Four said:


> Except for perhaps in the youth demographic as seen here by a recent PEW server. Millennial are far less religious. The future is the youth.



That's true, the future is the youth.  I have to say, I sometimes "doubt" what I know to be true if the circumstance is right. Any thought on my question for you earlier?


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 6, 2012)

Asath said:


> “I’m just saying, if you want to persuade, try being a little more winsome in your approach.”
> 
> Thank you for the advice.  ‘Winsome, adj.; sweetly or innocently charming.”
> 
> ...



[Straw Man] - "A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted." Nice straw man above, it’s easy to set up an opposition and defeat him in the same post  ; ) I guess I can conclude, so far, you're really good at arguing with yourself...and winning : )



Asath said:


> See - y’all are caught in an endless loop of hopelessly recursive self-identification, not because you lack intellect, or because you lack the ability to escape this loop, or because you are somehow trapped in a web not of your making – though each of these have become self evident in much of the excuse-making – but in my opinion largely because of the hopeful idealism of it all.



Huh? "hopelessly recursive self-identification" . Are you upset that we identify ourselves as something? Who else, besides ourselves, would be identifying who we are? God perhaps? If not God, and if not us, who? Now, when you say "hopeful idealism"...are you referring to our theory that God created...or the theory where something comes from nothing to form everything in an organized systematic way? Something coming from nothing seems awful hopeful to me. 



Asath said:


> Nobody with even a third-grade exposure to actual reality can possibly accept the contention that all of the universe was simply winked into existence at some date-certain by some huge and invisible Being.  Perhaps that Being was just bored that day, and grew tired of inventing new Solitaire games over the eternity of being uncreated and eternal.  Makes sense that it would be a sort of lonely thing, so maybe having a universe to play with would relieve some of the boredom?



Really? Actually quite a lot of very well educated people believe just that, as I pointed out in the above posts, sorry but you're wrong there. Let me get this right, it’s alright by you to believe "the contention that all of the universe was simply winked into existence at some date-certain by some huge" explosion? This is called the big bang theory by some. You continue to "prove" your side by playing a guessing game as to why God whims to do what He does... and this is supposed to be evidence against His existence and creation method? 



Asath said:


> It may be comforting, perhaps, when one looks around at the actual horror of being alive on this planet, and confronting the knowledge that it won’t end well, to invent some sort of ending or purpose or reason that makes sense to oneself in order to deflect the reality of it.  But EVERYONE in all of human history has done that.  And has said that THEY were right, and everyone else was wrong.  How does one suppose that worked out?  Want to revise both history AND science to suit what is, in the end, an unsupportable superstition and an idealistic fantasy?




I respect your honesty here. The truth is, without God, we are worthless. We’re just a product of time and chance with no meaning or worth except for what’s self-ascribed. There is no objective good or evil, no right or wrong. There’s just a random assortment of atoms who managed to bring themselves together for this short time. Love, joy, and happiness are merely tricks played on our minds by evolution, in an effort to pass on our DNA. Thankfully, there is very good evidence that this view isn't true.   



Asath said:


> Winsome thoughts are for fairy tales and Disney movies.  There have been so many Gods proposed throughout human history (and a very bloody history those Gods have delivered), that perhaps the very word ‘GOD’ has been rendered meaningless.  Maybe the Believers need to start over, and quit borrowing nonsense from each other, then compounding it with new twists on old arguments that have already proven useless.



Being charming and persuasive is for fairy tales? On what grounds do you make that claim? "There have been so many" scientific theories "proposed throughout human history (and a very bloody history those" Atheistic-minded leaders "have delivered, that perhaps the very word" science "has been rendered meaningless". Of course your own argument's logic doesn't hold water when applied to the changing theories of science over human history.



Asath said:


> Might be time to leave the old Book behind and write a new one.  One based on what is now known, and what is now real, and what is now considered righteous.  The old Book doesn’t hold up to those standards, so one can scarcely be surprised when Believers throw it at Skeptics and are soundly rebuffed with the very Words they quote as Scripture.



Tell me, what is now considered righteous? And how do you know it’s righteous?



Asath said:


> Charming enough?  [innocent smile.]




This last remark was more of sarcasm than charm, which is interesting. I guess in your view sarcasm belongs in the “real” world, while charm belongs in “fairy tales and Disney movies”? Tell me, who picks which attitude belongs where…you? : )

In conclusion, no, you weren’t charming or persuasive. Your post still lacked a specific direction, therefore you found yourself picking out random objections you have to Creationist and Theist. This led you all over the place, again sounding more like a rant than a concise argument from an intellectual. All I'm saying is try to be a little more scientific in your approach to arguing : ) Giving a specific thesis from which to work, so as to either prove it true or false in the end.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 6, 2012)

JABBO said:


> Another good post!!!!




How So?


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> That post should be a STICKY!



Concerning your signature, “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.” Where does this definition of good and bad come from, Abraham Lincoln himself? If so, what if I say what makes him feel good is bad... who is right? If I say torturing children is bad, but someone else disagrees and says its good, and actually enjoys it, who is right and why?


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 6, 2012)

Asath has always come across as smart aleky to me!!!!Basically,to sum it up in not so many words, if your a Christian your stupid for believing the way you do....Even a third grader knows that?


----------



## Asath (Jun 6, 2012)

“The truth is, without God, we are worthless.”

If I may observe, to claim that one derives one’s deepest satisfaction not from life and love and wife and children and accomplishment, but rather from something outside of the world (and something purely imaginary at that) reveals rather an egomaniacal and impoverished view of one’s own life, and the life of others; and the wearing of the mantle and cloak of ‘GOD’ as one’s defense against the real worldly life makes one no different than a posturing crab swaggering the sea-bed in a borrowed shell.

Retreating into snobby vagueness and elitist self-celebration, to the exclusion of others not in your own club, is the clearest evidence that the religion one holds is purely and only a religion of oneself.  The capacity to actually embrace this sort of isolationism, and claim superior insider knowledge that others lack, is little more than a primitive instinct towards conquest.  YOU are RIGHT, and will be Saved, while THEY are WRONG, and shall perish and suffer because of it, unless YOU enlighten them and convert them to YOUR church, the mantra goes . . .  But conquest, or dreams of it, merely enhance the ego, while it is life itself – messy, smelly, impure, disorganized, random life – that is the actual test of a person, and it is deeds, not words or Beliefs, that measure a person.  Love of life, and the accomplishment of struggling through the hardships and adventures of it, develops confidence.  Nothing needs to be borrowed or invented to alleviate one’s insecurities if only one takes the opportunity to learn, and love, and gain, and fail, and stand up straight and do what must be done without the NEED for some sort of promise that there is more to it than that.  There isn’t.

A well-lived life is all you’ll get.  That is the simple truth of it, uncomfortable as that makes many folks.  At an average American life-span of about 74 years, that gives you just a bit over 27,000 days to make yourself.  Then you are no longer.  By age 37 you’ll have used up half of those days.  

Starting to see the point?  

I’ve used up well over 20,000 of mine at this point, leaving me only about 7,000 left in the account, so perhaps my impatience with patent nonsense is understandable from that perspective, especially since the first 7,000 or so were wasted by egomaniacs who had me kneeling in front of a carving of an execution while they demanded both my obedience and my money.  Be serious.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Concerning your signature, “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.” Where does this definition of good and bad come from, Abraham Lincoln himself? If so, what if I say what makes him feel good is bad... who is right? If I say torturing children is bad, but someone else disagrees and says its good, and actually enjoys it, who is right and why?



You and Abe can sort that out sometime.


----------



## Worley (Jun 6, 2012)

*Debate*

I’ve used up well over 20,000 of mine at this point, leaving me only about 7,000 left in the account, so perhaps my impatience with patent nonsense is understandable from that perspective, especially since the first 7,000 or so were wasted by egomaniacs who had me kneeling in front of a carving of an execution while they demanded both my obedience and my money.  Be serious.[/QUOTE]

...And this is where your ideology was "formed."  Is this where the conclusion came there was no GOD, No creator, No nothing.  The reasonable response to anyone who would not be willing to follow CHRIST, would be simply to imply there was no Jesus...But history will not support such a conclusion - the only place for such a line of thought is in fairytales, and Disney movies...


----------



## Worley (Jun 6, 2012)

*Manners*



fish hawk said:


> Asath has always come across as smart aleky to me!!!!Basically,to sum it up in not so many words, if your a Christian your stupid for believing the way you do....Even a third grader knows that?



No Sir, third graders TALK like that..


----------



## JABBO (Jun 7, 2012)

Again, another great post!!! 



Asath said:


> “The truth is, without God, we are worthless.”
> 
> If I may observe, to claim that one derives one’s deepest satisfaction not from life and love and wife and children and accomplishment, but rather from something outside of the world (and something purely imaginary at that) reveals rather an egomaniacal and impoverished view of one’s own life, and the life of others; and the wearing of the mantle and cloak of ‘GOD’ as one’s defense against the real worldly life makes one no different than a posturing crab swaggering the sea-bed in a borrowed shell.
> 
> ...


----------



## JABBO (Jun 7, 2012)

Well, because I said so. See how that works. Two can play at YOUR game...  




Robert Tuck said:


> How So?


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 7, 2012)

Asath said:


> I’ve used up well over 20,000 of mine at this point, leaving me only about 7,000 left in the account,.


So you think you have your days left figured out,but thats the funny thing about death,it's always lurking outside the back door,around the corner and up the street.......You or I or both of us might not even make it through this day.


----------



## JABBO (Jun 7, 2012)

He did say an "average American life-span"....Everybody knows(or should know) they could be sucked up in an F5 tornado tomorrow, even the ones that wear THE glasses... 



fish hawk said:


> So you think you have your days left figured out,but thats the funny thing about death,it's always lurking outside the back door,around the corner and up the street.......You or I or both of us might not even make it through this day.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 7, 2012)

So i guess he figures he's gonna live the average lifespan?he did state that he only had about 7,000 days left,on average of coarse!!!


----------



## JABBO (Jun 7, 2012)

Would you rather him sell all his stuff, dress up in a nice 3-piece, and sit in his recliner and wait for THE day???? 



fish hawk said:


> So i guess he figures he's gonna live the average lifespan?he did state that he only had about 7,000 days left,on average of coarse!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 7, 2012)

JABBO said:


> Would you rather him sell all his stuff, dress up in a nice 3-piece, and sit in his recliner and wait for THE day????


Why would someone put on a three piece suit to die?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> To me it is. So, again I say Religion.


And again you would be wrong. Someone may take a religious side to an argument, but by definition, religion is not an argument.

Here is the answer....


Robert Tuck said:


> [Straw Man] - "A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted." Nice straw man above, it’s easy to set up an opposition and defeat him in the same post  ; ) I guess I can conclude, so far, you're really good at arguing with yourself...and winning : )


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> And again you would be wrong. Someone may take a religious side to an argument, but by definition, religion is not an argument.
> 
> Here is the answer....



(Said while Dressed in an outfit from the Swiss Alps while standing in an open field on a mountain top) Reeeeeeeee-Liiiiiiiiiiiii-Giiiiooooonnnnnnnn!


----------



## JABBO (Jun 7, 2012)

The suit is as irrevelant as selling all your stuff....just saying. Live your life to the fullest until it's over!



fish hawk said:


> Why would someone put on a three piece suit to die?


----------



## Asath (Jun 7, 2012)

Typically thoughtful, well worded, well researched, and intelligently observed responses from the self-appointed Defenders of The Faith.

Keep up the good work folks, you’re scoring big points for your side . . .


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 8, 2012)

Asath said:


> Typically thoughtful, well worded, well researched, and intelligently observed responses from the self-appointed Defenders of The Faith.
> 
> Keep up the good work folks, you’re scoring big points for your side . . .



It is not about keeping score Asath. It is about the asolute truth. The truth which noone will know until they either stand before God, or become dust.

I, for one, respect your opinion, and the manner in which you convey it, no matter if I agree with you or not. Do not belittle the processes we (as believers) come to our own opinions or beliefs. They are as valid as your methods, just of a different flavor.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 8, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> It is not about keeping score Asath. It is about the asolute truth. The truth which noone will know until they either stand before God, or become dust.
> 
> I, for one, respect your opinion, and the manner in which you convey it, no matter if I agree with you or not. Do not belittle the processes we (as believers) come to our own opinions or beliefs. They are as valid as your methods, just of a different flavor.



Asath - I just spent some time reviewing some of your other posts, and I have to retract my statement highlighted above in red. I do not respect your opinion, or how you convey it.

You, SIR, are nuttier than a fruitcake, and more stubborn than a mule.

Please continue.


----------



## Asath (Jun 8, 2012)

Again, though addressed individually, rather than at the idea under discussion itself – I appreciate your deeply educated, well researched, well-thought out, and well-considered opinion.

It seems like only a matter of time before Harvard or Yale contacts you directly to offer an endowed Chair in theology.  Your arguments are magnificent, the presentation of them is comprehensive, the facts cited are irrefutably well researched, and your eloquence is compelling.

I wish you all the best of luck in your new career.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 8, 2012)

Asath said:


> Again, though addressed individually, rather than at the idea under discussion itself – I appreciate your deeply educated, well researched, well-thought out, and well-considered opinion.
> 
> It seems like only a matter of time before Harvard or Yale contacts you directly to offer an endowed Chair in theology.  Your arguments are magnificent, the presentation of them is comprehensive, the facts cited are irrefutably well researched, and your eloquence is compelling.
> 
> I wish you all the best of luck in your new career.



I thought deeply about my last post. I researched the evidence, I pondered the outcome, I considered the ramifications, I scientifically weighed the results of my hypothesis and experiments, and I concluded, without a doubt, that my hypothesis was supported (Asath's opinion is like everyone else's….. It poops).

I am not waiting on Harvard or Yale to contact me. I don't know if those institutions could or would validate anything. But I do know, that you Asath, of +20,000 days, have not figured anything out, and you, Asath, are stabbing at the dark like anyone else on this great earth. You do your best to justify the goings on of a feeble little mind (my own included). I wish you success on your journey.

And now, for something completely different...


----------



## Asath (Jun 9, 2012)

And there you have it – a little raw data to inform the rest of us of just what the view from the bottom looks like.  

Please try not to use this information for profit-making purposes, since I’m told that the management discourages the direct targeted marketing of little plastic dashboard icons, genuine relics of saints, leather-bound compilations of spiritual truths, inspirational posters, replicas of true suffering, or those odd little fish-shaped decals that attach to the back of a car.

Be kind.  Or don’t.  As each of you sees fit.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> And there you have it – a little raw data to inform the rest of us of just what the view from the bottom looks like.
> 
> Please try not to use this information for profit-making purposes, since I’m told that the management discourages the direct targeted marketing of little plastic dashboard icons, genuine relics of saints, leather-bound compilations of spiritual truths, inspirational posters, replicas of true suffering, or those odd little fish-shaped decals that attach to the back of a car.
> 
> Be kind.  Or don’t.  As each of you sees fit.



What ARE you talking about?

It's like the time I went all cromagnon and said "Phlptttt, donkey, stupid Arghhhhh".

I guess you are entitled, but your Harvard/Yale comment made you sound above it?????


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You and Abe can sort that out sometime.



Well I thought surely if it’s your signature then you must agree with it, and agree with it in a profound way. Typically we have to give a good defense for what we believe and say, especially in a forum such as this. Given that you auto-post that statement by “Abe” every time you make a comment, I figured you could defend the view. Its ok if you can’t, I wouldn’t want to either.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> “The truth is, without God, we are worthless.”
> 
> If I may observe, to claim that one derives one’s deepest satisfaction not from life and love and wife and children and accomplishment, but rather from something outside of the world (and something purely imaginary at that) reveals rather an egomaniacal and impoverished view of one’s own life, and the life of others; and the wearing of the mantle and cloak of ‘GOD’ as one’s defense against the real worldly life makes one no different than a posturing crab swaggering the sea-bed in a borrowed shell.



First, you didn't give an “observation”, but a theory; you should be able to distinguish the deference since you are a supposed advocate of science. You speak of “love and wife and children” as the Bible does, something to be revered. The definition of the family, and of love, that you reference comes from the very thing you are arguing against. God is who made the family important, He is the one who created and defined love. Without God in this issue, family is whatever the society deems it to be at the time, as is love; they're just made up terms who's definition is dependent on the current majority view. Consider evolution for a moment, do you know how the black widow got its name? Amoung many other species, after mating the female often times kills and even eats the male. Strictly scientifically speaking, what’s wrong with this view of the family? Put simply, the foundation for your objection lies in the very world view you are trying to disprove. : )



Asath said:


> Retreating into snobby vagueness and elitist self-celebration, to the exclusion of others not in your own club, is the clearest evidence that the religion one holds is purely and only a religion of oneself.  The capacity to actually embrace this sort of isolationism, and claim superior insider knowledge that others lack, is little more than a primitive instinct towards conquest.  YOU are RIGHT, and will be Saved, while THEY are WRONG, and shall perish and suffer because of it, unless YOU enlighten them and convert them to YOUR church, the mantra goes . . .  But conquest, or dreams of it, merely enhance the ego, while it is life itself – messy, smelly, impure, disorganized, random life – that is the actual test of a person, and it is deeds, not words or Beliefs, that measure a person.  Love of life, and the accomplishment of struggling through the hardships and adventures of it, develops confidence.  Nothing needs to be borrowed or invented to alleviate one’s insecurities if only one takes the opportunity to learn, and love, and gain, and fail, and stand up straight and do what must be done without the NEED for some sort of promise that there is more to it than that.  There isn’t.



This paragraph exemplifies the need for you to form a very good argument and stick to it. You make a number of assertions about Christians without any proof. “vagueness and elitist self-celebration”, I worship God, I believe it is you who celebrates and exalts yourself. “The capacity to actually embrace this sort of isolationism”, again, are you talking about me or you here? Evolution is completely self-centered. It’s all about one’s self and the need to survive. Man, this paragraph is a mess. “Nothing needs to be borrowed or invented to alleviate one’s insecurities”, you mean like inventing an infinite number of universes (principle in M-Theory) in an effort to get rid of the need for a creator? 



Asath said:


> A well-lived life is all you’ll get.  That is the simple truth of it, uncomfortable as that makes many folks.  At an average American life-span of about 74 years, that gives you just a bit over 27,000 days to make yourself.  Then you are no longer.  By age 37 you’ll have used up half of those days.
> 
> Starting to see the point?



“A well-lived life is all you’ll get”, I assume you will be the one to determine what a “well-lived life” is? There is a creator, and He has such a better idea of a well-lived life on this little planet, and eternity. I urge you to consider the evidence! Please! Bring to me THE piece of evidence, THE thing that sealed the view of Atheist in you. Let us talk about that.   



Asath said:


> I’ve used up well over 20,000 of mine at this point, leaving me only about 7,000 left in the account, so perhaps my impatience with patent nonsense is understandable from that perspective, especially since the first 7,000 or so were wasted by egomaniacs who had me kneeling in front of a carving of an execution while they demanded both my obedience and my money.  Be serious.



I take it you grew up Catholic : ) Let us reason together, bring me the most convincing thing you have found against the existence of God. Please.


----------



## Asath (Jun 9, 2012)

Bring me not your prejudices and odd accusations, since they are uninteresting, but rather a single convincing thing FOR the existence of God.  

Got one?

(Consider for a moment the forum you are in, and go back and read a lot of it before the automatic dogma machine starts up and is put into Drive.  ALL of the standard arguments have been shredded repeatedly, so unless you have something new, and actually convincing – like, for example, a picture of yourself actually meeting God, who many here claim to have a ‘personal relationship with,’ – then spare yourself, and us,  the writer’s cramp.  You see, the ‘God doesn’t exist’ position is the default logic.  Unless someone can DEMONSTRATE that a GOD of any kind DOES exist, then it doesn’t.  I will assume that you feel much the same way about elves, fairy godmothers, unicorns, and flying superheroes.  Don’t ask us to waste our time proving that Superman doesn’t actually exist – we’re not deluded enough to have believed that in the first place.  If you wish to contend that Superman (GOD) DOES exist, then I’m afraid that the burden you’ve placed on yourself by making such a contention is entirely your own.) 

Got anything?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Well I thought surely if it’s your signature then you must agree with it, and agree with it in a profound way. Typically we have to give a good defense for what we believe and say, especially in a forum such as this. Given that you auto-post that statement by “Abe” every time you make a comment, I figured you could defend the view. Its ok if you can’t, I wouldn’t want to either.



It's in my signature because I like it and it makes sense to me. I live my life along those same lines. Why Abe said it, I have no idea nor can I defend his words.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 11, 2012)

Asath said:


> Bring me not your prejudices and odd accusations, since they are uninteresting, but rather a single convincing thing FOR the existence of God.
> Got one?



Interesting wording, “bring me not your prejudices”. Synonyms for prejudices - biases, preconceptions, prejudgments, predispositions..etc, seems like you have one of those, read your own post below to find it. : ) Do I have one convincing thing for the existence of God? I've got many; I guess I'll pick one and start with it, since you can’t muster a single “one” for atheism. 



Asath said:


> (Consider for a moment the forum you are in, and go back and read a lot of it before the automatic dogma machine starts up and is put into Drive.  ALL of the standard arguments have been shredded repeatedly,



Although I can understand why you wouldn't want to debate me further on the issue, and point to past conversations you've had with others, I think it’s a cop out; and it’s telling of how unsure you are in your belief. None of my arguments have been shredded…or even touched for that matter, when I make a counter point you run to a different topic (it’s called dodging).  Further, you dodge the challenge I gave you to provide only one foundational point for your belief in Atheism. Essentially saying, "I don’t have to prove my thesis, but you have to prove yours"…and you call yourself a man of science… how silly. 



Asath said:


> so unless you have something new, and actually convincing – like, for example, a picture of yourself actually meeting God,



Could you please supply a 15 billion (depending on what flavor of big bang you prefer) year old picture of the Big Bang just as it starts to explode? If this is the required amount of evidence to convince you then surely you have it for your own side? Surely you, being a rational person wouldn't require less evidence for you own belief and much more for other’s beliefs. 



Asath said:


> who many here claim to have a ‘personal relationship with,’ – then spare yourself, and us,  the writer’s cramp.  You see, the ‘God doesn’t exist’ position is the default logic.



Wow, so really you win in this forum just by showing up...since your conclusions about the origin of the universe are "by default" right, with no need to defend them.  

It’s interesting then, that less than 5% of the population hold to this so-called "default position". What’s far more accurate is it’s the default “bias, preconception, prejudgment, predisposition” of the materialist, who by materialistic ideology rule out a God by a preconception that he doesn't exist. Sound similar to what you accused me of above? Hmmm.  




Asath said:


> Unless someone can DEMONSTRATE that a GOD of any kind DOES exist, then it doesn’t.  I will assume that you feel much the same way about elves, fairy godmothers, unicorns, and flying superheroes.  Don’t ask us to waste our time proving that Superman doesn’t actually exist – we’re not deluded enough to have believed that in the first place.  If you wish to contend that Superman (GOD) DOES exist, then I’m afraid that the burden you’ve placed on yourself by making such a contention is entirely your own.)



Oh how I do frown upon this kind of un-thought out logic. Why do Atheists seem to think they are exempt from defending their claims… I’ll let Greg Koukl do the heavy lifting here “For an atheist to enter a debate, he has to take a position.  If he takes a position, he asserts a belief. And when he asserts a belief, he makes a claim.  When he advances an argument, presumably he believes the conclusion that flows from his own reasoning.  Theists say there is a God, and Atheists argue they are wrong. This is not neutrality.” 




Asath said:


> Got anything?



In fact, I do. Let’s see if you dodge this or actually offer your first counter point. First, there are good reasons to think that God exists. Second, there are not comparably good reasons to think that Atheism is true. 

-The origin of the universe-

I’ll argue from the widely accepted principle in the Big Bang Theory that says this universe has a beginning. Otherwise, you have an infinite regress of cause and effect; meaning you never have a starting point. Its quite simple from there. 
1.	The universe began to exist.
2.	If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3.	Since the universe began to exist, it has a transcendent cause.

For more info see: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-law-debate#section_1 

Now I know it will be tempting for you the blast off into another topic , but since you couldn't offer a case for your belief, I hope you can at least attempt to refute my case for a transcendent creator.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It's in my signature because I like it and it makes sense to me. I live my life along those same lines. Why Abe said it, I have no idea nor can I defend his words.



I encourage you to answer those questions, as they are very important. Especially given that you live you life along those same lines.


----------



## Asath (Jun 12, 2012)

Sir, if you wish to do this according to your own fashion, then we shall.

Pardon me if I fail to include the childish gimmick of the animated smiley to ‘reinforce’ a point I’ve failed to make, and must thus distract attention from . . . 

Word by word?  Assumption by assumption?  Really?

Okay.

“Do I have one convincing thing for the existence of God? I've got many; I guess I'll pick one and start with it, since you can’t muster a single “one” for atheism. “

Okay.  Pick one, and start with it.  In fact, why not save yourself a million or so useless words and pick the EASIEST one?  Don’t just waste more of our time and your own TELLING us all about YOUR God, since we’ve heard all about just about everyone’s by now, and it stops being interesting, all the stories and all – do something actually convincing and SHOW us your God.  That ought to be the easiest way to get your point across.  

See, if we say something like – ‘Look!  There’s a squirrel!’ – we can point to the squirrel, and you can actually see it!  Odd, huh?  The quickest and most decisive way to maske someone believe in a squirrel is to simply SHOW THEM ONE.  Got one?

“Although I can understand why you wouldn't want to debate me further on the issue, and point to past conversations you've had with others, I think it’s a cop out; . . . “   

So far I see no debate on your part, and I did not point to past conversations that I’ve had, I merely urged you to read some of the forum you have decided to enter, so that at least a bit of context would be at hand – clearly you have failed to heed that advice . . . 

“ . . . and it’s telling of how unsure you are in your belief. “

You miss the point – completely.  I have no belief of any kind.

“None of my arguments have been shredded…or even touched for that matter, . . . “

That would be because, thus far, you have made no arguments, merely attacks.

“Further, you dodge the challenge I gave you to provide only one foundational point for your belief in Atheism. Essentially saying, "I don’t have to prove my thesis, but you have to prove yours"…and you call yourself a man of science… how silly.”

Again, your ignorance leads with its chin – there is no ‘Belief in Atheism.’  Atheism is the absence of belief.  Didn’t your pastor have a dictionary in the pulpit?  I never called myself a man of science – you assumed that as a straw man to argue with.  And I made no thesis that needs be proven – you did by professing a belief in something.  Calling me out as though your ‘challenge’ will provoke some sort of ‘triple-dog-dare’ playground response is childish, and does not relieve you in any way from backing up the claims you make --  I made no claims other than that yours are bunk in the absence of any ability to SHOW your GOD to the rest of us.  If this GOD is a personal secret, then we’ll understand completely, since we don’t have to do your laundry.

“Could you please supply a 15 billion (depending on what flavor of big bang you prefer) year old picture of the Big Bang  . . . “

Once again, I never contended such a thing to be true, though it is much closer to the truth than most folks want to wish – so you are once again putting words in my mouth so that you can argue with them – and if you wish to see such pictures, in truth, the Hubble Space Telescope images are free and readily available on-line for those who want to see just how unimaginably huge and random and bizarre the universe around us genuinely, objectively is . . . 

“If this is the required amount of evidence to convince you then surely you have it for your own side? Surely you, being a rational person wouldn't require less evidence for you own belief and much more for other’s beliefs.”

And yet again, Sir, I don’t have a ‘side.’  And I have no ‘Belief.’  None.  The ‘evidence’ for what I know to be true is that it is evident that it is true.  I inhale, I exhale.  That must mean that air exists, and sustains me in some fashion, since my biology won’t let me stop inhaling and exhaling, try as I might to ‘Believe’ otherwise.  

“ . . . since your conclusions about the origin of the universe are "by default" right, with no need to defend them.”

Sir, if I were to contend that elves control the forest around me, and the God Poseidon has sent the demons of the sea to flood my land, you would immediately take the sensible position – the default position – that I am deluded, and need to demonstrate, not contend or simply Believe.  I made no conclusions about the origins of the universe (you argue with your straw man endlessly and assign those positions to others), and I need defend nothing at all – I’m merely observing, and waiting to see, objectively, if anyone figures it out in my lifetime, which I sincerely doubt.  My doubt does not ratify your certainty in what is, objectively, utter nonsense.

“It’s interesting then, that less than 5% of the population hold to this so-called "default position". “

Not a chance that you can support that statement – go ahead and try . . . 

“What’s far more accurate is it’s the default “bias, preconception, prejudgment, predisposition” of the materialist, who by materialistic ideology rule out a God by a preconception that he doesn't exist. Sound similar to what you accused me of above?”

Try it out sometime – turn on the light switch.  Do the lights go on?  Now drop to your knees and turn on the GOD switch.  Does anything happen?  Odd, huh?  The darned lights exist.  How dare a mere ‘materialist’ create something that GOD forgot to mention, like electricity, without giving credit where credit was due?  Dummy.  Must be a biased preconception on our part.  But how DARE a ‘Believer’ tell US that HE can turn on the GOD switch without having any actual result?  Stuff that in the Out-Basket – we’re done with loud words and lack of results.  We’re biased towards stuff that works, and if it doesn’t work we expect a full refund.

“Oh how I do frown upon this kind of un-thought out logic.”

Sir, you are in quite the wrong place to use a word like ‘logic’ out of context.  Logic is a mathematic sequence – If A, and If B, Then C, in a most simplified explanation.  Logic is a method of crap detection, wherein each and every term needs to be defined and proven irrefutably in order for a sequence of contentions to be held as valid.  You REALLY don’t want to try to extend ‘belief’ into the realm of logic unless you are prepared to give up.

For example: ““For an atheist to enter a debate, he has to take a position. If he takes a position, he asserts a belief. “

False premise.  Taking a position is not asserting a belief.  If your position in the debate is that you must inhale, and exhale, in order to stay alive as a human, you are NOT asserting a Belief – you are stating a fact.  Arguing from a false premise, logically, will always allow a false conclusion – but the conclusion will always, still, be false.

“ . . . This is not neutrality . . . “

Nor did I ever say I was neutral – another example of creating a false premise to argue with – To be quite honest I think that any ‘Believer’ in any God whatsoever who would wish to do anything other than create their personal God and take comfort in their own thoughts is a deluded control-freak who has dreams of conquest, totalitarian tendencies, pathological delusions of grandeur, and a whole subscription to a textbook full of psychological aberrations that nearly demand that polite society marginalize them, at the least, and institutionalize them in the most extreme cases.  I’m hardly neutral on this point – I think that ALL religious fanatics, of any denomination whatsoever, are dangerous threats to civilization.  

“2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.”

False term.  Logically and truthfully insupportable.  All following arguments are falsified at step #2.  
Any other questions?

“ . . . but since you couldn't offer a case for your belief, I hope you can at least attempt to refute my case for a transcendent creator.”

You made no case to refute.  Oops.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> I encourage you to answer those questions, as they are very important. Especially given that you live you life along those same lines.



“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.”
It means I only need to rely on my inner feelings for my own justice. I do not need a higher power, or anyone that thinks they are associated with a higher power, to tell me how to feel or to guide me through life.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> 1.	The universe began to exist.
> 2.	If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
> 3.	Since the universe began to exist, it has a transcendent cause.



When did Gods begin to exist and what was their transcendent cause?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> When did Gods begin to exist and what was their transcendent cause?



God is eternal, self existent, and there is only One.


----------



## Four (Jun 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> God is eternal, self existent, and there is only One.



dont forget non-physical.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> God is eternal, self existent, and there is only One.



Yeah yeah yeah.........


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 12, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sir, if you wish to do this according to your own fashion, then we shall.
> 
> Pardon me if I fail to include the childish gimmick of the animated smiley to ‘reinforce’ a point I’ve failed to make, and must thus distract attention from . . .
> 
> ...



Robert Tuck, you got a "SIR" from Asath.

That means you are on to something!!!


----------



## JABBO (Jun 13, 2012)

I wouldn't go that far....


ted_BSR said:


> Robert Tuck, you got a "SIR" from Asath.
> 
> That means you are on to something!!!


----------



## Asath (Jun 14, 2012)

I’m an old guy.  And I’ve explained this before – us old guys were raised to think.  Thinking includes the possibility of being wrong.  It also includes the possibility that the other guy is wrong.  Old is not automatically wise, and young and zealous is not automatically right.  

So my own personal ‘default’ position, when disagreement arises, is to give the benefit of the doubt, and to allow respect for the opposing argument, and not disrespect the person even if I disagree with their thoughts.  I will argue, often passionately, against ideas – but that does not prevent me from addressing the purveyor of the opposing idea in a respectful manner.  We do not become enemies simply by thinking differently.

 So the ‘Sir,’ that I include , is meant to convey that respect for the person, , before I go on to try to dismantle their argument.

As a pure observation, it seems too often that it is the ‘Believers’ who demonize anyone who argues against them, and take the discussion out of the realm of exchanging thoughts and into the realm of personal attacks. The position that I see taken time and again is that if one is not wholly on-board with the Christian dogma, then it is the job of the Christians to condemn disagreement immediately, and not wait for their God to do so.  Perhaps they’ve realized that their God won’t ever materialize, and have taken matters into their own hands.  

This is elementary school stuff that you guys pull time and again (complete with animated smileys) – if you are out of thoughts, then you attack the person.  Lacking real demons, which are imaginary, it seems that many of you need to create your own.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 14, 2012)

Asath said:


> their argument.
> 
> As a pure observation, it seems too often that it is the ‘Believers’ who demonize anyone who argues against them, and take the discussion out of the realm of exchanging thoughts and into the realm of personal attacks. The position that I see taken time and again is that if one is not wholly on-board with the Christian dogma, then it is the job of the Christians to condemn disagreement immediately, and not wait for their God to do so.  Perhaps they’ve realized that their God won’t ever materialize, and have taken matters into their own hands.
> 
> This is elementary school stuff that you guys pull time and again (complete with animated smileys) – if you are out of thoughts, then you attack the person.  Lacking real demons, which are imaginary, it seems that many of you need to create your own.


Or maybe it's because we believe so fervently in what we believe nothing you type could change our minds!!!


----------



## vowell462 (Jun 14, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Or maybe it's because we believe so fervently in what we believe nothing you type could change our minds!!!



Now that statement is 100% true. Aliens could invade tommorow and start probing people, and send the human race to another planet, and it wouldnt change your beliefs or make you question at all.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 14, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> Now that statement is 100% true. Aliens could invade tommorow and start probing people, and send the human race to another planet, and it wouldnt change your beliefs or make you question at all.


 
You're onto something (Mark 13:22 (DRA)), 
but to the secure heart resting in faith, 
naaa!,  
some of us won't budge. Even when the devil himself comes in all his disguises.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.”
> It means I only need to rely on my inner feelings for my own justice. I do not need a higher power, or anyone that thinks they are associated with a higher power, to tell me how to feel or to guide me through life.



An Atheist once made a very similar argument, against Christians, to what I’m going to present to you.

"If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to your fiat or is it not? If it is due to your fiat, then for you yourself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that you are good. 

If you are going to say, as theologians do, that you are good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of your fiat, because your  fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that you made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through you that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to yourself"

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 14, 2012)

Four said:


> dont forget non-physical.



Indeed, the Father is Spirit.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 14, 2012)

Asath said:


> You miss the point – completely. I have no belief of any kind.
> 
> And yet again, Sir, I don’t have a ‘side.’ And I have no ‘Belief.’



What are you doing posting in here? With no belief of any kind you would merely be neutral, not having a side to argue from. O but wait, you just said



Asath said:


> Nor did I ever say I was neutral – another example of creating a false premise to argue with



So you have no belief of any kind, nor are you neutral. Where exactly are you? Nonexistent? 



Asath said:


> False premise. Taking a position is not asserting a belief. If your position in the debate is that you must inhale, and exhale, in order to stay alive as a human, you are NOT asserting a Belief



Are you serious? You wouldn't conclude that it is your belief that one must inhale and exhale to stay alive? Asath... this is just dishonest, look up the word belief. You believe all kinds of things, you believe that the Bible is wrong, you believe that "charm is for Fairly tales"...you've stated beliefs over and over again. 



Asath said:


> False term. Logically and truthfully insupportable. All following arguments are falsified at step #2.
> Any other questions?



Honestly, given the above intellectually dishonest statements, I'm really not sure why I'm continuing on. 

First, you believe I'm wrong here, you believe that #2 is logically and truthfully insupportable. But you don’t even believe that…. Sigh. 
In our current universe of cause and effect, the beginning had to come from a transcendent cause. Otherwise, you would have an infinite regress of B caused A - “Well what caused B?” C caused B, “ Well what caused C?” D caused C, and E caused D etc... 

Ironically materialists, who believe that there is nothing beyond the physical world, use this argument against the idea of a God. (I’ve read posts after yours in this very thread that allude to this argument).This universe has Cause and Effect, and Time-Space; given these rules you either believe the universe is eternal (an infinite regress of cause and effect, which scientists deny), or you believe the prevailing theory that this universe had to have a beginning.  We, as Creationists, believe God created a universe of Cause and Effect, Time-Space, and so on. 

Obviously a Creationist postulates that God, having invented and created time, is not bound by it (which logically follows). Ergo God doesn’t need a cause or beginning, like everything within this universe does; He isn’t bound by the natural rules we observe, He created them.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 14, 2012)

JABBO said:


> I wouldn't go that far....





JABBO said:


> Another good post!!!!





JABBO said:


> Again, another great post!!!




Asath Asath he's our man, if he can't do it no one can! , I kid of course.
Care to jump in and share an idea on the origins of the universe?


----------



## JABBO (Jun 15, 2012)

Do you really think it would do any good? At the end of the day most people are going to go to sleep still thinking the same as when they woke up. So no, I will pass on that... But you hang in there, I'm sure you are scoring points left and right so when "the big day" comes(hope you're not holding your breath) you will not have anything to worry about...Keep up the good work!



Robert Tuck said:


> Asath Asath he's our man, if he can't do it no one can! , I kid of course.
> Care to jump in and share an idea on the origins of the universe?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 15, 2012)

I can't believe I read this entire thread, including the multitude of posts from the fella that thinks he's a pointy eared Vulcan that flies around on a star ship..


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 15, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> Now that statement is 100% true. Aliens could invade tommorow and start probing people, and send the human race to another planet, and it wouldnt change your beliefs or make you question at all.



That my friend would make me question what in the world they put in that stuff I'd been smoking!!!But i do believe in the Great Gazoo.Do you know who he is?Your probably to young!!!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> That my friend would make me question what in the world they put in that stuff I'd been smoking!!!But i do believe in the *Great Gazoo*.Do you know who he is?Your probably to young!!!



WILMAAAAAAAA !!!!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 15, 2012)

Asath said:


> I’m an old guy.



Just how old of a guy are you???


----------



## vowell462 (Jun 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> That my friend would make me question what in the world they put in that stuff I'd been smoking!!!But i do believe in the Great Gazoo.Do you know who he is?Your probably to young!!!



I guess im too young because i dont know who he is, and I dont smoke anything, therefore neither of these two elements are a factor into anything I believe. However, I am old enough to be married for 10 years, raise 4 children, and run a buisness. Sometimes I even go get to hunt ducks. Do you know who Horus is? Na, probably too old, or engulfed with your own indoctrination.

The point of my comment was to state the absolute fact that most that believe such as you, will never question or even open up to other opinions because you are so ( and pardon the southern slang) " ate up " with what you are told on sunday mornings. You firmly believe what you believe so much that every one else in the entire world, even those who have never been introduced to your belief, are wrong on all accounts and will certainly burn. Point being, science could disprove all religions tommorow, or we can find out why all existance is here and why, and no matter what your religion will reject it is truth. It wasnt meant to be a sarcastic statement, but maybe i came across that way.

Im guessing, judging by your avatar, that you enjoy dredging or looking for arrowheads and native american artifacts. I used to do some of that as well when I had time. I always wondered though, all these native americans for centuries, living and existing off the land, never heard of Jesus' name. They lived thier whole lives, sometimes good ones, and died, never even knowing about your religion. And all these people are burning now. This is just an example of how flawed the belief can be. And trust me, I wouldnt try to sway you in any other direction. I think a person should have the right to believe whatever they want. But I do take issue with people actually believing they are on a higher plane of existance than I because they have " a personal relationship" with god, or they absolutley " know" the truth. You dont, neither do I. Thats the truth.

Im 32 years old, and have studied a good bit about christianity, where it derived from, how it came to be what it is today. I continue to research, from all aspects, on trying to understand why people believe what they do. So far, my conclusion is just good ol fashioned brainwashing. Easy to do,  its something that makes a person feel better about themselves, because of the unknown after this life. We dont have an answer. We just dont.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> An Atheist once made a very similar argument, against Christians, to what I’m going to present to you.
> 
> "If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to your fiat or is it not? If it is due to your fiat, then for you yourself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that you are good.
> 
> ...



If something created everything then something created both good and evil. If I get my "good" from a higher power then I also get my "bad" from that same higher power. Just another perplexing situation that leaves me wondering why "Mr.Good" wants his followers to fight evil every step of the way and he himself does battle against evil yet cannot defeat it, yet "Mr.Good" created the evil in the first place........Sounds to me like something mankind thought up but can't close the loopholes to explain just WHY such a being should be worshiped.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Jun 15, 2012)

Dogma..... is the reason for Man's existence.  lol Sad but there is people out there that believes it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

laskerknight said:


> Dogma..... is the reason for Man's existence.  lol Sad but there is people out there that believes it.



Yep, no matter how little sense it actually makes people will make excuses to defend it.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If something created everything then something created both good and evil.



Above is the premise for your comment. This is a classic fallacy, allow me to explain. Let me ask you, have you ever eaten a donut hole? Now I’m not talking about those little round balls you can buy in large quantities at the donut shop, I’m talking about the hole. In philosophy we would say the hole has no ontological status. It doesn’t exist, it’s not SOMEthing, it’s NOthing. It’s where the donut isn’t. 

Consider a shadow; one may be tempted to treat a shadow as a thing as well. After all, you can point at one, “see” one, but a shadow is where light isn’t. It’s not a thing in and of itself; it’s a lack of a thing, that is, light. Of course the same goes for cold, being absent of heat. 
Sin is not a thing; it is the lack of a thing, goodness. Goodness is centered in God’s immutable character. The word good doesn’t describe God, God’s immutable character defines good.   

It is an inescapable dilemma for the Atheist. Just as the universe demands a transcendent cause, morality demands a transcendent source. Without it, morality is purely subjective from one human being to another.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 15, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Above is the premise for your comment. This is a classic fallacy, allow me to explain. Let me ask you, have you ever eaten a donut hole? Now I’m not talking about those little round balls you can buy in large quantities at the donut shop, I’m talking about the hole. In philosophy we would say the hole has no ontological status. It doesn’t exist, it’s not SOMEthing, it’s NOthing. It’s where the donut isn’t.
> 
> Consider a shadow; one may be tempted to treat a shadow as a thing as well. After all, you can point at one, “see” one, but a shadow is where light isn’t. It’s not a thing in and of itself; it’s a lack of a thing, that is, light. Of course the same goes for cold, being absent of heat.
> Sin is not a thing; it is the lack of a thing, goodness. Goodness is centered in God’s immutable character. The word good doesn’t describe God, God’s immutable character defines good.
> ...



well said


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 15, 2012)

JABBO said:


> Do you really think it would do any good? At the end of the day most people are going to go to sleep still thinking the same as when they woke up. So no, I will pass on that... But you hang in there, I'm sure you are scoring points left and right so when "the big day" comes(hope you're not holding your breath) you will not have anything to worry about...Keep up the good work!



Maybe most people will go to sleep thinking the same way. But there are a few people that rely on logic and reason to come to conclusions, these people present logical and rational arguments for their views. I believe this is why such a forum exists; not for those that would go to bed believing the same way no matter what, but for the thinkers that weigh out arguments and by thinking through them conclude that they are either true or false.



JABBO said:


> "I will pass on that"



You pass on the very thing that this forum is about. You pass on presenting a reason for why you believe what you believe. Jabbo, you are the one "that goes to sleep still thinking the same way" no matter what anyone else says. You don't need to defend your view, you can "pass on that", because no matter what your right in your own eyes. Oh how you imitate the very persons you condemn. I urge you to make an argument, to have a reason for why you believe what you believe, and not be afraid to test it against other's views.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Above is the premise for your comment. This is a classic fallacy, allow me to explain. Let me ask you, have you ever eaten a donut hole? Now I’m not talking about those little round balls you can buy in large quantities at the donut shop, I’m talking about the hole. In philosophy we would say the hole has no ontological status. It doesn’t exist, it’s not SOMEthing, it’s NOthing. It’s where the donut isn’t.
> 
> Consider a shadow; one may be tempted to treat a shadow as a thing as well. After all, you can point at one, “see” one, but a shadow is where light isn’t. It’s not a thing in and of itself; it’s a lack of a thing, that is, light. Of course the same goes for cold, being absent of heat.
> Sin is not a thing; it is the lack of a thing, goodness. Goodness is centered in God’s immutable character. The word good doesn’t describe God, God’s immutable character defines good.
> ...



The power of assertion.
Your good, but that can be said of most snake oil salesmen.
Now that you have our ear, show us how "good" is a thing if "sin" is not a thing.

A shadow is the absence of light and a god is the absence of humans coping with mortality.

"There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. What the individual can do is to give a fine example, and to have the courage to uphold ethical values .. in a society of cynics."
(Albert Einstein)


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The power of assertion.
> Your good, but that can be said of most snake oil salesmen.
> Now that you have our ear, show us how "good" is a thing if "sin" is not a thing.
> 
> ...



A shadow is not the absence of light, it is the silhouetted representation of an object created by diminished light upon another object, but definitely not the absence of light.

Absolute black is the absence of light. Absolute white is the absence of color, combine them and you truly have a gray area.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yep, no matter how little sense it actually makes people will make excuses to defend it.



Is that so? It's an interesting assertion. Sadly, you give no supporting points to prove your thesis. 

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> A shadow is not the absence of light, it is the silhouetted representation of an object created by diminished light upon another object, but definitely not the absence of light.
> 
> Absolute black is the absence of light. Absolute white is the absence of color, combine them and you truly have a gray area.



MC, I hear you loud and clear.
Forgive me for sounding like a novice, I'm just playing with the cards Tuck is using so bear with me.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 15, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Is that so? It's an interesting assertion. Sadly, you give no supporting points to prove your thesis.
> 
> "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)





bullethead said:


> MC, I hear you loud and clear.
> Forgive me for sounding like a novice, I'm just playing with the cards Tuck is using so bear with me.



Well, in that "light" Mr. Hitchens makes an invalid assertion in his quote that makes him seem intelligent to those looking hard for validation of there beliefs to "not believe" all while stating the obvious, which is in and of itself, validating his statement. (in other words, he in essence claimed a double negative as a negative, and we all know that can't happen)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Is that so? It's an interesting assertion. Sadly, you give no supporting points to prove your thesis.
> 
> "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)



Being your "new" here I'll have to inform you that most of these things have been done to death on here already. Supporting points have been given numerous times and nothing changes. It is why you stand on your side of the line and me on mine.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Is that so? It's an interesting assertion. Sadly, you give no supporting points to prove your thesis.
> 
> "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)



Here's another
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

Because one chooses not to search and or ignores the facts when found, does not mean those facts(proof) do not exist.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If something created everything then something created both good and evil. If I get my "good" from a higher power then I also get my "bad" from that same higher power.



I know we have covered this, man, but "freedom" represents an ability to choose between options.  One to do good, and one not to do good.  What you are saying would line up nicely with our Calvinist friends.  Us "free will" folks will believe "evil" exists because freedom demands a choice.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Because one chooses not to search and or ignores the facts when found, does not mean those facts(proof) do not exist.



That can go in both directions for folks on here


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I know we have covered this, man, but "freedom" represents an ability to choose between options.  One to do good, and one not to do good.  What you are saying would line up nicely with our Calvinist friends.  Us "free will" folks will believe "evil" exists because freedom demands a choice.



No concern of Atheist if God created evil but check out the latest debate on free will vs predestiny. It appears God created the devil as an adversary. You know, good cop bad cop routine. I would assume most Atheist believe in free will.
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=6986308#post6986308


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 15, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> No concern of Atheist if God created evil but check out the latest debate on free will vs predestiny. It appears God created the devil as an adversary. You know, good cop bad cop routine. I would assume most Atheist believe in free will.
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=6986308#post6986308



I've been following, and participating a bit in that one.  It will get nowhere.  I am glad folks want to discuss these things.  I am constantly learning from this forum.  I don't get the predestiny position, at all, but I do admire the consitency of those forum members who adhere to such a position.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That can go in both directions for folks on here



JB, because I have looked in each of those directions, I am able to make the best educated guess at which one is more likely.


----------



## Asath (Jun 16, 2012)

“Or maybe it's because we believe so fervently in what we believe nothing you type could change our minds!!!”

Maybe.  But if you really did, then why would you be wasting your time justifying and rationalizing and trying so very hard to convince folks around you that they are wrong?  I’d have to think that such certainty doesn’t need our ratification – or does your fervent belief depend entirely on the collective approval of others?  If society suddenly changes Gods, as it has done dozens and hundreds of times, will you stand by yours?  All alone?

I was going to go on, but Mr. Tuck and Mr. fishhawk have effectively precluded any discussion.  The tactic is well known to any student of history – screamingly loud stupidity has ALWAYS prevailed over education and thoughtful consideration and intellectual discussion.

I appeal to the Moderator here – If I were to employ these concentrated ‘Shoutdown’ tactics in any other forum, they would not be tolerated.

“Sin is not a thing; it is the lack of a thing, goodness. “   Begging your pardon, but in today’s world ‘SIN’ is doing EXACTLY what the Bible TELLS one to do.  Stone an adulterer to death, as your Bible instructs.  I dare you. 

Biblically, doing just as the BOOK tells you, is the definition of doing GOOD, you seem to assert.  NOW—redefine the word ‘goodness’ for us?  In a Christian context?  If you Follow your Bible, as written and ‘Believed,’ then you are a criminal.  Wanna resolve that problem for us?

Virtually everything the Bible instructs you to do is now illegal.

For good reason.

Rationalize away, and make up your own interpretations as freely as you wish, but be assured of one thing – every ‘interpretation’ of your own ‘HOLY BOOK’ that you make takes you farther away from it, and makes it more and more a Book of YOU.  If the WORD is not clear, and requires your own intervention to make it so, then it is YOUR word. 

At that moment of realization, the TRUTH comes clear – you are your own GOD, simply because you are able to refute the words of the REAL GOD you claim wrote that Holy Book in the first place.  If a SINGLE WORD of that Holy Book does not ring true, and needs YOU to intervene to tell the rest of us what it really MEANS, then God has failed, and you have decided to place yourself in His stead.  You’ll then pardon us for failing to heed your ‘Beliefs’ since we know the difference by now.

You can’t have both.  Either your Holy Book is true, wholly and completely, or you are making this crap up as you go along, to suit the GOD that is you and the thoughts that are only your own – if YOU alone are authorized to tell all of us what GOD meant when HIS words were written into a BIBLE, then YOU have been granted an insight unavailable to humanity, and we are authorized to laugh at your hubris.  Relax.  You’re quite wrong. 

Perhaps you’ll pardon the rest of us for parting company with that brand of ego-maniacal nonsense.

Or perhaps you truly Believe that YOU are right.  Fortunately for the rest of us, we’ve built a number of psychiatric hospitals, to deal with just this sort of problem . . .


----------



## Asath (Jun 16, 2012)

So here’s the problem – Y’all keep coming down here, into this Forum, to tell us infidels all about YOUR God – but your problem is simple.

If you don’t believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Aphrodite, or any of the other thousands upon thousand of other GODS that have been proposed throughout history, then it is fair to call you an Atheist.  

If you reject OTHER Gods, and insist on only your own, with no more evidence than they had for theirs, then your Belief is no more credible than theirs was.  If you tell us that it is a matter of ‘Faith,’ then what makes yours superior to theirs?  You TELL us that you are right, in often strident and angry terms, but we ask no more of you than you would ask of a believer in Odin – SHOW US.

You can’t, of course, and we know that as well as you do.

You see, we’ve already seen just about every imaginative example of a God that all of humanity has been able to dream up,  and not a single one of those Gods has ever shown up to fulfill the idealistic dreams of the adherents.  

That truth of all of history would reveal the problem that you ‘believer’ types are tasked to overcome – how come not a single one of these many Gods has actually shown up, except in the bully- pulpit?

If you wish to make a case for YOUR God, you’ll need to do something that nobody yet has been able to do – quit with the strident demands for fealty and obedience and money, and trot this God of yours out into the open.  

If YOU can speak for HIM, then you must certainly know HIS mind, and be able to do better than endlessly bluster.  Demonstrate it to us.  

We’ll wait, if that is okay with your collection plates and endless demands for agreement  . . . .


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> If you don’t believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Aphrodite, or any of the other thousands upon thousand of other GODS that have been proposed throughout history, then it is fair to call you an Atheist.


Shear absurdity, and flat our wrong, thus the reading ends here.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Shear absurdity, and flat our wrong, thus the reading ends here.



How do YOU explain or rationalize that any other God was not or is not "real"?
Do you believe in all of the Gods throughout mankind's history, just that yours is at the top of the heap or do you dismiss all of those other Gods while acknowledging yours as the one..true..and only?


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Now that you have our ear, show us how "good" is a thing if "sin" is not a thing.



I just did, please read the post you quoted.



bullethead said:


> A shadow is the absence of light and a god is the absence of humans coping with mortality.



Interesting thought, but again no evidence to back up your claim?


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 16, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> A shadow is not the absence of light, it is the silhouetted representation of an object created by diminished light upon another object, but definitely not the absence of light.
> 
> Absolute black is the absence of light. Absolute white is the absence of color, combine them and you truly have a gray area.



Miguel, you're sharp to see the differences between the three examples I laid out as evidences for my belief, a belief that evil is not a thing but the lack of a thing. 

I would also point out that the other example I gave with cold being the absence of heat is of the same relationship. Remember, my use of these examples was to show how people tend to think of a donut hole, darkness, cold, and evil as a “thing”. These examples are terms that describe the lack of a particular thing, a donut, light, heat, and good, respectively. While it is possible to get a completely pure shadow (where zero light is behind the object), and to reach absolute zero where no heat exists, this is not my point with the examples given. They are to show terms that define not a thing in and of itself, but the lack of a thing. 

Again, kudos for seeing the deference. It's nice to know people are out there reading and thinking through these arguments.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> I just did, please read the post you quoted.


The post showed nothing of the sort. Any made up fairy tale creature can be inserted in there for the same effect. It proves nothing.





Robert Tuck said:


> Interesting thought, but again no evidence to back up your claim?


Hey, now I know how believers get through life. Any chance you wear size 11's?? It felt good walking in your shoes.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Being your "new" here I'll have to inform you that most of these things have been done to death on here already. Supporting points have been given numerous times and nothing changes. It is why you stand on your side of the line and me on mine.



It is this kind of thinking that leads to ignorance. Essentially, "Someone has already proven my side to be right, so I don't have too". I encourage you to find the argument that properly counters mine and use it. If it cannot be found, come up with one. If you cannot come up with one, then it would be reasonable to consider my line of thinking to possibly be true.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> It is this kind of thinking that leads to ignorance. Essentially, "Someone has already proven my side to be right, so I don't have too". I encourage you to find the argument that properly counters mine and use it. If it cannot be found, come up with one. If you cannot come up with one, then it would be reasonable to consider my line of thinking to possibly be true.



I am not searching through old posts that I already participated in. Be my guest to search through and find what you are looking for. 
I cannot refute one sided thoughts. You have to be open minded to other possibilities and you clearly are not. You deduce that your line of thinking is true because I don't have the time to play today. It is clear that no matter what is said in rebuttal your mind is made up already. There is no point to continue as neither of us will budge.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> It is this kind of thinking that leads to ignorance. Essentially, "Someone has already proven my side to be right, so I don't have too". I encourage you to find the argument that properly counters mine and use it. If it cannot be found, come up with one. If you cannot come up with one, then it would be reasonable to consider my line of thinking to possibly be true.



We can start with the very first verse in the Bible and go until the last verse.
We will find the examples that I am speaking about.


----------



## Asath (Jun 17, 2012)

"It is this kind of thinking that leads to ignorance."

Wow.  Thinking, of a certain type, leads to a lack of knowledge?  Really?  So it is not so much the learning that eliminates ignorance, but the type of thinking?  Cool.

So all we need to do is think the way you do, and all of ignorance will disappear -- we'll know everything that needs to be known, and all problems will be solved. By you, and your method of 'thinking.'  Think right, and you'll suddenly know everything, and no longer be ignorant.

Who knew it could be so easy?  Agree, and you are instantly smart.  Disagree, and you remain ignorant.  Could you write this one up and share it with the Education Department?

This proposal is brilliantly explained, and could save the taxpayers billions. We need only replace the Secretary of Education with a much smarter dictatorial theocrat,and that will be that.

Nice thinking.  Why didn't we think of this sooner?

Nice deflection, but without a God to show, your 'thinking' is still rather in the realm of the imaginary.  You can describe the details and motivations and judgmental habits of elves and hobbits and fairies all day long, if that counts as 'informed,' rather than 'ignorant,' in your world, but it still won't gain any traction with folks who aren't ACTUALLY ignorant.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> "It is this kind of thinking that leads to ignorance."
> 
> .



Rarely in life does the actual practice of cogent thinking lead to any kind of ignorance, unless it is one man thinking himself greater than all that has been created around him.

Rarely does anything "just appear", and daily examples of creation occur. I have yet to see a new born baby just "poof" appear and there it is. 

We all choose our own way to rationalize what is around us and how it occurs. Some choose to accept creation as well as the science that may accompany it. Others choose only to choose a narrow explanation of a certain science.

The true debate of which is leading to ignorance is the debate over who accepts the most paths to the possibilities of existence. I would submit that those that are self absorbed with only one possibility and their superior knowledge may be the ones on the path of less intelligence, regardless of what they have convinced themselves of.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> Biblically, doing just as the BOOK tells you, is the definition of doing GOOD, you seem to assert.  NOW—redefine the word ‘goodness’ for us?  In a Christian context?  If you Follow your Bible, as written and ‘Believed,’ then you are a criminal.  Wanna resolve that problem for us?
> 
> Virtually everything the Bible instructs you to do is now illegal.


Thats hogwash!!!!!The Bible is bursting out of the pages with instructions on how to live a good life and be a good person.To make that assumption clearly shows that you dont have a clue and are just trying to score brownie points for the opposition.
I could post verse after verse,if thats what you want to do?Also thanks for the Mr. part.Mr.fish hawk,thats kinda catchy.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 17, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> I guess im too young because i dont know who he is, and I dont smoke anything, therefore neither of these two elements are a factor into anything I believe. However, I am old enough to be married for 10 years, raise 4 children, and run a buisness. Sometimes I even go get to hunt ducks. Do you know who Horus is? Na, probably too old, or engulfed with your own indoctrination.Good job!!!I've been married 22 years have three children ages 24,19&6 and run my own business also
> 
> The point of my comment was to state the absolute fact that most that believe such as you, will never question or even open up to other opinions because you are so ( and pardon the southern slang) " ate up " with what you are told on sunday mornings. You firmly believe what you believe so much that every one else in the entire world, even those who have never been introduced to your belief, are wrong on all accounts and will certainly burn.I could never think like this,it's called judging and I'll leave that up to God!!! Point being, science could disprove all religions tommorow,Why dont science just go ahead and disprove it then or we can find out why all existance is here and why, and no matter what your religion will reject it is truth. It wasnt meant to be a sarcastic statement, but maybe i came across that way.
> 
> ...


So very wrong.I'm not a Christian because it makes me feel better.I'm a Christian because i want to serve Jehovah God.The Christian life is not the bed of roses that you make it out to be.Were constantly under persecution because of our beliefs.Also im not brainwashed I choose to follow God,no one has made me do this it's something I decide to do on my own.I wasent raised in a church or even going to church.Growing up I can remember going to Church twice.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 17, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Rarely in life does the actual practice of cogent thinking lead to any kind of ignorance, unless it is one man thinking himself greater than all that has been created around him.
> 
> Rarely does anything "just appear", and daily examples of creation occur. I have yet to see a new born baby just "poof" appear and there it is.
> 
> ...



Except for this one time, when God got bored or lonely.  Then he told you how he did it in a book with talking snakes and donkeys in it.

Listen to yourself.......


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Except for this one time, when God got bored or lonely.  Then he told you how he did it in the book with talking snakes and donkeys.
> 
> Listen to yourself.......



Thank you for contributing those sage words of wisdom and setting us all straight. I knew we could count on your constant and detracting trait, which IS listening to yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Rarely in life does the actual practice of cogent thinking lead to any kind of ignorance, unless it is one man thinking himself greater than all that has been created around him.
> 
> Rarely does anything "just appear", and daily examples of creation occur. I have yet to see a new born baby just "poof" appear and there it is.
> 
> ...



Check out the first line from your buddy R.T.


Robert Tuck said:


> It is this kind of thinking that leads to ignorance. Essentially, "Someone has already proven my side to be right, so I don't have too". I encourage you to find the argument that properly counters mine and use it. If it cannot be found, come up with one. If you cannot come up with one, then it would be reasonable to consider my line of thinking to possibly be true.


Asath was just quoting the Tuck.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Thats hogwash!!!!!The Bible is bursting out of the pages with instructions on how to live a good life and be a good person.To make that assumption clearly shows that you dont have a clue and are just trying to score brownie points for the opposition.
> I could post verse after verse,if thats what you want to do?Also thanks for the Mr. part.Mr.fish hawk,thats kinda catchy.



Please lets all go through the Bible and post verse after verse.
You can show your "good", we'll show the "bad" and then Robert Tuck will also get his examples of "no matter how little sense it actually makes people will make excuses to defend it."
I think a thread like that would be a fantastic idea. Go for it.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Check out the first line from your buddy R.T.
> .


Never met him, not my buddy.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Thank you for contributing those sage words of wisdom and setting us all straight. I knew we could count on your constant and detracting trait, which IS listening to yourself.



Sometimes a little reality slap is needed in order to put in all into perspective.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 17, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Thank you for contributing those sage words of wisdom and setting us all straight. I knew we could count on your constant and detracting trait, which IS listening to yourself.



Point out to me why what I said is incorrect.

Did I oversimplify?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Point out to me why what I said is incorrect.
> 
> Did I oversimplify?



Sorry, I left out condescending and aloof.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Never met him, not my buddy.



Ok, sorry. Just wanted to point out he was the one making the original comment.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Ok, sorry. Just wanted to point out he was the one making the original comment.


Never say I'm not fair and balanced regarding whom my retorts are aimed...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Never say I'm not fair and balanced regarding whom my retorts are aimed...



Noted.
You have always been worth conversing with.


----------



## Asath (Jun 17, 2012)

I wish that it were true that what you call something defines what it actually is – you can call a net a meshed instrument designed for the catching of fish, or you can call it a collection of holes tied together with string, but neither bit of wordplay changes the object itself.  

In this case, the Holy Book in question is meant to be taken as a whole – each bit is said to be the Word, and is meant to inform all of creation – that is what is purported.  Folks can wiggle around all they want, and change their definitions daily, if that somehow comforts them, but it doesn’t change what that Book actually says one whit.

And though it may bother the Soldiers of Faith, the facts are clear – much of what the Book instructs is now illegal in just about every civilized nation.  An ability to point out that the same Book, in some other verse, contradicts its own instructions issued earlier is only to admit that there is nothing at all that is clear, concise, defined, or intelligently conveyed anywhere in the thing.  

That hardly inspires confidence.  

The bristling discomfort with this truth is understandable, but unavoidable, I’m afraid, since it IS true.  The Book hands down the death penalty for everything from adultery to disobeying a parent – clearly written and quite concisely rationalized – and NOWHERE are these instructions specifically rescinded.  So a Believer MUST assume that THIS is the WILL of their God.  It is written as such.

Failing to strictly adhere to the clearly written Will of God and His concise instruction manual would mark one as a free-thinker, rather than as a Believer.  This is also an unavoidable conclusion.  One either Believes it – all of it, as handed down by God – or one does not.  The moment one parts company with even a single line of their own Holy Book they admit that, perhaps, the thing isn’t quite all they would like it to be . . . Bummer.  YOU have made the decision that this part or that verse or this other chapter is full of nonsense, and you have no intention of doing things that way.  Why not?

If you truly Believe that an infallible God said that you Must do something, what prevents you from actually living your life strictly according to His Word?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> I wish that it were true that what you call something defines what it actually is – you can call a net a meshed instrument designed for the catching of fish, or you can call it a collection of holes tied together with string, but neither bit of wordplay changes the object itself.
> 
> In this case, the Holy Book in question is meant to be taken as a whole – each bit is said to be the Word, and is meant to inform all of creation – that is what is purported.  Folks can wiggle around all they want, and change their definitions daily, if that somehow comforts them, but it doesn’t change what that Book actually says one whit.
> 
> ...


----------



## JABBO (Jun 18, 2012)

Good post!!!


Asath said:


> I wish that it were true that what you call something defines what it actually is – you can call a net a meshed instrument designed for the catching of fish, or you can call it a collection of holes tied together with string, but neither bit of wordplay changes the object itself.
> 
> In this case, the Holy Book in question is meant to be taken as a whole – each bit is said to be the Word, and is meant to inform all of creation – that is what is purported.  Folks can wiggle around all they want, and change their definitions daily, if that somehow comforts them, but it doesn’t change what that Book actually says one whit.
> 
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 18, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The true debate of which is leading to ignorance is the debate over who accepts the most paths to the possibilities of existence. I would submit that those that are self absorbed *with only one possibility* and their superior knowledge may be the ones on the path of less intelligence, regardless of what they have convinced themselves of.



How many answers should we accept before we are no longer on the "path of less intelligence"?

Do you believe in absolute truth?


----------



## GrlsHnt2 (Jun 18, 2012)

Asath said:


> If you wish to make a case for YOUR God, you’ll need to do something that nobody yet has been able to do – quit with the strident demands for fealty and obedience and money, and trot this God of yours out into the open.



I don't wish to make a case for my God. He has already made His own case and he is my Savior. As for Him trotting out into the open, He has promised us all just that. And when He does, you better hope you're right, or you're gonna get left.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

GrlsHnt2 said:


> I don't wish to make a case for my God. He has already made His own case and he is my Savior. As for Him trotting out into the open, He has promised us all just that. And when He does, you better hope you're right, or you're gonna get left.



yeah, what's another 2000 years to wait?????


----------



## GrlsHnt2 (Jun 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> yeah, what's another 2000 years to wait?????



As soon as I take my last breath on this earth, I will be in His presence. As for those who did not accept Him, they will be with Satan and they will immediately believe, it will just be too late.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

GrlsHnt2 said:


> As soon as I take my last breath on this earth, I will be in His presence. As for those who did not accept Him, they will be with Satan and they will immediately believe, it will just be too late.



I honestly do not believe that.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

GrlsHnt2 said:


> As soon as I take my last breath on this earth, I will be in His presence. As for those who did not accept Him, they will be with Satan and they will immediately believe, it will just be too late.



I am happy that you have beliefs, but just saying them as a matter of fact like does not make them true.

When I die I am going to the happy hunting grounds. No need for saviors or devils there.


----------



## GrlsHnt2 (Jun 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I honestly do not believe that.



You don't have to believe it. That's why we all have free will. I chose to believe it at 8 years old and I still do. 

I feel sorry for those who choose to deny it. There is a peace and grace that can't be explained and it's sad that some will never feel God's presence.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 18, 2012)

GrlsHnt2 said:


> You don't have to believe it. That's why we all have free will. I chose to believe it at 8 years old and I still do.
> 
> I feel sorry for those who choose to deny it. There is a peace and grace that can't be explained and it's sad that some will never feel God's presence.


 
Agreed. Anyone on here that has a tuff time abiding what you are saying ought to read "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo.  A little boy validated things that went on around him while he was in surgery, and also knew things his family never told him (how another sister died in his mom's womb). Great read for believer and skeptic. From the book:


> Colton said he met his miscarried sister, whom no one had told him about, and his great grandfather who died 30 years before Colton was born, then shared impossible-to-know details about each.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

GrlsHnt2 said:


> You don't have to believe it. That's why we all have free will. I chose to believe it at 8 years old and I still do.
> 
> I feel sorry for those who choose to deny it. There is a peace and grace that can't be explained and it's sad that some will never feel God's presence.



But I get that same awesome feeling without the God of the Bible. I am certainly not miserable and feel that I am lacking anything.
I actually believed it until I was 20yrs old. I honestly feel better now.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Agreed. Anyone on here that has a tuff time abiding what you are saying ought to read "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo.  A little boy validated things that went on around him while he was in surgery, and also knew things his family never told him (how another sister died in his mom's womb). Great read for believer and skeptic. From the book:



Happened when he was 4yrs old. Started talking about it months later. Dad writes the book when the kid is 11.........
Not so amazing.

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/heaven-is-for-real


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 18, 2012)

Asath said:


> So here’s the problem – Y’all keep coming down here, into this Forum, to tell us infidels all about YOUR God – but your problem is simple.
> 
> If you don’t believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Aphrodite, or any of the other thousands upon thousand of other GODS that have been proposed throughout history, then it is fair to call you an Atheist.
> 
> ...



This sounds like a lot of beliefs to me... of course, you don't have beliefs or take sides according to our earlier conversation, which you abandoned. 

Of course, its a lot easier to move on to a new rambling rant than to dig deep into a topic. I'm being truthful with you, hoping you can see the trap your in. You didn't defend your viewpoint at all, you said I was wrong and moved on to making this....post.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The post showed nothing of the sort. Any made up fairy tale creature can be inserted in there for the same effect. It proves nothing.



Pitiful retort. I actually read your post and began to defend my side with logical arguments....take notes.  My post started by saying that God didn't create evil, that was your claim. I then gave 3 examples to prove the concept of evil not being a "thing" to create, but a lack of a thing, goodness. You gave no counter argument. Which tells me you take your beliefs on faith. 




bullethead said:


> Hey, now I know how believers get through life. Any chance you wear size 11's?? It felt good walking in your shoes.



Honestly, your condescension is telling of your heart. Where's your reasonable, rational, logical, evidence for evil being a thing to be created as you claimed?


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> We can start with the very first verse in the Bible and go until the last verse.
> We will find the examples that I am speaking about.



I'm ready when you are, care to actually make a specific thesis and defend it? Or you could keep blasting away with the condescension...honestly it doesn't bother me. Ironically, I'm not the one basing my beliefs off emotion. I'm ready when you are, bring your best argument against creationism.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 18, 2012)

Asath said:


> I wish that it were true that what you call something defines what it actually is – you can call a net a meshed instrument designed for the catching of fish, or you can call it a collection of holes tied together with string, but neither bit of wordplay changes the object itself.
> 
> In this case, the Holy Book in question is meant to be taken as a whole – each bit is said to be the Word, and is meant to inform all of creation – that is what is purported.  Folks can wiggle around all they want, and change their definitions daily, if that somehow comforts them, but it doesn’t change what that Book actually says one whit.
> 
> ...



So many "beliefs" in this posts....its too bad you don't "believe" any of what you posted. Since you have no beliefs, and therefore no need to defend them. I would pick a few things out of this and debate with you, but how do you debate someone who has no beliefs?




Asath said:


> You miss the point – completely.  I have no belief of any kind.
> 
> And yet again, Sir, I don’t have a ‘side.’  And I have no ‘Belief.’  None.



I pray you see the trap you're in. You refuse to give clear arguments...and don't want to hear any from me. When confronted on your beliefs and asked to defend them, you deny having any... your in a bad place intellectually Asath.

You may have fanboys on here that cheer you on, but you've got to see the road your on. I'm praying for you, and I'm available if you ever want to shoot me a pm.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Pitiful retort. I actually read your post and began to defend my side with logical arguments....take notes.  My post started by saying that God didn't create evil, that was your claim. I then gave 3 examples to prove the concept of evil not being a "thing" to create, but a lack of a thing, goodness. You gave no counter argument. Which tells me you take your beliefs on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My claim is I cannot find a single shred of evidence that a God, let alone "your" God did anything.
1st Prove God, a God, ANY God exists.
2nd Prove he,she,it created ANYTHING......then we can take this as far as you want.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> I'm ready when you are, care to actually make a specific thesis and defend it? Or you could keep blasting away with the condescension...honestly it doesn't bother me. Ironically, I'm not the one basing my beliefs off emotion. I'm ready when you are, bring your best argument against creationism.



I am POSITIVE my statement was about...and I'll quote it again... 





> no matter how little sense it actually makes people will make excuses to defend it.



So I stand by that and as has been done in just about every thread on here, will show when people do not have a clear and definitive explanation on a verse or a subject, they will make up an excuse to defend it.
See the Angels thread if you want examples.

Now you want to argue creationism?
I'll start by saying I cannot find a creator.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> I'm ready when you are, care to actually make a specific thesis and defend it? Or you could keep blasting away with the condescension...honestly it doesn't bother me. Ironically, I'm not the one basing my beliefs off emotion. I'm ready when you are, bring your best argument against creationism.



Make a thesis?

I am not a professional philosopher or schooled orator.
I'll give you what I got but it won't be fancy talk, double spaced and classroom worthy.

I base my beliefs on evidence or lack of.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Honestly, your condescension is telling of your heart. Where's your reasonable, rational, logical, evidence for evil being a thing to be created as you claimed?



I don't have any reasonable,rational, logical evidence......just the Bible.

King James Version (KJV)

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.


----------



## GrlsHnt2 (Jun 19, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Agreed. Anyone on here that has a tuff time abiding what you are saying ought to read "Heaven is for Real" by Todd Burpo.  A little boy validated things that went on around him while he was in surgery, and also knew things his family never told him (how another sister died in his mom's womb). Great read for believer and skeptic. From the book:



Another good one is Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. He was an atheist who set out to prove God was a lie to his wife, who had become a believer. He couldn't do it. In fact, he came across so much evidence to the contrary, he is now a believer himself.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Isaiah 45:7
> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.


 
Try this link:
Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6



bullethead said:


> Happened when he was 4yrs old. Started talking about it months later. Dad writes the book when the kid is 11.........
> Not so amazing.
> 
> http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/heaven-is-for-real


 
W/o reading the book and with one neg. commentary, you toss it out.  Why not let your own mind be made up & check it out? 

I have the book in CD form, and disk one has an interview with the dad, and the interview answers some of the criticism.  If you PM me your addr, I lend it out to you.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 19, 2012)

GrlsHnt2 said:


> Another good one is Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. He was an atheist who set out to prove God was a lie to his wife, who had become a believer. He couldn't do it. In fact, he came across so much evidence to the contrary, he is now a believer himself.


 
Great book!
Ivan Panin was another...  he studied the scriptures in their original language and Panin became totally convinced the bible could not have been put together by the craft of man.  It drove him to study its meaning, and he went from a staunch atheist to a believer in the risen Lord.  He continued his studies of the entire cannon of scripture for the rest of his life, and made an offer for anyone to refute his findings.  To this day, none have brought a clear convincing case against his work.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Try this link:
> Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6
> 
> 
> ...



I read that link on my own while researching Isaiah45. Among those 14 possible words(they mentioned trouble twice) some Bibles still chose to use the word evil to convey the message. The word for evil is not disputed the other 600+ times it is used, only when the apologetics want to do some damage control is the word not the word.
I could argue that instead of calamity it should say wicked and the newer translations are wrong.

Striper, I DO appreciate the offer but no thanks.
My mother has the book and I did skim through it. I was skeptical right from the first time the dad listened to the boys stories and "gasped" "was taken back" and then followed up with a verse from scripture. The boy describes heaven and Jesus' blue eyes and so on yet in other books where the authors die and goes and describe heaven and Jesus it is a totally different description. The boy talks about instances that he never knew about....I'd wager in favor of the kid hearing his parents talk about these things in the first 4 years of his life over the kid witnessing any of it while in Heaven. The brain stores more memories than we can ever hope access. In the boys condition and under anesthesia I don't doubt he was visioning some very lucid events. Being that he is the child of a Pastor and comes from a very religious family I am sure he was told about heaven in ways a kid could understand it. 7 years later Pastor Dad decides he is gonna write a book.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Try this link:
> Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6



What version of 'ra is meant in I Sam. 16:14-16?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I read that link on my own while researching Isaiah45. Among those 14 possible words(they mentioned trouble twice) some Bibles still chose to use the word evil to convey the message. The word for evil is not disputed the other 600+ times it is used, only when the apologetics want to do some damage control is the word not the word.
> I could argue that instead of calamity it should say wicked and the newer translations are wrong.
> 
> Striper, I DO appreciate the offer but no thanks.
> My mother has the book and I did skim through it. I was skeptical right from the first time the dad listened to the boys stories and "gasped" "was taken back" and then followed up with a verse from scripture. The boy describes heaven and Jesus' blue eyes and so on yet in other books where the authors die and goes and describe heaven and Jesus it is a totally different description. The boy talks about instances that he never knew about....I'd wager in favor of the kid hearing his parents talk about these things in the first 4 years of his life over the kid witnessing any of it while in Heaven. The brain stores more memories than we can ever hope access. In the boys condition and under anesthesia I don't doubt he was visioning some very lucid events. Being that he is the child of a Pastor and comes from a very religious family I am sure he was told about heaven in ways a kid could understand it. 7 years later Pastor Dad decides he is gonna write a book.



All I can say is your missing more points in the book that can't be reasoned as you suggest.  He clearly described to a T what his mom & dad were doing in the 2 waiting rooms, while under the knife. He spoke of details of his great grandfather he could not possibly know about, even recignized him only from a younger picture the family had hidden away.  Well, there's so much more. You'd do yourself well to try either the tape or the book in it's entirety. 

I'll check on the 1Sam verses soon and get back.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What version of 'ra is meant in I Sam. 16:14-16?



I may not be getting to the direct translation, but I found it sufficient for me to see the overall picture, written well in Matthew Henry's commentary:

*Commentary on 1 Samuel 16:14-23*

 (Read 1 Samuel 16:14-23)
 Saul is made a terror to himself. The Spirit of the Lord departed  from him. If God and his grace do not rule us, sin and Satan will have  possession of us. 

The devil, by the Divine permission, troubled and  terrified Saul, by the corrupt humours of his body, and passions of his  mind. 


He grew fretful, peevish, and discontented, and at times a madman. 


It is a pity that music, which may be serviceable to the good temper of  the mind, should ever be abused, to support vanity and luxury, and made  an occasion of drawing the heart from God and serious things. That is  driving away the good Spirit, not the evil spirit. Music, diversions,  company, or business, have for a time often been employed to quiet the  wounded conscience; but nothing can effect a real cure but the blood of  Christ, applied in faith, and the sanctifying Spirit sealing the pardon,  by his holy comforts. All other plans to dispel religious melancholy  are sure to add to distress, either in this world or the next.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 19, 2012)

There's something of the gospel in those 1 Sam16:14-23 verses:
Our selfish pursuits of our own reasoning's would drown out the sound of Providence/Grace/Love and mercy... producing in heart the "evil", the life void of dependence on the Lord... as it was with King Saul. He needed the flute of David to be played to calm the evil within!

On this side of the cross, we have something, some One more wonderful, who took our evil completely away from our spirit man, and never it be accounted to us again. That's the good news of the Gospel, becoming new within. (IICor:5-17)

The flute player was the soon to be king... David, a type of Christ (of the OT) in His passion to rebuke and conquer evil in the heart.

For further considerations of Grace:  Link to Watchman Nee

Peace


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> All I can say is your missing more points in the book that can't be reasoned as you suggest.  He clearly described to a T what his mom & dad were doing in the 2 waiting rooms, while under the knife. He spoke of details of his great grandfather he could not possibly know about, even recignized him only from a younger picture the family had hidden away.  Well, there's so much more. You'd do yourself well to try either the tape or the book in it's entirety.
> 
> I'll check on the 1Sam verses soon and get back.



He was looking down upon his parents who were in two separate rooms. I have heard people describe themselves as watching themselves get operated on as if they were suspended from the ceiling. They described in detail other people that were in the room and surrounding rooms. It is astounding. Does it mean they were in Heaven?

If taken at face value the book(and many like it) make for good reads and really tap into what some people are looking for.
Unfortunately I am not convinced that the authors are totally telling it like it is. It is very possible that the kid later saw a picture of the g-grandfather and said "that is the guy I saw when I was in heaven". Then as it is told in the book the kid describes the man after surgery and later says that is the man I saw when he sees his picture. One validates the other but did it happen that way? At 4,5,6yrs old the boy seems beyond his years. He either is or the Dad embellished it a bit. 7 years later when the book is written I'd say there was some truth to his operating room experience(actual or drug induced I don't know) and to make a best seller some extras are added to send the father's message for those who want or need to hear those things.

I can't help but wonder why people of other faiths see what they believe to be true as per their religion in their near death experiences.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 19, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> I may not be getting to the direct translation, but I found it sufficient for me to see the overall picture, written well in Matthew Henry's commentary:
> 
> *Commentary on 1 Samuel 16:14-23*
> 
> ...



I understand Henry devoted his life to provide commentary to the OT and NT but those are his interpretations of what he thinks is going on.

I don't know why a God would need someone to make his actual point clearer for him.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I don't know why a God would need someone to make his actual point clearer for him.



It happens all the time with those who are gifted with teaching. My own walk would be nowhere without teachers, pastors, mentors and accountability partners and spiritually gifted friends. From these comes our reflection on truth, with discernment, with the work of the Spirit of God.
In the end it comes back to that dependency thing we believers often talk about... in our Lord.  I could not go this life w/o God as a fish can't go w/o water.

You got me digging into things this evening that I wouldn't have considered otherwise.  However the 'tug' at the word comes, I'm grateful for it in near all cases.

Have a good evening as I'm signing off until tomorrow.

And God bless you and yours abundantly!


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 20, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Never say I'm not fair and balanced regarding whom my retorts are aimed...



I really don't see where the problem is. I said "it's this kind of thinking that leads to ignorance", while Miguel said "rarely... does... thinking lead to.... ignorance". 

We'd have a disagreement if I had said "often times, thinking leads to ignorance" or if Miguel had said "thinking never leads to ignorance". Since neither is the case, we didn't disagree. Good try though bullethead...I guess.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> My claim is I cannot find a single shred of evidence that a God, let alone "your" God did anything.
> 1st Prove God, a God, ANY God exists.
> 2nd Prove he,she,it created ANYTHING......then we can take this as far as you want.



Well let’s look at our known universe.

The universe exists in a particular way, e.g. space-time, cause and effect, etc. Either the universe began to exist or it has always existed. The prevailing scientific thought is that this universe began to exist, as there are great difficulties in the universe being eternal. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.

From which it follows logically that the universe has a cause. 

Alternately, one can take the side of several Atheists; who dare not refute that the universe has a beginning, so they propose that something came from nothing. This of course contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics and, by extension, science itself. It is the belief that objects which exist in this universe have a cause that inspire science; which sets out to find the cause or the reason why something, that they observed perhaps, happened.

Given all we know about the universe, a transcendent non-physical cause is the logical inference. 

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-...north-carolina-state-university#ixzz1yNddwwZf


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 20, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> It happens all the time with those who are gifted with teaching. My own walk would be nowhere without teachers, pastors, mentors and accountability partners and spiritually gifted friends. From these comes our reflection on truth, with discernment, with the work of the Spirit of God.
> In the end it comes back to that dependency thing we believers often talk about... in our Lord.  I could not go this life w/o God as a fish can't go w/o water.
> 
> You got me digging into things this evening that I wouldn't have considered otherwise.  However the 'tug' at the word comes, I'm grateful for it in near all cases.
> ...



Hey man, nice job of articulating why you believe God didn't create evil, via explaining the context of the verse. Very well done. I'll let your argument stand to reason for itself, there's nothing to add. Good point-counter-point from both of you. Its refreshing to see, it really is.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Well let’s look at our known universe.
> 
> The universe exists in a particular way, e.g. space-time, cause and effect, etc. Either the universe began to exist or it has always existed. The prevailing scientific thought is that this universe began to exist, as there are great difficulties in the universe being eternal.
> 
> ...



I'm all for the universe having a cause.
Show me (outside of the Bible) that the God of the Bible is that cause.
If EVERYTHING that begins to exist has a cause, what is the cause of your God?
I know...I know.... Your God has always existed (even though nothing else could have possible always existed) and now all I need is proof of a God always existing.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-...north-carolina-state-university#ixzz1yNddwwZf



Funny thing is my family Doctor is Dr. Craig Krause....honest!

That was an interesting read.
I'm leaning towards the answers of Dr.Krauss.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm all for the universe having a cause.
> Show me (outside of the Bible) that the God of the Bible is that cause.
> If EVERYTHING that begins to exist has a cause, what is the cause of your God?
> I know...I know.... Your God has always existed (even though nothing else could have possible always existed) and now all I need is proof of a God always existing.



We went over most of this in my thread "Three Stage Argument for God"

A non-physical, eternal being is the logical conclusion to a universe in which the physical is not eternal. A non-physical, eternal, _and intelligent _being is the logical conclusion to a universe in which everything must be precise and sustained to be inhabitable by anything.

Jesus, and the overwhelming supporting facts about His life are a good indication that it is my God that is the non-physical, eternal, and intelligent Being that created the physical world around us. Although you will surely be a contrarian to every piece of evidence presented.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> We went over most of this in my thread "Three Stage Argument for God"
> 
> A non-physical, eternal being is the logical conclusion to a universe in which the physical is not eternal.
> 
> Jesus, and the overwhelming supporting facts about His life are a good indication that it is my God that is the non-physical, eternal (and intelligent) Being that created the physical world around us. Although you will surely be a contrarian to every piece of evidence presented.



String, there is no evidence to contrary against. Asserted facts are not evidence. Deductive reasoning that leaves the door open to ANY of the thousands of Gods throughout history is not hard factual evidence. Overwhelming....where?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

http://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

Bullet, I'm not going to go back and forth posting articles. I could just a easily use google and post an article that gives evidence to Jesus' death and resurrection.

The facts are, you'll deny my evidence and I yours. I choose to put my faith in Christ and you do not, you enjoy your life and I mine, we'll see what happens when we die.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, I'm not going to go back and forth posting articles. I could just a easily use google and post an article that gives evidence to Jesus' death and resurrection.
> 
> The facts are, you'll deny my evidence and I yours. I choose to put my faith in Christ and you do not, you enjoy your life and I mine, we'll see what happens when we die.



So why the need to constantly try to counter me with "facts" that do not exist?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So why the need to constantly try to counter me with "facts" that do not exist?



There is no "need", I come in here because I like to discuss theology and science.

I have facts that exist just like you do.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

By Michael Shermer

*Smart People Believe Weird Things*
Rarely does anyone weigh facts before deciding what to believe.

By Michael Shermer


In April 1999, when I was on a lecture tour for my book /Why People
Believe Weird Things/, the psychologist Robert Sternberg attended my
presentation at Yale University. His response to the lecture was both
enlightening and troubling. It is certainly entertaining to hear about
other people's weird beliefs, Sternberg reflected, because we are
confident that we would never be so foolish. But why do /smart/ people
fall for such things? Sternberg's challenge led to a second edition of
my book, with a new chapter expounding on my answer to his question:
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending
beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.

Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and
con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of
what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our
beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical
evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic
predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure,
educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality
preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural
influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of
data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and
ignore or rationalize away those that do not.

This phenomenon, called the confirmation bias, helps to explain the
findings published in the National Science Foundation's biennial report
(April 2002) on the state of science understanding: 30 percent of adult
Americans believe that UFOs are space vehicles from other civilizations;
60 percent believe in ESP; 40 percent think that astrology is
scientific; 32 percent believe in lucky numbers; 70 percent accept
magnetic therapy as scientific; and 88 percent accept alternative medicine.

Education by itself is no paranormal prophylactic. Although belief in
ESP decreased from 65 percent among high school graduates to 60 percent
among college graduates, and belief in magnetic therapy dropped from 71
percent among high school graduates to 55 percent among college
graduates, that still leaves more than half fully endorsing such claims!
And for embracing alternative medicine, the percentages actually
increase, from 89 percent for high school grads to 92 percent for
college grads.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The siren song of pseudoscience can be too alluring to resist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70
percent of Americans still do not understand the scientific process,
defined in the study as comprehending probability, the experimental
method and hypothesis testing. One solution is more and better science
education, as indicated by the fact that 53 percent of Americans with a
high level of science education (nine or more high school and college
science/math courses) understand the scientific process, compared with
38 percent of those with a middle-level science education (six to eight
such courses) and 17 percent with a low level (five or fewer courses).

The key here is teaching how science works, not just what science has
discovered. We recently published an article in /Skeptic/ (Vol. 9, No.
3) revealing the results of a study that found no correlation between
science knowledge (facts about the world) and paranormal beliefs. The
authors, W. Richard Walker, Steven J. Hoekstra and Rodney J. Vogl,
concluded: "Students that scored well on these [science knowledge] tests
were no more or less skeptical of pseudoscientific claims than students
that scored very poorly. Apparently, the students were not able to apply
their scientific knowledge to evaluate these pseudoscientific claims. We
suggest that this inability stems in part from the way that science is
traditionally presented to students: Students are taught what to think
but not how to think."

To attenuate these paranormal belief statistics, we need to teach that
science is not a database of unconnected factoids but a set of methods
designed to describe and interpret phenomena, past or present, aimed at
building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.

For those lacking a fundamental comprehension of how science works, the
siren song of pseudoscience becomes too alluring to resist, no matter
how smart you are.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> By Michael Shermer
> 
> *Smart People Believe Weird Things*
> Rarely does anyone weigh facts before deciding what to believe.
> ...



Good article, not sure why you posted it though? Doesn't have anything to do with the aspects of why intelligent people believe in God or study theology.

Are you equating theology to pseudoscience? If so, I'll equate pseudoscience with atheism. See how this goes 'round and 'round?


----------



## JABBO (Jun 21, 2012)

LOL... Now how in the world did we ever imagine you were going to come back with that answer???? Very surprised to say the least!!  And I'm sure Bullet was in no way insinuating anything.  





stringmusic said:


> Good article, not sure why you posted it though? Doesn't have anything to do with the aspects of why intelligent people believe in God or study theology.
> 
> Are you equating theology to pseudoscience? If so, I'll equate pseudoscience with atheism. See how this goes 'round and 'round?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> We went over most of this in my thread "Three Stage Argument for God"
> 
> A non-physical, eternal being is the logical conclusion to a universe in which the physical is not eternal. A non-physical, eternal, _and intelligent _being is the logical conclusion to a universe in which everything must be precise and sustained to be inhabitable by anything.
> 
> Jesus, and the overwhelming supporting facts about His life are a good indication that it is my God that is the non-physical, eternal, and intelligent Being that created the physical world around us.


 
Amen.  Excellent conclusion(s).
I've enjoyed and been blessed by the debate here.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

JABBO said:


> LOL... Now how in the world did we ever imagine you were going to come back with that answer???? Very surprised to say the least!!  And I'm sure Bullet was in no way insinuating anything.



What answer would that be Jabbo? The fact that the article didn't support Bullets intended point?

I don't understand the "rolleyes" after your comment "and I'm sure Bullet was in no way insinuating anything" are you rolling your eyes because he_ was _insinuating something?


----------



## JABBO (Jun 21, 2012)

I thought it supported it pretty nicely and was spot on...I mean what do you think the "real" reason is that somebody would post that in a furum like this????



stringmusic said:


> What answer would that be Jabbo? The fact that the article didn't support Bullets intended point?
> 
> I don't understand the "rolleyes" after your comment "and I'm sure Bullet was in no way insinuating anything" are you rolling your eyes because he_ was _insinuating something?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

JABBO said:


> I thought it supported it pretty nicely and was spot on...I mean what do you think the "real" reason is that somebody would post that in a furum like this????



There is no "real" reason. Bullet posted it as to indicate that smart people believe weird things, and weird things would include theology, the Bible, and God, I simply pointed out that the thesis of the article had nothing to do with theology or God, referenced by the article not mentioning the two.

I posted that I would equate pseudoscience and atheism, or naturalism as it will be in the case below.

Quote from the article, "For those lacking a fundamental comprehension of how science works, the
siren song of pseudoscience becomes too alluring to resist, no matter how smart you are."

I could make the argument that an atheist or naturalist is "lacking a fundamental comprehension of how science works"  if they believe that the natural world around us is eternal, or that something came from nothing, only pseudoscientifically can either of these claims be true, which many atheists and natrualists find "too alluring to resist, no matter how smart they are."

So, what exactly did the article "support pretty nicely"?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

Here IS the point.
"Rarely does anyone weigh facts before deciding what to believe."
and
"This phenomenon, called the confirmation bias, helps to explain the
findings published in the National Science Foundation's biennial report
(April 2002) on the state of science understanding: 30 percent of adult
Americans believe that UFOs are space vehicles from other civilizations;
60 percent believe in ESP; 40 percent think that astrology is
scientific; 32 percent believe in lucky numbers; 70 percent accept
magnetic therapy as scientific; and 88 percent accept alternative medicine."

It backs up the argument that just because a belief is popular and the majority... does not necessarily mean that a lot of thought went into it. People are always posting that Christianity is the major religion in the USA and world. That is not disputed, but those same believers are also included in the stats above.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Here IS the point.
> "Rarely does anyone weigh facts before deciding what to believe."
> and
> "This phenomenon, called the confirmation bias, helps to explain the
> ...


How many atheists and naturalists were included in those stats?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How many atheists and naturalists were included in those stats?



 about the same percentage ratio of atheists to believers


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> There is no "real" reason. Bullet posted it as to indicate that smart people believe weird things, and weird things would include theology, the Bible, and God, I simply pointed out that the thesis of the article had nothing to do with theology or God, referenced by the article not mentioning the two.
> 
> I posted that I would equate pseudoscience and atheism, or naturalism as it will be in the case below.
> 
> ...


Spot on!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> about the same percentage ratio of atheists to believers



They were equal? Where is the information that shows the theological views were included in the stats?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> They were equal? Where is the information that shows the theological views were included in the stats?



No not equal.
If smart people have theological views they were probably included.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> There is no "need", I come in here because I like to discuss theology and science.
> 
> I have facts that exist just like you do.



Lets get to some of those facts then.
Start with resurrection.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No not equal.
> If smart people have theological views they were* probably *included.



... or probably not. You don't know and neither do I, that's why I stated that the article didn't make any sense.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Lets get to some of those facts then.
> Start with resurrection.



http://carm.org/easter-story-true

There are multiple, early historical sources which testify to the crucifixion of Jesus including in all four New Testament gospels (c. 50-100 A.D.), various epistles of Paul (c. 48-62 A.D.), and other non-Pauline epistles (c. 48-90 A.D.).  Interestingly, Jesus' crucifixion is not just attested by the New Testament, but also by a large number of secular writers.  It is also attested by various non-Christian historians and writers including the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (c. A.D. 90-95), the Roman historian Tacitus (c. A.D. 115), Lucian of Samosota (c. 2nd Century A.D.), Mara Bar-Serapion (c. Late 1st to Early 3rd Centuries A.D.), and even the Jewish Talmud (c. A.D. 70-200).  This is a remarkable amount of historical testimony for an ancient event, especially from sources coming within 20 years of Jesus' death.  By contrast, Alexander the Great's first biography was written 400 years after his life.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

This is an excerpt from an article entitled
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?
by Dan Barker


Internal Discrepancies

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the few stories that is told repeatedly in the bible--more than 5 times--so it provides an excellent test for the orthodox claim of scriptural inerrancy and reliability. When we compare the accounts, we see they don't agree.
What time did the women visit the tomb?

    Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
    Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
    Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
    John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1) 

Who were the women?

    Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
    Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
    Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
    John: Mary Magdalene (20:1) 

What was their purpose?

    Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
    Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
    Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
    John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40) 

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

    Matthew: No (28:2)
    Mark: Yes (16:4)
    Luke: Yes (24:2)
    John: Yes (20:1) 

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

    Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
    Mark: One young man (16:5)
    Luke: Two men (24:4)
    John: Two angels (20:12) 

Where were these messengers situated?

    Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
    Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
    Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
    John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12) 

What did the messenger(s) say?

    Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
    Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
    Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
    John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13) 

Did the women tell what happened?

    Matthew: Yes (28:8)
    Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
    Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
    John: Yes (20:18) 

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

    Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
    Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
    Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
    John: No (20:2) 

When did Mary first see Jesus?

    Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
    Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
    John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14) 

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

    Matthew: Yes (28:9)
    John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27) 

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

    Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
    Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
    Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
    John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
    Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5) 

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

    Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
    Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
    Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
    John: In a room, at evening (20:19) 

Did the disciples believe the two men?

    Mark: No (16:13[23])
    Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two) 

What happened at that first appearance?

    Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
    Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
    Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
    John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23) 

Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?

    Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
    Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
    John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
    Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3) 

Where did the ascension take place?

    Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
    Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
    Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
    John: No ascension
    Paul: No ascension
    Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12) 

It is not just atheist critics who notice these problems. Christian scholars agree that the stories are discrepant. Culver H. Nelson: "In any such reading, it should become glaringly obvious that these materials often contradict one another egregiously. No matter how eagerly one may wish to do so, there is simply no way the various accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities can be harmonized."[24] A. E. Harvey: "All the Gospels, after having run closely together in their accounts of the trial and execution, diverge markedly when they come to the circumstance of the Resurrection. It's impossible to fit their accounts together into a single coherent scheme."[25] Thomas Sheehan agrees: "Despite our best efforts, the Gospel accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities, in fact, cannot be harmonized into a consistent Easter chronology."[26] The religiously independent (though primarily Christian) scholars in the Westar Institute, which includes more than 70 bible scholars with Ph.D or equivalent, conclude: "The five gospels that report appearances (Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Gospel of the Hebrews) go their separate ways when they are not rewriting Mark; their reports cannot be reconciled to each other. Hard historical evidence is sparse."[27]

I have challenged believers to provide a simple non-contradictory chronological narrative of the events between Easter Sunday and the ascension, without omitting a single biblical detail[28]. So far, without misinterpreting words or drastically rearranging passages, no one has given a coherent account. Some have offered "harmonies" (apparently not wondering why the work of a perfect deity should have to be harmonized), but none have met the reasonable request to simply tell the story.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> http://carm.org/easter-story-true
> 
> There are multiple, early historical sources which testify to the crucifixion of Jesus including in all four New Testament gospels (c. 50-100 A.D.), various epistles of Paul (c. 48-62 A.D.), and other non-Pauline epistles (c. 48-90 A.D.).  Interestingly, Jesus' crucifixion is not just attested by the New Testament, but also by a large number of secular writers.  It is also attested by various non-Christian historians and writers including the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (c. A.D. 90-95), the Roman historian Tacitus (c. A.D. 115), Lucian of Samosota (c. 2nd Century A.D.), Mara Bar-Serapion (c. Late 1st to Early 3rd Centuries A.D.), and even the Jewish Talmud (c. A.D. 70-200).  This is a remarkable amount of historical testimony for an ancient event, especially from sources coming within 20 years of Jesus' death.  By contrast, Alexander the Great's first biography was written 400 years after his life.



Scroll down and start at page 14 find some info about your historical sources.
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2012)

You got me Bullet, your post was bigger'n mine.

This is why I didn't want to get into the my link trumps your link argument.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You got me Bullet, your post was bigger'n mine.
> 
> This is why I didn't want to get into the my link trumps your link argument.



It has nothing to do with who's post is bigger.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the content in those links.
Facts are Facts and the reader must use every available resource in order to verify what he/she is reading to be factual.
Your post mentioning historians seems to validate your argument until you actually check into those historians.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

Pages 22-29 of the link I provided:
MYTH No. 3:
Ancient historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus
To recap, there are no contemporary accounts of Christ from any source. Indeed,
only one writer on the apologists’ list even comes close to being a near contemporary -
though he was born years after Jesus’ alleged death, with an account written some sixty
years after the years suggested for the crucifixion: Jewish historian Yoseph bar
Mattatyahu, better known to us as Flavius Josephus. In the year 93 or 94, Josephus
wrote his Antiquities of the Jews, which contains two disputed passages many hold up as
historical evidence for Jesus. The first is the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, a
snippet that interrupts an otherwise gloomy chapter to bring us a brief but glowing
summary of Jesus’ miraculous career. The passage is so blatantly counterfeit that no one
denies it is a later Christian forgery; the only debate is over how much of it is a forgery.
Wishful apologists try to argue that Josephus really did mention Jesus, and
overenthusiastic scribes merely embellished his account. They even try to reconstruct the
“original” Testimonium.
But there are several strong indications that the entire passage is an interpolation.
It barely relates to the rest of the chapter; the following paragraph starts by saying “About
the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” Pardon? Another
sad calamity? What sad calamity? Josephus has just given us a commercial for Jesus, not a sad calamity! This reference skips over the Testimonium entirely and points to the
previous section! That passage, where Pilate sets his soldiers loose to massacre a large
crowd of Jews in Jerusalem, certainly fits the bill as a sad calamity, but no versions of the
Testimonium do. Many classical historians, including Doherty, G. A. Wells and Kirby,
have noted that without the Testimonium passage, the continuity between the passages
flanking it flows seamlessly into each other. This fact alone is a tremendous indication
that the passage is 100%, entirely fraudulent.
Perhaps the major giveaway is that this passage does not appear until the 4th
century. For the first 300 years of its existence, there is absolutely no mention of the
Testimonium. Not a word. This couldn’t have been simply because no one happened to
read it; Josephus’ histories were immensely popular and poured over by scholars; for
centuries his works were more widely read in Europe than any book other than the Bible.
According to Josephus scholar Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in
Patristic Literature through Eusebius, more than a dozen early Christian writers,
including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus,
Origen, Methodius and Lactantius, are known to have read and commented on the works
of Josephus.
Origen in particular relied extensively on him; his own writings are filled with
references to Josephus. But it is obvious Origen had never heard of the Testimonium.
When his skeptical Roman opponent Celsus asks what miracles Jesus performed, Origen
answers that Jesus‘ life was indeed full of striking and miraculous events, “but from what
other source can we can furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives?” (Contra Celsum, 2:33) In the same book (1.47), Origen even quoted from Antiquities of the Jews
in order to prove the historical existence of John the Baptist, then adds that Josephus
didn’t believe in Jesus, and criticizes Josephus for failing to mention Jesus in that book!
And no one else seems to have heard of the Testimonium for 300 years either – It
is never quoted until the 4th century, when the notorious Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea
begins quoting it repeatedly. And where did Eusebius get his copy of Antiquities of the
Jews? He inherited it from his master… who inherited it from Origen! No matter how
you slice it, the Testimonium sticks out like the complete fraud it is.
What would a genuine reference to Christ in Josephus have looked like? It
wouldn’t have been complimentary in the least; Josephus would have called him a
charlatan and never referred to him as the messiah. The vocabulary would match
Josephus’ genuine writings, the passage would fit the tone and content of the surrounding
text, and would be much longer and more detailed if Jesus has actually done anything
noteworthy or had given radical new teachings. And perhaps most importantly, it would
have been seized upon hundreds of years earlier by the early church fathers who were so
hungry for just this kind of historical evidence from Josephus!
The second alleged mention of Jesus in Josephus is the “James Reference” in
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, ch. 9, which appears to make a reference to Jesus’
brother James. Josephus describes the antics of Ananus, a very unpopular high priest in
Jerusalem who assembled the Sanhedrin council, and brought charges against a “the
brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was Jacob,” (James and Jacob are
cognates) and his companions, and condemned them to be stoned to death. This caused an uproar, and citizens complained to King Agrippa, who took the high priesthood from
Ananus and made Jesus, the son of Dammneus, high priest.1
Is it a genuine reference? Unlike the infamous Testimonium Flavianum passage,
few think it is a forgery; for one thing, it seems too short for a forger to bother slipping it
in. But there are several indications that this passage is not talking about our familiar
Jesus. Perhaps the most important consideration is the fact that Josephus' report of a trial
and death sentence carried out on James and his companions is completely at odds with
all other accounts of James' death; (cf. Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria, quoted in
Historia Ecclesiastica Book 2, Ch.1:3-4 and Ch. 23:4-18) which agree that James was
killed alone by an angry mob. The crowd stumbled upon James by himself, confronted
him in the street, seized him, threw him off the temple roof and stoned him. Finally one
of the mob beat him to death with a fuller’s club.
And there are other questionable features. Josephus never used the terms “Christ”
or “Messiah” – not even in reference to his own personal pick for Messiah, Emperor
Vespasian. He preferred the term “charlatan” for all the false messiahs he describes. Nor
would his Roman audience be familiar with the term.
Another aspect that makes no sense is the outrage of the Jews. Most would
consider a Christian leader a hated heretical cult guru. So why would his death sentence
make the conservative Jewish establishment so furious that they would protest the trial
was illegal, petition the king and even go chase after the Roman governor to demand he
depose their own High Priest? None of this supports the New Testament’s image that this
was a time of Jewish persecution of Christians.
All this and more raises the question of whether the venerated old Jewish holy
man James in Josephus' account is even supposed to be the same person as James the
Christian leader in Jerusalem who the Church claimed was Jesus' brother. Then there is
the curious matter of the other Jesus mentioned in the passage, Jesus, the son of
Dammneus. What does he have to do with all this? As it turns out, perhaps he is the key to
solving the whole mystery.
The answer appears to be that the sentence fragment “who was called Christ” was
inserted into the text by mistake. Historian Richard Carrier is an authority on accidental
scribal interpolation. When I asked him about this, he explained to me that this looks
exactly like a case of accidental scribal interpolation of a marginal note. The phrase ‘the
one called Christ’ (tou legomenou Christou) is a simple, concise, compact statement that
is typical of brief interlinear notes, which often employ participle constructions like this.
It looks exactly like what a scribe would write in the margin to himself to indicate that he
thinks this ‘Jesus’ is ‘the one called Christ.’ But it interrupts the sentence, and though it is
not bad Greek per se, it is clunky and confusing. Remove that awkward phrase and the
sentence reads even more smoothly.
Also, there is the context to consider. Why would Josephus suddenly say out of
the blue that Ananus summoned to trial ‘the brother of Jesus’? The fact that his name is
James is an afterthought — the actual object of the sentence is that this man is the brother
of Jesus. Why are we supposed to care? Who is this Jesus? Why is Ananus after his
brother? We would expect a digression here or (if Josephus wrote the Testimonium) a
back-reference to where he already covered this. Otherwise the reader is left scratching
his head. But let’s look at what Josephus is telling us. After Ananus summons this trial and gets this ‘brother of Jesus’ killed everyone is infuriated, King Agrippa takes the high
priesthood from him and makes Jesus, the son of Dammneus, high priest (Antiquities
20.203). If this is the Jesus whose brother Ananus killed, then that explains why the
punishment was to depose Ananus and install in his place the brother of the man he
unjustly killed. Certainly it is more probable that Josephus meant Jesus, son of Dammneus,
than that Josephus just mentioned some different Jesus out of the blue for no reason, with
a strange lack of any digression on who this Jesus was, leaving the reader wondering
‘Who is that?’
Carrier adds, “In fact, imagine you are an ancient reader of the text. What would
you conclude? You would ask yourself, ‘Who's this Jesus guy?’ (even if "the one called
Christ" was tacked on, most readers would not know what that meant, or why it had
anything to do with Ananus going after his brother, etc.). Then you would read on, and
see, ‘Ah, that's the Jesus.’ That is, since Josephus doesn't tell you who this Jesus is, there
is only one Jesus he leaves his reader to infer that it is: Jesus son of Dammneus.”
The elegance of this simple and thoroughly credible explanation is quite
compelling. Carrier's answer is the only one that makes sense of each of the problems
with the so-called James reference in Josephus. It explains why Josephus' report does not
match the other accounts of James' death: because they are talking about two completely
different men. Because it is not a forgery, only a margin note, we see why the
interpolation is so short and content-free. Lastly, and most satisfying, it clarifies the text,
causing a confusing passage to suddenly make perfect sense for the first time. If
Josephus was originally talking about "Jesus, the son of Dammneus," the same Jesus he
mentions just a few lines later, then there is no longer any mystery over why Josephus did not explain who this Jesus was or what "the Christ" meant. And it is only when we put
forward that Josephus is talking about Jesus and James, the sons of Dammneus that it
finally becomes clear why the Jews would be upset at the death of this James, and why
his brother Jesus became high priest. Of course, there is no way to prove this short of the
appearance of an original Antiquities manuscript, but together all these factors establish a
strong case for reasonable doubt.
When one takes the trouble to look for confirmation of the Bible from
contemporary (or even near-contemporary) historical eyewitnesses for Jesus, amazingly
the first thing we discover is: there are none. This fact alone is astounding. Looking at
the supposed period of Jesus’ ministry, we find there were numerous commentators who
had both opportunity and could be reasonably expected to make mention of his exploits -
yet none of them show any awareness of Jesus whatsoever. Incredibly, this silence
continues throughout the entire first century. The figures that are touted as witnesses
don’t come until decades, even centuries, after Christ’s time - but more significantly,
none of them even provide the evidence they are supposed to.
It is sobering to realize that in all of recorded history, for the first century the
closest we have to historical support for the Gospel’s picture of Christ are an outright
forgery and a single disputed line that in all likelihood refers to someone else entirely.
This is why these two problematic bits of text in Josephus are fought over so fiercely – as
brief and questionable and disputed as these two small scraps are, they are quite literally
all there is to historically support the Bible’s account of Jesus in the first century.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2012)

An excerpt from:
Did Jesus Really Exist?   by Mark Thomas

Studying other religions and myths of the time, and the (non-orthodox) competing versions of Christianity, is complicated by the fact that many of their texts and references to them were not copied or were destroyed by faithful Christians (especially during the notorious book-burnings of the fourth and fifth centuries).  Once a Christian sect gained absolute political power under Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, opponents were compelled by threat of death, prison, or dispossession to fall in line. [7]

Christianity has many similarities to what we know of previous religions from Greece, Persia, Egypt and still other places — and is by no means unique.  There were more than a dozen other deities and saviors (Mithra, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Attis, Hermes, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Tammuz, Asclepius, and Prometheus) who were resurrected after violent deaths.  Many of these gods had their births announced by stars, had a virgin mother and divine father (or other miraculous birth), or had tyrants try to kill them as infants.  The two main Christian holidays were incorporated from earlier pagan rituals and festivals.  Easter (near the spring equinox, and with its fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs) was named after the pagan Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre.  Christmas was formerly the Roman festival Saturnalia (for the god Saturn), and more than a dozen gods were born on December 25 (the old winter solstice, when the sun is “reborn” and starts rising in the sky) — Jesus, Mithra, Zeus/Jupiter, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules/Heracles, Perseus, Bacchus, Apollo, Helios, and Sol Invictus.

Mithra had the most similarities to Jesus.  Mithra was born in very humble circumstances with shepherds watching, had twelve disciples (as in twelve signs of the zodiac), raised the dead, was often depicted with a halo, and was known as “The Light of the World” and “The Good Shepherd.”  After he died, he joined God to judge the souls of the dead.  Thru him sinners could be reborn into eternal life.  Because Mithra was a sun god, he was worshipped on Sundays.  His followers had ritual meals of bread and wine, which represented his flesh and blood.  It's not surprising that Mithraism died out as Christianity spread.

The Christian custom of the Eucharist (with bread and wine) was likely derived by Paul from Mithraism, because drinking blood has always been an abomination in Judaism.

Former fundamentalist Robert M Price wrote, “In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.”


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 22, 2012)

Evolution was something that I was subjected to in 1960....so not much longer, eh?? lol


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 22, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The true debate of which is leading to ignorance is the debate over who accepts the most paths to the possibilities of existence. I would submit that* those that are self absorbed with only one possibility and their superior knowledge may be the ones on the path of less intelligence*, regardless of what they have convinced themselves of.





stringmusic said:


> How many answers should we accept before we are no longer on the "path of less intelligence"?
> 
> Do you believe in absolute truth?



???


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Evolution was something that I was subjected to in 1960....so not much longer, eh?? lol



Hopefully


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm all for the universe having a cause.
> Show me (outside of the Bible) that the God of the Bible is that cause.


Before we go there let’s first establish a foundation, otherwise were going to build a house on sand. My above argument was not meant to persuade you that the God of the Bible created the universe. It was supposed to persuade in two specific points: 

1)	The universe began to exist.
2)	The universe has a cause.  

We both agree on these two points. 

Before I dive into the God of the Bible being the cause, I would first like to argue that a transcendent being, who logically predates the laws of this universe, makes the most sense for being the cause. Simply put, there is “something” out there that started this universe.  The only alternative is a belief that something came from nothing. Now that truly is a “crazy thing that smart people believe”. Science is based off such a conclusion being wrong. 


bullethead said:


> If EVERYTHING that begins to exist has a cause, what is the cause of your God?
> I know...I know.... Your God has always existed (even though nothing else could have possible always existed) and now all I need is proof of a God always existing.


Your question is a very good example of why wording is SO important. I actually believe that statement to be true, that “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Let me explain it this way, when we use terms like "begin"ning and end, "cause" and effect, we must realize these terms require space-time. If there is no time, there is no beginning…or end. That’s a mouth full, but it’s accurate. Beginning and end are terms rooted in the existence of “time”. 
If the universe had a cause, the cause created this universe along with the laws within it. Think about that, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Cause and Effect, Space-Time, etc… logically didn’t exist before the universe existed, they are rules within our universe. This is why the cause of the universe wouldn’t be bound by Space or Time, and therefore wouldn’t require a “beginning” point (since "beginning" and "end" require the existence of "time"). 

So would you conclude that: 
1)	The universe began to exist. 
2)	The universe had a cause. 
3)	The cause wouldn’t be bound by space-time, thermodynamics, and other rules within our universe since the cause came before them.

Is point three an accurate statement?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> Before we go there let’s first establish a foundation, otherwise were going to build a house on sand. My above argument was not meant to persuade you that the God of the Bible created the universe. It was supposed to persuade in two specific points:
> 
> 1)	The universe began to exist.
> 2)	The universe has a cause.
> ...



No.
I am going to have you try to convince me of those 3 things.
Before we can establish anything about a universe we must figure out it's creator. If it even has a creator.
Start with when the creator was created and who created it/he/she/it.
We can't build a house without an architect.

IF the universe cannot begin without a cause I am DYING to hear (with proof) how some sort of Being is above all that and has existed forever.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2012)

Beginning and end are terms humans use to get us through life. I do not think we can comprehend, in our terms, our universe let alone how long, how big, how old space is beyond our own universe.
Our universe had a beginning but from what? Another universe??? and one before that and on and on and on and on. It could very well be forever as we know it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2012)

Is the universe ever forming and being destroyed in cycles?????
I absolutely cannot admit that any sort of being, especially one that we are modeled after, has anything to do with it.


----------



## Robert Tuck (Jun 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No.
> I am going to have you try to convince me of those 3 things.



This is called intellectual dishonesty. You had already conceded you agreed with the first two points, the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause. See below. 


bullethead said:


> I'm all for the universe having a cause.



At this point you don’t like where this is going; Non-creationist don’t, because things start pointing towards a creator. 


bullethead said:


> Before we can establish anything about a universe we must figure out it's creator.



This isn’t true at all, we’ve established the laws of thermodynamics, cause and effect, space-time, gravity etc… This point is blatantly false by proven science.



bullethead said:


> Start with when the creator was created and who created it/he/she/it.


I just did, you may want to read it again. As I concluded there was no “when” before the universe existed, as there was no space-time. “When”, “Now”, “Beginning”, and “End” require time to exist. Again, you may want to re-read my post as I already covered this. 


bullethead said:


> We can't build a house without an architect.
> IF the universe cannot begin without a cause I am DYING to hear (with proof) how some sort of Being is above all that and has existed forever.


I agree with your house needs a designer statement. You already concluded that the universe has a cause, and I gave several evidences for why I believe the cause of this universe can’t be measured by time, since it predates the existence of time.  I really don’t think you read and considered any of my points, as you gave no counter-point to any of them. 




bullethead said:


> Beginning and end are terms humans we use to get us through life. I do not think we can comprehend, in our terms, our universe let alone how long, how big, how old space is beyond our own universe.



If you don't think you can "comprehend" our universe, then why are you so opposed to a God being the cause? I think we have a good comprehensive foundation of the rules of the universe; and by using what we know to be true, (space-time, thermodynamics, cause and effect, etc) be can infer what caused it.    



bullethead said:


> Is the universe ever forming and being destroyed in cycles?????
> I absolutely cannot admit that any sort of being, especially one that we are modeled after, has anything to do with it.



Now your just rambling. I know you don't believe in God, that's why we started our little debate earlier, which you have now abandoned and moved on to....this.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2012)

Or how about this?
From http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where universe from.htm
Assuming that prior to the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing I will start from there, if on the other hand there was something it would be necessary to explain where that came from. So in order to try and explain where the universe came from I will start with an attempt to describe a model of nothing that could contain the universe. If that succeeds I will then look at the problem of how the universe could be created from nothing. It should prove interesting to see where it leads us, or if we will have to be content with the idea of the universe starting from the Big Bang.

Before I begin however, I think we should agree on a few simple ground rules to try and keep the argument logical. Without the constraints of logic we could simply conjure up any description or semi-mystical event we wish in our attempt to make our model work, which would render the argument rather pointless. So here are the rules:

1) Once a definition has been made it can not be changed without starting a new definition.

2) An event must be possible within the framework of known science.

3) All events must follow a logical order within the given definition.

I will divide this model of nothing into two sections. Firstly I will attempt to create a 'working' model of nothing, and if that appears to be successful then attempt to include the universe within it.

Definition of nothing.

The use of the word 'nothing' has a very special meaning in this context, unlike our every day use of the word. It means here quite literally nothing, the complete absence of everything. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists it would HAVE to be infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed any boundaries, as a boundary would place a limit on nothing's size and furthermore would also indicate that there was something existing on the 'other ' side of the boundary, apart from the boundary itself existing. This would be contrary to our definition of both infinite and of nothing. This also, it should be noted, excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.

I hope I have made this point absolutely clear, this is what having nothing would mean, absolutely nothing anywhere. The only conclusion I can draw from that is nothing cannot exist, because we do.

Could nothing have existed in the past? No. If it existed in the past, then some event must have taken place to end it. An event would be impossible in nothing, so nothing could never have existed because we do, and as our universe now exists, nothing can never exist in the future either. Why could an event not happen in nothing? Because apart from the obvious that there is nothing to happen, an event would create and require a moment in time. There can be no time in nothing as relativity describes time as just another dimension.

As for Time, without it nothing must have always existed, it can not have a beginning or end because either would create a moment in time. It would in reality be meaningless to ask how long nothing has existed and how long it will continue to exist, it would be eternal and unchanging. Again, because we exist, nothing could not have had an existence because the creation of the universe would have required a significant change, thus contravening an unchanging nothing. We will look at this idea of creation in more detail later.

Nothing can not have any laws of physics because there is nothing to apply those laws to, also the very concept of having laws contravenes our description of nothing. In the absence of any basic laws, let alone matter, how could anything be created? Once again, because we exist nothing could not have.

Could the universe have been created in nothing? No, for the reasons stated above. However, just for the sake of argument, let us imagine it was. If the universe was created in nothing then where was it 'put'? If somewhere 'outside' of nothing, this would require an 'outside' to pre-exist, but it could not because that would require a boundary. It can not be ' put' within nothing, because containing a universe would no longer be within our definition of nothing.

So far then we have discovered that by using the simple definition of nothing as being an infinite void we have placed the following conditions on it:-

1) It must be timeless.

2) It must have always existed and could not have been created.

3) It is unchanging.

4) Nothing else can exist.

5) It is unable to create anything.

We have now concluded that nothing, when described as an infinite void, could never have existed because we do. There is however nothing wrong with the definition itself, the existence of nothing as an infinite void would appear to be logical, more than that, it HAS to be that way, nothing could not have any restraints of size or time placed upon it.

We now need to change our definition of nothing in order that it may contain the universe.

A new definition.

We will retain the description of nothing that we had before, as an infinite void, keeping it exactly as it was, except for one change. We will now allow it to contain the universe.

Our new definition of nothing will now read: nothing is an infinite void, nothing else can exist except for the universe that is contained within it.

We can now think of the universe as a tiny (or huge as you like, there is nothing to compare it with) 'bubble' existing in an infinite nothing and expanding into it. This model rather conveniently does away with the need to have a moment of creation for the universe because within nothing time does not exist. Without time it would be meaningless to ask when the universe was created, it was simply there all the time, existing in the same way as nothing, as it always has. Within the universe of course time does exist, as does everything else. With this description of nothing its existence, and that of the universe, is now possible. Or is it?

What does it mean to say the universe was always there? We believe it started with the Big Bang, but can we say the Big Bang was always there? This doesn't seem logical to me, it needed to have actually come into existence at some point, even the very term 'big bang', suggests a beginning. Let's step back a little and look at the creation of the Big Bang from the viewpoint of a 'perfect observer' in nothing. At the moment of creation what would our 'perfect observer' see? Nothing at all! The universe is self contained, nothing at all can escape from it into our nothing, our observer would notice no change whatsoever! As no detectable change at all has occurred from the viewpoint of nothing, and no change could ever be detected regarding the expanding universe, no 'real' change has occurred, (It may help here to visualise the Big Bang as an infinitely small event in the unimaginable vastness of an infinite void. In other words, a singularity, as indeed it is believed to have been.), therefore our definition of an unchanging timeless nothing is still valid. A quick (!) read of Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" will clarify my point about nothing escaping from the universe and the Big Bang starting as a singularity.

Okay, I admit that I am on somewhat thin ice here suggesting that the creation event within nothing would not contravene our definition of an unchanging timeless nothing simply because nothing could not detect it. I will come back to the problem of how the Big Bang started later, at this point I am merely attempting to include the universe within nothing.

Let's now look at the implications of an infinite nothing containing an expanding universe, ignoring for now the actual creation. We will consider two possible problems, expansion and infinity.

1) Expansion. Can the universe be described as expanding? From our viewpoint within the universe, yes. From our 'perfect observer's' viewpoint in nothing, no. Why not? because a) as stated above our observer can have no knowledge of the universe, and b) what is it expanding in relation to? Nothing does not contain anything, other than the universe, so there is no possible way to determine either the size, or the expansion of the universe, as both can only be measured in relation to something else. Size or expansion are meaningless terms here. This would appear to suggest that from within the universe things are as they appear to be, but from the point of view of our perfect observer in nothing, the universe does not exist! Furthermore with the absence of time in nothing the fact that it contains an aging expanding universe is meaningless from the perspective of nothing. So far so good, our nothing is still intact, from the point of view of our infinite nothing- it still contains nothing! (The creation event, if it actually happened, still needs explaining however)

2) Infinity. We now have a picture of nothing as being an infinite void, containing an expanding universe that it has no knowledge of, but is it still infinite? We have not put any restrictions on nothing's 'size' it is still infinite, but it contains a universe so surely that puts restrictions on its 'completeness', nothing is 'barred' from the area containing the universe! I think we are still okay here, to contain the universe is within our definition, but as to whether or not we have somehow a little less infinity is open to question, but it does not contradict our definition. I can see no reason why an infinite nothing can not contain a finite universe. For a fuller argument on Infinity. See Can anything 'real' be infinite?



How is our new definition of nothing holding up? An infinite void, nothing else can exist except for the universe that is contained within it. I would suggest that so far its holding up pretty well. I have not been able to overturn it on the grounds of logical argument. It could exist providing that the Big Bang took place within it. However, there is still a major hurdle to overcome, what caused the Big Bang and how could it form out of nothing? Without introducing a mysterious source of energy into the equation, as a magician might pull a rabbit out of a hat, it simply can't be done, it's as simple as that. It's logically and scientifically impossible to produce something from nothing. I realise that in Quantum Mechanics? it is (arguably) possible but that is in an already existing universe, not in nothing. Having said it's impossible we are left with a paradox, it has happened, we ARE here. There are only three logical conclusion to be drawn from this, assuming of course that our definition of nothing is valid.

1) The universe did not come from nothing, it came from something. Taking this route however offers no explanation either, we would still need to explain where this new something came from. We will therefore apply Ockham's razor and cut it out of our reckoning because it only adds to the complexity of the argument without adding any benefit,we gain nothing at all by introducing it.We may as well try to resolve the problem of the Big Bang coming from nothing rather than push it back a few steps and then try to solve it. We will therefore discard this idea.

2) We have to introduce a mysterious source of energy. I am forced to employ this highly undesirable tactic to make the creation of the universe possible. No matter how much I dislike the idea of using it I MUST, the unalterable truth is that we do exist, so the universe needed to be created out of nothing!

3) The universe did NOT have a creation event, it always existed.

So what is this mysterious source of energy that we are compelled to introduce? Many people will say that it is God and that He always existed. We either accept that or accept that the universe itself must have always existed.

We are now left with just these two possible solutions, either God created the universe and He always existed, or the universe itself always existed. The solution requires that something has always existed in order to avoid the problem of creating something out of nothing. The choice of introducing God is purely a matter of faith, for if we accept that God could have always existed then why not the universe? From a logical point of view within this model we do not need the existence of God, God is just a further complication that in turn would require to be created. If we ruthlessly apply Ockham's razor to the idea of introducing God into the model we are left with the universe always existing. However, for those of you of a religious nature allow me to make myself clear. I am NOT saying (here) that God does not exist, only that the idea of introducing God into the equation is not necessary in order to make it work. See Are all religions false?

I know that some would argue that God is necessary as a Creator and Grand Designer of the universe but I disagree. The universe can simply be the way it is by pure chance alone, it need not have been designed to be the way it is. For those that argue that the universe requires such a high degree of 'fine tuning' for things to be so well suited for our own creation and evolution that it could not have happened by chance alone I disagree again. If the universe were not so well suited for us then we wouldn't be here! The fact that we are here does not mean that the entire universe was designed just for our benefit. See Is there a reason for our existence?

All of the above would seem to suggest that the universe has always existed. I appreciate that the idea seems unsatisfactory to our way of thinking, but our way of thinking is probably part of the problem. In our universe we take for granted cause and effect, in that order. Everything we know of happens that way and even our minds work that way! Our very existence would not be possible if it were the other way round. When therefore we try to contemplate the idea of something always existing we simply can not manage to understand it, we are seeking a 'cause' for the 'effect' of the universe existing. The universe however is different to us, it exists in nothing, whereas we of course exist in the universe. There is no cause and effect in a timeless eternal infinite nothing!

According to our definition of nothing as being timeless, then in order to contain the universe, the universe MUST have always existed within it. It is not possible for it to have been CREATED within it for that would require a moment in time. It is not a matter of convenience to suggest this idea, it is the way it simply has to be.

If however you are uncomfortable with the concept of anything having always existed then I see no solution at all, because you will simply have to accept that at some point something came from nothing, and personally I find that prospect totally unacceptable. Either that or you have to conclude that the universe does not exist! And that could be right.

Within the description of the Big Bang there are three main cosmological models. The open universe that will expand forever, the flat model that will come to a halt, or the closed model that will recollapse, possibly 'bouncing' back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is closed it is possible that it will 'bounce' back cycle after cycle, forever. This idea of an eternal universe expanding and collapsing and re-expanding for ever is my preferred choice, but purely on aesthetic grounds. I realise of course that the arguments are still swinging back and forth as to which cosmological model is correct.

So after all the arguments I have made, what model do I prefer to describe where the universe came from? An infinite eternal unchanging nothing that has always existed and has always contained a finite but unbounded closed universe that constantly changes but is itself eternal. In this model the Big Bang is NOT required as a creation event, it is merely a phase in the cycle of an eternally expanding and collapsing universe and has no special significance at all. There is no need to look beyond it, there is only a previous cycle beyond it, and no need to say it is meaningless to try to look beyond it!



What do I think?

'Nothing' would appear to the casual observer to be a 'natural' state, but as I have outlined above, it seems to me it is not, it would appear to be a very special state.

With the model for nothing that I have described, it would appear to be possible to exist and to contain the universe, but it still does not give an explanation of how the universe could be created from nothing. This problem appears to be insurmountable. I can not 'fix' my theory to explain such an event and it would seem to suggest that the universe did not come from nothing but must have always existed or never existed! I tend to favour the view that the universe does exists, but of course we have no proof that it does!

It may be possible that we have not grasped the concept of nothing. Perhaps to exist it requires a structure, its own form of 'space', but I am not going to go down that particular road because that is not the nothing that I began with as a model of how it may exist. That would be a entirely new theory! Anyway, I don't think it possible to apply the term 'exist' to nothing, it doesn't 'exist', its just a concept!

I honestly think that trying to explain where the universe came from is something we will never be able to do, we are contained within the universe and our understanding is restricted to the universe, anything else is guess work. That aside, this is the best attempt of describing where the universe came from that I could come up with: An infinite eternal unchanging nothing that has always existed and has always contained a finite but unbounded closed universe that constantly changes but is itself eternal. Doesn't exactly roll of the tongue does it.

With this model I can detect only one possible problem (I may be wrong of course, you may find many!) and that is the acceptance of the universe having always existed. If I could present a theory that proved this I would expect a Nobel Prize at the very least! Having said that I would suggest that the route to take in order to establish the concept of 'always' requires a more precise understanding of exactly what time Time? is.

In the meantime, to answer the original question 'Where did the universe come from?' I believe that it didn't come from anything, it always existed. To say that I am unhappy with this concept is an understatement, but I am stuck with it because at this time I am unable to think of a viable alternative. See Our final destiny, immortals

Of course my suggestion is just a model, created for the purpose of argument and discussion only and I do not pretend for one minute that it is anything like the real thing, that, I am sure, will be much more surprising. It may be that it all exists just in our minds!

If you do not like my version, and why should you, why not try and come up with a better working model, you have a completely free hand!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2012)

Robert Tuck said:


> This is called intellectual dishonesty. You had already conceded you agreed with the first two points, the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause. See below.


NOW it is two points? Show me where I mention anything about a beginning. I Didn't agree to it at all. I just said I was all for it...implying I'm all for it as soon as someone can prove to me the universe has a cause.




Robert Tuck said:


> At this point you don’t like where this is going; Non-creationist don’t, because things start pointing towards a creator.


Wrong again. The conversation is going nowhere fast on your end and I like it. I have not seen anything that points towards a creator.





Robert Tuck said:


> This isn’t true at all, we’ve established the laws of thermodynamics, cause and effect, space-time, gravity etc… This point is blatantly false by proven science.


Oh but it is true. You are talking in terms formed after "creation" and I want to know what was going on before any of these things were "created". WHO or WHAT was out there pondering creating anything? 




Robert Tuck said:


> I just did, you may want to read it again. As I concluded there was no “when” before the universe existed, as there was no space-time. “When”, “Now”, “Beginning”, and “End” require time to exist. Again, you may want to re-read my post as I already covered this.


I re-read it and no explanation of the creation of a creator.



Robert Tuck said:


> I agree with your house needs a designer statement. You already concluded that the universe has a cause, and I gave several evidences for why I believe the cause of this universe can’t be measured by time, since it predates the existence of time.  I really don’t think you read and considered any of my points, as you gave no counter-point to any of them.



I did not conclude that the universe has a cause. It was a tongue in cheek response as in "I'm all for the Universe having a cause" Now Show Me!
I read the points and consider them to not explain anything in a manner that I can agree with. 






Robert Tuck said:


> If you don't think you can "comprehend" our universe, then why are you so opposed to a God being the cause? I think we have a good comprehensive foundation of the rules of the universe; and by using what we know to be true, (space-time, thermodynamics, cause and effect, etc) be can infer what caused it.


The God cause is comprehensible and why I dismiss it. I can 'see" why people come to that conclusion and I just do not agree with it.   I believe that the truth is above anything mankind can found or can comprehend....yet. It is why a God is so easy an answer.





Robert Tuck said:


> Now your just rambling. I know you don't believe in God, that's why we started our little debate earlier, which you have now abandoned and moved on to....this.


Rambling? You obviously have not heard of the Ekpyrotic Universe theory.

I NEVER said I don't believe in a God. I just don't think a God, especially the God of the Bible created the universe or anything else.


----------



## Asath (Jun 23, 2012)

Let us speak, for a moment, about “Nothing.”

I’ll gladly say that there is no god.  Nor gods.

“A non-physical, eternal being is the logical conclusion to a universe in which the physical is not eternal. A non-physical, eternal, and intelligent being is the logical conclusion to a universe in which everything must be precise and sustained to be inhabitable by anything.”

Given that the word ‘eternal’ has no meaning, and was coined only to attempt a description of the unknown, everything that follows from the word similarly has no meaning.  If the physical is not eternal, and the physical is all that has ever been observed or demonstrated to exist, then it follows logically only that NOTHING is eternal.  It does NOT follow logically that something eternal must be proposed and described and believed.  That part is merely wishful thinking.  

“Are you equating theology to pseudoscience? If so, I'll equate pseudoscience with atheism. See how this goes 'round and 'round?”

Actually, pseudoscience has it all over theology if only because it is actually based on SOMETHING.  Granted it gets everything wrong on scant and poorly understood assumptions that seize vigorously on 1% of the facts to draw 100% of the conclusions – but at least the poor misguided fools are thinking about something real to start with, then twisting it all out of reality.  This is curable, simply by providing them with additional facts.

Theology, on the other hand, draws its only defense from the fact that it is based on Nothing at all.  Nothing-At-All is difficult to refute.  If someone stands up and asserts that they believe passionately in their own version of ‘Nothing-At-All,’ (THEIR Religion) and someone else stands up and reveals that they have an entirely different version of ‘Nothing-At-All,’ (Their Religion) then we have on our hands a stalemate of Nothing.

Neither Religion can refute the other in any convincing manner, because neither side has any tools at their disposal with which to demonstrate that THEIR Nothing is somehow superior to the other Religion’s Nothing.  Mix this problem up into hundreds upon hundreds of Religious denominations, none of which agree on much of anything at all, and not a one of which is based on anything at all that can be shown to exist – Nothing, in other words – and you have the history of the world in a nutshell.

So, no, equating pseudoscience with theology would be giving theology the benefit of even marginal legitimacy, which is by no means the case.  Even bad science is based on at least one fact.  Not a single Religion can demonstrate even that much.  Nothing is a tough position to argue from.

Doesn’t seem to stop anyone, but even a moment of thought ought to give a person pause – Repeat after me – “I Believe With All Of My Intelligence In The Great And All-Powerful Nothing.”

And you can prove it.  That It isn’t there, but IS?  

No.  You can only prove that you believe in Nothing.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> Let us speak, for a moment, about “Nothing.”
> 
> I’ll gladly say that there is no god.  Nor gods.
> 
> ...


Who or what created the physical world? How did that inantimate physical world become conscious?  



> “Are you equating theology to pseudoscience? If so, I'll equate pseudoscience with atheism. See how this goes 'round and 'round?”
> 
> Actually, pseudoscience has it all over theology if only because it is actually based on SOMETHING.  Granted it gets everything wrong on scant and poorly understood assumptions that seize vigorously on 1% of the facts to draw 100% of the conclusions – but at least the poor misguided fools are thinking about something real to start with, then twisting it all out of reality.  This is curable, simply by providing them with additional facts.
> 
> ...


This is all completely your opinion on what you will accept as fact.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Who or what created the physical world? How did that inantimate physical world become conscious?


That is exactly what we would like to know. We can admit that we don't know for sure but the evidence(or lack of evidence in a God's case) does not point to some eternal being. There is a lot of research that does not pinpoint the answer, but does make a lot of sense on the different possibilities.
If you (or anyone) has some irrefutable evidence that points to a God, any God, YOUR God, please share it.   




stringmusic said:


> This is all completely your opinion on what you will accept as fact.


How does that differ from your stance?


----------



## JABBO (Jun 25, 2012)

Spot on!!!!!!    


bullethead said:


> that is exactly what we would like to know. We can admit that we don't know for sure but the evidence(or lack of evidence in a god's case) does not point to some eternal being.
> If you (or anyone) has some irrefutable evidence that points to a god, any god, your god, please share it.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> That is exactly what we would like to know. We can admit that we don't know for sure but the evidence(or lack of evidence in a God's case) does not point to some eternal being.
> If you (or anyone) has some irrefutable evidence that points to a God, any God, YOUR God, please share it.


I have given evidence, I'm not sure it's irrefutable, but in my opinion it is great evidence. You have read it on here many times. Would you like to start over and go line by line?   





> How does that differ from your stance?


When I say that atheism is based on nothing, I'm right, when Asath says Christianity is based on nothing real, he's wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

When someone is able to take a step back and view the possibilities with no bias there is still no clear answer. I can honestly say though that if someone WANTS to find out about the possibilities there are a few things that(with facts) lead us away from an eternal being and steer us towards an ever existing universe or multiverse.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> When someone is able to take a step back and view the possibilities with no bias there is still no clear answer. I can honestly say though that if someone WANTS to find out about the possibilities there are a few things that(with facts) lead us away from an eternal being and steer us towards an ever existing universe or multiverse.



I gotta leave the office for a couple hours. I would love to talk more about the eternal vs. non eternal universe. I'll log back on around lunch and if you're on we can talk about it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I have given evidence, I'm not sure it's irrefutable, but in my opinion it is great evidence. You have read it on here many times. Would you like to start over and go line by line?


It's raining here and I am off work today. I have all day to go over whatever you want to go over.
Be advised though that if "we" thought it was great evidence the first time we would not be still searching for the truth.
Personal opinion is something completely different than evidence.






stringmusic said:


> When I say that atheism is based on nothing, I'm right, when Asath says Christianity is based on nothing real, he's wrong.



What is the 'real' part?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What is the 'real' part?



Old records of events.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It's raining here and I am off work today. I have all day to go over whatever you want to go over.
> Be advised though that if "we" thought it was great evidence the first time we would not be still searching for the truth.
> Personal opinion is something completely different than evidence.


Is the physical world eternal?








> What is the 'real' part?





JB0704 said:


> Old records of events.



And Jesus Christ.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> And Jesus Christ.



Yes.  Our belief in JC is relevant to the "real" existence of documents concerning the events of his life.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Old records of events.



Such as...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is the physical world eternal?



Physical world as in something is always existing?
That is possible.










stringmusic said:


> And Jesus Christ.



His existence can be argued and proven/dis-proven equally by the things I have researched.
Being documented alive as a man is one thing, miraculous events being recorded no where but in the book that thinks he is god is another.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Such as...



Heck, man, you've read the NT more than I have.  No matter how much you question the veracity of the contents, there is no denying that it is a real "record of events."


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  Our belief in JC is relevant to the "real" existence of documents concerning the events of his life.



Besides the Bible lets see what we can find out about the documents.
What documents are you referring to?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Besides the Bible lets see what we can find out about the documents.
> What documents are you referring to?



We've been down this road before.  If the Bible was anything else you you would give a good bit more credit to the events described.

I mean, how many contemporary records do we have of anything that happend 2k + years ago?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> We've been down this road before.  If the Bible was anything else you you would give a good bit more credit to the events described.
> 
> I mean, how many contemporary records do we have of anything that happend 2k + years ago?



Well we have contemporary records of births, deaths, wars, taxes, census totals, etc.
I agree it is hard to find much information about ordinary individuals. But how could history have missed the ONLY Son of God right here on Earth?
"We" know his birth story in the Bible
"We" know his last 3 years in the Bible
If he was who he claimed and people knew he was God on Earth since birth I cannot imagine anyone overlooking that for 30 years. Kings "knew" he was the Son of God and tried to kill him(yet there is absolutely no record of such first born killings....thats another pretty big event not recorded)
Then while in his prime there is absolutely no mention of anyone recording anything he did in detail, and especially the miracles go unnoticed?????
Please....


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I agree it is hard to find much information about ordinary individuals. But how could history have missed the ONLY Son of God right here on Earth?



How can you say we missed it?  Seems like we argue about it all the time on here.  If we "missed it," how does anybody even know about it?



bullethead said:


> If he was who he claimed and people knew he was God on Earth since birth I cannot imagine anyone overlooking that for 30 years.



Now we are arguing over the veracity of the docs, not the existence of them.



bullethead said:


> Kings "knew" he was the Son of God and tried to kill him(yet there is absolutely no record of such first born killings....thats another pretty big event not recorded)



I watched something about this on the history channel once, can't remember much about it, other than the fact that the reality of these events was debateable from either direction.



bullethead said:


> Then while in his prime there is absolutely no mention of anyone recording anything he did in detail, and especially the miracles go unnoticed?????
> Please....



Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.  I am confused as to why these recordings don't count?  Do you think these fellas all got together, over a span of 100 years, and determined to "invent" these varied accounts?  Herodutus was not a contemporary of many events he recorded also.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> How can you say we missed it?  Seems like we argue about it all the time on here.  If we "missed it," how does anybody even know about it?


The Bible is not a History book no more than any other religions book is a history book. They all tell the tales that are want told.





JB0704 said:


> Now we are arguing over the veracity of the docs, not the existence of them.


What Documents?





JB0704 said:


> I watched something about this on the history channel once, can't remember much about it, other than the fact that the reality of these events was debateable from either direction.


Well then do what I do. Try to find out as much as possible about the supposed event that was recorded elsewhere.
So far, I have not been able to find anyone that recorded the mass killings of first born during that time. Do you have something that I have not been able to find?





JB0704 said:


> Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.  I am confused as to why these recordings don't count?  Do you think these fellas all got together, over a span of 100 years, and determined to "invent" these varied accounts?  Herodutus was not a contemporary of many events he recorded also.



Which one of them was there as it happened?
Why wait 40-100years to write about it? Who was with Jesus that lived to be 130years old and then write about it?
If the writings are inspired by God then why such discrepancies of events between these "eyewitnesses"?
We cannot figure out who MMLJ really are, let alone count their stories as accurate.
I have no doubt, backed up by  genuine history, that the church will and has done anything to go to great lengths to sell their story. There was a religious movement around the time of Christ and it was the perfect opportunity to create what needed to be created in order to gain followers.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Heck, man, you've read the NT more than I have.  No matter how much you question the veracity of the contents, there is no denying that it is a real "record of events."



The more I read it the less I truly believe it is a real record of anything.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The Bible is not a History book no more than any other religions book is a history book. They all tell the tales that are want told.



I am certain you are aware of the fact that the authors of the Bible had little idea that there histories, letters, instructions would one day be part of a larger compilation of books.  Look at it that way, instead of one document, it is a compilation of many.




bullethead said:


> What Documents?.



I'm sorry, man.  I don't know what else to call written records.  You are debating veracity, I am debating existence.




bullethead said:


> Well then do what I do. Try to find out as much as possible about the supposed event that was recorded elsewhere.
> So far, I have not been able to find anyone that recorded the mass killings of first born during that time. Do you have something that I have not been able to find?



I got wiki...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Then again, I believe in the Bible accounts, so I don't have to say "that record doesn't count."  You are discounting one because you don't have the other.  I wonder how lost history would be on you guys if you applied the same standards to all events.



bullethead said:


> Which one of them was there as it happened?



Who was at Thermopylae?  I think we established that Herodutus was the closest, yet he was about 3 - 4 when the battle happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus



bullethead said:


> Why wait 40-100years to write about it?



I don't know that they did.  That's just when the earliest manuscripts of the stories are appearing.....from multiple different sources about the same event....but because somebody mistakenly placed them in the Bible they don't count.



bullethead said:


> Who was with Jesus that lived to be 130years old and then write about it?



I think John is thought to have been a contemporary of Jesus.



bullethead said:


> If the writings are inspired by God then why such discrepancies of events between these "eyewitnesses"?



You are arguing veracity again, I am sticking with existence on this one.....you will have to come to terms with veracity on your own.  I can't help with that.



bullethead said:


> We cannot figure out who MMLJ really are, let alone count their stories as accurate.



I mean, I don't know how to help you there. They could actually be MMLJ, or, they could be a bunch of scoundrels who didn't know each other that created the the same deity around the same time.



bullethead said:


> I have no doubt, backed up by  genuine history, that the church will and has done anything to go to great lengths to sell their story. .



Agreed.



bullethead said:


> There was a religious movement around the time of Christ and it was the perfect opportunity to create what needed to be created in order to gain followers.



.....or it was true.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

An excerpt from:
Did a historical Jesus exist?
by Jim Walker 

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumerable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, solar eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).



Let's start with very basic stuff, is there any character in the Bible you actually believe existed?  Ceasar? Herod?  David?

If these fellas are real, where does the "fictional" line begin?  Was Peter fictional, how 'bout Joseph?  Who is real abnd who is not and how do you make the distinction?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Physical world as in something is always existing?
> That is possible.


 


> "One of these is as follows: However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself.
> 
> This, I submit, is something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world, and of course anyone should feel free to submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true.
> 
> ...



This is pretty incriminating evidence that the physical world around us is not eternal. If we start from the beginning, without anything being created, we will never get to the physical world that we can walk outside and see because an infinate number of causes would have to happen in order for there to be anything physical, which we know is illogical and impossible.

Does this sway you in the direction of the physical world not being eternal? If not, why not?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I am certain you are aware of the fact that the authors of the Bible had little idea that there histories, letters, instructions would one day be part of a larger compilation of books.  Look at it that way, instead of one document, it is a compilation of many.


And of many left out






JB0704 said:


> I'm sorry, man.  I don't know what else to call written records.  You are debating veracity, I am debating existence.


I'd call those heresay




I got wiki...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus



JB0704 said:


> Then again, I believe in the Bible accounts, so I don't have to say "that record doesn't count."  You are discounting one because you don't have the other.  I wonder how lost history would be on you guys if you applied the same standards to all events.


I do apply that standard.
I can agree that not all get it right 100% and usually the victor gets to write the stories...BUT when there are multiple accounts written by numerous authors that tell the good,bad and ugly from eyewitnesses, people involved in the events themselves, winning and losing sides and neutral observers, there is credible information to sort through and draw conclusions from.





JB0704 said:


> Who was at Thermopylae?  I think we established that Herodutus was the closest, yet he was about 3 - 4 when the battle happened.


I can live with Herodotus getting it wrong, or at least not all right. How about you with your historians?
In the case of Thermopylae a battle happened. It was recorded by the winners and losers and the people involved from other countries that were soldiers for hire. Herodotus might have gotten some facts wrong, embellished others and maybe flat out lied. Who knows?

The difference between Herodotus and your historians is that yours are supposed to be divinely inspired. They are to pass on Error-less truth about God and the Son of God. 
The entire Earth would have witnessed some of the natural events that are listed in their writings yet no one records those either.

One example of history is taken for what it is. The other example is passed of as something it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus





JB0704 said:


> I don't know that they did.  That's just when the earliest manuscripts of the stories are appearing.....from multiple different sources about the same event....but because somebody mistakenly placed them in the Bible they don't count.



Well it is hard to tell the truth from just half the stories.





JB0704 said:


> I think John is thought to have been a contemporary of Jesus.


I don't think so



You are arguing veracity again, I am sticking with existence on this one.....you will have to come to terms with veracity on your own.  I can't help with that.





JB0704 said:


> I mean, I don't know how to help you there. They could actually be MMLJ, or, they could be a bunch of scoundrels who didn't know each other that created the the same deity around the same time.


Or early church leaders that needed stories told.









JB0704 said:


> .....or it was true.



Judging by the research I have been doing, I cannot agree that it is true.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Let's start with very basic stuff, is there any character in the Bible you actually believe existed?  Ceasar? Herod?  David?
> 
> If these fellas are real, where does the "fictional" line begin?  Was Peter fictional, how 'bout Joseph?  Who is real abnd who is not and how do you make the distinction?



Th greatest fiction blends real people and real events with the phony to make seem credible.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> This is pretty incriminating evidence that the physical world around us is not eternal. If we start from the beginning, without anything being created, we will never get to the physical world that we can walk outside and see because an infinate number of causes would have to happen in order for there to be anything physical, which we know is illogical and impossible.
> 
> Does this sway you in the direction of the physical world not being eternal? If not, why not?



From;
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Reason for our existence.htm
Is there a reason for our existence?
Everything is made of the same original elementary forces that coalesced from the big bang singularity, whether it be a photon, a star, a lump of rock or a human being. It is only the combination, the mix of things, that makes things different from one another. When we peer millions of light years into the depths of space, we still see the same things, further back in time of course, as we find in our own galaxy and here on Earth. We, the human race, are as much a part of the universe as a spiral galaxy or black hole, and made of the same stuff. Is it then fanciful to suggest that we, as sentient beings examining the universe, represent the universe examining itself? because in a manner of speaking it is. We are not 'different' to the universe, we are very much an integral part of the universe as a whole, we may be only a very small part, but we are a part of it, we do not exist in isolation. 

Considering some atoms "live" forever they could be eternal.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> From;
> http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Reason for our existence.htm
> Is there a reason for our existence?
> Everything is made of the same original elementary forces that coalesced from the big bang singularity, whether it be a photon, a star, a lump of rock or a human being. It is only the combination, the mix of things, that makes things different from one another. When we peer millions of light years into the depths of space, we still see the same things, further back in time of course, as we find in our own galaxy and here on Earth. We, the human race, are as much a part of the universe as a spiral galaxy or black hole, and made of the same stuff. Is it then fanciful to suggest that we, as sentient beings examining the universe, represent the universe examining itself? because in a manner of speaking it is. We are not 'different' to the universe, we are very much an integral part of the universe as a whole, we may be only a very small part, but we are a part of it, we do not exist in isolation.
> ...



Ummm, I don't know what the this has to do with the physical world being eternal? This article is trying to explain (although not very well) why humans are no different than anything else physical in the universe, which is rediculous in itself, a small child could see that.

I don't want to start bouncing all over the place, so could you re-read my post and answer these questions?



> Does this sway you in the direction of the physical world not being eternal? If not, why not?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Th greatest fiction blends real people and real events with the phony to make seem credible.



And all of these sources seemed to collaborate relatively well to create such a work, considering they didn't exist and were not contemporary to each other during their period of non-existence.

Mathew didn't exist, didn't know Jesus, and somehow created a story very similar to the mystery guy who wrote Mark, who also didn't exist, and didn't know the non-existent Jesus.  John, bless his non-existent soul, decided to discuss the "kinder-gentler" side of this non-existent man who was very similar to the non-existent person written about by the other fictional authors.

Fictional collaboration at it's finest......

.....I tend to think it makes more sense to believe the authors, and the man existed.  I understand the questions of deity, but the questions of existence puzzle me.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ummm, I don't know what the this has to do with the physical world being eternal? This article is trying to explain (although not very well) why humans are no different than anything else physical in the universe, which is rediculous in itself, a small child could see that.
> 
> I don't want to start bouncing all over the place, so could you re-read my post and answer these questions?- Does this sway you in the direction of the physical world not being eternal? If not, why not?



We are made up of the things that make up the Universe.  Atoms are the building blocks of matter. Small children in school do know that.

What is your definition of the physical world?
Our Lives or everything we can physically touch or see in the universe?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> We are made up of the things that make up the Universe.  Atoms are the building blocks of matter. Small children in school do know that.
> 
> What is your definition of the physical world?
> Our Lives or everything we can physically touch or see in the universe?



Everything that is physical. I don't know of any other way to explain it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And all of these sources seemed to collaborate relatively well to create such a work, considering they didn't exist and were not contemporary to each other during their period of non-existence.
> 
> Mathew didn't exist, didn't know Jesus, and somehow created a story very similar to the mystery guy who wrote Mark, who also didn't exist, and didn't know the non-existent Jesus.  John, bless his non-existent soul, decided to discuss the "kinder-gentler" side of this non-existent man who was very similar to the non-existent person written about by the other fictional authors.
> 
> ...



Someone surely wrote it. 
If you were to write about the life of Robert E Lee are you going to interview him or use the info that somebody has already written?
Matthew, meet Mark....copy away.

by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S
What we do know for a fact—admitted even by the Catholic Encyclopedia—is that the titles attached to the gospels, "The Gospel According to Matthew," etc., are not original to the texts but were added later. Indeed, the term "according to" in the original Greek—kata—could be interpreted to suggest that the texts were understood to be relating a tradition of these individuals, rather than having been written by them. In reality, none of the evangelists identifies himself as a character in the gospel story. As one glaring example of this detachment, it is claimed that Matthew was recording events he himself had witnessed, but the gospel attributed to him begins before he had been called by Jesus and speaks of Matthew in the third person….


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Everything that is physical. I don't know of any other way to explain it.



Ok then yes I think some things are eternal


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And of many left out



Yes.



bullethead said:


> I'd call those heresay



Perhaps, but so is much of our understanding of history.  I once read that George Washington had bullet holes in his jacket after battle.  The only "proof" we have is a letter Washington wrote to his brother about it.  Is it true?




bullethead said:


> ...BUT when there are multiple accounts written by numerous authors that tell the good,bad and ugly from eyewitnesses, people involved in the events themselves, winning and losing sides and neutral observers, there is credible information to sort through and draw conclusions from.



Multiple accounts, by numerous authors, that tell the good, bad and ugly from eyewitnesses.....kind-of like what we have for the crucifiction account?

If you read the story of Jesus as a neutral 3rd party observer, would you view Jesus and his disciples as the "winners" at the time the histories were written?  The man was crucified, his disciples killed, his followers scattered and forced "underground."




bullethead said:


> How about you with your historians?



We each believe what we will.  I have a friend who has a Russian step-son.  They watched the movie "Enemy at the Gates" together.  The scene where the Russians fired on their own people caused the step-son to jump up and shout "ITS NOT TRUE!!!  THATS NOT TRUE!!!"  My friend believed otherwise.




bullethead said:


> Judging by the research I have been doing, I cannot agree that it is true.



I know, man, and I get it.  I just enjoy discussing this stuff with individuals as well read as you are on the subject.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Ok then yes I think some things are eternal



OK, what in post #273 is wrong?

What things exactly do you think are eternal and why does it only apply to those particular physical things and not all physical things?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> In reality, none of the evangelists identifies himself as a character in the gospel story.



Many Bible scholars, well all of the ones who taught the Bible courses I had to take in college, believed John referred to himself often as "the one who Jesus loved."  It could be a literary device used at the time....kind-of like college freshmen referring to themselves as "this author" in papers.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps, but so is much of our understanding of history.  I once read that George Washington had bullet holes in his jacket after battle.  The only "proof" we have is a letter Washington wrote to his brother about it.  Is it true?



Then I'd believe it.

If we had a letter from Jesus stating anything........


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> OK, what in post #273 is wrong?
> 
> What things exactly do you think are eternal and why does it only apply to those particular physical things and not all physical things?



Research atoms


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then I'd believe it.
> 
> If we had a letter from Jesus stating anything........



But we have his words recorded by multiple sources, and multiple accounts, different texts, and then a resulting movement created by the words.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Many Bible scholars, well all of the ones who taught the Bible courses I had to take in college, believed John referred to himself often as "the one who Jesus loved."  It could be a literary device used at the time....kind-of like college freshmen referring to themselves as "this author" in papers.




From;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm

	Liberal theologians generally accept the books of the Bible as historical documents, written by authors who were each motivated by a desire to promote their group's evolving spiritual and theological beliefs. Many have concluded that these two gospel traditions are so different that they must largely reject one as a useful source of information about the actual life and teachings of Jesus. They typically regard John as containing few or none of Jesus' actual sayings; they concentrate on the synoptic gospels for meaningful information. Many supplement the canonical Gospels with other writings which were widely circulated within early Christian movement: the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Q, etc.

For example, R.W. Funk and others in the Jesus Seminar comment:
bullet	"The two pictures painted by John and the synoptic gospels cannot both be historically accurate."
bullet	"In sum, there is virtually nothing of the synoptic sage in the Fourth Gospel. That sage has been displaced by Jesus the revealer who has been sent from God to reveal who the Father is."
bullet	"The words attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are the creation of the evangelist for the most part, and reflect the developed language of John's Christian community." 12
bullet	"The Fellows of the [Jesus] Seminar were unable to find a single saying they could with certainty trace back to Jesus in the Gospel of John."
bullet	They did find one sentence in John that they felt was similar to something that actually Jesus said. It is John 4:44 where Jesus commented that a prophet is given no respect in his home territory. This paralleled in Mark 6:4, Matthew 13:57 and Luke 4:24.
bullet	They did find two short passages that they felt was not said by Jesus but which contained ideas close to his own:
bullet	John 12:24 where Jesus discusses the kernel of wheat that dies to produce a great harvest.
bullet	John 13:20 where Jesus swears to God that if the public welcome his apostles, they are welcoming him as well. This is paralleled in Matthew 10:40 and Luke 10:16.
bullet	They believe that all of the other hundreds of sentences that the author(s) of the Gospel of John attributed to Jesus -- including the "I Am" statements -- were not said by Jesus. They represent "...the perspective or content of a later or different tradition."


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But we have his words recorded by multiple sources, and multiple accounts, different texts, and then a resulting movement created by the words.



Right.
And then you must check the reliability of those sources and then ponder why the Son of God.. the single greatest event in human history....has gone virtually unnoticed.


Read up if you like:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Research atoms



Are you purposly avoiding the post because you don't like what it says? Or perhaps it makes your position a little harder to defend, either way, you're completely avoiding it.

I don't want to research atoms, I could read about them for months I'm sure. For the sake of this discussion, why don't you tell me how atoms could be eternal, then tell me how what I posted in post #273 is wrong.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Right.
> And then you must check the reliability of those sources and then ponder why the Son of God.. the single greatest event in human history....*has gone virtually unnoticed*.
> 
> 
> ...





Research " the greatest selling book of all time"


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Liberal theologians generally accept the books of the Bible as historical documents, written by authors who were each motivated by a desire to promote their group's evolving spiritual and theological beliefs. Many have concluded that these two gospel traditions are so different that they must largely reject one as a useful source of information about the actual life and teachings of Jesus. They typically regard John as containing few or none of Jesus' actual sayings; they concentrate on the synoptic gospels for meaningful information. Many supplement the canonical Gospels with other writings which were widely circulated within early Christian movement: the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Q, etc.
> 
> For example, R.W. Funk and others in the Jesus Seminar comment:
> bullet	"The two pictures painted by John and the synoptic gospels cannot both be historically accurate."
> ...



I guess my professors were not inclusive in the "liberal theologians."

Here's one of them, if you want a person to study from who may have a different perspective:

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/religion/seminary/index.cfm?PID=12834

He has written a ton of books on the OT and NT.  He may give a balance to the items you are considering.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> OK, what in post #273 is wrong?
> 
> What things exactly do you think are eternal and why does it only apply to those particular physical things and not all physical things?



http://education.jlab.org/qa/radelement_03.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I guess my professors were not inclusive in the "liberal theologians."
> 
> Here's one of them, if you want a person to study from who may have a different perspective:
> 
> ...



I'll check Dr. Towns out.

Something to think about.
My son is a teacher at a Catholic Middle School. Despite his personal beliefs he teaches Theology among the other subjects. As part of his job he teaches that subject with the same passion and conviction as all the others.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Research " the greatest selling book of all time"



You cannot convince a non believer that the Bible is a credible source.
I/we have asked repeatedly that you (and anyone else) could prove your point/side/argument outside of the Bible.

Can you understand that your Bible is no more credible than any and every other religions"Bible"? If your argument is that it is in a book then all those other religions are just as true as yours. For the same reasons you do not give those any credibility, "we" do not give yours credibility.
Give us something outside of the Bible.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Something to think about.
> My son is a teacher at a Catholic Middle School. Despite his personal beliefs he teaches Theology among the other subjects. As part of his job he teaches that subject with the same passion and conviction as all the others.



That is quite interesting, and impressive.  Out of curiosity, is the school aware that his personal beliefs differ?  Reason I ask is that most Christian based schools make all faculty, staff, and volunteer sign some sort of a mission statement claiming to believe in a similar manner.  That is why I can't work for or volunteer at many Christian organizations......usually those statements contain something I disagree with.

On another note, I am not really a fan of Dr. Towns.  I disagree with quite a few of his conclusions.   But tossed his name out there as a counter to some you were referencing.....just to illustrate there are two sides to each perspective.  His book "a Journey Through the New Testament" basically dissects the entire NT from a conservative / traditional perspective and is a good read if this stuff interests you....if for nothing else than to have more material to argue with.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are you purposly avoiding the post because you don't like what it says? Or perhaps it makes your position a little harder to defend, either way, you're completely avoiding it.
> 
> I don't want to research atoms, I could read about them for months I'm sure. For the sake of this discussion, why don't you tell me how atoms could be eternal, then tell me how what I posted in post #273 is wrong.



Are you alright?
You asked for me to provide something physical that is eternal and I give you atoms. You won't read up on them so you have no clue how they could be eternal.

Do you want me to counter Willard?
I am not sure that his statement is correct. I'll have to look into it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That is quite interesting, and impressive.  Out of curiosity, is the school aware that his personal beliefs differ?  Reason I ask is that most Christian based schools make all faculty, staff, and volunteer sign some sort of a mission statement claiming to believe in a similar manner.  That is why I can't work for or volunteer at many Christian organizations......usually those statements contain something I disagree with.
> 
> On another note, I am not really a fan of Dr. Towns.  I disagree with quite a few of his conclusions.   But tossed his name out there as a counter to some you were referencing.....just to illustrate there are two sides to each perspective.  His book "a Journey Through the New Testament" basically dissects the entire NT from a conservative / traditional perspective and is a good read if this stuff interests you....if for nothing else than to have more material to argue with.



He graduated from a Catholic grade school and a Catholic High school. It is because he was a good student at each that he teaches where he is now. He does everything necessary to maintain his good standing. He can make a heck of a good argument for either side. Where his line in the sand is drawn lies with him.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Are you alright?
> You asked for me to provide something physical that is eternal and I give you atoms. You won't read up on them so you have no clue how they could be eternal.


You haven't given me anything to conclude atoms were not created, only one of those links provided said that atoms are forever, which does not mean they were not created.

I didn't want to read up on them because there is a ton of stuff to learn about atoms, I just wanted you to point me in the direction of where you learned that atoms were not created or are eternal.



> Do you want me to counter Willard?


Yes, I'm sorry if I have not made that point blatantly obvious.


> I am not sure that his statement is correct. I'll have to look into it.


He made a lot of statements, I'm not sure which one you're talking about. The part I highlighted in red was not the only part of the post that I wanted to make a point with.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You cannot convince a non believer that the Bible is a credible source.
> I/we have asked repeatedly that you (and anyone else) could prove your point/side/argument outside of the Bible.
> 
> Can you understand that your Bible is no more credible than any and every other religions"Bible"? If your argument is that it is in a book then all those other religions are just as true as yours. For the same reasons you do not give those any credibility, "we" do not give yours credibility.
> Give us something outside of the Bible.



I didn't say it was a credible source, although I obviously think it is, I was merely pointing out that Jesus' life has not "gone virtually unnoticed".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You haven't given me anything to conclude atoms were not created, only one of those links provided said that atoms are forever, which does not mean they were not created.
> 
> 
> I didn't want to read up on them because there is a ton of stuff to learn about atoms, I just wanted you to point me in the direction of where you learned that atoms were not created or are eternal.
> ...



Ok. I am trying to indulge both you and JB at the same time about two things that are not related and each requiring a lot of thought.

You and I are getting nowhere because you want me to show you how something was NOT created.

Your only argument is that it had to be created and by YOUR God to boot!

OKAY!
Certain atoms are just like God. Eternal. Whatever reasons that let you think God is eternal are the same ones I am using for certain atoms. If they need a creator so does your God.
When you can figure that out let us all know.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I didn't say it was a credible source, although I obviously think it is, I was merely pointing out that Jesus' life has not "gone virtually unnoticed".



Then show me, OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE, where else it is recorded.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Ok. I am trying to indulge both you and JB at the same time about two things that are not related and each requiring a lot of thought.
> 
> You and I are getting nowhere because you want me to show you how something was NOT created.


I want you to show me how something physical can be eternal then tell me were post #273 went wrong.



> Your only argument is that it had to be created and by YOUR God to boot!


We haven't got that far yet, I want to take this one step at a time.



> OKAY!
> Certain atoms are just like God. Eternal. Whatever reasons that let you think God is eternal are the same ones I am using for certain atoms. If they need a creator so does your God.
> When you can figure that out let us all know.



I think that a non-physcial self sustaining being is the logical conclusion to this universe because the physical world is not eternal. Atoms are physical, therfore created. I have given reasonable evidence as to why I think this and you have not refuted it.

I just figured it out and let you know.

Now, are you still stuck on the fact that some atoms are eternal? If so, please provide some evidence that they are, just know in doing so, you will at some point have to refute post #273. If you are willing to admit that the physical world around us was at some point created, and therefor not eternal, we can go from there.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then show me, OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE, where else it is recorded.



I don't want to get into two different discussions on the same thread. I will say, I don't know why it has to be outside of the Bible to be credible, you accept many things from history that in and of itself is the only evidence for whatever it is.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't want to get into two different discussions on the same thread. I will say, I don't know why it has to be outside of the Bible to be credible, you accept many things from history that in and of itself is the only evidence for whatever it is.



Because the Bible is not really all that credible. It has been proven not to be credible and shown in these forums hundreds of times. The religious authorities do not consider the Bible to be a history book. Therefore we have to look somewhere else.
It is a tough task so I understand why you don't want to do it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I want you to show me how something physical can be eternal then tell me were post #273 went wrong.



D.Willard did not consider Light Photons



stringmusic said:


> I think that a non-physcial self sustaining being is the logical conclusion to this universe because the physical world is not eternal. Atoms are physical, therfore created. I have given reasonable evidence as to why I think this and you have not refuted it.
> 
> I just figured it out and let you know.


You start by saying "I THINK" and then tell me it is reasonable evidence.
I have refuted it much earlier in the thread in post #248

And now here in an excerpt from:
Eternal, "Cyclical Universe" - Evidence Of Activity Before Big Bang
Have scientists seen evidence of time before the Big Bang, and perhaps a verification of the idea of the cyclical universe? One of the great physicists of our time, Roger Penrose from the University of Oxford, has published a new paper saying that the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that space and time perhaps did not originate at the Big Bang but that our universe continually cycles through a series of “aeons,” and we have an eternal, cyclical cosmos. His paper also refutes the idea of inflation, a widely accepted theory of a period of very rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang.

Penrose says that inflation cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was thought to have been created. He and his co-author do not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, but instead, that event was just one in a series of many. Each “Big Bang” marked the start of a new aeon, and our universe is just one of many in a cyclical Universe, starting a new universe in place of the one before




stringmusic said:


> Now, are you still stuck on the fact that some atoms are eternal? If so, please provide some evidence that they are, just know in doing so, you will at some point have to refute post #273. If you are willing to admit that the physical world around us was at some point created, and therefor not eternal, we can go from there.


See post #248


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

I thought I remembered you bringing this up once before.
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=675195&page=2


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 25, 2012)

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  Therefore matter is eternal.   All physical is matter, therefore all physical is eternal.  Thats how I understood it anyways.  

Say bullet you a big fan of "Through the Wormhole"? I love that show.  I can only watch 1 episode a day before it makes my head try to explode.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I want you to show me how something physical can be eternal then tell me were post #273 went wrong.



This says it better than I can:
From:
http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2009/04/dallas-willard-on-absurdity-of-self.html
This is a longish post, but I would appreciate comments from those who have the patience to work through it. BTW, job responsibilities prevent me from getting into an endless loop of replies and counter-replies with respondents, so, if I fail to respond to all your messages, please do not feel that I am ignoring you or not appreciative of the feedback. The quotes from Willard are from Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology, edited by R. Douglas Geivett and Brendan Sweetman, OUP, 1992. The quote from Le Poidevin is from his Arguing for Atheism, Routledge, 1996.

Christian philosopher Dallas Willard ridicules atheists for their purported attachment to what he calls “big bang mysticism,” that puts the big bang in the position of God as the creator ex nihilo (Willard, 1992, p. 215). He then claims to offer a demonstration of the existence of something that is self-existent and nonphysical and is required by the existence of any physical event (213).

Consider any particular event in the physical cosmos, say the Voyager II spacecraft’s journey beyond Neptune’s moon Triton. The chain of causes leading to this event will stretch back into the distant past, but cannot go on ad infinitum and must ultimately end with an uncaused cause, something which does not derive its existence from something else:

    "If this were not so, Voyager’s passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, an incompleteable series of events. In simplest terms its series of causes would never 'get to' it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before domino x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it). Since Voyager II is past Triton, there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it. Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent…It is demonstrably absurd that there should be a self-sufficient physical universe (213-214)."

Willard therefore believes that he has proven that the postulation of a self-sufficient physical universe is wrong, indeed, absurd, and that there must exist a nonphysical, self-existent being.

But if we define “self-existent” as Willard does, as something that does not derive its existence from something else, then why cannot the physical universe itself, or at least its primordial state, be the self-existent entity? Where is the purported absurdity? The specific nature of physical things, Willard tells us, is to be dependent (and, therefore, not self-existent) (215). What justifies this assertion? Here is what Willard says:

    "There are, after all, general laws about how every type of physical state comes about. If we keep clearly before our minds that any “something” which comes into existence (including a however big 'bang') will always be a completely specific type of thing, then we will see that for that 'something' to originate from nothing would be to violate the system of laws which governs the origination of things of its type. To suppose that an apple, for example, could come into existence without any prior states upon which it depends for its existence, is to simply reject all the laws we know to hold true of apple production. They are no longer laws. And it is not a matter of finding further conditions under which apple-laws apply, for the hypothesis is one of no conditions whatsoever (216)."

But Willard here is not merely comparing apples to oranges, but apples to universes. If someone says that an apple exists uncaused, this would be absurd. Why? Because we are familiar with apples and the causes and regularities that account for their production. We have a good understanding of the botanical facts underlying apple generation as well and the chemical laws and processes that underlie those facts. We never experience apples materializing out of empty space, or, indeed, coming about in any other way than by growing on apple trees. Our common-sense expectations about things (like apples) coming into or going out of existence are based entirely upon our experience within the space/time universe with all its conservation and causal laws in force. What about the origin of the space/time universe itself? We know what to expect given the laws of nature, but what about the origin of those laws themselves? Willard complains (215) that current discussions of the big bang treat it as different from any other bang we know about. Well it was. An ordinary explosion involves a rapid expansion of material into the surrounding space, space that is already there. The big bang was not an expansion into anything, but the primordial eruption of space itself. There is a time before and after an ordinary explosion. There is a time after the big bang, but none before; it was the beginning of time. If the physics of the 20th Century has taught us anything, it is that our common-sense intuitions need not—indeed, will not—apply in many of the extreme situations (like the origin of the universe) that can, nevertheless, be coherently conceptualized by physical theory. Personally, I have no intuitions at all about the origin of space-time, and if I did I would not trust them.

Still, says Willard, even if we set aside our intuitions, we have no experience at all of a physical state or event coming into existence uncaused and “from nothing,” therefore, the probability that this will occur, relative to our data, is zero (216). He sarcastically dismisses the idea that a physical event or state can exist uncaused and “from nothing”:

    "And if anyone has observed such a thing, I am sure that our leading scientific journals and societies would like very much to hear about it. In fact, the idea is an entirely ad hoc hypothesis whose only 'merit' is the avoidance is avoidance of admission of a self-existent being—which it achieves precisely by claiming an entity of a type which in every other case is admitted to be dependent; to be, 'just this once,' itself self-subsistent (216)."

Three things should be said in reply:

First, if, in fact, the probability relative to the data that something physical could exist uncaused and “from nothing” is zero, precisely the same has to be said about our evidence on data about a nonphysical, self-existent being bringing physical events or states into existence. I doubt that our leading scientific journals and societies would very much like to hear about the creative activities of alleged nonphysical entities. Thanks to the puerile fantasies of creationists and paranormalists, we have all heard such tales too many times before. Where are the data about nonphysical entities (self-existent or not)—ghosts, spirits, demons, angels, cherubim, seraphim, jinn, Manitou, gods, etc.—causing physical events or occurrences? Willard sententiously advises us to keep an open mind about the possibility of such events, but possibility is not reality, and the burden of proof is on him. By the way, when it comes to direct observational evidence about the origin of universes, atheists weren’t there, but neither were theists, so when it comes to such evidence we all have the same amount: zero.

Second, Willard tells us that the postulation of a physical uncaused cause of the universe would violate “…the system of laws which governs the origination of things of its type (216).” But what type of thing was the big bang and what antecedent “system of laws” governed its origination? Again, Willard fails to appreciate the distinct kinds of problems faced by a putative account of the origin of everything, including the laws of nature themselves. As Robin Le Poidevin notes, where we have no laws, we can have no causes:

    "A world in which there can be causal explanation is not a chaotic world; it is a world tightly constrained by the laws of nature. Causal generalizations are simply reflections of these laws; that is, they are true because of the existence of fundamental laws. Causal, explanation, then, takes place against a background of laws. But when we come to the explanation of the universe as a whole, part of what we are required to explain is the existence of the laws themselves. We cannot therefore help ourselves to any laws in order to explain the existence of the universe. Consequently, the explanation of the universe cannot take place against a background of laws. But, since causal explanation requires such a background, there can be no causal explanation of the universe (Le Poidevin, 37)."

Of course, some cosmologists do propose explanations of the big bang in terms of more fundamental entities and processes: fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, superstrings, the collision of “branes,” or whatever, but these explanations invoke other physical entities and other natural laws, which are in turn left unexplained.

Perhaps Willard would object that Le Poidevin begs the question. Of course physical causation needs laws, but the theist postulates supernatural causation: God just says “FIAT LUX!” and there is light! God’s creative act is a supernatural “basic action” that admits of no further explication; the only “law” operative here is that if God wills it, it happens. But in shedding dependence on physical law, such purported supernatural causation also sheds intelligibility. Willard’s causal “account” now appears to be that the universe came into existence when a timeless, nonphysical being wielding miraculous, occult powers in an inscrutable and incomprehensible manner—and for reasons we can only dimly grasp—willed (timelessly) the universe into being. Precisely how is such a causal “account” rationally superior to seeing the primordial state of the universe as uncaused?

Third, and finally, much of the apparent power of Willard’s case is merely rhetorical, arising from the seeming absurdity of saying that something could come from nothing. He adverts again and again to alleged assertions by atheists that the universe came “from nothing.” If this is what atheists are saying, then they look silly because we all supposedly know that ex nihilo nihil fit. Willard quotes the editors of the Time-Life book The Cosmos who say that the universe “popped out of the void (216).” Isn’t it simply absurd to think that a whole universe could just spontaneously “pop” out of nothingness? But if by “nothing” we mean literally nothing at all—not even empty space or the vacuum state that physicists talk about, but literally nothing at all—then the statement "out of nothing comes nothing" derives its apparent force from bad grammar. To say that the universe came into existence “from nothing,” seems to be saying that there once was a something—which we call by the name of "nothing"—that existed prior to the universe and from which the universe was somehow generated. But "nothing," in the sense of nothing at all, does not name or refer to anything, not even emptiness. If we mean “nothing” in this sense, then there was no "nothing” for the universe to “pop” out of. If there is no “nothing,” then there is no question of how something could have come out of that “nothing.” Only those who illicitly reify nothing, turning it into a mysterious something, will be troubled by the pseudo-mystery of how that “nothing” could have generated the universe. If atheists carefully refuse to reify “nothing,” and insist that all that they are saying is that there wasn’t anything at all prior to or preceding the universe, then they can simply defy Willard to show any absurdity in their statement.

The upshot is that big bang cosmology makes atheism more plausible by showing how the origin of the universe can be explained in purely scientific, naturalistic terms, and the efforts of theists such as Willard to show that these accounts must be inadequate appear to be wasted.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  Therefore matter is eternal.   All physical is matter, therefore all physical is eternal.  Thats how I understood it anyways.
> 
> Say bullet you a big fan of "Through the Wormhole"? I love that show.  I can only watch 1 episode a day before it makes my head try to explode.



I don't get to see it as often as I would like but Morgan Freeman is the perfect host for it. My brain burns after watching some of those episodes.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I want you to show me how something physical can be eternal then tell me were post #273 went wrong.



String,
Posts #307 and #310.
Any thoughts?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> D.Willard did not consider Light Photons


Have they existed forever or something?




> And now here in an excerpt from:
> Eternal, "Cyclical Universe" - Evidence Of Activity Before Big Bang
> Have scientists seen evidence of time before the Big Bang, and perhaps a verification of the idea of the cyclical universe? One of the great physicists of our time, Roger Penrose from the University of Oxford, has published a new paper saying that the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that space and time perhaps did not originate at the Big Bang but that our universe continually cycles through a series of “aeons,” and we have an eternal, cyclical cosmos. His paper also refutes the idea of inflation, a widely accepted theory of a period of very rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang.
> 
> Penrose says that inflation cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was thought to have been created. He and his co-author do not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, but instead, that event was just one in a series of many. Each “Big Bang” marked the start of a new aeon, and our universe is just one of many in a cyclical Universe, starting a new universe in place of the one before


You still have the problem of matter being created at some point. Also, see JABBO's thread and the article linked in it, a lot of physicists still don't agree with Mr. Penrose.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> But if we define “self-existent” as Willard does, as something that does not derive its existence from something else, then why cannot the physical universe itself, or at least its primordial state, be the self-existent entity?


Matter created itself huh? Where did the matter come from that created itself. You still have the same problem of what and where matter was created.


> Where is the purported absurdity?


See above, it is absurd and illogical.



> The specific nature of physical things, Willard tells us, is to be dependent (and, therefore, not self-existent) (215). *What justifies this assertion*? Here is what Willard says:


Matter doesn't create itself, from nothing, as Willard explains below.



> * "There are, after all, general laws about how every type of physical state comes about*. If we keep clearly before our minds that any “something” which comes into existence (including a however big 'bang') will always be a completely specific type of thing, then we will see that for that 'something' to originate from nothing would be to violate the system of laws which governs the origination of things of its type. To suppose that an apple, for example, could come into existence without any prior states upon which it depends for its existence, is to simply reject all the laws we know to hold true of apple production. They are no longer laws. And it is not a matter of finding further conditions under which apple-laws apply, for the hypothesis is one of no conditions whatsoever (216)."





> But Willard here is not merely comparing apples to oranges, but apples to universes. If someone says that an apple exists uncaused, this would be absurd. Why? Because we are familiar with apples and the causes and regularities that account for their production. We have a good understanding of the botanical facts underlying apple generation as well and the chemical laws and processes that underlie those facts. We never experience apples materializing out of empty space, or, indeed, coming about in any other way than by growing on apple trees. Our common-sense expectations about things (like apples) coming into or going out of existence are based entirely upon our experience within the space/time universe with all its conservation and causal laws in force. What about the origin of the space/time universe itself?


Here he asks a question " If someone says an apple exist uncaused, this would be ubsurd, why?" Then goes on to answer his own question and by answering his own question refutes his above argument that somehow matter created itself. He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.



> We know what to expect given the laws of nature, but what about the origin of those laws themselves? Willard complains (215) that current discussions of the big bang treat it as different from any other bang we know about. Well it was. An ordinary explosion involves a rapid expansion of material into the surrounding space, space that is already there. The big bang was not an expansion into anything, but the primordial eruption of space itself. There is a time before and after an ordinary explosion. There is a time after the big bang, but none before; it was the beginning of time. If the physics of the 20th Century has taught us anything, it is that our common-sense intuitions need not—indeed, will not—apply in many of the extreme situations (like the origin of the universe) that can, nevertheless, be coherently conceptualized by physical theory. *Personally, I have no intuitions at all about the origin of space-time, and if I did I would not trust them*.


Then what the heck are you doing refuting Mr. Willard's article?




> if, in fact, the probability relative to the data that something physical could exist uncaused and “from nothing” is zero, precisely the same has to be said about our evidence on data about a nonphysical, self-existent being bringing physical events or states into existence.


Here he is basically saying that we can't see God, so He didn't create the physical world, but, if we follow the train of logic demonstrated by Willard's article, God is the only logical outcome.




> Second, Willard tells us that the postulation of a physical uncaused cause of the universe would violate “…the system of laws which governs the origination of things of its type (216).” But what type of thing was the big bang and what antecedent “system of laws” governed its origination? Again, Willard fails to appreciate the distinct kinds of problems faced by a putative account of the origin of everything, including the laws of nature themselves. As Robin Le Poidevin notes, where we have no laws, we can have no causes:


This is a straw man, Willard is not arguing for the big bang theory.




> Perhaps Willard would object that Le Poidevin begs the question. Of course physical causation needs laws, but the theist postulates supernatural causation: God just says “FIAT LUX!” and there is light! God’s creative act is a supernatural “basic action” that admits of no further explication; the only “law” operative here is that if God wills it, it happens. But in shedding dependence on physical law, such purported supernatural causation also sheds intelligibility. Willard’s causal “account” now appears to be that the universe came into existence when a timeless, nonphysical being wielding miraculous, occult powers in an inscrutable and incomprehensible manner—and for reasons we can only dimly grasp—willed (timelessly) the universe into being. Precisely how is such a causal “account” rationally superior to seeing the primordial state of the universe as uncaused?


This is basically like a child crying out "God can't really do that!" "Wielding meiraculous, occult powers in an insrutable and incomprehensible manner", take a second and think, if God were real, could he create the universe?



> Third, and finally, much of the apparent power of Willard’s case is merely rhetorical, arising from the seeming absurdity of saying that something could come from nothing. He adverts again and again to alleged assertions by atheists that the universe came “from nothing.” If this is what atheists are saying, then they look silly because we all supposedly know that ex nihilo nihil fit. Willard quotes the editors of the Time-Life book The Cosmos who say that the universe “popped out of the void (216).” Isn’t it simply absurd to think that a whole universe could just spontaneously “pop” out of nothingness? But if by “nothing” we mean literally nothing at all—not even empty space or the vacuum state that physicists talk about, but literally nothing at all—then the statement "out of nothing comes nothing" derives its apparent force from bad grammar. To say that the universe came into existence “from nothing,” seems to be saying that there once was a something—which we call by the name of "nothing"—that existed prior to the universe and from which the universe was somehow generated. But "nothing," in the sense of nothing at all, does not name or refer to anything, not even emptiness. If we mean “nothing” in this sense, then there was no "nothing” for the universe to “pop” out of. If there is no “nothing,” then there is no question of how something could have come out of that “nothing.” Only those who illicitly reify nothing, turning it into a mysterious something, will be troubled by the pseudo-mystery of how that “nothing” could have generated the universe. If atheists carefully refuse to reify “nothing,” and insist that all that they are saying is that there wasn’t anything at all prior to or preceding the universe, then they can simply defy Willard to show any absurdity in their statement.


This is just jibberish.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Have they existed forever or something?
> 
> 
> 
> You still have the problem of matter being created at some point. Also, see JABBO's thread and the article linked in it, a lot of physicists still don't agree with Mr. Penrose.



I would say that when comparing problems, the guy claiming that the creator of everything from absolutely nothing is an eternal being that no one has ever seen, has never been proven to have created anything, just happens to be THE god they worship and no other god, has never been proven to exist and can only exist by making up wild stories that go against the very facts you hold everyone elses argument to......has the bigger burden of proof on his hands. Constantly referring to Willard's flawed article does nothing to help your argument. It just does not show
 anything about a god, let alone the god of the Bible.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would say that when comparing problems, the guy claiming that the creator of everything from absolutely nothing is an eternal being that no one has ever seen, has never been proven to have created anything, just happens to be THE god they worship and no other god, has never been proven to exist and can only exist by making up wild stories that go against the very facts you hold everyone elses argument to......has the bigger burden of proof on his hands. Constantly referring to Willard's flawed article does nothing to help your argument. *It just does not show
> anything about a god*, let alone the god of the Bible.



Because you won't let it Bullet, you've made up your mind from the beginning, just like I have. You read and I've read, and we have come to different conclusions, I choose to put my faith in God and you choose to put your faith in whatever you put your faith in. This is actually the gist of Pascals wadger, we are both happy about where we put our faith, I just get more out of what I put my faith in.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would say that when comparing problems, the guy claiming that the creator of everything from absolutely nothing is an eternal being that no one has ever seen, has never been proven to have created anything, just happens to be THE god they worship and no other god, has never been proven to exist and can only exist by making up wild stories that go against the very facts you hold everyone elses argument to......has the bigger burden of proof on his hands. Constantly referring to Willard's flawed article does nothing to help your argument. It just does not show
> anything about a god, let alone the god of the Bible.


I would say that when comparing problems, the guy claiming that the creator of everything from absolutely nothing is* nothing*, has never been proven to have created anything, just happens to be THE *nothing* they worship, *the theory that something comes from nothing *has never been proven to exist and can only exist by making up wild stories that go against the very facts you hold everyone elses argument to......has the bigger burden of proof on his hands. 

Just a couple little changes and that post doesn't sound as good does it?


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 27, 2012)

String see post 309.  Its called the law of conservation of mass.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> String see post 309.  Its called the law of conservation of mass.



Matter can neither be created nor destroyed..... by humans, or by the laws which govern our universe as it is. There is no such thing as the completion of infinity, which would have to be the case if the physcial world were eternal.

 See the quoted part of Willards article and my part of post #273.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Matter can neither be created nor destroyed..... by humans, or by the laws which govern our universe as it is. There is no such thing as the completion of infinity, which would have to be the case if the physcial world were eternal.
> 
> See the quoted part of Willards article and my part of post #273.



Nor can it be created or destroyed by nature sring.  I challenge you to name one instance.

I read and re-read post 273 and disagree.  Willard is assuming the physical is not eternal. Saying in order for there to be an "b" there has to be an "a" and that "a" has to be created from nothing by a creator.  I disagree.  Becuase it just complicates the the problem.  To me "a" comes from "z" which came from "Y" which comes from "x".  An infinite loop so to speak, and eternal. It is much easier to say the physical is eternal.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Nor can it be created or destroyed by nature sring.  I challenge you to name one instance.
> 
> I read and re-read post 273 and disagree.  Willard is assuming the physical is not eternal. Saying in order for there to be an "b" there has to be an "a" and that "a" has to be created from nothing by a creator.  I disagree.  Becuase it just complicates the the problem.  To me "a" comes from "z" which came from "Y" which comes from "x".  An infinite loop so to speak, and eternal. It is much easier to say the physical is eternal.



You can't just decide that "a" comes from "z", it doesn't work that way, for there to be a here and now, "a" can't come from "z" because that would complete an infinite string of causes. I understand that it is much easier to say the physical is eternal but it just isn't true.

He doesn't simply assume that the physical world is not eternal, he gives an articulate and logical argument for it be created.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Nor can it be created or destroyed by nature sring.  I challenge you to name one instance.


I understand, thats why this was in my post....



stringmusic said:


> Matter can neither be created nor destroyed..... by humans, *or by the laws which govern our universe as it is*.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You can't just decide that "a" comes from "z", it doesn't work that way, for there to be a here and now, "a" can't come from "z" because that would complete an infinite string of causes. I understand that it is much easier to say the physical is eternal but it just isn't true.
> 
> Show me how it isn't true.  If matter cannot be created nor destroyed it is infinite and eternal.
> 
> He doesn't simply assume that the physical world is not eternal, he gives an articulate and logical argument for it be created.



An articulate and logical argument that is wrong.  You or willard has yet to demonstrate why or how the physical is not eternal.  Simply saying it isn't doesn't make it so.  The laws of the universe as we know it, like you put it says, they are.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Show me how it isn't true. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed it is infinite and eternal.


I don't know if your not reading this, or if you simply don't understand it. Pay careful attention to the parts in red.


> "*One of these is as follows: However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself.*
> 
> This, I submit, is something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world, and of course anyone should feel free to submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true.
> 
> ...





stringmusic said:


> This is pretty incriminating evidence that the physical world around us is not eternal. If we start from the beginning, without anything being created, we will never get to the physical world that we can walk outside and see because an infinate number of causes would have to happen in order for there to be anything physical, which we know is illogical and impossible.






TheBishop said:


> An articulate and logical argument that is wrong.  You or willard has yet to demonstrate why or how the physical is not eternal.  Simply saying it isn't doesn't make it so.  The laws of the universe as we know it, like you put it says, they are.



Read the whole post, not just the parts in red. It is clearly demonstrated why and how the physical is not eternal. Neither Willard or myself are "simply saying it".


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 27, 2012)

Again read it, re-read it, and the read it again just to make sure.  I feel the author is reaching in order to make a weak case.  He fails.  There is nothing that states something has to have a first cause.  Your author does but that does not mean he is right.  Yes you are simply saying it, and not demonstrating it in any capacity.  Nor can you.  I understand his argument. It is entirely based off assumptions that might not be true, and more than likely are not.  

Secondly Willard has to "insert" god rather let the argument from  his erroneous assumptions conclude with god being a cuase.  This to me is problematic, becuase you could "insert" anything that you wanted and end up with the same result.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Again read it, re-read it, and the read it again just to make sure.  I feel the author is reaching in order to make a weak case.  He fails.  There is nothing that states something has to have a first cause.  Your author does but that does not mean he is right.  Yes you are simply saying it, and not demonstrating it in any capacity.  Nor can you.  I understand his argument. It is entirely based off assumptions that might not be true, and more than likely are not.


Can you tell me exacltly where his logic fails? Could you also point out his assuptions for me?  



> Secondly Willard has to "insert" god rather let the argument from  his erroneous assumptions conclude with god being a cuase.  This to me is problematic, becuase you could "insert" anything that you wanted and end up with the same result.


This little excerpt from the article is not arguing for any specific god, it is only stage one of the argument and only shows there is a need for a non physical self existent being in order for the physical world around us to exist.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Can you tell me exacltly where his logic fails? Could you also point out his assuptions for me?
> 
> 
> This little excerpt from the article is not arguing for any specific god, it is only stage one of the argument and only shows there is a need for a non physical self existent being in order for the physical world around us to exist.



His logic fails becuase he starts with false assumptions.

1. A first cuase is needed 

2. Physical cannot be eternal.

And I would argue (but I'm no physicist) that as long as energy and matter are eternal there is no need to insert magic.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I would say that when comparing problems, the guy claiming that the creator of everything from absolutely nothing is* nothing*, has never been proven to have created anything, just happens to be THE *nothing* they worship, *the theory that something comes from nothing *has never been proven to exist and can only exist by making up wild stories that go against the very facts you hold everyone elses argument to......has the bigger burden of proof on his hands.
> 
> Just a couple little changes and that post doesn't sound as good does it?



Well no it doesn't sound as good. That is why I worded it as I did.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> His logic fails becuase he starts with false assumptions.






> 1. A first cuase is needed
> 
> 2. Physical cannot be eternal.


He gives clear arguments for both, he doesn't simply write " A first cause is needed and the physical cannot be eternal", he completely explains both. I don't understand how you can say these two things are assumptions? It doesn't make any sense, they are both clearly explained, if you cannot argue against them, either accept the argument, or find a way to argue against them, don't just simply say that he is assuming when he clearly is not.



> And I would argue (but I'm no physicist) that as long as energy and matter are eternal there is no need to insert magic.



I would agree with that statement is matter was eternal, but it's not, and you cannot, or at least are not, arguing in the other direction. You are making claims that are not true about an article you can't get around logically.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well no it doesn't sound as good. That is why I worded it as I did.


The point was, your post could be used on the other side of the argument with just a few words changed.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The point was, your post could be used on the other side of the argument with just a few words changed.



Your version is about nothing coming from nothing and in reality you,I or anyone has no idea if the universe is part of a multiverse, is reoccurring, is eternal, is made up of matter that is eternal and was started by that matter or any one of a hundred possible scenarios.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> He gives clear arguments for both, he doesn't simply write " A first cause is needed and the physical cannot be eternal", he completely explains both. I don't understand how you can say these two things are assumptions? It doesn't make any sense, they are both clearly explained, if you cannot argue against them, either accept the argument, or find a way to argue against them, don't just simply say that he is assuming when he clearly is not.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with that statement is matter was eternal, but it's not, and you cannot, or at least are not, arguing in the other direction. You are making claims that are not true about an article you can't get around logically.



I would say they both clearly rationalized but explained, no.  I believe becuase he is attempting, like you, to force god to be a part of something, unessarily, he uses his rationalizions very well to make a good argument.  I disagree heavily with his thought process.  It is too linear.
There is no first cause but rather a infinite loop of causes.    See bullets post #248.  It answers everything alot better than I can.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Your version is about nothing coming from nothing and in reality you,I or anyone has no idea if the universe is part of a multiverse, is reoccurring, is eternal, is made up of matter that is eternal and was started by that matter or any one of a hundred possible scenarios.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I would say they both clearly rationalized but explained, no.  I believe becuase he is attempting, like you, to force god to be a part of something, unessarily, he uses his rationalizions very well to make a good argument.  I disagree heavily with his thought process.  It is too linear.
> *There is no first cause but rather a infinite loop of causes*.    See bullets post #248.  It answers everything alot better than I can.



Willard explains clearly that is not the case, I don't understand why you keep saying it. And again, there is no god being forced here, this is the first stage in an argument, this is simply positing a non physical, eternal, self sustaining being.

If I remember correctly you believe a being or a god is where humans derive our morals from, why are you so against a being creating the universe?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> *Your version is about nothing coming from nothing* and in reality you,I or anyone has no idea if the universe is part of a multiverse, is reoccurring, is eternal, is made up of matter that is eternal and was started by that matter or any one of a hundred possible scenarios.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Willard explains clearly that is not the case, I don't understand why you keep saying it. And again, there is no god being forced here, this is the first stage in an argument, this is simply positing a non physical, eternal, self sustaining being.
> 
> If I remember correctly you believe a being or a god is where humans derive our morals from, why are you so against a being creating the universe?



Willard Willard Willard Willard....... String, you buy into it. We do not. Willard has quite a few papers and he mentions much of the same stuff in a few of them. If any of it was sensible or credible, he would have set the irrefutable standard years ago. He did not and does not. His 3 stages are filled with assertions by him. It is filled with deductive reasoning that can point to any number of made up, invisible, man made gods throughout history. Anyone that reads his stuff and buys into it can vision their God as exactly who he is making an argument for. He shows no proof of anything and just leads a reader down the path he paves. Some march along right behind him and others blaze their own trails. No matter how many times you mention his name or copy/paste snippets of his works we don't buy into it. Through all of his talented writings and thoughtful points he merely provides some food for thought for those that are already convinced but does not actually prove anything to those looking for solid answers.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 27, 2012)

I thought about this from a different angle today.  

Fact:  People around the world believe in a creator
Fact:  People around the word have no actual evidence of a creator.
Fact:  People create things.
Fact:  There are things that exist that people don't know how
they came to be.

It seems to me that what is really happening is that people project their ego onto the idea of a "super themselves".  The leap seems pretty natural to me.  If I can shape a piece of mud into a mound then if there were a "super" version of me he could shape the mud into a mountain.   What Willard is really saying is that he respects natural law; "this" has to happen before "this".  He probably applies it to most everything he does.  But he makes an exception.   Why?  Because he's stupid, just like the rest of us.  We're still cavemen fumbling around in the wilderness, killing each other over a piece of desert.  What will lift us out of this condition?  I suspect knowledge and a desire to try to understand how things REALLY work.  When people can humbly admit that they don't know how this stuff works but they are willing to work together to try and figure it out, casting aside all the baggage that comes with having been exposed to unfounded notions asserted with fearful conviction as the truth, we will be moving in the right direction.

What is Willard afraid of?


----------



## Asath (Jun 27, 2012)

“What is Willard afraid of?”

Couldn’t answer that, really, without engaging in exactly the same type of speculation he fuels.

In general though, the fear of all of those who propose and defend theistic answers is that they will lose their free-ride.  Making a very, very comfortable living without ever having to produce anything at all except fear and doubt has always been the stock-in-trade of those in the pulpit.  The moment that fear and doubt and irrational superstition is replaced by actual answers the bullying class is in crisis.  

It is much more difficult in modern times to simply kill or exile or shun people who doubt your beliefs, and that has become a problem for believers, who have reacted now, with their backs against the wall, with increasing radicalism.  What has put their backs against the wall is science, which is now so very specialized and complicated that they don’t understand it anymore, and this is the odd part – if something is so mysterious, complicated, and outside of your own personal education that you are afraid of it and thus doubt it automatically, then what possible logic is there in replacing THAT fear with something that is not only mysterious, complicated, and outside your education but also invisible, imaginary, and impossible?  Is it simply because they can totally control their own definition of the latter, while the former eludes their attempts to force it to conform to their own thoughts?

The idea of God lets everybody play.  Each person’s God is whatever they want it to be, or need it to be, or wish it were.  Rather than their God being in control of THEM, they are in control of their God – setting the limits and definitions and parameters and requirements to suit themselves, one exhaustively wordy denomination at a time.  Pure fact – science – doesn’t allow such control or allow truth to be malleable depending on the observer.  It just is.

So look at it this way – the idea of God took hold initially, and continues to obtain, due to the collective fear of the unknown, and the need to find an explanation and a comfort in it.  There are far fewer unknowns at this point in history, but science has progressed to the point that most understand the benefits, and enjoy them, but for most the machinations of it are just as unknown as the fears that turned them to a God in the first place.  Of course they are afraid of science – just as they ‘Fear’ their God – it represents something they will never be able to understand.  

The idea of God, at least, has the advantage of being compact, contained in a single handy and portable manual, and is easily explained by nearly anyone you give money to in exchange for their explication.  Science is much more fearsome, requiring actual learning from multiple sources, a comprehensive multi-disciplinary overview of a huge number of very difficult and ever-advancing specialties, and the ridiculously heavy burden of providing actual, independent, verifiable proof.  

Science is hard.  God is easy.  Thinking, and learning, and understanding, and having long-held traditional ideas tossed onto the scrap-heap in the process is what they are afraid of.  Belief doesn’t require dedication or courage or much in the way of work – you need only say something like, “ I BELIEVE!” and you’re off the hook, for life.  Everyone else gets to do the heavy lifting for you from there on out, and you need only be a thorn on their side, doubting and demanding and vilifying rather than actually contributing to the progress you enjoy at the same time.  Nice work if you can get it . . .


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> “What is Willard afraid of?”
> 
> Couldn’t answer that, really, without engaging in exactly the same type of speculation he fuels.
> 
> ...



The hard part is that they're not all villainous, money grubbing manipulators.  Some of them are poor old grannies or machinists with more immediate concerns than what is new in science.  Or maybe they are like my own beloved mother who says "I'm tired of trying to figure this stuff out."  I'm at the point where I feel it might be too much to expect that they keep asking the hard questions as opposed to "laying it at the foot of the cross".   


Problem is that they vote.


----------



## JABBO (Jun 28, 2012)

You guessed it....  Another great post!!! 



Asath said:


> “What is Willard afraid of?”
> 
> Couldn’t answer that, really, without engaging in exactly the same type of speculation he fuels.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Willard explains clearly that is not the case, I don't understand why you keep saying it. And again, there is no god being forced here, this is the first stage in an argument, this is simply positing a non physical, eternal, self sustaining being.
> 
> If I remember correctly you believe a being or a god is where humans derive our morals from, why are you so against a being creating the universe?



You do not remember correctly.  Being is a word I never used.  And I'm not agianst it.  I just don't see it as a logical possibility, especially the one you are reffering too.  The god of the bible, to me, contradicts all that is logical.  Is there a god? Possibly.  But I am certain that it is not the one in the book assembled by those in power, to keep and maintain their power, using fear and the ignorance of the masses to do so. 
  I do not beleive in a god persay, but I will say, in all my research there does seem to be a connection between everything.  When I say everything, I mean everything. A cosmic force(s), of some sort.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Jun 28, 2012)

Way to go Thebishop. well put!!!!


----------



## Asath (Jun 28, 2012)

“The hard part is that they're not all villainous, money grubbing manipulators.”

Agreed, and I’m sorry if I came across as that harsh – While I blame the entire phenomenon on the manipulators, I recognize that the vast majority of the ‘believers’ are counted among the manipulated.  They don’t believe simply because they have thought about it – they believe because they have been told to do so from the moment of birth, and had their life defined by the option of pleasing the elders or being punished for failing to do so.  The followers themselves are not villains – merely manipulated fools – the genuine blame falls on the manipulators, who make their living and wield their ‘power’ entirely on the strength of their words--  lacking proof, demonstration, or even the courtesy of honest answers.  

And also agreed, that after a lifetime of being battered by the manipulators, most simply capitulate, and throw in the towel – who are THEY, after all (they’ve been told all their lives) to doubt the endless lecturing they’ve been subjected to?  But understanding WHY people do stupid things is a far reach away from ratifying those things as no longer stupid.  

THAT people adhere by the hundreds of millions to the unexamined irrationality placed in their laps as children is undisputed.  WHY they do so, once grown into thoughtful adults, is a fair question to ask each of them directly.  

I similarly have little hope that most of them will ask, or even examine, the hard questions, since they are continually shouted down when they try, or conversely, shout down the questioner.  But just as science is constructed one brick at a time, irrational thought is dismantled the same way.  Each proof that has accrued throughout history has removed yet another prop that had formerly been relied upon by Belief.  The reactions of the Believers to actual truth has always been violent denial, and has always ended in blood – but they have always lost in the end, and continue that retreat.  Strength in numbers is no defense against demonstrated reality.  One man who is right (insert your favorite here, be it Copernicus, Galileo, Bohr, Einstein, Hubble, or whomever) will always defeat hordes of passionate people who are wrong.  

We won’t change anything, on any wholesale scale, in this forum, but we CAN do one thing – notice that the views/post ratios indicate that plenty of people are reading down here – far more than in the other forums.  This indicates that minds are being engaged well beyond the habitual deniers who respond less out of thoughtfulness than out of defensiveness.  Our work here is received, again, one brick at a time . . .


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 29, 2012)

Asath said:


> “The hard part is that they're not all villainous, money grubbing manipulators.”
> 
> Agreed, and I’m sorry if I came across as that harsh – While I blame the entire phenomenon on the manipulators, I recognize that the vast majority of the ‘believers’ are counted among the manipulated.  They don’t believe simply because they have thought about it – they believe because they have been told to do so from the moment of birth, and had their life defined by the option of pleasing the elders or being punished for failing to do so.  The followers themselves are not villains – merely manipulated fools – the genuine blame falls on the manipulators, who make their living and wield their ‘power’ entirely on the strength of their words--  lacking proof, demonstration, or even the courtesy of honest answers.  Being a Christian is not about pleasing a man or elder it's about pleasing God.Shows just how much you know about being a Christian
> 
> ...


I do believe I could count the regular atheist posters in this subfourm on one hand.I do believe the regular Christian posters out number the regular atheist posters 5 to 1


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> I do believe I could count the regular atheist posters in this subfourm on one hand.I do believe the regular Christian posters out number the regular atheist posters 5 to 1



25 "regular" Christian posters compared to 5 "regular" non-believers?
Start naming them.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 25 "regular" Christian posters compared to 5 "regular" non-believers?
> Start naming them.


----------



## Asath (Jun 29, 2012)

“I do believe I could count the regular atheist posters in this subfourm on one hand.I do believe the regular Christian posters out number the regular atheist posters 5 to 1.”

Thank you for making my point.  

Y’all come down here, to the Atheist forum, in large numbers, and attempt through the sheer overwhelming force of ignorance to shout us down --  somehow deluded by the idea that a lot of you are somehow smarter than one of you.  But the point is that if ten million people wish to shout and posture and condemn and use animated smilies as insulting gestures in an attempt to prove that the earth is flat – it still won’t be.  

The fact that nearly EVERYBODY can be wrong is well proven, as even a Seventh-Grade reading of history reveals.  So telling us that you outnumber us is little more than a bullying tactic, and is only a pure proof of just HOW MANY stupid folks there are.  Thanks for the heads-up, but we already knew that.

Any thought that society can be re-directed back to ancient Biblical ideas is not only absurd but is given the lie by your own arguments.  Not a single Believer lives their lives strictly according to their Bible.  It can’t be done, if only because a huge number of the Biblical instructions have been outlawed on the grounds that they are insane.

So, if we count the readers as well, rather than only the regularly insane folks, your ratio may well be far in excess of 5 to 1, and may exceed 30,000 to 1.    So, are you contending that the NUMBER of Believers makes them right?  Nearly everyone on the planet (with the exception of the Arab Scholars, who were far ahead of us back then) BELIEVED that the Earth was the center of the universe.  Nearly everyone on the planet BELIEVED that the Earth was flat.  An overwhelming number of people on the planet, to this day, BELIEVE in an invisible God who grants their wishes.  

Are we starting to discern a pattern here?  

Just about everyone CAN be wrong, and usually is.

5 to 1 is chump odds, considering what Copernicus was up against, and guess who was right?  And read on, because the ‘religious’ opposition to truth never waned, and has never been proven to be right.  Not once.  All religions have ever done is retreat and adapt and rationalize, and they do little more today.  It stopped being interesting, and became actually a concern about 250 years ago, and led to the Founders of This country going out of their way to cut you folks out of sober legislative policy --  the ‘Separation of Church and State’ was not designed to ‘respect’ the church – it was designed to prevent nutballs from making national policy.  WE, quite carefully and deliberately, separated ourselves from YOU.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 29, 2012)

Asath;7014071
 -  the ‘Separation of Church and State’ was not designed to ‘respect’ the church – it was designed to prevent nutballs from making national policy.  WE said:
			
		

> Well hopefully your anti-nutball group will do a better job of running the government than the Christians. What is your prediction on when the US government will be "all atheist" or at least a majority. Besides those nutball Blue laws, what are some real issues better served by the new Atheist government? Will the Atheist do a better job of race relations and womens lib as those are religious problems stemming from the Bible? Hopefully the Atheist will stop taking my hard earned money to help people who are not willing to help themselves. If ya'll can do that you've got my vote.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 30, 2012)

Asath said:


> “I do believe I could count the regular atheist posters in this subfourm on one hand.I do believe the regular Christian posters out number the regular atheist posters 5 to 1.”
> 
> Thank you for making my point.
> 
> ...


As i read all your post I often wonder?Do you or have you ever smiled....I've had an Atheist tell me,Quote:I tend to side with Christians on political matters, because they generally have the same set of core values as I do.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Jun 30, 2012)

Sorry you missed the memo, ...it's already settled. Read Genesis 1:1 for the TRUTH


----------



## jmcrae1 (Jun 30, 2012)

Atheists on this forum are always asking for proof that God is real, for one shred of concrete evidence that he exist. I ask for one solid concrete piece of evidence that God does not exist. I'm not trying to be mean or rude to anyone and if I come off that way I aplogize in advance, I would just like to know the evidence on to why he is not real.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> Atheists on this forum are always asking for proof that God is real, for one shred of concrete evidence that he exist. I ask for one solid concrete piece of evidence that God does not exist. I'm not trying to be mean or rude to anyone and if I come off that way I aplogize in advance, I would just like to know the evidence on to why he is not real.



For the same reasons you do not believe in any other God exists, leprechauns exist or unicorns exist.

If all the proof one needs to "prove" something is to say " prove my imaginary friend does not exist" then we would have some even more serious problems worldwide.
Not being able to provide evidence of make believe things is not actually proof.


----------



## jmcrae1 (Jun 30, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8


----------



## jmcrae1 (Jun 30, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_Rhino_(Rhinoceros_unicornis)1_-_Relic38.jpg


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2012)

Hang in there tiger, you are special.


----------



## jmcrae1 (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm sorry you don't enjoy laughter.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> I'm sorry you don't enjoy laughter.



I do, that is why I said what I did.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2012)

Since we are on the subject though, how do you explain how the God you believe in is real and how all the others are not? What evidence do you use that shows no other Gods besides yours exist?


----------



## jmcrae1 (Jul 2, 2012)

The proof of my God's existance lies within a book that you deem unreliable. The reason I do not beleive in any other gods is because after reading parts of the koran, hindu texts, and writings about bhudisim I can see that all of these religions want me to do something physical in order to be accepted be it praying five times daily or finding self enlightenment through meditation. My God only ask me to accept his Love and ask for forgivness of my sins. He freely gave his life so that I may live forever. He lives within my heart and that is how I know he is real and although you may not believe in him or have something that you can lay your hands on doesn't make him any less real.


----------



## Four (Jul 2, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> The proof of my God's existance lies within a book that you deem unreliable. The reason I do not beleive in any other gods is because after reading parts of the koran, hindu texts, and writings about bhudisim I can see that all of these religions want me to do something physical in order to be accepted be it praying five times daily or finding self enlightenment through meditation. My God only ask me to accept his Love and ask for forgivness of my sins. He freely gave his life so that I may live forever. He lives within my heart and that is how I know he is real and although you may not believe in him or have something that you can lay your hands on doesn't make him any less real.



So for you, the true god is the one that is from the religion that is easiest to follow?


----------



## jmcrae1 (Jul 2, 2012)

Amen brother thor it is easy to follow yet so many choose not to. Yes i choose to follow someone that lays down his life for me.    



http://www.google.com/imgres?q=far+...w=172&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:78


----------



## Four (Jul 2, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> Amen brother thor it is easy to follow yet so many choose not to. Yes i choose to follow someone that lays down his life for me.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.google.com/imgres?q=far+...w=172&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:78



So if there was a religion that was even easier to follow, you would follow it instead of Christianity? Or is the human sacrifice necessarily for you as well? Meaning, would it require a religion to be easier, and have a similar sacrifice of flesh?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 2, 2012)

Four said:


> So if there was a religion that was even easier to follow, you would follow it instead of Christianity? Or is the* human sacrifice *necessarily for you as well? Meaning, would it require a religion to be easier, and have a similar sacrifice of flesh?



Not a "human" sacrifice.

And it's not about being the easiest to follow, it's about God doing the saving, which is the case in Christianity. While in other religions, one must rely on themselves to do "something" to please their god or get to heaven.

If my children were in a burning house, would I stand outside and yell for them to save themselves, or would I head in and save them?


----------



## Four (Jul 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Not a "human" sacrifice.



Hmm, i don't know if i care to go back and forth on this particular point, but to the best of my knowledge, in christian lore, Jesus was a human form of god.. if Jesus was human enough to die, and as he surely was a sacrifice, why wouldn't it be safe to say it was a "human sacrifice?"



stringmusic said:


> While in other religions, one must rely on themselves to do "something" to please their god or get to heaven.



If Christianity doesn't rely on doing anything, does that mean atheists are in accordance?



stringmusic said:


> If my children were in a burning house, would I stand outside and yell for them to save themselves, or would I head in and save them?



I would hope you would go in and save them... given the christian cannon i would say this would make you a better person than Yahweh



stringmusic said:


> And it's not about being the easiest to follow, it's about God doing the saving, which is the case in Christianity.



No offence, you're welcome to discuss, but my line of questions was specifically directed at jmcrae1, as he mentioned that he read a bit about other religions and Christianity seemed easiest.

Which is why i posed the question, if there was an easier religion, would he follow it instead?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> The proof of my God's existance lies within a book that you deem unreliable. The reason I do not beleive in any other gods is because after reading parts of the koran, hindu texts, and writings about bhudisim I can see that all of these religions want me to do something physical in order to be accepted be it praying five times daily or finding self enlightenment through meditation. My God only ask me to accept his Love and ask for forgivness of my sins. He freely gave his life so that I may live forever. He lives within my heart and that is how I know he is real and although you may not believe in him or have something that you can lay your hands on doesn't make him any less real.



Take a step back and look at what your saying. Yours is real because all you have to do is believe. Theirs are not real because they require something physical.
Your basis, argument, stance, or whatever you want to call it is no better than the Atheists you are calling out. Your proof for your God is no proof at all and you cannot provide a shred of evidence that says any other God does not exist.
You can see what non believers are up against when arguing against a God. You KNOW all those other gods are baloney stories and their beliefs are foolish but you defend your God and beliefs just the same. The non believers are right there with you at dismissing all those other Gods, except for one. You dismiss the thousands of other Gods and the non believers just go one farther than you.


----------



## jmcrae1 (Jul 2, 2012)

No I would not follow any other religion if it were easier because in acuality it would be easier to just not follow anything and let my pride in myself keep me from ever getting salvation. All i had to do was admitt that i was a sinner and that I needed a savior which was very hard to do.


----------



## Four (Jul 2, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> No I would not follow any other religion if it were easier because in acuality it would be easier to just not follow anything and let my pride in myself keep me from ever getting salvation. All i had to do was admitt that i was a sinner and that I needed a savior which was very hard to do.



So your previous statement suggesting that the ease of Christianity drew you to it  in lieu of Islam, buddhism, etc was incorrect?

It seems you're belief is one of preference?


----------



## jmcrae1 (Jul 2, 2012)

one of truth kind sir. I know that you don't believe the same as me and you don't believe what I think is true just like I don't believe what you think is true. That being said I do like having these disscusions because you fine gentlemen in this forum have a great deal of knowledge. And from the avatar pictures some pretty healthy beards as well



http://www.google.com/imgres?q=char...w=188&start=0&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:75


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> one of truth kind sir. I know that you don't believe the same as me and you don't believe what I think is true just like I don't believe what you think is true. That being said I do like having these disscusions because you fine gentlemen in this forum have a great deal of knowledge. And from the avatar pictures some pretty healthy beards as well



No one can argue what people think is true. It is another story entirely when people say they have proof that something is true.
Something doesn't merely exist because people think it or believe it. Something is not true because there is absolutely no evidence of it. The only way to disprove something that does not exist is to let the evidence of it's non-existence speak for itself. Honestly and sincerely I have been searching for someone(besides myself because I cannot do it) to buck up and provide some real evidence so one religion stands out above all the others. So far they are all in same pile and dilemma with the only thing that would give credibility to one above the rest  is actual proof of what they say is true to actually be true.


----------



## Asath (Jul 3, 2012)

“Well hopefully your anti-nutball group will do a better job of running the government than the Christians. What is your prediction on when the US government will be "all atheist" or at least a majority. Besides those nutball Blue laws, what are some real issues better served by the new Atheist government? Will the Atheist do a better job of race relations and womens lib as those are religious problems stemming from the Bible? Hopefully the Atheist will stop taking my hard earned money to help people who are not willing to help themselves. If ya'll can do that you've got my vote.”

Not sure what your point is here.  I don’t need to bother predicting when the government will become ‘all-atheist.’  That happened the moment it was formed, with the specific and written intent to prevent ANY religion from running it.  Read the Constitution – it is pretty clear on this point.

So there is no ‘new Atheist government,’ as you wish to so tauntingly propose, since there was never a Christian government to begin with – that idea was outlawed at the outset.  That many of the founders were outwardly Christians, in the spirit of the time and place, is undeniable, but it seems that their private thoughts were honest ones, and they understood quite well the bad uses that are made of theocracy by otherwise ‘good’ people.  So they quite deliberately cut that possibility off at the knees.

And you might want to back up your reading of the Constitution with a bit of reading of history --  Christians were the SOLE capturers, traders, profiteers, and justifiers of slavery in this country, and were the SOLE suppressors of women.  What progress exists towards race relations and women’s rights are no thanks to you.  ALL Christian churches fought actively against those things for centuries, and some of the nuttier ones continue to do so.   Are you saying that Christianity now lays claim to the progress in areas they violently opposed, or asking the thoughtful folks who out-flanked you to reverse this progress on your behalf?   

And what of your money?  Can you call yourself a Christian, while resenting the call to help the poor?  Isn’t that EXACTLY what you were ordered to do by your Jesus? It is only us heartless, thoughtless, ignorant and unenlightened non-believers who reject this notion, and we are roundly vilified for it.  The idea of ‘charity’ is quite a good one, and helping the less fortunate, because one can, is an admirable and civilized outlook.  But we wish to do so the old-fashioned way – because we WANT to – NOT because it is compelled at the threat of punishment if we do not.  Religions came up with the idea of compulsory charity (largely because their priests and leaders were lazy, and needed free stuff), and if YOU reject that idea, the same as we do, then please leave your ‘Christianity’ at the door --  you’ve failed the test, and have begun to think as an individual.  Oops.

Unfortunately, the moment you have a single thought or actually believe a single thing that is not as ordered by Your God, in Your Book, then you are no longer a Believer.  At that moment your religion has failed you, and has failed progress, and has failed society, and is little more than an anchor around your neck.  Odd as it sounds, the moment you agree that stoning ‘sinners’ is a poor idea, you’re free.

You’ve opened the door to your own cage.  So why stay inside of it?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 21, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Well hopefully your anti-nutball group will do a better job of running the government than the Christians. What is your prediction on when the US government will be "all atheist" or at least a majority. Besides those nutball Blue laws, what are some real issues better served by the new Atheist government? Will the Atheist do a better job of race relations and womens lib as those are religious problems stemming from the Bible? Hopefully the Atheist will stop taking my hard earned money to help people who are not willing to help themselves. If ya'll can do that you've got my vote.”
> 
> Not sure what your point is here.  I don’t need to bother predicting when the government will become ‘all-atheist.’  That happened the moment it was formed, with the specific and written intent to prevent ANY religion from running it.  Read the Constitution – it is pretty clear on this point.
> 
> ...



Gosh, with all this proof, it might be hard to argue with what Asath is sayin' here.

NAH, he's just blowing hot air again. I am not amazed that he has declared all Christians to not be Christians, and Christianity to be a complete failure.

He makes a lot of these opinionated declarations. It is as if he himself has ordained himself the ultimate authority.

BTW, I did not read every post in this thread, my sources are: Post #371, The GON Forum, AAA subforum and Wikipedia


----------



## ASVP Viking (Jul 21, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> Atheists on this forum are always asking for proof that God is real, for one shred of concrete evidence that he exist. I ask for one solid concrete piece of evidence that God does not exist. I'm not trying to be mean or rude to anyone and if I come off that way I aplogize in advance, I would just like to know the evidence on to why he is not real.



Trying to justify god's existence with "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T  exist!" is pretty weak from an argument standpoint. The burden of prooflies with the advocates, not the questioner.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 21, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> Trying to justify god's existence with "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T  exist!" is pretty weak from an argument standpoint. The burden of prooflies with the advocates, not the questioner.



It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Just sayin'.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 21, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> Trying to justify god's existence with "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T  exist!" is pretty weak from an argument standpoint. The burden of prooflies with the advocates, not the questioner.



Sort of like proving that time exist huh? I mean, after all, isn't it just a man made measure of existence?


----------



## ASVP Viking (Jul 22, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Just sayin'.



Non-organic life doesn't exist on Earth. A 100% efficient machine doesn't exist. There has never been a single facet of evidence of the existence of Jesus, or any other Messiah. Thetans don't exist. And until there is feasible evidence (which won't happen), God doesn't exist.

Feasible evidence, as per the scientific community is any subject that has a physical, detectable presence in the universe, that has some ability to impact the environment around it.


----------



## ASVP Viking (Jul 22, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Sort of like proving that time exist huh? I mean, after all, isn't it just a man made measure of existence?



You must not be too good at arguments... Time has physical and detectanle effects on the universe. "God" doesn't.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 22, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> You must not be too good at arguments... Time has physical and detectanle effects on the universe. "God" doesn't.



Interesting remark and counter argument, and totally void of any factual evidence. But if it makes you secure in your faith, good luck with that.


----------



## ASVP Viking (Jul 22, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Interesting remark and counter argument, and totally void of any factual evidence. But if it makes you secure in your faith, good luck with that.



Time has a physical effect on the universe. It is observable,  and has a physical presence, relevant to time, location, and speed.

Those are proven scientific facts, which our very lives are relevant to. Blatant disregard for simplistic, elementary arguments makes me think you're a very low quality troll.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 22, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> Time has a physical effect on the universe. It is observable,  and has a physical presence, relevant to time, location, and speed.
> 
> Those are proven scientific facts, which our very lives are relevant to. Blatant disregard for simplistic, elementary arguments makes me think you're a very low quality troll.



Believe what you want, it is your right as an American. What isn't your right is to deprive others of what they believe merely because you fail to own the faculties to understand it.


----------



## ASVP Viking (Jul 22, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Believe what you want, it is your right as an American. What isn't your right is to deprive others of what they believe merely because you fail to own the faculties to understand it.



You come to an Atheist/Agnostic board to be the odd man out in every argument (Omega complex maybe?) And then play the victim?

I provided a point: Time has a physical effect on the universe.

Your 1st answer: NO FACTS NO FACTS NO FACTS

Your 2nd answer: Yeah you can believe what you want, but when you discuss your beliefs with others of the same mindset in a forum board dedicated to such, YOU'RE PERSECUTING ME AND MY BELIEFS.

Let me guess the next one: WELL YOU WON'T BE HERE MUCH LONGER, NOBODY DISAGREES WITH ME AN GETS AWAY WITH IT.

Look, I didn't go after you, nor did I attack your beliefs. If you're so sensitive about your faith, perhaps this board isn't right for you.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 22, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> You come to an Atheist/Agnostic board to be the odd man out in every argument (Omega complex maybe?) And then play the victim?
> 
> I provided a point: Time has a physical effect on the universe.
> 
> ...



So the point of the thread was merely for all atheist on this board to debate what they all can agree on through a common belief? 

Were it not for us evil trolling Christians you boys would have the shortest threads on the entire forum. Unless of course, you merely wanted a venue for bashing Christians, because after all, even void of a religious participation in them, that is what they all come down to in the end.

In terms of science, there is a plethera of time based theories that exist to help explain what they observe and sooth the human need for grasping a finite concept in an infinite universe. The theories are constantly being tested and occasionally altered or tossed out all together in light of newly discovered evidence.

Personally, I've never been one much to coddle to theories. Just another word for over educated conjecture. Although science has it's place in this world it is by no means the be all to end all of answers in this vast universe.


----------



## ASVP Viking (Jul 22, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So the point of the thread was merely for all atheist on this board to debate what they all can agree on



That's the Political Discussion board. There is no shortage of conversation when the mind is freed of the neurological disorder known as religion.

Without people going against religion, you wouldn't have a computer to type on. You'd likely be sitting in a small hut, dying of tetanus, 
excommunicated from the Catholic church for not paying money to the church.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 22, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> That's the Political Discussion board. There is no shortage of conversation when the mind is freed of the neurological disorder known as religion.
> 
> Without people going against religion, you wouldn't have a computer to type on. You'd likely be sitting in a small hut, dying of tetanus,
> excommunicated from the Catholic church for not paying money to the church.



That certainly lends cause for reflection upon where the actual phrase "over educated idiot" was coined, now doesn't it?


----------



## ASVP Viking (Jul 22, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That certainly lends cause for reflection upon where the actual phrase "over educated idiot" was coined, now doesn't it?



Which is better: Willful idiot, or over educated idiot?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 22, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> Which is better: Willful idiot, or over educated idiot?



Gee, what a conundrum.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 22, 2012)

jmcrae1 said:


> Atheists on this forum are always asking for proof that God is real, for one shred of concrete evidence that he exist. I ask for one solid concrete piece of evidence that God does not exist. I'm not trying to be mean or rude to anyone and if I come off that way I aplogize in advance, I would just like to know the evidence on to why he is not real.



There is no proof that God's not real. It's just an opinion. Just like I have an opinion/belief that there is. It's by faith that I believe, but faith grows and the more that I know that I know, the more I know that I know.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 22, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> You come to an Atheist/Agnostic board to be the odd man out in every argument (Omega complex maybe?) And then play the victim?
> 
> I provided a point: Time has a physical effect on the universe.
> 
> ...



Gee what kinda fun debate that would be if everyone agrees on everything. Then we don't even need this thread do we?

This board is right for anyone who wants to come here and it's open for debate, and that means even if they think/believe/speak/debate different than you.  There's a gang mentality here just like there is in most threads. One side outweighs the other, does not mean that folks can't come here and debate without feeling as if they need to dodge fiery darts or bullets.

And there's always at least one bully that wants to run everyone who disagrees with them off the playground and that would be the bully that has the most back. I'm not saying you're the bully, I'm just saying. Perhaps all who agree should only play amongst themselves.....I don't think that would include debates though.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 22, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> Blatant disregard for simplistic, elementary arguments makes me think you're a very low quality troll.



Wow!

This type of comment is what makes atheists look bad, is that what you're trying to prove? you're doing well...


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 22, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> Non-organic life doesn't exist on Earth.



Wow now I agree with that. Man has made nothing out of nothing on this earth. Nothing has ever been developed or created or discovered that was not already on this earth. 
That's convenient, ain't it? It all just happen to bang into place with no mind of creation at all, for all our good use. How could that be? I think it had to take some kind of intelligent mind to make everything work together like clockwork on this earth.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 22, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> There is no proof that God's not real. It's just an opinion. Just like I have an opinion/belief that there is. It's by faith that I believe, but faith grows and the more that I know that I know, the more I know that I know.



Ditto for leprechauns.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 22, 2012)

Oh, by the way, I just heard that a NEW planet has been  "discovered".  Did it exist prior to its discovery?  No, it could not have.  
If it had existed, science would have known it?
Agree?  Science doesn't miss anything.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 22, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Ditto for leprechauns.



and fairies, too.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 22, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Oh, by the way, I just heard that a NEW planet has been  "discovered".  Did it exist prior to its discovery?  No, it could not have.
> If it had existed, science would have known it?
> Agree?  Science doesn't miss anything.



Perhaps it's what the bible calls the New Earth....or the other place.

As far as science goes, the Bible says this 

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

And science has proven many many many years later that truly the earth is a circle and is not flat. 
Somebody, wants to blame the earth being so called  flat on the Christians. That's untrue.....I bet the scientists deemed it as flat until they figured out it wasn't. Whoever else but the Bible said the earth was a circle. And are we dwelling inside something...yyyyy yes, the atmosphere covers us as a tent.

That's OT and at least 400 years before the birth of Christ. Now when did someone discover the earth was round.....maybe 1400 years later? That's just one thing in the bible that man alone could not have known.

It was always round, just like we had gravity all along, and electricity was always possible, and cellphones have always been possible, and cures for diseases have always been possible and are still possible.  There are things in the bible that no one, no scientist discovered until the last few centuries....but they were always there....how convenient for us. God knew we would need and use those things and that a scientist would discover it. Nothing here is manmade out of nothing. Everything that is developed or discovered was here from the beginning.  And yes we now have new sea creatures...that's also in the bible....when the dead sea becomes alive again with life, the Son of Man will come. In psalms it says, when the deserts bloom the son of man will come. Israel was in a 400 yr drought but now grows some of the best fruit and veggies in the world. Look up the time is nigh. Oh well, I believe it, nobody could've just written that and mysteriously it has come to pass.


Believe it or not. Too many things for me to blow off.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 23, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Perhaps it's what the bible calls the New Earth....or the other place.
> 
> As far as science goes, the Bible says this
> 
> ...



Wow that's a convenient after the fact re-interpretation of scripture.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Wow that's a convenient after the fact re-interpretation of scripture.



I think I'm missing your point. Could you help me out a bit?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 23, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I think I'm missing your point. Could you help me out a bit?





http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1flat90.html



> Here are just a few of the many other passages that prove Bible writers were ignorant of Earth's spherical shape:
> 
> Daniel 4:7-8, "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth." This was allegedly an inspired dream, yet it conveys a flat-earth concept, because no matter how tall a tree would be, people on the other side of a spherical earth could not see it.
> 
> ...


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1flat90.html



I've read that, but thanks for your time.

Besides all that rigamarole..

Try telling some one who lives in the deepest, darkest part of Africa, who's never seen a white man, much less a plane or car, that you flew there....and see if they believe it....yet you know it's true...and you can't prove it because the airplane has flown back into the sky. 

Does that mean you didn't fly there? I'm sure they would think you were loco, so I certainly can see why you think that about God.

Some things are possible whether or not you can prove it to someone else.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 23, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I've read that, but thanks for your time.
> 
> Besides all that rigamarole..
> 
> ...



Man talk about grasping at straws. Spin it however you like but the ancient peoples who wrote the bible understood the earth to be flat. One more little detail that tells us it isn't of divine origin.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 23, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Man talk about grasping at straws. Spin it however you like but the ancient peoples who wrote the bible understood the earth to be flat. One more little detail that tells us it isn't of divine origin.



I like to sit 'n spin, don't you?


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 14, 2012)

Where's bullethead???


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 15, 2012)

ASVP Viking said:


> You come to an Atheist/Agnostic board to be the odd man out in every argument (Omega complex maybe?) And then play the victim?
> 
> I provided a point: Time has a physical effect on the universe.
> 
> ...



I don't have to look at your join date to tell that you are new here. Welcome.


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 15, 2012)

Where's bullethead???


----------

