phorum - 2think - Re: Evidence

Honest Intellectual Inquiry: Science, Religion, Philosophy, Ethics, Politics, and Literature

Discussion Forum for 2think.org and lds-mormon.com

Home | Contact admin | View Archives from Old Forum

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Log In

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Evidence

Author: Triking
Date: 03-16-04 21:28

I am very tired of all this talk about what could have happend a few billion years ago or 6,000 years ago. I would like someone to explain in detail to me the actual evidence for evolution. If evolution really does exist, then why don't we see it today? What about irrecudible complexity? I am just so tired of my friends, who all think that evolution is true, even though they don't know anything about it! All they know is that evolution says that we evolved from primates and other animals and that it "makes sense". Of course no evidence is ever brought up. If humans and nature were constantly evolving then there would be an incountable mass of proof of it! And please don't say anything about the few missing links that have supposedly found because most of them are frauds, they were frauds because they took different pieces of many fossils and combing them and saying "Look proof!" Please just educate me on the evidence of evolution happening today if there is any because I remain largely unconvinced due to the lack of evidence

Go read a book...

Re: Evidence

Author: Craig
Date: 03-17-04 01:16

Tricking (given your handle I'm not at all sure that this is a sincere post),

The evidence supporting evolutionary theory is the work of entire scientific disciplines, and these researchers have compiled mountains of careful research and publications filled with abundant and compelling evidence. We have discussed it many many times on this board, and, frankly, there are many of us who are just tired of answering the same old questions over and over again, especially when the answers are so easily available to anyone willing to make a little effort to learn.

If you are sincerely interested in the evidence for evolution, you should go to take a good freshman-level college courses in biology and geology at a reputable college/University. If you can't afford that, then I would suggest you go to a college bookstore and buy the textbooks recommended for such courses, then engage in a little self study.

If you are Mormon, I would also suggest the book: "Farewell to Eden" by Dwayne R. Anderson.

Craig

Here's the evidence

Author: Martin
Date: 03-17-04 07:28

You write: "I am very tired of all this talk about what could have happend a few billion years ago or 6,000 years ago." Yes, hiding so desperately from reality can be very tiring.

You add: "I would like someone to explain in detail to me the actual evidence for evolution."

Start with: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Then see: Observed Instances of Speciation

Then continue with: Some More Observed Speciation Events

Then go on to: How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

Then move to: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Then continue your education with: Welcome to talk.origins! and Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, and then continue from the beginning from: here.

You continue: "If evolution really does exist, then why don't we see it today?"

We do. All over the place. See the above citations.

You then ask: "What about irrecudible complexity?"

It's a myth (however you spell it). See: Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

You write: "If humans and nature were constantly evolving then there would be an incountable mass of proof of it!"

There is! See the above citations.

You then blather stupidly: "And please don't say anything about the few missing links that have supposedly found because most of them are frauds, they were frauds because they took different pieces of many fossils and combing them and saying 'Look proof!'"

Those are idiotic lies. Again, see: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

You conclude: " Please just educate me on the evidence of evolution happening today if there is any because I remain largely unconvinced due to the lack of evidence"

Read all the above citations, and read them carefully and thoroughly. If you are possessed of any honesty and intelligence at all, you will come away convinced of the reality of evolution. Go read a book!

- Martin

Re: Evidence

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-17-04 12:53

Triking,

I don't know what your religions affiliations are (if any) but may I just suggest that the common statement "belief in evolution negates belief in God, and vice versa" is a fallacy.

The only way that God can be "disproven" is through a study of cosmology...NOT of biologic evolution. Biased scientists will sometimes try to link their evidence of evolution with the unnecessity of God or at least some sort of intelligent design, but that's a bunch of bollocks. At some point, even if biologic evolution is true (and there is a lot of evidence for it; to what degree many will disagree), it does not in any way indicate that the universe caused itself. The very notion is absurd.

So go ahead and study evolution all you want to...it doesn't mean you're a heretic of your Church. And tell anyone who tries to tell you otherwise, to shove/piss/sod off. If you get my point. :)

From a firm theist...

Karyn

Re: Evidence

Author: damndope
Date: 03-17-04 13:45

Craig:
If you are Mormon, I would also suggest the book: "Farewell to Eden" by Dwayne R. Anderson.

DD:
Oh Craig! You recommend Duwayne's stuff? Oh my! A much superior book is Trent D. Stephens. D. Jeffrey Meldrum, "Evolution and Mormonism," Signature Books, 2001. And yes they are the real scientists, unlike Anderson. Crimany lets keep with credibility. I understand you don't like Mormonism anymore, but is that a need to go to lesser lights instead of the more informed and greater ones?

Warmly,
DD

Re: Evidence

Author: damndope
Date: 03-17-04 16:51

Karyn:
I don't know what your religions affiliations are (if any) but may I just suggest that the common statement "belief in evolution negates belief in God, and vice versa" is a fallacy.

DD:
Entirely agreed...............

Karyn:
The only way that God can be "disproven" is through a study of cosmology...NOT of biologic evolution.

DD:
Entirely Disagree....................

Karyn:
Biased scientists will sometimes try to link their evidence of evolution with the unnecessity of God or at least some sort of intelligent design, but that's a bunch of bollocks. At some point, even if biologic evolution is true (and there is a lot of evidence for it; to what degree many will disagree), it does not in any way indicate that the universe caused itself. The very notion is absurd.

DD:
Verdict in my personal opinion is still out on this............interesting point you make though...........thanks for making it...........

Karyn:
So go ahead and study evolution all you want to...it doesn't mean you're a heretic of your Church. And tell anyone who tries to tell you otherwise, to shove/piss/sod off. If you get my point. :)

DD:
Entirely agree..................

From a firm theist...

DD:
Me too.............

Re: EVIDENCE

Author: JAK
Date: 03-17-04 20:31

Quote:

The only way that God can be "disproven" is through a study of cosmology...NOT of biologic evolution.

Karyn,

You have a profound misunderstanding which I have repeatedly pointed out to you.

It is not anyone�s intent or obligation to establish a negative on this. You continue to fail in recognizing that �God� is the assertion. Hence it is the affirmative claim for which evidence is required.

You attempt to sound rational without being so.

Consider your statement:

Quote:

At some point, even if biologic evolution is true (and there is a lot of evidence for it; to what degree many will disagree), it does not in any way indicate that the universe caused itself. The very notion is absurd.

You wish to appeal to evidence. Why?

You state, �it does not in any way indicate that the universe caused itself.�

Notice your word caused. That is a word of investigation, research, and discovery based on evidence.

Implied in your previous writing and in this, you assert God.

The burden of proof is yours (if you make that assertion). It is not up to someone else to �disprove� your assertion.

The February 2004 issue of Discover (a magazine of science, technology and medicine) has an article on page 34 which addresses two scientific models regarding the universe.

Please find a copy of the magazine and read the article. In the opening of that article the authors recognize that the �observable universe contains 100 billion galaxies, each stuffed with 100 billion stars, stretching out more than 10 billion light years.�

The mother of all telescopes, the Hubble Space Telescope, has given us extraordinary views into the universe and information about that universe. EVIDENCE

Evidence for �God,� is required from those who make the assertion.

JAK

Re: Evidence

Author: Craig
Date: 03-18-04 12:08

DD,

You criticize my recommendation of "Farewell to Eden" by Dwayne R. Anderson.

Have you read his book?

As an active university researcher, I came away quite impressed with his scholarship and honesty.

I have not commented on your recommendations because I have not read them.

Craig

Re: Evidence

Author: damndope
Date: 03-18-04 14:03

At this pint in time, no I have not read Anderson's book. I have had plenty of internet interaction with said Mr. Anderson, and find his biases interesting. His misreadings and misinterpretations are also fascinating insights into how he reads things Mormon..........I am only doing what is recommended here for the time being, i.e. criticizing things I haven't read. Apparently it's acceptable intellectual prowess around here.

But I will read Mr. Anderson if I ever find the time, to be sure. And I do appreciate you pointing out his source also. I will keep my eye out for it...........

DD

Re: Evidence

Author: Craig
Date: 03-18-04 16:02

DD,

You say, "His misreadings and misinterpretations are also fascinating insights into how he reads things Mormon".

OK, give some examples.

Craig

Re: Evidence

Author: damndope
Date: 03-19-04 00:44

I don't have them in front of me........this comes from talking with him years ago on the net in various newsgroups. Mr. Anderson, back then, appeared to me to take great delight in trying like crazy to force Mormonism into a literalness that we simply don't have. His thinking his quoting a few authorities was enough to establish a broad based Mormon census on issues, which simply did not, nor do not exist. When I used other authorities showing other approaches than the strictly literal, he simply responded that the contradictions in thought (or something akin to this, its been awhile, so don't quote me....I am probably not doing Mr. Anderson justice here, unfortunately) prove Mormonism is a travesty. I concluded based on that logic, no discipline would survive Mr. Anderson, not economics, not science, not history, for as we all ought to know by now, no one thinks exactly alike in any two disciplines, and this does nothing against their [the discipline, whichever is being discussed] integrity either.

Mr. Anderson impressed me with the kind of thinking that if he finds two Mormons disagreeing then everything falls flat and is false. That logic is simply inane, at best. Nothing......I repeat nothing would survive such methodological flaws. Mr. Anderson has to force Mormonism into saying and meaning what *he* wishes it to say and mean, and then refute his information on Mormonism. His picking and choosing which authorities to quote virtually assures him a victory, hollow though it really is, apparently unknown to himself. He simply misses the boat. That was my impression. Granted he is articulate, but that has nothing to do with the rightness of his arguments........

Warmly,
DD

Re: Evidence

Author: rpcman
Date: 03-19-04 10:25

I agree with you to some extent.

However, given the fact that those claiming to be prophets disagree, not only with each other, but also with Mormon scripture is it theoretically possible to "prove" anything in Mormonism false?

Was there a literal flood (in official Mormon doctrine) as the Mormon scriptures, prophets, and recent issues of the Ensign indicated?

Is the earth's temporal existence only 6,000 years old (in official Mormon doctrine) as the D&C and some prophets have indicated?

etc...

Shapeshifting Mormonism and Loki the Deceiver

Author: Craig
Date: 03-19-04 11:12

DD,

What strikes me about your version of Mormonism is that it can magically morph into whatever you want it to be. If it seems inconvenient to be literal, then "poof!", Mormonism is suddenly symbolic. And it can do this irrespective of what the leadership or cannonized scriptures say.

Duwayne Anderson's one mistake, if you want to call it that, is to assume that the words of the LDS leaders and Mormon scriptures actually mean what they say. He assumes that they really do "stand for something"- that when they state what they believe, they mean it - not "I-don't-know-that-we-teach-that".

For you and others like you, including the current LDS leadership, Mormonism is really just a shell game. You can change or reinterpret the doctrines whenever science or public opinion or debate logic makes them inconvenient.

Your version of Mormonism reminds me of Loki the trickster half-God of Norse mythology who could change forms whenever he needed to deceive.

How convenient.

Craig

Post Edited (03-19-04 15:00)

Postmodernism mormonism

Author: philo
Date: 03-19-04 15:26

Craig and DD:

I am not sure if you read the recent threads re pomo and mormonism, but Craig hit the nail on the head with loki the deceiver. The uniting thread in the most intelligent of the lds apologists I have read and interacted with is their effort to make their defenses of Mormonism as difficult as possible to test. The use of pomo, of course, plays straight into that. There are, DD, strong elements of this kind of thought in your posts, as I read them.

As to the literalness of LDS belief in general, I wonder DD at what level have you experienced Mormonism. Have you held leadership positions? Do you understand how leaders are selected, and what they are taught to teach when they attend leadership meetings? How many lds leaders at the SP level and up do you know well enough to understand their private opinions re things like literal belief?

Since I did serve for many years in the leadership hierarchy, and am still in close touch with some people who are in those positions, let me suggest to you that the attitude of uncertainty of which you speak is virtually unknown in those circles. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is anathema. It is an apologist defence for those who have learned enough of the real story that "faithful history" no longer works for them. A tiny percentage of Mormon leaders are in that group, and they keep their mouths shut. Pomo is another form of the Motrix's red pill - faithful history for those who are ingnorant, and for those who insist on joining the cognosenti, modified pomo (we can't ever be sure of anything, so believe what you want, ignore the evidence you wish, etc.)

All the best,

bob

veritas

Re: EVIDENCE

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-24-04 16:14

Tell me JAK, what sort of evidence would you require in order to change your belief about 'God'? In other words, what would make you cease to see 'God' as simply an assertion - i.e. a statement without evidence - and instead open your mind to the possibility that some supreme being exists?

I'm exceedingly curious to know.

Karyn

Re: EVIDENCE

Author: Fer-de-lance
Date: 03-24-04 17:00

What would you need, to be open to the possibility of the following assertion,

"The human race was created by hyper-intelligent lizard creatures from another galaxy as an experimental, cheap, manual labor force?"

Re: EVIDENCE

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-24-04 19:45

Such lack of honest intellectual inquisitiveness (not to mention creativity), it astounds me. Have you really not considered the myriad problems that nixing God will do to the universe?

And yet, believing this universe was created by some 'hyper intelligent lizard creature' would be more rational than believing that everything can come from nothing, order from chaos, life from non-life, natural law from randomness. That the effect is greater than the cause. Such "beliefs" are appropriately absurd. You know it, I know it. The atheist cannot account for any explanation of the universe - there cannot be an infinite regression of causes.

I would encourage you to be a bit more credible in your responses. If you want to talk about your lack of belief in God, or my belief in God, fine...let's talk about it. And let's leave out Santa Claus, unicorns, the Easter Bunny, Fairy, and random references to 'lizard creatures from another galaxy'. We're talking about a potential Creator of the universe, not a hollywood special effect.

Respectfully,

Karyn

Re: EVIDENCE (Your question??) perhaps

Author: JAK
Date: 03-24-04 21:53

Hi Karyn,

I am just taking posts as I find them which might receive response. Perhaps this is the �question� which I had not seen as I wrote to you earlier (see date).

Quote:

Tell me JAK, what sort of evidence would you require in order to change your belief about 'God'? In other words, what would make you cease to see 'God' as simply an assertion - i.e. a statement without evidence - and instead open your mind to the possibility that some supreme being exists?

I'm exceedingly curious to know.

�What evidence would [I] you require?

You will recall my reference to the February issue (2004) of Discover magazine. We know today that there are 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars each stretching more than 10 billion light-years in all directions. We know the age of this universe is approximately 14 billion years and the planet earth is approximately 4.5 billion years in age. In science (consensus) we know this. The magnificent Hubble Space Telescope has shown us what was not previously seen by man.

With all these stars, the probability is extremely high that some if not many of them have orbiting planets much like those in our solar system with our single sun.

I also know the basic development of human cultures (many now long past), and I know that most of the species which once inhabited the earth are extinct. Having use the dinosaur as a case in point (because we have authentic evidence for it), I recognize the age of the dinosaur lasted on this very planet � 160,000,000 years.

So in addressing your question, I am interested in at least two models of the universe or the cycle of universes.

Questions of �God� are not relevant to our little species which currently enjoys existence on this single planet among possibilities for life -- intelligent life throughout the vastness of what we now know.

It is interesting to recognize the invention of gods to explain what earlier humans did not know. It is interesting to see the reduction of those gods as humans learned more. None of us, including you, believe in the god of the Sun, or a Sun God. But once, and in the absence of what we know today, such belief is understandable. What was the sun if not a god? We can understand how mythology developed as man attempted to explain through story what he did not know.

But today, we know much -- certainly there is much more. I take great joy in what we do know and can learn as well as great joy that I am fortunate enough to live at this point in time rather than centuries earlier. I suspect that if the human race continues without destroying itself or being destroyed by collision with an asteroid or some other natural event, members of this race will also take joy that they did not live in our time on this planet. ...Speculation about human interest on my part to be sure.

Most religions today (which claim deity) construct one which is mean, vindictive, hateful and partisan. Looking at the universe which we can know today, that construction is not only unsatisfying but unsatisfactory to encompass what the level of knowledge is in the most informed of human minds.

Do you recall the discussions on this board about requirement that any God would have to be worthy of worship (respect, acknowledgment)? It was perhaps several years ago that the discussion occurred.

I think most who are skeptical of any deity would require a notion of �God� to rise to that level.

Most who are skeptical (perhaps I should just say many since I have no studies to offer) have great enchantment, exuberance, and cheer in knowing all that we can today. That tends to make notions of �God� irrelevant -- just as irrelevant as notions of gods (small g) centuries earlier.

What people believe or don�t about inventions of deity is irrelevant. But what we know and can learn about even our little space on this tiny planet earth is a source of great joy. Recognizing that there may be many spinning planets around other suns which could have life even more intelligent than we are -- or less is exciting.

I do think the many centuries humans have spent constructing gods is interesting. The evolution of civilization from the savage is a great study to occupy one�s whole life if he is sufficiently interested. But of equal if not greater interest is discovery. Information, knowledge [science] is about discovery. That is not to be confused with doctrine surrounding religions. The degree to which myth obfuscates acquisition of knowledge is regrettable, yet inescapable. That is, we didn�t get to the present level of knowledge without great struggle...and that struggle will continue long beyond our little existence on our also little home -- earth.

Just as human belief about the nature of the earth (flat) had absolutely no effect on the nature of the earth, belief about other things or natures will not alter them. What people believe about the world, and to a greater extent, the universe will not alter it. However, what we can understand, what we can discover through meaningful calculation, diagnosis, and perception can enhance (and has already) the quality of life -- at least for the duration of the human species.

The simplicity of your question cannot minimize what we know, Karyn. There is �the possibility that some supreme being exists.�

That word �supreme� is supremely important. It can hardly constrain what we know as well as what we may learn. The notion that some surviving myth from earlier human cultures accurately encases such a supreme being is not rational nor satisfactory. The universe is full of evidences. We can see with telescopes and with microscopes. We can listen to sounds from the universe.
Thus far, there is no consensus evidence about any supreme being.

JAK

The Question of Universe

Author: JAK
Date: 03-25-04 00:07

Karyn,

I think he was being flip...understand I don�t speak for Fer-de-lance.

You stated:

Quote:

If you want to talk about your lack of belief in God, or my belief in God, fine...let's talk about it. And let's leave out Santa Claus, unicorns, the Easter Bunny, Fairy, and random references to 'lizard creatures from another galaxy'. We're talking about a potential Creator of the universe, not a hollywood special effect.

What is your view of �the universe�?

Do you recognize in statistical terms what 100 billion galaxies over 10 billion light years means? I don�t mean do you comprehend that -- I don�t and humans generally have little concept of billion -- just one billion. How long would it take to count by ones to one billion? Short of doing the math and specifying that one count 8 hours a day (for example), most people have no idea how long it would take to count to just one billion at a number a second for 8 hours a day -- no vacations.

Add to that 100 billion galaxies 100 billion stars each. That is the size which consensus science perceives for the known universe.

Often people with religious agendas say, I don�t care about that. But I submit that once one uses the term universe, one has some obligation to articulate what that means as he uses the term.

In most discussions which I have heard that have religion at the core, �universe� is very narrowly considered. There are many other questions and you need not answer -- just consider what you think you mean by �universe.� Unless you intend to dispute scientific knowledge about the known universe, how do you regard the importance of each and every sun and its possible orbiting planets?

JAK

Re: EVIDENCE

Author: Fer-de-lance
Date: 03-25-04 00:46

"it astounds me."

I'm sure it does. How can I be more like you?

"Have you really not considered the myriad problems that nixing God will do to the universe?"

There are no problems. Positing a God just because you can't explain something isn't "solving problems," by the way.

"And yet, believing this universe was created by some 'hyper intelligent lizard creature would be more rational.."

If you lived well over two thousand years ago, I wouldn't fault you for thinking positing such a thing helps. How does the earth keep from falling? It rides on the back of a turtle. But how does the turtle keep from falling..?

"than believing that everything can come from nothing,"

No it wouldn't (but you have to be very careful about how you talk about "nothing"). It's kind of silly for you to make your point this way. Have you ever heard of "Creatio ex nihlo?"

"order from chaos."

Positing a God doesn't solve any problems with the law of entropy. Just saying, "Let's suppose there is a God, and the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to him" doesn't help your case.

"That the effect is greater than the cause."

At this point, do you have any clear idea what you're talking about?

"The atheist cannot account for any explanation of the universe - there cannot be an infinite regression of causes."

First, atheism isn't strictly incompatible with the thrust of aristotelian thought. A reborn Christian's idea of God would have as little in common with Aristotle's prime mover who sits around, "thinking about thought" as an atheist who simply views the first cause as entirely natural. Second, causality, like the idea of "nothing" is greatly complicated by quantum mechanics. Something Aristotle and Aquinas knew nothing about. The "causality" in modern cosmological theories is nuanced and I suppose to some even debatable to exist at all. So the way you're thinking about the problem, as one partical hitting another til we get to the first partical is as inadequate as your casual talk about "something" and "nothing," "order" and "chaos."

Re: The Question of Universe

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-25-04 01:13

Hello JAK,

I'm sure he was being 'flip', as you call it. However, I do not appreciate such 'humor'. I take the idea of "God" very seriously...in fact, if God exists it would be the most serious thing in the universe to discuss, wouldn't you agree?

Regarding your definition of universe, I can accept that. I had not heard about the 100 billion within 100 billion within 100 billion theory but I think its quite acceptable....even though I suspect it may possibly be even larger than that (though I certainly can't comprehend the vastness of such a space). Have you read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene? Excellent book and highly recommended. It was a Pulitzer Finalist. It gave me new respect for the universe and its intricate inner workings, from quark to supernova.

I do not understand your seeming implication that, the more we learn about the universe, the more it seems to lessen the need for "God", or somehow provide evidence against "God". JAK, you once referred me to an article about the discoveries of the Hubble Space Telescope and asked me "Where does your God fit into this?" Your clear implication was that this information somehow does not allow God to fit into it.

The answer is simple, JAK. My God is the Creator of ALL of it. He is bigger than ALL of it. This is why God cannot be fully comprehended. Yet the skeptic demands that the theist do so, and when the latter inevitably fails, the skeptic believes he has proven his point. But he has not proven any point. If we cannot even comprehend the number 1 billion, how can we comprehend your 100 billion universe data? How can we possibly begin to comprehend the statistical probability that the universe, furthermore, created it self from nothing and by pure, random chance, on the first try?

You cannot possibly comprehend such a number, JAK. No human on earth could. This is merely one small reason (actually, I gave three in the paragraph above) that I find it more rational to believe in Supreme Being than in statistical improbability.

Karyn

Re: Observations on your answer

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-25-04 02:42

Hello JAK,

You spend a good deal of time on this post talking about evidences which others have used in justifying their belief in God. Clearly, however, you do not believe such evidences as valid. Quite frankly, if all I had to go on was the list you gave above, I'm not sure I would believe in God either.

Yet your "answer" leaves me feeling very unsatisfied that you actually answered my question.

You state, toward the end of your post, "There is the possibility that some supreme being exists." That would be a classically agnostic view...correct me if I am wrong in my conclusion.

Now then, my original question to you remains unchanged: You admit that there is the possibility that a supreme being exists. So, what type of evidence would you expect the universe to exhibit, or we as humans to discover, in order for you to believe that there is likely a supreme being...not merely admit the 'possibility'.

Let me respond to just a few other of your comments.

JAK wrote:

> Hi Karyn,
> You will recall my reference to the February issue (2004) of
> Discover magazine. We know today that there are 100
> billion galaxies with 100 billion stars each stretching
> more than 10 billion light-years in all directions. We know
> the age of this universe is approximately 14 billion years and
> the planet earth is approximately 4.5 billion years in age. In
> science (consensus) we know this. The magnificent Hubble Space
> Telescope has shown us what was not previously seen by man.
>

This wonderful...I would be very interested in reading the article. Do you know if it, or something similar, is online? I don't subscribe to Discover although I used to read it in high school, and I don't have time to visit my library. I'm lazy...give it to me online! :)

>
> With all these stars, the probability is extremely high that
> some if not many of them have orbiting planets much like those
> in our solar system with our single sun.
>
> I also know the basic development of human cultures (many now
> long past), and I know that most of the species which once
> inhabited the earth are extinct. Having use the dinosaur as a
> case in point (because we have authentic evidence for it), I
> recognize the age of the dinosaur lasted on this very planet �
> 160,000,000 years.

Fine, fine....how does this relate to my original question of God? You seem to have some purpose in stating the above, but I am not quite sure what it is. Are you trying to state that because you have this scientific knowledge, you have no reason to believe in God?

>
> So in addressing your question, I am interested in at least two
> models of the universe or the cycle of universes.

And....what are those two models? Perhaps you went on to describe them but I certainly did not pick it up. If you would clearly label and number them I would appreciate it.

>
> Questions of �God� are not relevant to our little species which
> currently enjoys existence on this single planet among
> possibilities for life -- intelligent life throughout the
> vastness of what we now know.

How can you rationally come to such a conclusion, even given the fact that I recognize your statement as purely subjective? Are you not interested in our beginnings? One or the other is true: Either there is no supreme being, no intelligent design whatsoever, or there IS a supreme being (or beings). The universe either has an uncaused cause at a single point in "time" (GOD) or it does not. How is this not relevant? Are you not a scientist? Do you not care about defining the world around you? In order to do so you must deal intellectually with the universe's beginnings at some point in time.

>
> It is interesting to recognize the invention of gods to explain
> what earlier humans did not know. It is interesting to see the
> reduction of those gods as humans learned more.

JAK, you have asserted this generalization onto "all of humanity" before, and I have not responded. Let me do so now. Never has ancient "Christianity", the religion of Abraham, Moses and Jacob, been polytheistic. In the story of Christianity, the story of humankind told in the Bible, even the first man believed in one God. So your 'trend' only holds true for, at most, every other religion which has ever existed on this planet. Does this not say something for the uniqueness of the religion of the Bible?

None of us,
> including you, believe in the god of the Sun, or a Sun
> God. But once, and in the absence of what we know today, such
> belief is understandable. What was the sun if not a
> god? We can understand how mythology developed as man
> attempted to explain through story what he did not know.
>

JAK - The Bible has always claimed that worship of any thing other than the one true God is idolatry. Moses' people did it with Baal, the golden calf. According to the Bible, God punished them for it. Never in Biblical history has God stated that it is OK to worship anything within creation. Only the Creator may be worshiped. The God of Christianity has not "developed"- only other religions' gods 'develop'. This again speaks to the uniqueness of Christianity and the God of the Bible.

> But today, we know much

Yes...and not nearly enough. Let us not forget that. For tomorrow (figuratively, not literally) we might discover something which blows our current hypotheses, and even consensus 'facts', out of the water. That is what science is all about, isn't it?

> Most religions today (which claim deity) construct one which is
> mean, vindictive, hateful and partisan.

Is this what you believe of the God of the Bible?

>Looking at the
> universe which we can know today, that construction is not only
> unsatisfying but unsatisfactory to encompass what the level of
> knowledge is in the most informed of human minds.
>

Let me re-iterate to clarify understanding. Are you saying that because religions today construct a God which is mean, vindictive, hateful and partisan, that belief in God at all is unsatisfactory? Are you simply saying that there has yet to be a religion which constructs a God that you like?

First, JAK, your statement (if it applies to Christianity and i'm sure it does) that God is mean, vindictive, hateful and partisan is subjective interpolation on your part. You cannot know all things about God, therefore it is not really fair to claim that God is mean, vindictive, or hateful. As to partisan, I will agree with you there. The Bible claims, and indeed has shown (if we are to take parts of the Bible as historical narrative) that God does not treat all people equally. Is this a problem for you?

> Do you recall the discussions on this board about
> requirement that any God would have to be worthy
> of worship (respect, acknowledgment)? It was perhaps several
> years ago that the discussion occurred.

Yes, I do actually. They were quite interesting. Of course, the problem is, what is one's definition of 'worthy'? Does it not smack of relativism? If there were one God of the universe, would he not deserve to be worshipped even if we did not believe he was deserving of our own worship? What happens when there is a God whom humanity in general does not like? Are you aware that this is what the Bible teaches? That God calls some people to worship him, and otherwise they would never worship him on their own? How do you feel about that - do you feel it is coercion? Do you have a problem with free will and the Biblical God?

>
> I think most who are skeptical of any deity would
> require a notion of �God� to rise to that level.
>

Rise to what level? I do not understand your statement. And if they are to require a notion of God, how are they expected to acquire that notion? This is merely a rephrasing of the question I originally asked you...what evidence does the skeptic require in order to obtain some notion or awareness or belief in the probability of God?

> Most who are skeptical (perhaps I should just say many since I
> have no studies to offer) have great enchantment, exuberance,
> and cheer in knowing all that we can today. That tends to make
> notions of �God� irrelevant -- just as irrelevant as notions of
> gods (small g) centuries earlier.

Please see my comments early on God and relevancy. To say that God is irrelevant is merely to put off the discussion. The fact is, everyone has some belief about 'God' - most agnostics would say "There is no evidence for God" or "I don't believe there is a God", or "I lack belief in God". Yet this is still a position about God. If it is a position, why can I not ask about the justifiability (rationale) behind your position? If you state that your position does nto require justification, is that to say that your position does not have any justification?

>
> What people believe or don�t about inventions of deity is
> irrelevant.

Again, please see my comments on God and relevancy. To claim that God is irrelevant is, in my opinion, to avoid evaluation of a topic for which one is uncomfortable. And again, "God is irrelevant" is not only overly generalized and highly subjective, but it is still a position about God.

>But what we know and can learn about even
> our little space on this tiny planet earth is a source of great
> joy. Recognizing that there may be many spinning planets
> around other suns which could have life even more
> intelligent than we are -- or less is exciting.
>

So you find joy and excitement in scientific knowledge. Is this an implication that you do not need to find joy and excitement in the possibility of there being a God?

> I do think the many centuries humans have spent constructing
> gods is interesting. The evolution of civilization from the
> savage is a great study to occupy one�s whole life if he is
> sufficiently interested. But of equal if not greater interest
> is discovery. Information, knowledge [science] is about
> discovery. That is not to be confused with doctrine surrounding
> religions. The degree to which myth obfuscates acquisition of
> knowledge is regrettable, yet inescapable. That is, we didn�t
> get to the present level of knowledge without great
> struggle...and that struggle will continue long beyond our
> little existence on our also little home -- earth.
>

I will not go so far as to claim what, I believe it was damndope, said in that religion should not comment on science, and science should not comment on religion. In fact if there is ONE religion which actually has got it right, and which actually has been given to us by God, then it must at least not contradict scientific discovery. In this sense science and any true religion (the one that is given to us by a true and real God) must coexist peacefully, if the religion is to be true ane science is to be true and accurate.

But, JAK, the Bible is not a scientific text. Nor should it be taken as such. it is regrettable, I agree, that some have tried to use it as a scientific text - for example insisting that any Creation must have been done in exactly 7 days. But on the same token, there have been many atheistic instructors who have taught children during biology classes (note: science is not supposed to comment on religion!) that belief in God is utterly absurd. So you see, we have it going both ways - religionists have made mistakes, and scientists have made mistakes. The people whom I truly respect are those scientists who have room in their worldview for God - they can do experiments and utilize discovery for the acquisition of knowledge, and then they can leave open the possibility that "Hey, God could have done this". Any sort of absolutism regarding the cause of things in nature is an exercise in futility, in my opinion. I just want people to be open-minded.

>However, what we can understand,
> what we can discover through meaningful calculation, diagnosis,
> and perception can enhance (and has already) the quality of
> life -- at least for the duration of the human species.
>

JAK - are you saying that in order to accept God as more than assertion you must be able to calculate, diagnose, and perceive God? Are you expecting to weigh God as you would something physical? Of course not. God is not physical - God is spirit (well, at least according to most definitions of God). I'll not state that the previous statement, or indeed any of my statements about God, are meant as empirical truths. What I state about God has come directly from what the Bible says about God, and nothing more.

Having said that, there are many things which we feel and perceive today that are not physical. How does a lawyer try to prove motive in a court of law? How does a man prove to a woman that he loves her? The fact is, I love my husband. But I could never prove this to you. I could not prove it any more than I can prove God to you. But I am not trying to do either, so we are OK there.

> That word �supreme� is supremely important. It can hardly
> constrain what we know as well as what we may learn. The notion
> that some surviving myth from earlier human cultures accurately
> encases such a supreme being is not rational nor
> satisfactory.

Again, you define God within the context of previous religious 'myth' - in other words, how others have described God. But you don't have to subscribe to religion to believe in God. You say myth is unsatisfactory. Fine, I will grant you that, for to you, all religion is myth. This does not let you off the hook for your lack of belief in God, nor your unwillingness to consider teh evidences we do have that some sort of "God" exists...even if every religion ever created has failed miserably at trying to describe God.

The universe is full of evidences. We can see
> with telescopes and with microscopes. We can listen to
> sounds from the universe.
> Thus far, there is no consensus evidence about any supreme
> being.

Your "consensus" includes measuring with instruments that allow us to see and listen to physical things. But, to most, God is not a physical thing. Certainly the God of the Bible is not. So, what do we do with a God who is not physical? What other means may we use that will be acceptable to you as evidence for God's existence?

Best,
Karyn

Re: EVIDENCE

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-25-04 02:56

Fer-de-lance wrote:

> There are no problems. Positing a God just because you can't
> explain something isn't "solving problems," by the way.

Neither does refusing to put forth any other hypothesis. Which is the typical atheist's way out. And, may I submit that 'positing' may be quite an inaccurate term.

> Positing a God doesn't solve any problems with the law of
> entropy. Just saying, "Let's suppose there is a God, and the
> second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to him" doesn't help
> your case.

Actually it suits me just fine. In order for there to be an uncaused cause, something which sets the chain of events in motion, that uncaused cause must be infinite. This is the very essence of 'uncaused'. To be infinite means the object does not wear down, for if it wears down then it has both a beginning and an ending point. God, by definition, has no beginning nor ending point. God is not a part of creation, and thermodynamics only apply to that which is created. Physics=physical. God is not physical. Your argument is invalid.

You should know, furthermore, that just because something cannot be comprehended does not mean it is illogical.

>
> "That the effect is greater than the cause."
>
> At this point, do you have any clear idea what you're talking
> about?

The more valid question is, do you have any clear idea of what I am talking about?

> The "causality" in modern cosmological theories is nuanced and
> I suppose to some even debatable to exist at all. So the way
> you're thinking about the problem, as one partical hitting
> another til we get to the first partical is as inadequate as
> your casual talk about "something" and "nothing," "order" and
> "chaos."

Nice try. But you still haven't explained to us how exactly anything can come from nothing. Have you tried lab experiments to demonstrate this? Can you really comprehend what 'nothing' is? As soon as you conceptualize 'nothing', you probably think of empty space. But space is not nothing. Space is something. Air has properties.

If you cannot even manage to conceptualize NOTHING, then how can you possibly explain to me how you managed to get something - anything - from it?

The simple laws of physics, for all physical objects in this universe, is simple: it must have a cause.

And we are back to my original problem, which you failed miserably in addressing.

Karyn

Re: The Question of Universe or just endless space

Author: RockWalk
Date: 03-25-04 22:56

JAK and anyone else that would care to read this post - have you heard this before...from God's own words according to what we mormons believe? "Worlds without number have I created and inhabited them."

Not 100 billion * 100 billion * 100 billion, but "without number" according to man's understanding. Oh, and don't miss the "and inhabited them".

Just thought I'd throw that out to see how much heat could be generated.

However, I ask; why not? If there was or is no beginning to time (as I believe) then you could go back in time 1000000 trillion * 1000000 trillion * 1000000 trillion years and that still would be so small a time in the eternal past that it couldn't even be measured. This is also true going forward.

Not only do I believe that, but I also believe that matter has always existed; neither was it nor can it be created (meaning from nothing). If you think that rediculous (no beginning to time and matter never having been created) how much more rediculous is it to believe that there was a beginning? How long would one need to watch absolutely nothing before a rock appeared. If that's impossible - and of course it is impossible - then it must have always been there; meaning no beginning.

Let me take this one more step and then I'll quit. If it's impossible for a rock to materialize out of nothing; what are the possibilities of an intellegent creature (talk, see, hear, reason, taste, etc.) to materialize out of nothing. I'm not talking about a single molecule developing into some intellegent creature...I'm talking about 'absolutely nothing' becoming an intellegent creature. Intellegence as well as matter was not nor can it be created out of absolutely nothing. Intellegence can't be created nor can it be destroyed. Intellegence departs the human body at death (if you want we can discuss intellegence before it entered the human body in another post), but continues housed in a spirit body (spirit being a very fine form of matter) awaiting the resurrection.

If every person on earth (about 6 billion I guess) could fly straight into space all heading different directions for a trillion trillion light years what would we pass or see? We would see worlds without number! And, then we could continue on for another - let's use a number like 1 with 100 million miles of typed written zeros - light years away and still not even come close to touching the end of space all filled with matter and intellegence.

There's a lot out there to understand and if we (actually not me, but meaning some of you) are only going to accept what scientists on this earth (too tiny to even be considered a speck of the universe) have to offer...well, enjoy what you have. I expect to be learning much more in the coming few billion years.

If you consider me totally out in space (no pun intended - well maybe a little) and would like me to respond to any post of harsh insulting words, I will only do so if you share with me your belief on how we arrived to be here this very day in time. I'm not talking about the few billion years of evolution, but way before that? If you believe there was a beginning, explain what that beginning was. If you believe there was not a beginning, but don't believe as I do, then fine, just give me what you do believe.

JAK you are always wanting to talk of the big scope, so let's do so.

It's time to climb out of the small box of rocks (figuratively speaking - knowedge found in rocks of this tiny planet) that many of you assert to be the only true and real source of knowledge. Climb out of that box and look up! Start thinking again; there's still a lot of knowledge uncovered! Stop thinking that science on this little earth has it all figured out. I'm not saying that you should throw away your box of rocks; just enlarge the size to allow a few unanswered questions a chance. Ever heard of "dumber than a box of rocks"? Don't be that dumb.

Again, if you want to call me the dumb one, then you need to open up to your beliefs. You are here, alive, thinking, writting, reading right now! What's your theory or proven fact on how you became you? And, this is not a "who's your daddy" question...remember "the big scope".

I'm in trouble now,
Rocky

Re: Shapeshifting Mormonism and Loki the Deceiver

Author: damndope
Date: 03-25-04 23:00

Thank God! Otherwise it would be stuck in an ancient outdated Bed of Procrustes.......continuing revelation implies there will be changes as things change. That's convenient to be sure, its also scientific and intelligent. Would it be better for it to stay in the 1800's version of understanding? You're kidding me right?! Continuing revelation has to happen on a line by line precept upon precept occurrence. God does not simply data dump the entire truth to us, anymore than any discipline does. There is a growth involved. That makes perfect sense to me.

Sincerely
DD

Post Edited (03-25-04 23:02)

Re: Shapeshifting Mormonism and Loki the Deceiver

Author: Craig
Date: 03-25-04 23:54

DD - I would not be proud to be a member of Loki's church, where deception is valued. Craig

Re: The Question of Universe

Author: JAK
Date: 03-26-04 00:21

Hi Karyn,

Having taken your script line by line previously, I likely ought not do it. But since this is relatively short, let me address your writing starting with your words (in green).

I'm sure he was being 'flip', as you call it. However, I do not appreciate such 'humor'. I take the idea of "God" very seriously...in fact, if God exists it would be the most serious thing in the universe to discuss, wouldn't you agree?

In keeping with what I have previously stated, the �idea� of God is aptly characterized by the word idea. Virtually every idea of such a deity is characterized in anthropomorphic terms -- in terms which describe such a deity in the image (idea) of man. Not merely human, but man as opposed to humans in general or woman.

Would it be serious? I think that depends on one�s environmental experience. It isn�t important to the millions of extinct species of life which have come and gone. Essentially, the idea of God is no more relevant than the idea of gods -- which I have discussed in other comments to you. Is the idea of the god of the sun (our sun) important to you? It is not because you don�t believe in the god of the sun. However, if you did, you would regard it as a �serious thing.� How you regard the sun in terms of deity (or not deity) is irrelevant. Consideration of the sun as a god is irrelevant.

This is not a flip answer to you. It is about perspective and from what knowledge base one approaches the �idea� of deity. Since you don�t believe in a sun god, the idea of a sun god is unlikely to be �serious� to you.

Regarding your definition of universe, I can accept that. I had not heard about the 100 billion within 100 billion within 100 billion theory but I think its quite acceptable....even though I suspect it may possibly be even larger than that (though I certainly can't comprehend the vastness of such a space). Have you read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene? Excellent book and highly recommended. It was a Pulitzer Finalist. It gave me new respect for the universe and its intricate inner workings, from quark to supernova.

I am glad you enjoyed the book. PBS presented some of this on NOVA earlier which I hope you saw as well.

I do not understand your seeming implication that, the more we learn about the universe, the more it seems to lessen the need for "God", or somehow provide evidence against "God".

It is possible to understand today why a star (our sun) was perceived as a god. Such perception was an attempt to explain in the absence of information. Having read The Elegant Universe, your perspective about our sun (one star among hundreds of billions) is different than it would have been if your information had been only that of humans living 3,000 years ago. The invention of gods was human processing at work in search of explanation for what human intellect did not comprehend.

For example, you don�t need a sun god. Your informational level is such that the �idea� the sun is a god is not acceptable. The �idea� of God as superior to other gods evolved in culture as information began to make gods less important. Eventually, the idea of a single God only emerged. It is no less an �idea� -- an invention.

Today, we seek genuine information (knowledge). Medical science searches for genuine cause regarding disease. The �idea� that God brings a disease to punish man for sin is an unacceptable conclusion for medical science. God as cause is unacceptable. It was unacceptable centuries ago for the most inquiring of minds. But because of wealth, power, and politics in religion, many inquiring minds were punished for inquiring. It still happens today of course, but the obligation for genuine cause of disease is powerful.

God is a default. �Need� in your comment above is relative. That is, for some, default is used often.

Karyn, the complexity of this evolution in human thinking is such that I cannot do it justice in so brief a response -- and this is much longer already than I had intended. None of these developments which I have most briefly mentioned �provide evidence against God� as you phrased it. As I previously clarified, the assertion God is the assertion which requires evidence. This particular point is not one which you seem to apprehend -- perhaps you do and simply haven�t stated it in word. So I want to emphasize the positive if I can here.

JAK, you once referred me to an article about the discoveries of the Hubble Space Telescope and asked me "Where does your God fit into this?" Your clear implication was that this information somehow does not allow God to fit into it.

It was/is a straight forward question, Karyn without implication. We know much about the universe which we had not seen prior to Hubble. Now we know, we have a record, we have evidence about the universe.

The answer is simple, JAK. My God is the Creator of ALL of it. He is bigger than ALL of it. This is why God cannot be fully comprehended.

Your answer demonstrates the default to which I referred previously. It is a response like that of those who perceived the sun (our nearest star) to be what it was not. Prior to that the perception was that the earth was at the center of the universe. It was/is not. Absence of evidence is the inherent problem with your claim.

Another problem in your answer is that of relevance. Given your assumption, why is your God an actor? What is your God�s motivation in the hundreds of billions of galaxies for which you assume conduct of God? To assert �God� and immediately after assert �cannot be fully comprehended� is to make the first assertion irrelevant and the second meaningless. That is, your God is an actor doing. Yet, by claiming �cannot be fully comprehended� you beg the question of comprehension entirely. If you claim any comprehension, how do you know? If you claim to know, it is pretense or illusion. Your beliefs, no matter how sincere, are a product environment & heredity. Validity is not established. Claim is not substitution for evidence.

It is claim absent evidence except as you choose to acknowledge evidence and interpret it in the framework of your �idea� God. Making claim in the absence of evidence is like the claim sun god. You are correct that your �answer is simple.� It is also simplistic in the face of what we know. In that simplistic view, all questions can be answered with the default God. What of protons, electrons, neutrons? What of atoms? What of extinct life forms? What of the galaxies witnessed by the Hubble? For your response above to have relevance, it requires application.

There are many �ideas� about a claim of God. Why is yours correct against all others? Why is it relevant? In your claim and without recognizing it, you make the claim irrelevant. Why do you make your God sexual -- [He]? The invention of your God is a product of cultural/political/religious evolution. But in your answer, you expand �God� to irrelevancy. Just how is such an �idea� of value?

If your �idea� is that God is an interventionist (and I think it is) how do you assess what, when, where, how, and why for intervention? Such an �idea� would be -- of course -- more claim.

Your comment: �My God is the Creator of ALL of it.� Such a claim has no comparative difference. Since there is no evidence to support this, the result is the same for any claim. That is, �ALL� is what it is. What anyone believes about it is irrelevant. What the sun worshipers believed about the sun did not alter the facts known or unknown. What you believe about �All� does not alter the facts known or unknown. God is irrelevant. �God� is an idea. Claim of cause without evidence of cause does not alter what is.

(Please reread your own writing on your post paragraph 4. This next statement is quite unclear. I�ll explain.)

Yet the skeptic demands that the theist do so, and when the latter inevitably fails, the skeptic believes he has proven his point. But he has not proven any point. If we cannot even comprehend the number 1 billion, how can we comprehend your 100 billion universe data? How can we possibly begin to comprehend the statistical probability that the universe, furthermore, created it self from nothing and by pure, random chance, on the first try?

Just what is it you say, �Yet the skeptic demands that the theist do so...�? Do what is most unclear. What do you intend to say the skeptic demands? While I have divided your writing into sentences (not paragraphs), you wrote in paragraph 4 syntax which is not clear. What �point� are you thinking of here??

I agree that there is much about the universe which we are learning and about which we have yet to comprehend. However, we are discovering. It is hard work and discoveries of importance are rarely obvious upon first study. Comprehension of what we know today was not accomplished easily. The assertion �God� is an attempt to terminate discovery. Consider how impoverished medical science would be if it had accepted �It was just God�s will� in the face of disease which resulted in death. Those who assert �God� do so with intent to terminate investigation and ultimate discovery.

We don�t know how many universes may have come and gone. Looking into 14 billion years of this universe does not preclude the possibility of cyclical universes. We don�t know. We do know that ancient myth-makers were ignorant about most that we do know today. I agree that comprehension of the universe is difficult/impossible. At the same time, claiming some myth in the absence of information is speculation without merit. It is not comprehension.

You cannot possibly comprehend such a number, JAK. No human on earth could. This is merely one small reason (actually, I gave three in the paragraph above) that I find it more rational to believe in Supreme Being than in statistical improbability.

I agree, getting our intellect to absorb what we have seen with our own eyes (through such instruments as the Hubble and microscopes and heard through radio telescopes) is most challenging.

However, assuming a �Supreme Being� is irrational -- not rational. And it is an assumption like that of sun god. It is easy for us to recognize and know what our sun is in a broad and more comprehensive way today. In the assumption of �Supreme Being,� one exits the rational. To argue that this universe just could not have happened is merely an expression that we lack information. It is not evidence for God any more than it is for gods.

Assuming anything does not make it fact. Assuming �God� does not make fact.

JAK

Re: The Question of Universe or just endless space

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-26-04 00:49

RW - I would like to respond if I may.

RockWalk wrote:

> JAK and anyone else that would care to read this post - have
> you heard this before...from God's own words according to what
> we mormons believe? "Worlds without number have I created and
> inhabited them."

Is this a quote from the Book of Mormon?

> However, I ask; why not? If there was or is no beginning to
> time (as I believe) then you could go back in time 1000000
> trillion * 1000000 trillion * 1000000 trillion years and that
> still would be so small a time in the eternal past that it
> couldn't even be measured. This is also true going forward.
>

Well, RW, you assume something detrimental to your argument - that time is constant. But time is not constant; it is a product of motion. Without going into too much detail, the faster something is moving, the slower time goes by for that thing. It has been demonstrated that for anything moving at the speed of light, time stops completely. So what you really are saying when you believe that 'time has always existed' is that you believe the universe has always been in motion. But the universe's expansion is slowing down; its motion is not remaining constant. Please see below for more on that.

> Not only do I believe that, but I also believe that matter has
> always existed; neither was it nor can it be created (meaning
> from nothing).

This is impossible, and absurd to state such a thing. Ages can be put on many objects within this universe, from galaxies to rocks. If you believe that matter has always existed then you believe that it does not have any beginning - that matter is eternal. There's just one little problem with your theory - its called the Law of Entropy. Put simply the entire universe is in a massive state of entropy. It cannot always exist because it is breaking down.

If you think that rediculous (no beginning to
> time and matter never having been created) how much more
> rediculous is it to believe that there was a beginning?

Why is it innately ridiculous to imagine that the universe had a beginning? Especially as a theist? Your theory, most closely resembling either steady-state or oscillating universe theory by atheists, has mountains of evidence against it. In fact even a moderate knowledge of physics can disprove these two theories.

How
> long would one need to watch absolutely nothing before a
> rock appeared. If that's impossible - and of course it is
> impossible - then it must have always been there; meaning no
> beginning.
>

This is a silly argument - a straw man. No one claimed that just watching a rock will cause anything to be created from it, or that watching the ground will cause a rock to appear. That is the whole point of cosmology, in fact - that everything has a cause. First you say that matter has no cause, then you refute your own point by explaining that the rock must have had a cause for being there. "Having always been there" is not an option for valid and rational argument. The Earth hasn't always been here, so that rock, which is a part of the Earth, could not possibly have existed for all eternity. And even if you reply that the rock simply existed in another form, you still have a major problem with entropy.

> Let me take this one more step and then I'll quit. If it's
> impossible for a rock to materialize out of nothing;

Let me quote something from the Bible, Jesus words, which I think might help you understand who could have created that rock: "With men this is impossible, but not with God, for with God, all things are possible".

what are
> the possibilities of an intellegent creature (talk, see, hear,
> reason, taste, etc.) to materialize out of nothing. I'm not
> talking about a single molecule developing into some
> intellegent creature...I'm talking about 'absolutely nothing'
> becoming an intellegent creature.

It can't. You're on the right track here, you're just attributing your answer to the wrong source. In order for anything to have come into existence, wherein before that point in time it was not in existence, there had to have been a cause. "Existing for eternity" is not a plausible 'cause'...we can immediately reject such a notion by observing the world around us with even a passing glance. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything runs down. It is a law of the universe. Period!

Intellegence as well as
> matter was not nor can it be created out of absolutely nothing.
> Intellegence can't be created nor can it be destroyed.
> Intellegence departs the human body at death (if you want we
> can discuss intellegence before it entered the human body in
> another post), but continues housed in a spirit body (spirit
> being a very fine form of matter) awaiting the resurrection.
>

You have been indoctrinated by Mormon flubbery; a religion which has been as shrouded in irrationality as its founder was. Joseph Smith also taught that Quakers lived on the moon. I don't believe any astronaut has found the fabled Quaker clan.

A spirit is a 'very fine form of matter'? Matter cannot exist in more than one place at one time. It is physically impossible. So how to you explain the Holy Spirit? How do you explain the verses in the Bible which state BOTH that God (the Father) is:

1. A Spirit
2. Omnipresent

You are misguided in your views on the soul, my friend. Matter is matter, there is no 'fine' and 'not fine'. Matter is tangible. Have you ever grabbed hold of a spirit? I do not think so. If spirit were matter, we could measure it as one weighs physical things. We could observe it under a microscope. The fact is, spirit is not matter, and matter is not spirit. What is material cannot be immaterial and vice versa. To suggest otherwise is to commit logical suicide.

> If every person on earth (about 6 billion I guess) could fly
> straight into space all heading different directions for a
> trillion trillion light years what would we pass or see? We
> would see worlds without number! And, then we could continue
> on for another - let's use a number like 1 with 100 million
> miles of typed written zeros - light years away and still
> not even come close to touching the end of space all filled
> with matter and intellegence.
>

May I submit to you that you are in no position to tell us what we might or might not see if we could 'fly into space' for a 'trillion trillion' light years? And I suppose that you think each of these parallel universes are reigned by former Mormon men who have become Gods through their own good works. Tell me, if Moroni was perfect in every way, why is he still an angel and not a god as is taught by Mormonism?

>I will only do so if you share with me
> your belief on how we arrived to be here this very day in time.
> I'm not talking about the few billion years of evolution, but
> way before that? If you believe there was a beginning, explain
> what that beginning was. If you believe there was not a
> beginning, but don't believe as I do, then fine, just give me
> what you do believe.
>

OK. Let me tell you what I believe. I believe that at one point within eternity, all that existed was God. I believe that at one point along this eternal continuum (which I will not call time, because if all that existed was God, time is irrelevant), God acted upon his own will to create the universe. From this point forward, time, space and matter were created. I believe that the manner of creation was something like a 'big bang' in that the universe exploded because God caused it. From there it is a long story of how the universe developed. I personally believe that God created the universe in stages, as is told in the account of Genesis. I do not believe that the creation happened in seven literal days. First of all, due to our discussion of time earlier, this would be illogical....time is not constant. People who define a day as "24 hours" at the very birth of the universe have no knowledge of what time is. But I do believe that the universe existed for some amount of time, perhaps a dozen billion years, before the next 'stage' was begun. I believe this is a rational way to explain the biologic evidence of evolution. But I do not believe that life came from non-life. I believe God had to have caused it. And I do not believe that humans evolved fully from apes. Although we share 98% of our genetic code with apes, that remaining 2% is quite a difference! I believe that God created humans last, that is, he caused humans to come into existence - a different type of animal from what he had previously created, because humans are capable of intelligence, capable of emotion, capable of judgment and forethought. No other animal is capable of such action.

> Again, if you want to call me the dumb one, then you need to
> open up to your beliefs. You are here, alive, thinking,
> writting, reading right now!

You are asking everyone who has ever lived to deny observable facts of the universe in order to embrace Mormonism. Clearly, this is not a very compelling argument. If one religion is true, if one religion was given to us by God, and not merely a product of man's imagination, then it stands to reason that that religion cannot contradict universal laws and properties of God's creation. If God's own religion can contradict God's own Creation, then God Himself is a contradiction and cannot be trusted to represent truth.

Your religion must be compatible with science. But your religion is utterly incompatible with any aspect of science. Redefining your concept of God into a more Biblical view would be a good starting point for further research.

Karyn

rpcman's review of dopey's heroes

Author: Martin
Date: 03-26-04 07:01

See rpcman's review: Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding

Here's what I consider to be the most relevant and incisive excerpt: "A dispassionate observer will be left frustrated. One first has to assume Mormonism is true before delving into this book."

Daddy Dope, as he has demonstrated in nearly every single post in his sad history here, is not only ignorant of science, he is completely incapable of intellectual honesty. He will only credit books which flatter his own absurdly credulous and juvenile belief system.

- Martin

The limits of continuing revelation

Author: rpcman
Date: 03-26-04 11:28

Can continuing revelation undo an eternal principle? A scientific law? A literal Noah and global flood as reiterated in the BofM and PoGP? Can it change the age of the earth from 6000 years to billions of years and the history of the species on the planet?

If so, why bother with continuing revelation at all when you can get the answers from science decades in advance?

excellent points n/t

Author: Craig
Date: 03-26-04 12:12

.

"Space is something. Air has properties."

Author: Fer-de-lance
Date: 03-26-04 13:35

"either does refusing to put forth any other hypothesis. Which is the typical atheist's way out."

Yes, it actually could help. Admitting ignorance about something could be very well the first step to understanding (by the way, astrophysicists arn't at a complete loss for hypothesis regarding the origin of the universe). Unlike people who pull ideas out of their ass not to understand the world or the universe, but simply to salvage the most ignorant, pathetic book on the face of the planet--the "Bible."

"Actually it suits me just fine."

"This is the very essence of 'uncaused'. To be infinite means the object does not wear down, for if it wears down then it has both a beginning and an ending point. God, by definition, has no beginning nor ending point."

Your God of the gaps is no more special than my frog of the gaps. What you didn't know, is that my Lizard who created humanity, was created by a supernatural frog along with the rest of the universe, who's infinity is the very essence of whatever question science might happen to be stuck on at the time.

"God is not a part of creation, and thermodynamics only apply to that which is created. Physics=physical. God is not physical. Your argument is invalid."

Niether is The Frog. For he is the unknown. The unknown who fills all things, especially the gaps.

"The more valid question is, do you have any clear idea of what I am talking about?"

You're sloppily parroting medieval ontology. A car crashes into a tree, knocking it down. Can you explain to me in what way the car as the cause, is greater than the effect, the tree getting knocked down?

"Nice try. But you still haven't explained to us how exactly anything can come from nothing..."

Well that's interesting. Because the Christian doctrine of "Creatio ex nihlo" demands exactly that. I was merely pointing out that your own argument is contrary to the position of Christianity, that's all.

"As soon as you conceptualize 'nothing', you probably think of empty space. But space is not nothing. Space is something. Air has properties."

Are you in fifth grade? Please clearify yourself here. What is the relationship between "space" and "air?"

"If you cannot even manage to conceptualize NOTHING, then how can you possibly explain to me how you managed to get something - anything - from it?"

The irony here is, Joseph Smith used this same argument against the rest of Christianity. He believed matter was "eternal," against the Christian idea of creatio ex nihlo.

"The simple laws of physics, for all physical objects in this universe, is simple: it must have a cause."

"which you failed miserably in addressing."

You can start here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html

(A note for others. I'm not totally convinced that quantum events introduces us to acausality, maybe the idea of causality should just be reworked. The most important point for this discussion is that we are light years beyond whatever quantum "events" are at the origin of the universe needing to be framed teleologically)

>

Thanks for a sincere response!

Author: RockWalk
Date: 03-27-04 01:23

Karyn - thanks very much for your response and candor. While you did show a degree of distaste in my post, you kept yourself in check and didn't resort to personal attacks and insults (well...maybe just a little). For the most part you stuck with the issues or ideas that I presented and though you thought most of them silly...hey, I have no problem with that mainly because I think you are - at least with this post - sincere.

I personally would enjoy this forum 110% more if all would be honest and stop throwing mud (and sometimes by some absolute filth) at each other. Anyway, let me address your questions and comments, and I'll have a few for you.

You ask: Does the phrase "Worlds without number..." come from the BoM? No, it comes from the Pearl of Great Price:Book of Moses.

About time: I was referring to time relative to our mortal existence as God does in the scriptures. I think we are pretty close to our beliefs on this one; I believe time is something not relevant to God's existence, however, we still have to deal with the concept of eternity.

You bring up the fact the the universe is slowing down. I believe this, but again, I also believe that there is a lot more out there than what our biggest telescopes can view; while one universe is slowing down, there could be a big bang happening many trillion light years away. Somewhere else there could be a big crush happening. And, please note, I'm not asserting anything...it's just what I believe could be a possibility. While one universe is dying, another could be at it's genesis.

The Law of Entropy posits that the universe is breaking down, but it does not assert that the matter that it's made of is simply vanishing. There are still many who will assert that "matter can not be created or destroyed; only changed"

Actually, Karyn, I do most certainly believe that our universe had a beginning, but not quite as you believe: I believe as the Hebrew bible states; that God organized the earth. When we humans say that we've created something, we do not mean from nothing, but that we used and brought together existing material to create something else. So, while I believe matter has always existed, I do believe that God used this matter to create our universe and that there was some point in time when God's work started. And, I do not believe that God's work will be finished when this universe dies or this earth; the work goes on...

Karyn - I wasn't literally talking about watching a rock. I was just trying to make a point that nothing ever could just materialize from nothing. I don't believe that in all eternity matter that makes up this earth could materialize from thin air (there is a lot of stuff in the air). So, the point I'm making (or as not to assert, my belief) that if the earth could not materialize from thin air, how could it materialize from nothing.

When quoting from the Bible don't forget the Hebrew version (more correct...am I right?). "God organized ...". By the way, what does "God created man in his own image" mean to you (A sincere question; I'm not trying to trap, just understand)?

Sorry Karyn, but I'm not sure I follow your "cause" thing. But from what I can gather I'm guessing that you do believe in God, but that you don't believe God is eternal; that God is running down and will die??? Didn't you just quote from the Bible "with God all things are possible"? Do you not believe in the resurrection; are the lights permanently out when we die?
I have studied Mormon doctrine and I find it far from flubbery (if that is a word - I guess meaning messed-up). Anyway, I'll not try to change your perception. I do understand and am very knowedgable about my religion, but I have to admit, I've never read any of Joseph Smith's sermons, or any quoted text of any sort where he taught that Quakers lived on the moon. Can you provide me with that reference; I'd like to at least make sure I understand the context of this statement.

We'll just have to disagree on the 'fine matter' thing. I totally disagree with you, but you should find that OK I hope. As far as God being omnipresent: Can science prove that? Absolutely not, very irrational. However, I believe as you: "With God everything is possible." Even as a spirit whether matter or not. As I've told Martin and JAK before; my work takes me all around the world working with major companies where my logical thinking has been very much appreciated. So, I don't think you can accuse me of committing logical suicide.

I guess you are right about me being in no position to tell you what we might see if we could fly into space for trillions of light years...sorry, I didn't mean to assert, but just to share my belief.

Have you personally ever heard of any of us Mormons saying that "Moroni was perfect in every way"? It doesn't matter; if you would take just a little time to understand what we mean by "becoming a God" you would probably not be so critical (maybe I'm wrong). And, I do mean talking to someone from the inside. You would get a completely different explanation from me rather than, let's say, from someone like Martin. This I really hope you believe or I would have to accuse you of committing logical suicide.

Again, Karyn, thanks for sharing with me your beliefs on how we ended up here at the present! I think we have more common beliefs than we might think and would maybe find that out if it were possible to just sit down and talk.

Your closing remarks stated that I was asking all to deny facts and that my religion is incompatible with science. I guess I need a little help with that; maybe you're talking to the wrong people again? Maybe, you're talking with someone that should be the right person, but doesn't know their own religion? I don't know, but please be specific on just a few examples you might have. I believe that God is many things, including my Heavenly Father, as well as a very, very advanced scientist; that he understands and uses the laws of the universe to accomplish his designs. To be fair, I think you would have to admit that the God you believe in is more incompatible with science than mine (i.e. he created something and everything from nothing). This sounds like (what some would call) real magic to me. I don't think God is magic; I think he understands - as I've already mentioned - and uses the laws of the universe.

I very much believe that the big bang - to some extent - is a possibility. I have no problem with evolution with the exception (and I think you agree) of mankind. Anyway, please explain what you mean by my religion being incompatible with science.

One more: Please give me a little help on how I need to redefine my concept of God into a more Biblical view. I read the Bible and have never yet found a contradiction with the God I believe in versus the God of the Bible, however, I'll keep an open mind.

Thanks again!!!

Rocky

Post Edited (03-27-04 01:50)

Re: Thanks for a sincere response!

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-27-04 04:22

Hi there,

Well at least you're a lot more rational to talk to than this damndope person. I was getting a little agitated on that other post. Of course it is 1:30 in the morning. Perhaps I should just quite for tonight. I still have you and JAK to respond to sometime over the weekend. Its on my 'to do' list. :)

Karyn

On quantum physics and creatio ex nihlo

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-27-04 04:41

Congratulations on finding Quentin. While he is far more guilty of needing a big red pen in most of his papers than is philo thus far, he is one of the leading authors over there on Secular Web.

From the rest of your disingenuous insults I managed to pull the following two statements which I will respond to and dutifully ignore the rest in my small attempt to clean up around here:

You wrote:
Well that's interesting. Because the Christian doctrine of "Creatio ex nihlo" demands exactly that. I was merely pointing out that your own argument is contrary to the position of Christianity, that's all.

I'm relieved to know that you find it interesting, but actually that is a very misleading statement. Only an atheist can claim something came from nothing, and they really have no explanation for it. Well, Quentin really tried to prove that mathematically, we don't need a God. But, well, he didn't make it very far. Please see rebuttal here:

Does God Exist? A Debate between William Craig and Quentin Smith
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith0.html

and especially here:

The Caused Beginning of the Universe: A response to Quentin Smith
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html

The theist's view on creatio ex nihlo would be more accurately described as "something from God", since the theist believes the universe was created by God, and God is not nothing. By taking the term 'nothing' literally is this old latin phrase, you take the theist's position out of context. Nice job.

You also wrote:
A note for others. I'm not totally convinced that quantum events introduces us to acausality, maybe the idea of causality should just be reworked. The most important point for this discussion is that we are light years beyond whatever quantum "events" are at the origin of the universe needing to be framed teleologically)

Of course quantum mechanics don't provide for acausality. I don't know why you felt you had to make this a note to others. I was just as capable of reading it as everyone else. The facts about quantum tunneling are that particles to not come into existence, they change state. A quantum vacuum is a plethora of particles which are continually forming and dissolving, which demonstrates their ability to exist in dual states dependent upon their ability to borrow energy from the vacuum. Even their action of changing states is not uncaused. Never in quantum physics experiments have particles ever been created. Rather, they have simply changed states.

At this point let me remind you that Quentin's theory - that the universe originally existed all packed into a point so tiny that it "had spatial dimensions of zero" - is absurd. A point cannot have spatial dimensions of zero, no matter how minute it is. it must still have spatial dimension. To say that the universe was packed into something which had zero properties is only a rather clever and misleading way of stating that the universe didn't exist at all.

Karyn

Re: The Question of Universe or just endless space

Author: Martin
Date: 03-27-04 12:38

Rocky,

I don't wish to insult you, but it is quite clear from your post that you know almost nothing of science at all. I can only hope that you are not an American. If you are, then the United States' educational system is even more hopeless than I'd ever imagined! (Sadly, Karyn's reply isn't all that much more of a cause for confidence; don't trust it since she's mostly full of baloney).

I don't have much interest in teaching you since you have SO MUCH to learn (which is why I have no interest in teaching you about Mormonism's vast idiocy), so I'll keep this brief. If you want to learn more, see: Cosmology 101

The Universe is finite. Finite but unbounded, which roughly means that although the Universe is limited in size, there are no "walls" to the Universe and there is nothing "outside" it (the very concept of "outside the Universe" is utterly meaningless). For a very rough analogy, consider the surface of a balloon as it's being inflated: the area of the surface grows, but there are no edges.

Therefore, an infinite number of worlds is IMPOSSIBLE! You cannot fit an infinite number of worlds in a finite space.

Time (more accurately, spacetime) is finite, at least in the direction of the past. We know with certainty that the Universe as we know it is only about 13 billion years old, and time did not exist "prior" to the Universe. Time, like space and energy and matter, had it's beginning in the Big Bang.

Therefore, an infinite past is IMPOSSIBLE! If anything existed "prior" to the Big Bang, it was utterly and completely destroyed/eliminated by the Big Bang.

We know with certainty that matter (more accurately, matter/energy) is finite and has only existed for roughly 12.5 billion years. Matter did not always exist.

You write: "How long would one need to watch absolutely nothing before a rock appeared. If that's impossible - and of course it is impossible - then it must have always been there; meaning no beginning."

You are entirely wrong yet again! We know with certainty that matter (more accurately, matter/energy) is constantly coming into existence from nothing everywhere in the Universe every single femtosecond of every day. There are mega-trillions of matter particles coming into existence from nothing right in front of your face all the time! Sure, 99.999% of it very quickly disappears again when it is annihilated by it's anti-particle (which springs into existence from nothing at the same time), but that doesn't change the fact that matter is jumping into brand new existence constantly all around you.

We "arrived" here as an inevitable consequence of the properties of the Universe. There was the Big Bang, then Inflation, then came gravity and so-called "dark energy" and the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic forces, then the emergence of baryonic matter when nucleons began congregating, then gravity began to lump baryonic matter together to form galaxies and stars with huge structures, then the early stars began going supernova thereby producing heavier elements, then about 4.5 billion years ago a gravitational pocket of light and heavy elements coalesced into our sun and planet and solar system, then very soon self-replicating but non-living molecules (although they possessed almost all of the attributes of life) self-assembled in large measure due to the entropy-reducing properties of dissipative structures, then these self-replicating, near-living molecules almost certainly made the almost trivial crossing into life, then evolution by natural selection (and other evolutionary mechanisms) along with normal geological mechanics automatically ensured that life/DNA -- being fiercely competitive yet also cooperative when it served their competitive strategies -- would almost certainly eventually evolve flesh robots with goal seeking organs known as "brains" that would then compete with each other until these "brain" things in their flesh robots were so enormously powerful that they could take active measures to control and eventually nearly stall evolution completely. And here we are.

Your entire religious house of cards has crashed utterly into nothing, Rock. Your belief system -- as further demonstrated by your appalling ignorance of science -- is, unfortunately, a sad, pathetic joke.

- Martin

_________________________________________________________
Those who prize eloquence+rationality+analytic skill above politeness, Martin's our Allen Iverson. We put up with the other shit 'cause it's worth it; I didn't come to have a cup of tea. --BrianDC

Post Edited (03-27-04 12:43)

Re: On quantum physics and creatio ex nihlo

Author: Fer-de-lance
Date: 03-27-04 15:37

"Well, Quentin really tried to prove that mathematically, we don't need a God. But, well, he didn't make it very far. Please see rebuttal here:"

We don't need God. No "mathematical proof" is needed to demonstrate that. I simply linked that site as a matter of convenience because a good deal of what you posted indicated you weren't aware of many of the advances made since the the 15th century. No modern cosmological models "need god."

And this isn't what "Quentin" was trying to demonstrate in the link you provide. He's trying to go a step further than he admits most atheists take their skepticism and says God is logically impossible. If he fails, or anyone else fails to prove God is logically impossible, that in no way makes the case for God any better. And he will fail, by the way, as anyone else will. Because we will likely never know everything about the universe. Even worse, there will never be a consensus on philsophical debates (that often border on sophistry) such as the definition of causality, logical necessity etc.. And whatever we do not know, will simply equate to God in the mind of theists. And the definition of God will change, as needed, so that it doesn't contradict anything we do know. But the physics itself really, isn't where much of the action is. It's the wiggle room within the philosophical musings where Theists are trying to make "something form nothing."

--

Your something from nothing was an argument about "space" and "air," something material is there even though it doesn't appear to be. Which contradicts "creatio ex nihlo."

Parts I, II, & III Obserbations on your answer

Author: JAK
Date: 03-27-04 22:57

Part I Observations on your answer

Hi Karyn,

This seems rather long to take line by line in that it is all of our comments together. My compliments to you for taking a line by line approach. Organization is necessary and I appreciate your effort in that. I have attempted to keep all of the previous dialogue as I added to our discussion.

Whether purposefully or accidentally, there is much misrepresentation on my views. I shall focus on clarification and on your comments with additional comments in color.

Karyn stated:
You spend a good deal of time on this post talking about evidences which others have used in justifying their belief in God. Clearly, however, you do not believe such evidences as valid. Quite frankly, if all I had to go on was the list you gave above, I'm not sure I would believe in God either.

I have given no space to �talking about evidence which others have used in justifying their belief in God.� Rather, I discussed the inventions of gods & God resulting from observations wherein people lacked capacity to explain as well as the evolution of many gods concepts to few gods and later to one God concepts. �Justifying� is not what my comments were doing.

Karyn stated:
Yet your "answer" leaves me feeling very unsatisfied that you actually answered my question.

Since you have so mis-perceived my comment, it seems useless to rewrite or reconstruct what you have misrepresented here. You appear not to have understood.

Karyn stated:
You state, toward the end of your post, "There is the possibility that some supreme being exists." That would be a classically agnostic view...correct me if I am wrong in my conclusion.

Now then, my original question to you remains unchanged: You admit that there is the possibility that a supreme being exists. So, what type of evidence would you expect the universe to exhibit, or we as humans to discover, in order for you to believe that there is likely a supreme being...not merely admit the 'possibility'.

Possibility is not to be confused with likely. I expect �the universe to exhibit� no evidence for a �supreme being.� Your construction assumes that allowing possibility leads to probability. It is an unwarranted assumption.

Karyn stated:
Let me respond to just a few other of your comments.

JAK wrote:

> Hi Karyn,
> You will recall my reference to the February issue (2004) of
> Discover magazine. We know today that there are 100
> billion galaxies with 100 billion stars each stretching
> more than 10 billion light-years in all directions. We know
> the age of this universe is approximately 14 billion years and
> the planet earth is approximately 4.5 billion years in age. In
> science (consensus) we know this. The magnificent Hubble Space
> Telescope has shown us what was not previously seen by man.
>

This wonderful...I would be very interested in reading the article. Do you know if it, or something similar, is online? I don't subscribe to Discover although I used to read it in high school, and I don't have time to visit my library. I'm lazy...give it to me online! :)

Try a search engine. I know complete free access to magazines is not generally online.

JAK previously:
> With all these stars, the probability is extremely high that
> some if not many of them have orbiting planets much like those
> in our solar system with our single sun.
>
> I also know the basic development of human cultures (many now
> long past), and I know that most of the species which once
> inhabited the earth are extinct. Having use the dinosaur as a
> case in point (because we have authentic evidence for it), I
> recognize the age of the dinosaur lasted on this very planet �
> 160,000,000 years.

Karyn stated:
Fine, fine....how does this relate to my original question of God? You seem to have some purpose in stating the above, but I am not quite sure what it is. Are you trying to state that because you have this scientific knowledge, you have no reason to believe in God?

It relates to your position thus: God is your claim. What was the motivation, intent, or purpose of your God in that 160 million year period of earth�s life forms? How was your God relevant in the life cycles of that period of the earth? Since you present no evidence for God yet assert (without evidence) God is the creator of ALL, what answers do you offer to the questions here?

JAK previously:
> So in addressing your question, I am interested in at least two
> models of the universe or the cycle of universes.

And....what are those two models? Perhaps you went on to describe them but I certainly did not pick it up. If you would clearly label and number them I would appreciate it.

Those were the two models discussed in the Discover magazine which I cited. It would not be feasible to construct them here, but you can research them in print with illustrations in numerous science sources other than Discover.

JAK previously:
> Questions of �God� are not relevant to our little species which
> currently enjoys existence on this single planet among
> possibilities for life -- intelligent life throughout the
> vastness of what we now know.

Karyn stated:
How can you rationally come to such a conclusion, even given the fact that I recognize your statement as purely subjective?

The short answer is lack of evidence for your assertions. We have evidence regarding the size of the universe and the potential associated with the billions of galaxies. We know those galaxies exist. We know the size of the earth compared with the size of our sun. We know the size of our sun compared with the size of other suns. It is rational to regard speculation as irrelevant.

The �subjectivity� is yours. Questions of �God� are irrelevant absent evidence for the assertion. Your opinion that known facts are subjective lacks validity. If you intend to make your God notions rational and relevant, it is entirely your responsibility to do so.

Karyn stated:
Are you not interested in our beginnings? One or the other is true: Either there is no supreme being, no intelligent design whatsoever, or there IS a supreme being (or beings).

I�m interested but interested in what we know (and can discover) about the universe as much. Either/or exclusions are risky at best even with a high level of information. The notion of �supreme being� may be different from the notion of �intelligent design.� No evidence for either has been articulated or demonstrated.

Karyn stated:
The universe either has an uncaused cause at a single point in "time" (GOD) or it does not.

Speculation rooted in ancient myth is inherent in your statement. But it is not so ancient as speculation about gods. It is also a contradiction in terms or language to speculate on �uncaused cause.� Such language is double talk -- meaningless. Claim for cause requires evidence to be credible.

Karyn stated:
How is this not relevant?

It is your responsibility to make your claims relevant. You have not make a case for relevance of your speculation. You consistently fail to recognize assumptions made in your speculations. I point them out to you, and you continue ignoring.

Karyn stated:
Are you not a scientist? Do you not care about defining the world around you? In order to do so you must deal intellectually with the universe's beginnings at some point in time.

I favor discovery. That knowledge to which we have access has come about through great effort over time from the inquiry and research prodded by doubt. Doubt and skepticism invite investigation. I favor that and tentative conclusions which it produces.

I urge you to familiarize yourself with detailed accounts of the reigning Big Bang theory and the cyclic model perspective on that theory. No one can do that for you in limited space here. In those models the input of information known is enormous.

I also favor completely intellectual exploration of the beginnings of the universe. What I disfavor is myths that masquerade as explanation.

JAK previously:
> It is interesting to recognize the invention of gods to explain
> what earlier humans did not know. It is interesting to see the
> reduction of those gods as humans learned more.

Karyn stated:
JAK, you have asserted this generalization onto "all of humanity" before, and I have not responded. Let me do so now. Never has ancient "Christianity", the religion of Abraham, Moses and Jacob, been polytheistic.

Christianity is a relative late-comer in religious myths borrowing heavily from previous myths along the way. While Christianity today claims one God, it evolved from previous myths of multiple gods. There are various references in books of the Bible which evidence the evolution of the religion.

Literature ancient (early language) and later give evidence regarding the invention of gods and God. That is not observation which lacks evidence for support. We know much about prehistoric man from archeological findings. We also know much about the beginning of language in cultures as tribalism began to replace savagery. And we know about the continuing evolution of civilization and the invention of myths which served as explanation before genuine discovery displaced those myths.

None of those developments are assertions by me. They are all well documented historically -- archeological. That you characterize them as �assumptions� by me is simply inaccurate.

It is correct to recognize that Christianity developed largely as a monotheistic religion. It is incorrect to disconnect that religious evolution from previous myths which preceded it.

Karyn stated:
In the story of Christianity, the story of humankind told in the Bible, even the first man believed in one God. So your 'trend' only holds true for, at most, every other religion which has ever existed on this planet. Does this not say something for the uniqueness of the religion of the Bible?

Not particularly to your last question. Every religion tends to assert its �uniqueness.� It is the self-justification of the inventors to claim uniqueness. No evidence supports the notion of �the first man� which is claimed in Christian mythology. And evidence abounds that myths of Christianity emerged from previous myths. (My repetition is due to your misreading of much which I have written to you.) The mythologies of early biblical writings lack credibility and are contrary to what we know and can know today about the origins of species including our own.

Those myths did not offer evidence because they had none. Instead they were substitutes for factual explanations. Even so, the myths evolved from previous myths. Prior to the development of written language, story telling was the primary way of conveying past cultural practices and beliefs to the next generation. Lest you think this assertion on my part, please do the research in a good university library. We do know much about the development and evolution of cultural practices and perceptions, and such knowledge is documented in research subjected to testing. New information always adds to our understanding and is welcomed.

Part I end
JAK

Part II Observations on your answer

JAK previously:
None of us,
> including you, believe in the god of the Sun, or a Sun
> God. But once, and in the absence of what we know today, such
> belief is understandable. What was the sun if not a
> god? We can understand how mythology developed as man
> attempted to explain through story what he did not know.
>
Karyn stated:
JAK - The Bible has always claimed that worship of any thing other than the one true God is idolatry.

I repeat, biblical mythology followed many previous myths as attempt at explanation. �The Bible� claims nothing. The Bible is a collection of books which have undergone multiple revisions prior to early canonization(s) under the power of the Rome.

The evidence is that people wrote, rewrote, translated, and interpreted scripts which make up the current books in the Bible. People make claims. Books and collections of books do not make claims. It is an erroneous notion that the Bible is A book or that it claims. It is critical to recognize all scripts in religious mythology are a product of individuals in the plural. That also accounts for the numerous contradictions in mythologies. Christianity is no exception in that regard.

Karyn stated:
Moses' people did it with Baal, the golden calf. According to the Bible, God punished them for it. Never in Biblical history has God stated that it is OK to worship anything within creation. Only the Creator may be worshiped. The God of Christianity has not "developed"- only other religions' gods 'develop'. This again speaks to the uniqueness of Christianity and the God of the Bible.

This is not relevant nor is it responsive to my comments. Rather it is merely further claim by you as apologist for claims. You have never established God, yet write as if your assumption were fact going on to make more assumptions and assertions. None of this is relevant to the issues which I raised.

Before claims of what motivated God, you must establish God. That is, you must present credible evidence which everyone can observe, test, evaluate that demonstrates you have made a credible case for �God.� You have not done that. So, your above comment about particulars in Christian mythology are irrelevant since they are built upon a claim which has not been established.

The dinosaurs are relevant here. Dinosaurs precede any mythologies about gods or God. What was your asserted �God� doing then with life forms 65 million to 200 million years in the past? Your claims here are evidence that notions of gods and God were late arrivals in mentality of creatures which occupied this planet. That is, unless you intend to assert something the earlier life forms believed. But they had no written language. What was your God doing as an actor in early days of the planet earth?

How do your explanations address these questions? How do your explanations address the issues of the universe? The questions are at the heart of your claims for God. I don�t think you can address them with fact and information at the base of such an address. Instead, you are forced to rely on myth as explanation. You use �God� as default, yet �God� remains an assertion. Historically, we can document the evolution of notions of gods which preceded the notions of God. We can document that religions claiming one God followed myths claiming gods.

The notion of a single God is a notion -- an invention by humans late in the 4.5 billion year old earth. The body of evidence which supports that God notions were relatively recent in human evolution is historic. None of that, however, is evidence for God in any form. Claims in the absence of supporting evidence are weak and unreliable. (My repetition is because you seem to misunderstand frequently.)

JAK previously:
> But today, we know much

Karyn stated:
Yes...and not nearly enough. Let us not forget that. For tomorrow (figuratively, not literally) we might discover something which blows our current hypotheses, and even consensus 'facts', out of the water. That is what science is all about, isn't it?

Not exactly to your question. However, tomorrow we surely will discover something which adds to our knowledge about something. It is improbable that new acquisitions in knowledge will blow out of the water in the way you describe. Accumulation of information is a slow process although it sometimes seems rapid. It builds on previously established or tentative conclusions and researchers have no fear of new discovery. In large measure, that is why it works and has great reliability (consensus).

JAK previously:
> Most religions today (which claim deity) construct one which is
> mean, vindictive, hateful and partisan.

Karyn stated:
Is this what you believe of the God of the Bible?

JAK previously:
>Looking at the
> universe which we can know today, that construction is not only
> unsatisfying but unsatisfactory to encompass what the level of
> knowledge is in the most informed of human minds.
>
Karyn stated:
Let me re-iterate to clarify understanding. Are you saying that because religions today construct a God which is mean, vindictive, hateful and partisan, that belief in God at all is unsatisfactory? Are you simply saying that there has yet to be a religion which constructs a God that you like?

The answer to both questions is negative. I stated my point.

Karyn stated:
First, JAK, your statement (if it applies to Christianity and i'm sure it does) that God is mean, vindictive, hateful and partisan is subjective interpolation on your part.

Keep in mind that God inventions are yet to be established as fact. The invention of deity which orders (a human over-lay to deity) the killing of men, women, and children for asserted reasons of displeasure fits those descriptions. A deity which destroys and intervenes to harm out of displeasure (a human over-lay to deity) fits those descriptions. A deity which desires (a human over-lay to deity) to be worshipped and condemns (a human over-lay to deity) to suffering those who fail fits those descriptions.

Karyn states:
You cannot know all things about God, therefore it is not really fair to claim that God is mean, vindictive, or hateful.

�God� has not been established. No evidence for such claimed entity has been presented objectively and in full view. Claims without clear, tested observation are irrelevant. Assertions �about God� lack validity. What I stated was �Most religions today (which claim deity) construct one which is mean, vindictive, hateful and partisan.�

I made no comment on God but rather questioned your claims and acknowledged other claims which have been made by those who disagree with the claims which you make.

Karyn stated:
As to partisan, I will agree with you there. The Bible claims, and indeed has shown (if we are to take parts of the Bible as historical narrative) that God does not treat all people equally. Is this a problem for you?

I repeat, �The Bible� claims nothing. People make claims. In religion, people make claims about what the Bible means or claims about what the Bible says -- and they don�t agree with one another on their claims. A collection of 66 books (which is your point of reference) is not a person.

Your God notion is that God is partisan discriminating (a human over-lay to deity) in favor of some people and discriminating against other people. Mythologies typically assign human behavior (acting out emotion) to deity. In Christianity, it�s a part of creating (inventing) God in man�s genre. By the time Old Testament mythologies were evolving, human over-lay to deity was well in vogue. It continued through much of New Testament Christianity as well.

JAK previously:
> Do you recall the discussions on this board about
> requirement that any God would have to be worthy
> of worship (respect, acknowledgment)? It was perhaps several
> years ago that the discussion occurred.

Karyn stated:
Yes, I do actually. They were quite interesting. Of course, the problem is, what is one's definition of 'worthy'?

Not particularly. Myth constructions are generally to satisfy the perceptions (fears) of the time. Myths which survived any significant period appealed directly or indirectly just as do myths today in current interpretations of religion. That appeal is in large measure why myths survived.

Karyn stated:
Does it not smack of relativism? If there were one God of the universe, would he not deserve to be worshipped even if we did not believe he was deserving of our own worship? What happens when there is a God whom humanity in general does not like? Are you aware that this is what the Bible teaches? That God calls some people to worship him, and otherwise they would never worship him on their own? How do you feel about that - do you feel it is coercion? Do you have a problem with free will and the Biblical God?

Your myth construction applies human over-lay to your God in the notion of �deserving.� It seems irrelevant. Once again, �The Bible� does not teach anything. People who read the scripts in the 66 books interpret and assert that the Bible teaches. And more importantly, those people (read groups, denominations, sects, cults) do not interpret the scripts in the same way. They do not give the same emphasis to particular scripts. Hence their interpretations are unreliable. Or if only one is reliable, how is that to be determined?

You continue to ignore the first order of business -- evidence for your God. When you write: �That God calls some people...� you continue to assume that for which there is no evidence. So your statement is pointless. I should like to explore that a length in a less emotional venue. Distinction between claim and continued assertion from unestablished claim is without merit. It is a critical flaw in thinking, but length already is prohibitive.

JAK previously:
> I think most who are skeptical of any deity would
> require a notion of �God� to rise to that level.
>

Rise to what level? I do not understand your statement. And if they are to require a notion of God, how are they expected to acquire that notion?

Rise to the level of worthiness was the tenor of that discussion.

Karyn stated:
This is merely a rephrasing of the question I originally asked you...what evidence does the skeptic require in order to obtain some notion or awareness or belief in the probability of God?

Again, it is not the obligation or responsibility of the skeptic to articulate speculation on evidence. Rather it is the obligation of one making a claim to provide evidence which can be examined with skepticism. I can simplify by use of analogy, but length is a problem. If You choose to pursue, I will do so.

JAK previously:
> Most who are skeptical (perhaps I should just say many since I
> have no studies to offer) have great enchantment, exuberance,
> and cheer in knowing all that we can today. That tends to make
> notions of �God� irrelevant -- just as irrelevant as notions of
> gods (small g) centuries earlier.

Please see my comments early on God and relevancy. To say that God is irrelevant is merely to put off the discussion.

There is no delay of discussion. �God� is the assertion. Absent evidence by those who assert �God� there is no discussion. �God� is irrelevant. Skeptics don�t make assertion in the absence of positive evidence from one who makes a positive claim.

Karyn stated:
The fact is, everyone has some belief about 'God' - most agnostics would say "There is no evidence for God" or "I don't believe there is a God", or "I lack belief in God". Yet this is still a position about God.

Who made the claim about �God�? It was not the agnostic.

Part II end
JAK

Part III Observations on your answer

Karyn stated:
If it is a position, why can I not ask about the justifiability (rationale) behind your position? If you state that your position does nto require justification, is that to say that your position does not have any justification?

1st question: You can ask, but, it is your claim which is being addressed. You claim �God.� My response is: What is your evidence for �God�? The �rationale� for the question is a response to your claim.

2nd question: You continue to write as if the skeptic has responsibility to prove that your claim is unjustified. Such is not the case. The skeptic awaits evidence from the one who makes the claim. The skeptic says show us the evidence for your claim.

JAK previously:
> What people believe or don�t about inventions of deity is
> irrelevant.

Karyn stated:
Again, please see my comments on God and relevancy. To claim that God is irrelevant is, in my opinion, to avoid evaluation of a topic for which one is uncomfortable.

Who has claimed �God�? That remains the one to support the claim. God is irrelevant since no evidence has been presented to justify the claim �God.� Show us the evidence for your claim of �God.� So far, you have shown no evidence for the claim. Comfort is off topic, however, it seems clear that discomfort is the experience of those who make a claim for which they fail to offer evidence.

Karyn stated:
And again, "God is irrelevant" is not only overly generalized and highly subjective, but it is still a position about God.

It is not a position about �God.� It is a comment on your assertion of �God.� Even in this statement you continue to make a claim and fail to recognize it is your claim. Only your claim is being addressed. You have not defined your God. Unless or until you who make claim are able to articulate with precision, a skeptic�s reference is solely to your use of the term.

JAK previously:
>But what we know and can learn about even
> our little space on this tiny planet earth is a source of great
> joy. Recognizing that there may be many spinning planets
> around other suns which could have life even more
> intelligent than we are -- or less is exciting.

Karyn stated:
So you find joy and excitement in scientific knowledge. Is this an implication that you do not need to find joy and excitement in the possibility of there being a God?

What is �God�? I have been shown no evidence for �God.� But I can show evidence for the invention of gods in mythology. I can show evidence for the reduction of invented gods in mythology. I can show the evolution of mythology and the emergence of monotheism in mythology. I can show evidence for many religions which come from ancient times as humans constructed gods and God as an effort to explain that which they did not comprehend. The evolution of myths about �God� following the constructions of a single deity can be recognized in cultures through language.

That in no way makes a comment about the validity of any such entity nor about the validity of multiple entities perceived as �gods.� We do know the invention of deities preceded the invention of single deity.

JAK previously:
> I do think the many centuries humans have spent constructing
> gods is interesting. The evolution of civilization from the
> savage is a great study to occupy one�s whole life if he is
> sufficiently interested. But of equal if not greater interest
> is discovery. Information, knowledge [science] is about
> discovery. That is not to be confused with doctrine surrounding
> religions. The degree to which myth obfuscates acquisition of
> knowledge is regrettable, yet inescapable. That is, we didn�t
> get to the present level of knowledge without great
> struggle...and that struggle will continue long beyond our
> little existence on our also little home -- earth.

Karyn stated:
I will not go so far as to claim what, I believe it was damndope, said in that religion should not comment on science, and science should not comment on religion.

It was the late Jay Gould who articulated the idea to which you refer. It is wrong in that virtually all mythologies (religions) �comment on science.� The problem is that the �comment� is virtually always incorrect or pseudo science by present-day knowledge. Biblical myths are no exception to erroneous comments on science.

Karyn stated:
In fact if there is ONE religion which actually has got it right, and which actually has been given to us by God, then it must at least not contradict scientific discovery.

This is assertion of �God� again absent any evidence for support of the assertion as well as failure to recognize evolution of religions over thousands of years. It is no support for your position. And it is an example of I believe, I believe -- don�t ask me to address fact or history or known science.

Karyn stated:
In this sense science and any true religion (the one that is given to us by a true and real God) must coexist peacefully, if the religion is to be true ane science is to be true and accurate.

Religion changes doctrine to conform to the discoveries of science. When it fails to conform, it continues claim in the absence of evidence. There is little consensus in religion and no consensus that �ONE religion� is superior to all other religions. In Christianity as a single religion, there is not Caucasus as demonstrated by the more than 1,000 groups claiming their rendition of the religion is the accurate one or closest to accurate.

Karyn stated:
But, JAK, the Bible is not a scientific text. Nor should it be taken as such. it is regrettable, I agree, that some have tried to use it as a scientific text - for example insisting that any Creation must have been done in exactly 7 days. But on the same token, there have been many atheistic instructors who have taught children during biology classes (note: science is not supposed to comment on religion!) that belief in God is utterly absurd.

I am skeptical of your last statement. How �many� is many? Can you quantify this assertion? I an skeptical that you can. It is understandable that Christian apologists want to distance themselves from biblical science, since it is demonstrably false.

Karyn stated:
So you see, we have it going both ways - religionists have made mistakes, and scientists have made mistakes.

There is no question that people make mistakes.

Karen stated:
The people whom I truly respect are those scientists who have room in their worldview for God - they can do experiments and utilize discovery for the acquisition of knowledge, and then they can leave open the possibility that "Hey, God could have done this". Any sort of absolutism regarding the cause of things in nature is an exercise in futility, in my opinion. I just want people to be open-minded.

An open mind is generally good. That is the nature of inquiry. What do we know? How do we know it? What information led us to conclusion? Was our methodology valid in the discovery process? -- All these and more are elements of being open to discovery.

JAK previously:
>However, what we can understand,
> what we can discover through meaningful calculation, diagnosis,
> and perception can enhance (and has already) the quality of
> life -- at least for the duration of the human species.
>
Karyn stated:
JAK - are you saying that in order to accept God as more than assertion you must be able to calculate, diagnose, and perceive God? Are you expecting to weigh God as you would something physical? Of course not.

I was addressing how we know what we do and how we process information which is available. I was not making comment on any God concepts -- present or past.

Karyn stated:
God is not physical - God is spirit (well, at least according to most definitions of God).

You recognize you are making a claim in this statement. What can you offer as evidence for this claim? A new assertion here is �God is spirit...� What is spirit? How is it recognized? What is your basis for that conclusion?

First, though, you need to address �God is not...� You are making a negative assertion in that statement. How do you distinguish that �God is not...�? What do you offer as support for the negative assertion?

If I keep an open mind, I await your supply of something -- information which can be evaluated, evidence which can be examined, etc.

Karyn stated:
I'll not state that the previous statement, or indeed any of my statements about God, are meant as empirical truths. What I state about God has come directly from what the Bible says about God, and nothing more.

We know the Bible is a collection of books written over time by various authors. We also know that people who read that Bible today do not agree on what the Bible says.... And as I previously pointed out, the Bible does not say anything. People say. And what people say today about the various scripts in all 66 books is at variance with what people have said previously. That is, great historical divides in Christianity have been over interpretation of biblical scripts. The last great divide was the Protestant Reformation which began in 1511 A.D. and continues today as people protest previous interpretations and offer reforms.

Karyn stated:
Having said that, there are many things which we feel and perceive today that are not physical. How does a lawyer try to prove motive in a court of law? How does a man prove to a woman that he loves her? The fact is, I love my husband. But I could never prove this to you. I could not prove it any more than I can prove God to you. But I am not trying to do either, so we are OK there.

I can address this, but it seems off topic to the claims you have made, and the length is such you may never get this far reading. I don�t object to dealing with this paragraph, but you have so much to answer for previously that this analogy may need to wait.

JAK previously:
> That word �supreme� is supremely important. It can hardly
> constrain what we know as well as what we may learn. The notion
> that some surviving myth from earlier human cultures accurately
> encases such a supreme being is not rational nor
> satisfactory.

Karyn stated:
Again, you define God within the context of previous religious 'myth' - in other words, how others have described God. But you don't have to subscribe to religion to believe in God. You say myth is unsatisfactory.

�God� has not been established. I await your evidence for the claim -- �God.�

Karyn states:
Fine, I will grant you that, for to you, all religion is myth. This does not let you off the hook for your lack of belief in God, nor your unwillingness to consider teh evidences we do have that some sort of "God" exists...even if every religion ever created has failed miserably at trying to describe God.

You now claim I am on some kind of �hook.� Why? And what is your basis to claim that I am on a �hook�? You have offered no evidences for �God� of any �sort.�

Do you consider that �every religion� is created? There is clearly strong evidence to support that religion is created. But I think invented is a better word in that religions tend to have complexity of dogma and doctrine which is written, rewritten, interpreted and molded by men (few if any women). So religion has been an invention in progress over thousands of years. Doctrinal shifts have come about in the invention largely due to discovery which makes some doctrine absurd when examined in detail. Religious doctrines change as discovery forces them to shift. The evidence for that is abundant in historical data.

JAK previously:
The universe is full of evidences. We can see
> with telescopes and with microscopes. We can listen to
> sounds from the universe.
> Thus far, there is no consensus evidence about any supreme
> being.

Karyn stated:
Your "consensus" includes measuring with instruments that allow us to see and listen to physical things. But, to most, God is not a physical thing.

Again an assertion of the negative -- �God is not...� To help your case for God the affirmative is needed. It is most difficult to establish a negative such as you assert here.

Karyn stated:
Certainly the God of the Bible is not.

Really? Have you read the Old Testament?

Karyn stated:
So, what do we do with a God who is not physical? What other means may we use that will be acceptable to you as evidence for God's existence?

The burden of proof is yours on the question. �God� is an assertion. That �God� is not physical is also an assertion.

So how do you intend to establish the concept of �existence�? What does it mean to exist?

Again, I thank you for your organization and responses. My additions have made our dialogue quite lengthy, and I hope you were able to read my rejoinders to you.

Part III end
JAK

Re: The Question of Universe or just endless space

Author: RockWalk
Date: 03-27-04 23:37

Thanks for your comments Martin.

Just wondering why you assert the Big Bang as the answer to all when you know that there are serious questions to be answered in regards to the Big Bang, i.e. scientific observations that contradict the theory.

Many observations seem to prove that the universe is slowing down and new observations are suggesting that the universe is speeding up. What about the theory of 'endless expansion'? This would bust your finite space assertion. Maybe you believe that this 'endless expansion' theory cames from a stupid mormon???

I think you can learn all about this in Cosmology 101.

Martin - do you assume I don't believe that the Big Bang is possible? Do you assume I don't accept anything about evolution? I believe that science will teach us much more in the future if we don't confine ourselves to a box of rocks and a balloon.

Anyway, thanks!

Rocky

Post Edited (03-28-04 08:37)

Karyn - A Brief Addition

Author: JAK
Date: 03-28-04 00:56

Hi Karyn,

Some additional elaboration with a thank you in advance if you are still reading.

Religious doctrines change in the light of evidence which reveals their error, false claim, or absurdity as revealed by discovery (science).

It is never the other way around. Science never alters its conclusions based on some religious doctrine.

The fact of doctrinal shift is evident in surviving religions today. For example, no seriously religious person in the Western world argues for a sun god. Information and knowledge today eliminates the sun as deity. We know enough about the sun to eliminate application of �god� (small g) to the sun.

There is no question that much knowledge is yet to be acquired.

Something which I sense needed more elaboration for you was in how a claim or assertion is addressed.

If I were to tell you there is a Larst, how would you respond? You might say where or show me or how do you know this. There are other things you might say/ask about my claim.

If I then tell you, a Larst cannot be seen because it is not physical, how would you respond? You might ask, how do you know this.

If then I further tell you that a Larst is a spirit and must be experienced, how would you respond?

What is happening in this is simply claim laid upon claim laid upon claim.

The reliance upon an unsupported claim the first claim is unreliable. Once one assumes validity absent supporting evidence for it, one is in trouble rationally. All claims built upon an irrational one, an invalid one, or one without evidence make any conclusion unreliable methodology.

Often in Christianity today, apologists use the word because to explain or clarify. The difficulty is that because is only useful or instructive when there is clear demonstrable cause. Otherwise it has no merit. It lacks validity.

Now religion has a method of self-protection. That method is simply to pile on assertions and declare them true and truth. So long as believers are willing to simply say Amen to whatever is claimed, religion (any religion) protects itself from scrutiny and examination. In Christianity, many people attend the same church, hear the same preacher, and read the same approved writings (other than the Bible which they also read), self-protection remains in place.

Religion abhors tough questions for which it has no answer. Often it is young people who have begun to think that cause problems for churches. They ask too many questions and press adult loyalists into uncomfortable positions. One pastor (whom I know) told the people in charge of the youth groups that they should be very careful with question and answer time. Further, the pastor advised that too many �why� questions should be discouraged and the adults should keep the lesson (Sunday School) moving along to the right answers.

Perhaps that is typical, perhaps not. But clearly questions which get out of the theatre are unwelcome.

That is the case since doctrine already has the answers. There really is no happy medium between science and religion -- in my view. I hold that view because methodology is always reversed. Science never ceases asking why. There is no limit to exploration which is intellectual, honest, straight forward, and thoughtful.

While some Christians argue that science excludes �God,� the argument is without merit. Science does what I did with you, it asks for evidence for God from those who make the claim. Thus far, no such evidence has been produced. Hence, consensus science makes no comment on �God.� God is irrelevant.

You asked about that. �Larst� (from my example above) is irrelevant. My failure to bring anything which could be viewed in any manner with objective, intellectual adeptness left an inquisitor with no comment. (Or I should say it would have had there been an actual dialogue such as I used for illustration.)

Christians who attend their various churches and stay in them must function with blocking mechanisms which keep them from asking the wrong questions or even thinking them. Thinking is dangerous in as much as it threatens doctrines of Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism, etc.) Truth is prescribed within the confines of denominational limits (or cult limits, etc.)

A genre of language is developed to preclude the kind of trial and interrogation in my discussions with you.

You demonstrated some of the techniques used to preclude question.

For example: The Bible says...(so and so), therefore it must be true, it must not be questioned, it must be believed. (Of course you did not say all that.) But such constructs are the hallmark of techniques to block thinking. Another example often used: God says ... (so and so), therefore it must be true and believed. A variety of verbs following the word God work in the same way -- to terminate question and declare truth -- without question.

This is what I have described in other discussion on this forum, Truth by Assertion.

Emergence of cultures was too briefly addressed in Part I of my comments. To better illustrate that, I might refer to the present state of what we call American culture. It is easy to recognize that all of us today are not what all of us were 250 years ago. Not only are there more of us, but our ethnic division is statistically quite different. Our interaction is quite different. Our practices, clothing, social divisions and much more are all quite different than they were 250 years ago. Yet these changes are quite dramatic or striking.

If we really had a time machine that could take us back in time to be an objective witness to the events, language, social connections and disconnects of 250 years ago, we would see things we can�t truly comprehend from reading or seeing pictures. Even the religion Christianity has undergone many changes which we can�t see because we can�t be an eye-witness 250 years ago.

I mention this to amplify the point that religions, and Christianity as a specific case in point, evolve. While people may wish to think it has not changed, it is a false perception as I illustrated with the previous paragraphs on American culture. We really know this or could if we stop and give it thought. Chicago (one of my towns) is quite different in many ways than it was merely 50 years ago and vastly different than it was just prior to the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. No one can go back and be an eye-witness to that city in 1870. It is a short time in light of our current discussions about the universe and the history of the earth and the evolution of civilizations since savage, prehistoric man was on the earth. Yet, the changes which we can know (the history) of Chicago is remarkable and remarkably preserved in our dedicated museums.

Evolution of religion (Christianity in your purview) has undergone significant change in 250 years. Many divisions have taken place. Those are difficult to recognize because we cannot view from 250 years ago.

Frequently people express the idea this is the way it has always been -- no reason to change now. When they enunciate that, they have little clue how false their notion is. They believe what they say. Sometimes they frame that idea without the last part -- they simply think this is the way it has always been.

While Christianity was highly fractured prior to the Protestant Reformation, the fragmentation has surged since that explosive division. That observation encompasses the religion globally -- not merely the United States.

Our personal life span as thinking adults is too short to appreciate and to comprehend the evolutionary factors over greater time frame even hundreds of years, much less thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands.

People sign-on to or believe particular religious doctrine with little or no awareness of change over time. If we look closely, we can see change in religious doctrine in the making. Consider the Roman Catholic position on artificial birth control. While the Vatican remains resolute, 80 to 90% of Roman Catholics take aggressive control over the size of their families. Consider V. Gene Robinson as a bishop, the Episcopal Church. Unless one happens to be an Episcopalian, this may not seem significant -- but it likely is not only for that denomination but for others which will choose to follow the doctrinal shift in their own denomination or reject it.

In 1973 there were no priests in the Episcopal Church. When the idea was proposed for women as priests, the Bible was quoted clearly on record as opposing women as priests. In a quarter of a century this is the fact of evolution in that denomination.

One (you) might argue that this is unimportant or insignificant. But it demonstrates the evolution in one Christian church and is but one example of evolution in Christianity. How will more women at the head of a Christian church further modify Christian doctrine? We don�t know, but in another hundred years, it is most likely that interpretation (which makes doctrine) will shift in particular ways.

As I reread my three-part notes to you, I can think of many ways I could have better articulated and illustrated. While I was critical of you for misreading my words, I should also be most critical of my own precision in communication.

These are only a few afterthoughts. Perhaps they will not be seen by you since there is much posting on the forum.

Karyn, my thanks to you again if you have really plowed through my efforts to speak with you. I�ve tried to be honest if not always diplomatic. Given some of the expressions on other subjects by other writers, I also appreciate your kindly language.

JAK

Response Part 1 - Evidence for God

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-28-04 03:04

JAK,

I do want to reassure you that I'm still with you. I took a brief detour to discuss (if you can call it that) a bit of Mormonism but I've decided its a waste of my time. I've saved this discussion with you until last.

First, let me preface with a few things. First: we are discussing what is in essence the same thing on two different threads. If its OK with you, I'm going to condense my response into this one thread for the sake of clarity and brevity (as much as possible anyway). If you would prefer me to respond to both, or something specifically, please call it to my attention.

Second, I feel I need to relay my frustration in dialoguing with you. Clearly I discuss more with you than other poster on this board, and that is fine....but it seems that with every post, you expect me to rebuild my entire argument for believing what I believe from scratch. Despite the fact that both of the posts I contributed to ask questions about the atheist or agnostic's stance on cosmology, you have managed to turn the conversation back around into what I believe. You have managed to do so without explaining your own position on the ultimate questions of the universe except a reference to an article in Discover magazine. While you are an expert at manipulating your hand to the offensive JAK, I grow tired of your non-answers if you expect me to answer the vastly more complex array of issues which you bring up for me to address.

Additionally, you present the same arguments in every single post, JAK. I am constantly hearing "God is an assertion, you have provided no evidence", and "Christianity borrowed from earlier myths" and "Christianity has evolved over time". Your newest protestation is that "The Bible doesn't claim anything". Despite the fact that I have addressed many of your protestations, you continue to bring them up as though I have never spoken of them, and ask me to address them again. In addition, I do not think I have ever met a person who has more misconceptions about what the Bible teaches than you. I am not making a claim or assertion here as to the factual basis of these teachings, but I find it tiring having to explain even basic Christian principles that are so twistedly misinterpreted by you.

Due to length I am going to do some serious paraphrasing of your words above here, and please allow me some room as I really don't want to digress into a discussion which has us debating what we meant to say and what we didn't mean to say.

1. "God is an assertion". - your first protestation you would like me to address

This claim is made in nearly every single response you make above, JAK. Therefore let me deal with it first. Because you will not provide me with the evidence that you feel would be necessary, I will share with you what evidence I believe is reasonable enough to justify a belief in God. Since it seems that I must be excruciatingly clear in my communications with you, please view 'God' in this context as some generic Intelligent Being who is supreme and/or superior in every way to us, and who 'rules' or 'runs' the universe. Please do NOT substitute the Christian definition or views of God into this justification of belief - these evidences are meant only to show that belief in the existence of some generic 'God' is not unreasonable.

I find it hard to believe that such a well-educated person as yourself has not heard or run into these evidences or indicators before. If you have not, I would be shocked. If you have, then your claim "There is no evidence for God" is misleading, for what you really mean is "There is no evidence for God which I accept as valid". This is, I suspect, what your true position is on the subject. Therefore, I ask you again: What evidence would you find acceptable in order to change your belief from atheism to theism?

A. Studies of cosmology - Despite your protestation that 'uncaused cause' is linguistically meaningless, we cannot allow the limitations of human language to define the world around us. Logically, everything within this universe has a cause for existing. Things do not spontaneously come into existence without a cause for it. Of course if we place this principle of existence by causality on a timeline and go backward, we cannot go backward infinitely as the science of cosmology has proven *by consensus* that the universe had a definite starting point - what most refer to as the 'big bang'. It is this 'big bang' which I would like to take a closer look at.

The first thing I would like to consider is, what did the universe consist of at the time of the big bang? Atheists - not crackpots but published atheists who are considered leaders in their field (a la Quentin Smith) - have proposed that the universe consisted of a single point 'so small that its size was zero'. Obviously this notion is absurd, and he has been criticized quite strongly for it. But these are the gymnastics atheists must go through to get around the problem of causality. Let me explain further.

Certainly, something either exists or it does not exist. This is a truism. The universe either existed in a tiny, tiny speck of matter, or it did not. Quentin Smith knows that he cannot admit that the universe existed in any sort of matter which has dimension. To do so would be to immediately beg the question, where did the matter come from? In other words, what caused the matter's existence??. Instead, he attempts to state what is not possible: that the universe both existed and did not exist at the same time. Such a claim is, of course, ridiculous both philosophically and scientifically.

Let us get back to the problem of causality: That the universe must have existed, and that at some point the universe exploded and expanded into the universe it is today, and continues to become with every passing moment in time. Now then...the key question lies here: where did the initial matter which is today, the entire universe, come from? And secondly, what caused that highly condensed bit of matter to explode if no other acting force yet existed to act upon it and force it to do so?

THIS, JAK, is the question that cannot be answered. Science cannot answer it. Because science can only measure that which is tangible and able to be duplicated. Acausality has never been duplicated, no matter how hard secular scientists try.

Clearly, the ONLY logical answer based upon what we know (this may change in the future as we learn more but, as you once said, we must make decisions based upon the best data we have available to us at the time) is that something acted to create the initial matter, and also acted to set in motion the explosion that would eventually create the universe. Well, what is that 'something'? For lack of a better definition we have labeled that thing "God", for we do not know what else to call it. Clearly it couldn't have been us, and we are the only intelligence that we know of that exists in the universe. If it wasn't us, then it must have been some other sort of pre-existing intelligence. Again, for lack of better description, we call this thing "God".

I find it is getting quite late so let me briefly list some other topics which I find compelling and you will hopefully ask me to clarify if they are unclear:

B. Anthropic principle - we have had lengthy discussions on this before, but the fact is that this universe contains between 23 and 25 principles or laws which specifically support life. It seems as though this indicates 'design'.

C. More on Design - the complexity of biology, without going into too much detail, seems incredible for me to believe it was a product of pure, random chance. And not just chance which had many, many chances to screw up, but one chance to get it right. For the very concept of evolution is that one thing builds upon another - simple to complex. If the simple is messed up, how can the complex ever be expected to form or to survive? The statistical probability of the universe getting everything right on the first try by pure, random chance (even if it were demonstrated that acausality is possible, which I believe it never will) is so statistically small it is an incomprehensible number and may as well be zero. I have heard something in the neighborhood of 1 to the 23rd power.

D. Man's quest for God - You state that man throughout history has always created religions yet we are clearly the only animal ever to do so. A simple question which you may have never pondered deeply: Why? Why do we have a yearning for God? I do not have a yearning for unicorns. Where did the initial idea of God come from? What possessed Moses to write the Pentateuch as though God were speaking to him? Where on earth did he get the idea 'god' to begin with? If he were an evolved being, shouldn't he be more concerned with natural selection and simply surviving and ensuring his offspring survived?

E. Evidence for a Soul - Why are we the only animals to possess intelligence and emotion? Why are we capable of such complexities as love, hatred, anger, fear, judgment, sorrow, grief...the list goes on and on. As evolved creatures I would expect anything non-physical to be utterly missing. Yet we feel pain in a very non-physical way. It is possible to 'break our hearts'. What does it mean to break the heart of an evolved creature? Emotion and human meaning become irrelevant -meaningless - to the evolved creature. (A clarification: by 'evolved creature' I am referring to a creature evolving in a world without God or God's help - atheistic evolution)

F. Guilt - There is a huge problem with the problem of good and evil, of morals. The problem of 'ought' cannot be ignored - we ought to do this or that. Ever heard a three year old screem "That's not fair!" Where on earth did he get his idea of what 'fair' is? Have you ever had a two year old lie to you? Such simple lies and they usually cry while they're lying to your face. Why? Where do they learn to lie, and why are they so obviously upset while they are doing it? I submit to you that guilt is a pointer to moral absolutes, and moral absolutes cannot come from human society. In an atheistic world with no supreme being who makes ultimate law, there is no good and evil. There is no "I ought to do this" or "I shouldn't do that". Yet no human alive, save the most severely psychotic, has never run into this concept of 'should' and 'shouldn't'. It is the very basis by which we judge others. We say 'Hitler should not have killed all those Jews'. We say 'Hussein should not have raped all those Iraqi women'. Why? Who really cares in a world with no moral law?

You say you do not believe in God because there is no evidence for God. I have just presented evidence which I find to be very compelling for the existence of God, and I am not alone. Until the 19th century, almost all intellectuals and scholars were theists of some kind. With the coming of Darwin, Hume and Hawkings, the atheistic movement became more popular. But we are again seeing a swing toward theism, because people are finding that science cannot, in fact, answer many of life's ultimate questions.

In summary - Reason may not lead us directly to God as definitive proof, but with the things we know today, Reason should not keep us from belief in God.

JAK - I have done an absolute injustice on this post but its late and I would do more of an injustice by continuing to type. Nevertheless, these are some reasons I believe in a higher power. Why I believe Christianity to be the 'religion' (I like to call it personal relationship) given to us by this higher power, is outside the scope of this post.

In future posts I hope to address your other protestations which I listed in quotes at the top of this thread.

If you have not read "God: The Evidence" by Patrick Glynn, I highly suggest you do so. He isn't a Christian but he offers a thoroughly expanded version of many of the topics I have listed above.

I will write more tomorrow as I have time.

Karyn

Response Part 2 - Other Questions

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-29-04 02:06

JAK, A response to your major themes throughout our discussions. My hope is to address them once so that we may progress and I will not have to address them again.

While you may not agree with me, I hope this clears up my perspective and opinion on these matters which you bring up with great frequency, so that I might not be accused of not responding again.

Karyn

1. Christianity borrowed from other myths
With respect to this, I suspect that you and I are defining Christianity differently. Christianity has been the religion which is described in the Bible as having begun when the very first man - whether his name really was Adam or not - knew God personally.

If you have read the Bible, or enough of it at least to gather historical summary from the Old Testament especially, you can see that the Bible's historical narrative roughly covers a chronological timeframe which starts from the very first man and evolves forward throughout time until we reach the apostle John, who wrote the very last book - Revelations. Of course, it continues today.

You must be under the impression that Christianity was started from Jesus Christ, but that is untrue. The word 'testament' means 'covenant', Jesus came to bring a new covenant with mankind. Prior to Jesus' sacrifice the Old Covenant - that of the Law - was in place, and God's 'chosen' people were the nation of Israel (and before that, the Hebrew people existing in various lands throughout time). What Jesus did was come to offer a new covenant - not one of law, but one of Grace. Yet throughout the Bible we are dealing with the same God. The God who watched Pilate condemn Jesus is the same God who spoke to Abraham.

To say that Christianity 'borrowed' from earlier 'myths' is a very ambiguous statement and reveals a lack of understanding as to what Christianity truly is. Most people do not see characters in the Old Testament as 'Christians' - they seem them merely as 'Jews'. But they were in fact Christians - they had faith in the coming Messiah.

It is not accurate to assert that Christianity was founded after other religions and that it is a copycat or patchwork quilt of several other religions. This is simply not true - Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament as Scripture, he made a point of praying to the "Old Testament" God whom he knew the Jewish people would be familiar with...he taught in their temples. He practiced the same religion which God had originally given the Jews, because he was a Jew and lived among Jewish people. He also taught on many occasions that he was sent here to change the rules, so to speak. This was not a new religion - this was a change in the way God wished to interact with his chosen. It was the point in time during which the Messiah appeared and fulfilled hundreds of prophecies regarding him in the Old Testament.

The reason many Jews still practice Old Covenant today is because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah. It is not that they were not aware of a Messiah being promised and prophesied, but that Jesus didn't fit their preconceived mold. They were expecting a Messiah to come as Moses did and demand the freedom of the people. Instead, they got a carpenter's son born in a barn. They are still waiting for him, and I fear their time has long passed.

In summary, JAK, Christianity has existed from the dawn of mankind, according to the Bible.

If you wish to argue against something, argue against the claims of the Bible...but do not make the mistake of assuming that Christianity started with Christ or with Paul or with Peter. The Bible clearly teaches that the same God is worshiped in Old Testament vs. New Testament, and it clearly teaches that God's will was that his Son should come to die as a sacrifice so that his chosen (the elect) should receive the grace that they do not deserve. The story is so rich with nuance, if you have not read all of the Bible, you really should do so.

2. Christianity has evolved over time
In some ways yes, in some ways no. There are things we believe today which Paul believed and Augustine believed and Luther believed. These are the essentials. R.C. Sproul wrote a wonderful book entitled "Essentials of the Christian faith". If you are interested in separating Christian essential beliefs from all the other 'fluff' then you should read this book.

I agree, otherwise, that Christianity has evolved, and it has not always evolved positively. It has grown, spread out, diversified. Some of these diversifications are, in my educated opinion, infiltrations of secular influence that have no business being in the Christian church. Other specific behaviors have no business being performed by anyone, let alone anyone who calls themselves Christian. Yet Christianity, and specifically its founder, Jesus Christ, does not deserve to be condemned or blamed for the actions of those who might do awful things in its name. Did Jesus Christ teach that one should kill all pagans who would not convert? OF COURSE NOT. If a person adheres to actions which are never taught by a religion's founder, how can that person have claim to be a member of that religion? In short, THEY CAN'T.

If one bad thing happens in the name of Christianity, does that mean it is Christian if Christianity does not teach it? The very notion is absurd, but it happens all the time. I know a woman who hates all black men with a passion because she was raped by one. Does this mean that all black men are rapists, or otherwise violent? Of course not. I know many who are very kind, generous, articulate and abhor violence. This woman knows this rationally, too. But it is a conditioned response - she cannot help it.

Sometimes people act this way with Christianity too. Because a Christian has treated them badly, or a church has done so, or because they have learned that historical acts of violence have been attributed to people calling themselves 'Christian', the person wants nothing to do with Christianity. While I can understand where that person is coming from, it is certainly not fair to reject Christianity unless one at least reads through the Bible (or parts of it at least, such as the New Testament) and understands its clear teachings.

Now I have gotten off on a bit of a tangent but I hope you see where I am going with this. Christianity has not changed because the Bible has not changed. What Jesus Christ taught, and taught his disciples to teach, was the Gospel, and there aren't many people who don't know at least the gist of it in today's civilized nations. This is unlike other religions where the texts have undergone major revisions - such as Mormonism wherein over 3000 changes have been documented not including grammatical changes such as spelling corrections, punctuation, and other trivial alterations.

Paul, in the Bible, states that if anyone should preach a different Gospel, then they should be accursed. Does this mean that Christian scholars have not argued theology? Of course not. Battles rage on within Christian academia over vastly important doctrines such as predestination (the Calvinist viewpoint, that is, since all of Christianity believes in SOME sort of predestination), and over such petty things as whether organs are still appropriate means by which to worship. Christians like to argue just like everyone else. But, of mainstream Christianity (I hope you share my loose definition of mainstream, as it is comfortably familiar to orthodox), you will be hard-pressed to find a church that does not share in the essential doctrines that have always been taught. A Christian church, for instance, does not teach that Jesus was not resurrected. Or that Jesus was not God in flesh. Or that humans are sinners in need of salvation. All you will find is that people will put it differently. The Baptists will be blunt and tell you you're going to hell. The touchy-feely new denominations such as Covenant and Foursquare will never be that openly judgmental of put-offish. It doesn't change the doctrine but it does change the delivery

In this way Christianity has evolved and continues to. My pastor once said "unity on the essentials, respect for diversity on the non-essentials". I think that's a point of reference for the general attitude of Christians today. Yet I know many who do not fit this. You visit the midwest and you're likely to run into the type who insist that their perspective is correct on everything from how high a pulpit should be to where a nursery should be located. Its ridiculous, but as Malcom once said, stubborness (he used hypocrisy) is more a product of humans in general, than it is specifically of Christians.

Do I believe there are false Christian churches and false Christians? Absolutely. All one has to do is check out the Christian TV channel for an example of that. Some chick with a hairdo two feet high sitting on a golden chair with gold everywhere in the room is trying to tell us how humble she is? The 'universalist' Christian church claiming that you don't have to believe in Jesus to get to heaven?

These are examples of falsity within the Christian church. It saddens me, but if you know what the Bible teaches well enough, they are usually easy to spot. But the beauty of Christianity is that, it does not matter what everyone else believes. Its a personal relationship between you and God. Of course there is community there, but the falsity of one person need not exclude you from having a wonderful and genuine experience for yourself.

3. The Bible makes no claims
I am surprised by this comment...that you would make it, specifically. If there is one thing that the Bible does, it makes claims. It claims that God exists, that mankind are sinners (i.e. not capable of doing God's will), that we need 'salvation', that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human and came to pay the penalty for the sins of the elect, which was death. The fact the Bible consists of many different authors does not in any way hinder its overall message. Even if one refuses to acknowledge the canon, one can still see that individual authors make claims in their own works.

I don't believe it is worth much more discussion on this topic - that the Bible makes claims is a given, and not worth debating.

Sincerely,
Karyn

Re: The Question of Universe or just endless space

Author: Martin
Date: 03-29-04 07:33

You write: "Just wondering why you assert the Big Bang as the answer to all when you know that there are serious questions to be answered in regards to the Big Bang, i.e. scientific observations that contradict the theory."

You are once again mistaken. You shouldn't listen to the cranks who tell you these things. The evidence for the Big Bang is so overwhelmingly powerful and compelling and vast that there is no possible justification for doubting it's reality. What you may be thinking of is some pseudo-scientific bullshit articles in the popular (non-scientific) press from several years ago that was stupidly over-hyped and actually turned out to be still more evidence for the Big Bang. The reality of the Big Bang is at least as certain as that the Sun shines.

You write: "Many observations seem to prove that the universe is slowing down and new observations are suggesting that the universe is speeding up."

False again! The fact is that the effects of the hypothesized expansion-rate-increase resulting from so-called "dark energy" -- assuming its reality, which remains somewhat speculative -- only measurably counteract the slowing of expansion caused by gravity beyond a certain distance. What this means in practice is that observations of closer objects will appear to show a slowing of expansion, while observations of sufficiently distant objects will show accelerating expansion. The two sets of observations are not contradictory.

You demonstrate yourself to be a "stupid Mormon" when you write: "What about the theory of 'endless expansion'? This would bust your finite space assertion. Maybe you believe that this 'endless expansion' theory cames from a stupid mormon???"

Please don't presume to try to educate me on these matters: I'm FAR more knowledgeable than you. An "endlessly expanding" Universe will ALWAYS be a completely finite Universe, stupid! Think about it! Imagine a balloon that is infinitely flexible and expandable that is being inflated by an infinite air pumping machine. After one minute of filling it will be a finite size, even though it is still growing. After ten minutes of filling it will still be a finite size, even though it is still growing. After a thousand years of filling it willstill be a finite size, even though it is still growing. After 10 billion years of filling it will still be a finite size, even though it is still growing. After 600 mega-trillion centuries of filling it will still be a finite size, even though it is still growing, etc., etc., etc. It will ALWAYS be finite! Use your head!

More to the point, no new matter/energy is being created. NONE! Every bit of matter/energy in existence was created by the Big Bang. There will never be any more of it. Ever. Therefore, an infinite number of worlds is IMPOSSIBLE! The matter/energy density of the Universe -- assuming the Universe will always expand -- will be getting smaller and smaller (i.e., ever-smaller amounts of matter/energy per cubic meter).

Furthermore, entropy is constantly increasing. What that means in practice is that the amount of usable matter/energy in the Universe is constantly decreasing. It's not being destroyed, mind you, it's just decreasing in order and usability. You should have learned about this in 6'th grade, but from your ignorance I'm guessing you were home schooled (yikes!). When you or a machine consumes matter/energy to perform useful work, a certain amount that is expended is lost in useless disordered waste products (usually heat) that cannot possibly ever be recovered for useful work again. It's effectively lost for any and all uses, although as I said it is not destroyed. This absolute fact is yet another reason that infinite worlds are IMPOSSIBLE!

You continue: "Martin - do you assume I don't believe that the Big Bang is possible?"

It doesn't matter what you believe is "possible", what matters is that the claims of yourself and your religion that you stated in your previous post are IMPOSSIBLE! They cannot possibly be true; they are utterly false and impossible. There is no room for legitimate doubt in these matters.

You conclude: "I believe that science will teach us much more in the future if we don't confine ourselves to a box of rocks and a balloon."

Sigh...

Rocky, since you're praising the benefits of doubt and skepticism, if you are at all honest with yourself you will benefit most from abandoning the most ridiculous and impossible and ludicrous of your beliefs first. The place to start discarding absurdly stupid beliefs is by discarding Mormonism.

- Martin

On Dark Energy

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-29-04 13:00

Martin,

I was not aware that the presence of dark energy was much of a speculation at all anymore. Isn't it accepted by nearly all modern physicists? What evidence do you have (point me to an article if you wish) that the presence of dark energy is yet being debated? Isn't it the only way to explain certain properties of the Universe?

Karyn

I'll get back to this

Author: RockWalk
Date: 03-29-04 14:41

Martin - I've never once questioned that you are more knowlegable on these things. With that said, there is definitely some misinterpretation between us - probably my fault!

Anyway, I'm on-site with IBM right now and have very limited access to the internet for personal use. I'll get back to this when I return home the end of the week.

Rejoinder Response Part 1 - Evidence for God

Author: JAK
Date: 03-30-04 23:00

Hi Karyn,

As seems to always be the case, your comments are somewhat puzzling in that my positions were surely made clear in both what I said and the questions which I raised. This dialogue we have on a forum such as this is quite different than anything we would likely have face to face.

One site which I think may be good is Big Bang science. By that, I mean its information is in keeping with my views regarding cosmology. A booklet on this is titled: The Big Bang. Another entitled Exploring the Origins of the Universe offers more. Yet more on this The Standard Model.

Historically the unfolding of information in the past 75 years from People and Discoveries. Therein was stated this:

�In 1929 at the Mt. Wilson Observatory in California, Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away at high speeds. He was, like most people, unaware of LeMaitre's 1927 theory. But LeMaitre used Hubble's dramatic discovery as evidence for his theory. It was easy. If you imagined the galaxies rushing away from us as a movie, just run the movie backwards. After a certain time, all those galaxies will rush together. LeMaitre put forth the idea that there was once a primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe.

The other support LeMaitre used was the idea of entropy, which states that everything is moving towards greater and greater disorder.

Others took notice and named his theory "big bang." LeMaitre's ideas opened more questions, many of which forced physics and astronomy together: What was that primordial atom like? Why would it explode? He pursued the topic for some time, even suggesting that there ought to be some form of background radiation in the universe, left over from the initial explosion of that primordial atom. He became more interested in the philosophical ramifications of his theory, which were many.

Others took up the big bang theory, and for several years there were strong debates between those supporting it and those who favored a "steady state" theory of the universe, in which the universe was eternal and unchanging. This argument ended when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found evidence of cosmic background radiation, which LeMaitre and other theorists had determined would be the residue of the big bang's explosion many billions of years ago.�

At this website is discussion �Making Sense of the Research.�

The Big Bang Theory was actually introduced in 1927 and has been the subject of many programs on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

The information is much greater than can be discussed here and recognized validity in the theory has been in accumulating. This accumulation of information is important in that it tends to confirm conclusions advanced then. Keep in mind that should information be acquired as study continues which challenges the Big Bang Theory, it will be welcomed, examined, tested, and evaluated openly.

Some may ask, will more information be accumulating?, the answer is yes. The problem for you is that your own acceptance of religious dogma seems to disallow most of the questions I have asked.

What are the answers? Had they not been challenging, I think you would have answered.

You have not responded and now object that I asked the questions. Why?

For example: The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by a variety of individuals. It has been rewritten many times. It has been translated many times.

The Bible does not �say� anything. People speak and offer notions of interpretation about what is meant by various scripts.

You only object to that never refute it. Why? You know it is accurate. You never addressed this issue, yet continue to write as if the analysis is incorrect. How is it incorrect? (I think you want to say God wrote it or God is responsible for it or it is God�s word. And you know exactly what my challenge will be to that.

Since you claim �God,� I asked what your God was doing during the 160 million years when the dinosaur and other living creatures occupied this planet. You never addressed the question. Why?

There are many other questions and issues which you fail to address which I will not repost at this time since you seem frustrated by the issues.

You are the apologist in this dialogue for some notion of God.

Claiming you have addressed any of these issues is incorrect, you have not addressed them.

Your definition: �please view 'God' in this context as some generic Intelligent Being who is supreme and/or superior in every way to us, and who 'rules' or 'runs' the universe.�

What is your evidence for this? You have presented none. Why should I accept it? So long as you continue to make assertions absent evidence, I will challenge your assertions.

Then you state: �Please do NOT substitute the Christian definition or views of God into this justification of belief - these evidences are meant only to show that belief in the existence of some generic 'God' is not unreasonable.�

But sone generic �God� is unreasonable. You have offered no reason, only the assertion that it is �not unreasonable.� Such a negative definition is absurd in my view. You ask what is my position. That is my position on your constructed definition.

Reread your own paragraph transition at this point on your post. In the very next sentence you refer to �these evidences or indicators.� But you have given no evidences or indicators. Read your own two paragraphs on your own post. It is all assertion on your part, Karyn. Specifically, what �evidences or indicators� are you talking about?

Show me the �evidences or indicators� for God (which is your claim). You have not shown them.

I presume you have read the debate between William Lane Craig
and Quentin Smith March 22, 1996 since you cite Smith.

Let me cite Smith from that debate in which he took Craig�s arguments and refuted them. The paragraphs are too numerous to quote in their entirety.

[Bill�s (William Craig) basic argument is this: his first premise is: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Second premise: The universe began to exist. And the conclusion is: The universe had a cause. Now this argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, and what that means is that the word "cause" is used in a different sense in the premise, Whatever begins to exist has a cause, than it is in the conclusion, The universe has a cause. For when we examine "things that begin to exist have causes," what we really are examining are re�arrangers of pre�existent materials. Anything we point to in our daily life that we say has a cause, say, a statue, is a rearrangement of, say, a slab of marble. And even a human being is a rearrangement ultimately of chemicals and atoms and quarks and so on. And so insofar as "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" has any support at all, it would have to mean "Whatever begins to exist has a re�arranger of its pre�existent materials." Now given that, and given the second premise, the universe began to exist, we cannot infer that universe has a re�arranger of its pre�existent materials, for if the universe began to exist, there are no pre�existent materials, so that if "cause" has any meaning at all in the conclusion, it has to mean something that creates the materials from nothing, and we have absolutely no experience of that in any of our lives, in any of science, anywhere. It's just an idea that appears solely in theism. So I see no evidence for it based on empirical observation, scientific evidence, or anything. It seems to me a proposition of supernatural theology. So I don't think that that is an argument that a rational person should accept.]

Quentin Smith�s rebuttal includes reference to the cyclical model of which I made reference for you. You are misrepresenting Smith in your comments here. You stated: �Atheists - not crackpots but published atheists who are considered leaders in their field (a la Quentin Smith) - have proposed that the universe consisted of a single point 'so small that its size was zero'. Obviously this notion is absurd, and he has been criticized quite strongly for it. But these are the gymnastics atheists must go through to get around the problem of causality. Let me explain further.�

If you have actually read that debate (which I assume you have) you would know Smith is not saying what you misrepresent here.

There is no point in pursuing this further. You are just incorrect and the rest of your comments are irrelevant on this.

�B, C, D, E, and F� in your comments have multiple assertions for which you offer nothing.

Position which should have been clear to you:

�Leaping to conclusions absent evidence for the specific conclusions produces false results.

�God notions which people construct are in disagreement with one another.

�God notions which people construct are inconsistent in the absence of evidence or in falsely constructed evidence.

�Hence, God notions are irrelevant.

�Since none of them can be established as correct against all others, none is reliable. Hence God is irrelevant.

You previously asked how I could state that, and I have clarified.

What people conjecture about an imagined being, supreme or otherwise, is irrelevant and unreliable. If there were concensus and evidence for that concensus, then possible relevancy or reliability.

Contrary to your claim, your examples don�t present evidence of God. Notions of �soul� and �guilt are clearly traceable to human cultural development -- human. Humans arrived on the planet a relatively short time ago and the earth in consensus science is 4.5 � billion years old.

Evidence, Karyn -- God is a relatively recent invention. You never refuted that contention. Is there any evidence the dinosaurs had a concept of God? That time of life cycle lasted much longer than the human cycle has yet existed by far. What and why was (any notion you wish to impose) God doing in that time frame of the known universe? My position is that God notions are irrelevant.

I asked you to address your God notion in connection with the dinosaur -- you declined. We know much more about the earth and life which has occupied it than about the universe with those billions and billions of galaxies and suns. Yet you dodge questions about the earth which we have lived upon and have studied far more than even a single other planet in our solar system. Why do you refuse to address questions of life on earth? You should understand why I am skeptical that you can address questions of the universe when you will not address questions about this planet and correlate them with your notion of �God.�

That is relevant to your claim �God.� So these discussions are about your positive claims -- not about my questions.

Notions of better and worse or even of �evil� and �good� are ideas about human behavior given particular situations, conditions, and cultures. I disagree that �there is a huge problem with the problem of good and evil, of morals.� It is quite incorrect to imply (as you seem to) that morality extends beyond human perceptions. -- no evidence -- Morality and notions of what is �good� depend upon human perceptions as they interaction with one another and the rest of the environment. We process considerations of good and evil.

You began a sentence: �Why I believe Christianity to be the 'religion'...�

While inventions of God are used, they are used differently by different cultures and different religions. One true religion is a notion as well. The true religion is always the one best marketed and/or imposed. The better it is marketed and sold to the greatest number of followers, the more true it is. Had Christianity not been marketed, we likely would never have heard of it. Before Christianity, what was the �one true� religion? Can you address these ideas? Can you answer? I do not think you can.

Today, people use their notion of �God� to justify the death penalty. Others use their notion of �God� to oppose the death penalty. God notions are irrelevant. Even setting any specific religion aside, people have used their notions of God both to justify and to condemn the death penalty -- or war -- or slavery -- or ??

President Bush and his policies have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and 550 Americans -- so far. Is this �good� or is this �evil�? It depends on whom you ask. God is irrelevant. Yet �God� is argued in defense of killing as well as in the defense of pacifism which opposes all killing.

My point in these very few examples is to demonstrate that your notion that morality is not connected with a 14 billion year old universe (cycle). We cannot really see clearly (yet) those distances. We can see much more clearly various life cycles on this planet only. What is moral in any culture at any given time depends upon whose God notions you solicit. Was slavery moral? Even the Bible is quoted to show it is -- now it was. And the same religion both justified slavery by God�s word and condemned it by the very same God�s word -- with emphasis on different scripts to do so.

The larger picture -- Notions of morality evolved with humans before there were cultures. Evidence supports that humans had notions of morality before they had notions of gods and certainly before they had a notion God. The barbarism of human sacrifice was under notions of God.

You stated: �Why are we the only animals to possess intelligence and emotion?�

That is quite incorrect. Numerous animals possess both of these. Emotion of fear, anger, joy can clearly be seen in one of the most domesticated of animals, the dog. It can be seen in other animals as well. And there is no disputing evidence of some level of intelligence in animals. Some dogs are smarter than other dogs. Your claim here is incorrect and there is evidence demonstrating that some animals have both intelligence and emotion. I do not suggest that human levels are on a par with animals -- but your statement �only animals...� is incorrect. National Geographic has done programs showing how mother elephants grieve over the death of a calf. Consider Elephant Emotion.

From the above article: �Elephants also display many of the attributes of humans as well as some of the failings. They share with us a strong sense of family and death and they feel many of the same emotions. Each one is, of course, like us, a unique individual with its own unique personality. They can be happy or sad, volatile or placid. They display envy, jealousy, throw tantrums and are fiercely competitive, and they can develop hang-ups which are reflected in behaviour.�

You stated: �Man's quest for God - You state that man throughout history has always created religions yet we are clearly the only animal ever to do so. A simple question which you may have never pondered deeply: Why? Why do we have a yearning for God?

Here is why. First gods and later God were invented as device to explain that which people did not know. When people had far less information than today, such a device worked. That is, some who were told about the god of the sun believed what they heard. But more inquiring minds doubted the sun god. That doubt led to inquiry. The inquiry led to information. The information led to the rejection of sun god.

Answering your question: Humans knew enough to know there was MORE to know. Following the invention of �God,� there was still more to KNOW. Disease, once thought to be the result of �sin� was seen in a new light. God became less relevant. Treatment, medicine, cure, vaccine made God irrelevant as a notion which explained. Almost no one in the educated Western world regards God as cause for disease or cure. While there is loose talk of miracle and �scientific miracle,� it is loose talk absent evidence.

The more man learned, the more he knew, the less need for �God� as default mechanism. The less need for �God� as explanation.

You asked: �Why do we have a yearning for God?� You speak for yourself in the �we� here. But there are many like you. Some who recognize the evolution of god notions and the evolution of God notions do not share your �yearning.� In the context of your question, it is an emotional response to great joy or sorrow. But in a larger sense it is search for knowledge beyond what we can grasp. We want to know. In so wanting (emotion), we tend to make up and believe things. It�s emotionally satisfying.

Further illustrating, very young children are indoctrinated with notions of God. Children can be informed as well as misinformed. They don�t know the difference. Little kids are mislead: �Santa won�t come if you are not good.� Until the kids come to the realization that Santa is a fantasy, they may be manipulated by parents through such misleading. Of course the parents could make good on it. The kid is not good and the parent gives nothing putting guilt on the child at a young age. If you had been good, Santa would have brought you the doll. Of course the same technique is used in misleading adults with God myths.

�Guilt� to which you make reference is learned generally within a particular culture. Reward is learned as well and reinforced by culture. Some people feel moreguilty than others about the same thing. It is relative as to its affect on people. Not all feelings -- and this is a feeling, a human emotion - guilt. It might be beneficial. It might be harmful. But it is learned by exposure within an environment. Genetic links may exist, but it is not germane here.

You stated: �In summary - Reason may not lead us directly to God as definitive proof, but with the things we know today, Reason should not keep us from belief in God.�

I think you have a kernel of the correct in this remark. It is my view that information, knowledge, and reason lead us to valid conclusions which can be tested and retested. It is a just how we find cures, discover, and advance. The moment we abandon reason we can say or believe virtually anything we make up or is made up for us by others. Because notions of �God� are different and because reason is rejected in �God� inventions, is reason to reject any of the claims as THE ONE right and correct claim.

You stated: �Nevertheless, these are some reasons I believe in a higher power. Why I believe Christianity to be the 'religion' (I like to call it personal relationship) given to us by this higher power, is outside the scope of this post.�

I would submit it is your life-long exposure to Christianity, the way in which you were exposed which causes you to declare this. Had you been born into and raised within the Muslim religion, you would feel the same way about an entirely different religion. You are really describing emotion. In fact, there is no "personal relationship." It sounds like a marketing tool of Christianity -- selling of religion. I'm sure you perceive it as authentic and exclusive.

Of course, you can rightly say that I don�t know anything about your �exposure to Christianity� (quoting myself). But I think I do given the totality of your posts -- not just this to me. Since it departs widely from the rational, in religion people have a great emotional connection to their religion. It is always threatened by reason and by information. The inventions of God have modified enormously since first constructed. Within one�s own experience, that is most difficult to recognize -- and religious dogma has no intent to encourage modification of �God� notions. Yet that is the historical fact.

Historically, humans have moved from many gods -- to fewer gods -- to one God -- to is God? -- to unlikely God -- to no God (or gods which have been long since rejected).

Although you may feel otherwise, I have addressed your writing quite directly You have been kind, and I appreciate that. I have not read your other post at this writing.

JAK

1st Rejoinder

Author: JAK
Date: 03-31-04 14:00

Karyn,

This post [Response Part 2 - Other Questions 03-29-04 02:06] exhibits such deeply flawed thinking, I really don�t consider that you have capability to discuss rationally anything on this topic. You have rejected rational consideration of particulars in favor of claims without evidence. Most of what you write in this post is simply piling on of mindless claims.

Let�s try with one issue early in your post.

The Bible:
It began as oral stories several thousand years ago. As time passed, people wrote down various stories and parts. It the sum of the people who wrote the stories first comprised the Jewish religion. There was no Christianity before the stories about Jesus. And those stories were not written until 30 to 110� years after the events which they purport to describe. It in no way begins with �the first man.�

The Bible has two major parts, commonly referred to as Old Testament and New Testament. Some Christian groups accept the Apocrypha as part of the Bible.

Jews and Christians have chosen the books by a variety of means. The time frame for the collection is from about 1300 B.C. to 125 A.D. for the collection.

I challenge you to write a rational definition, strictly business, objective, and unprepossessed. I don�t think you are capable of it. If you succeed, I�ll ask you questions.

Let�s see your definition of the Bible.

JAK

2nd Rejoinder

Author: JAK
Date: 03-31-04 14:35

Karyn,

Let me start with your words:

Quote:

1. Christianity borrowed from other myths
With respect to this, I suspect that you and I are defining Christianity differently. Christianity has been the religion which is described in the Bible as having begun when the very first man - whether his name really was Adam or not - knew God personally.

I am glad you recognize Christianity as a myth. In that one point, you are correct in the above quote. My understanding is standard Encyclopedia Britannica/Americana/World Book printed library editions. Any definition from within the theatre of some particular Christian doctrine is not acceptable. Why? Because within the bias of a religious culture, objectivity is lost and doctrines are imposed. That imposition of doctrine contaminates the information making it unreliable.

Quote:

...you can see that the Bible's historical narrative roughly covers a chronological timeframe which starts from the very first man and evolves forward throughout time...

The chronology is flawed and self-contradictory. While you claimed elsewhere that the Bible was not about science -- it is about pseudo science in claiming creation -- in this quote claiming �the very first man.� It is a statement of how (science), and it is false. There is no consensus science which acknowledges �the very first man.� That is Christian mythology.

Try reading The �historical' Chronicles of the Bible and Contradictions and proofs of Historical Corruptions in the Bible. There are may sources which disprove your claim in the quote.

Quote:

...God's 'chosen' people were the nation of Israel (and before that, the Hebrew people existing in various lands throughout time). What Jesus did was come to offer a new covenant - not one of law, but one of Grace. Yet throughout the Bible we are dealing with the same God. The God who watched Pilate condemn Jesus is the same God who spoke to Abraham.

More �God� assertions here and of a very ugly God as well -- choosing particular people. --God created all people according to your posts claiming �All.� Yet this same invented God discriminated against people he emotionally rejected. So the invention is man�s and the characteristics if the invented deity has man�s emotions.

More assertions in �Grace.� Selectivity under the guise of a nice-sounding word like �Grace.� Another word for discrimination and quite mean and vicious if we read the words of men in the Bible. Incidentally Pilate has to have a grand place in these made-up stories. How would Christianity have survived without the behavior of Pilate? All those who are alleged to have brought about the death of the alleged Jesus are good people doing the work of the discriminating God in your construction here.

Quote:

To say that Christianity 'borrowed' from earlier 'myths' is a very ambiguous statement and reveals a lack of understanding as to what Christianity truly is. Most people do not see characters in the Old Testament as 'Christians' - they seem them merely as 'Jews'. But they were in fact Christians - they had faith in the coming Messiah.

...which presupposes that you Karyn have the true interpretation against any who disagree with you. It is not ambiguous to state just as I did that Christian myths followed myths before it. Just as the Protestant Reformation produced documented stories of doctrinal shifts from the previous doctrines. It too some ideas along, rejected others, and constructed new ones. That is the evolution of mythology. It is better documented from the 1511 A.D. events because we had more sophisticated language and writing which was far advanced over early (1,300 B.C.) story-telling which only later got written. And as I have pointed out, even the story-telling in the New Testament was word of mouth decades before anyone wrote it down. And it was written by men in the midst of agendas, politics, and power struggle. You have never refuted the historical fact that the Bible was written by men. And -- again -- you have never refuted that the 66 books in the Bible were written over time by men. You cannot refute that. That is why you have not attempted it. Yet you insist language �The Bible says...� I reject that on the evidence which is clearly documented historically about who wrote.

The reason �Most people do not see characters in the Old Testament as 'Christians�...� is because they were not Christians. There was NO Christianity prior to the Christian myths of the New Testament. Your assertion not withstanding is in fact absurd. Whether some Jews had �faith in the coming Messiah� is entirely irrelevant -- entirely. Wishful thinking makes mythology. People tend to see what they want see, [�Look, see -- it�s a sign.�] Then anything which can be made to fit the �sign� is seized upon to claim result. You are not making any kind of rational case for your position. Instead you continue to substitute in theatre claims for what you refuse to view from historical perspective.

I would ask you where Christianity was 75,000 years ago in the evolution of humans. But you so far have not addressed anything about the evolution of life forms on the earth. Do you deny them? Do you deny the evolution from savagery to tribalism? Do you deny the evolution of tribalism to civilizations? The evidence does not support your claims in this or other posts. And, you steadfastly refuse to deal with central questions of history. Why? You and I both know why.

Quote:

Christianity has existed from the dawn of mankind, according to the Bible.

How do you define �dawn of mankind�? Your statement is meaningless. The dawn of man dates back 100,000 � years. The evolution of tribes, cultures, civilizations came over time. What was your�God� doing in those times? You have refused to deal with that and other related questions. We both know why you will not deal with them. They are clearly out of your theatre. So you are left to deny they exist, say I don�t know, or come do historical grips with the fact of evolution of all life on the earth. None of those options are very appealing. Your solution -- make more assertions and ignore the questions.

Quote:

2. Christianity has evolved over time
In some ways yes, in some ways no. There are things we believe today which Paul believed and Augustine believed and Luther believed.

In every way yes. The evidence is on the side of evolution of cultural ideas and practices as well as the demise of cultures entirely. �Believing� is a substitute for knowledge and often a rejection of knowledge (such as in your case). You reject knowledge which cannot be fit into your theatre. And you can�t escape it because you are so indoctrinated in a particular sect of Christianity. You reject the rational each and every time you make claim absent rational base.

Books written by partisan or committed people to religious doctrine are unreliable as objective sources. Apologists for Christianity are to be viewed with skepticism. Why? ...Because they represent a mythological position. Other apologists have different views. To separate doctrine from historical record, one does not read from an author who is committed to doctrine and is attempting to explain it. Preaching to the choir is the nature of such books written by those with religious bias.

Quote:

I agree, otherwise, that Christianity has evolved, and it has not always evolved positively. It has grown, spread out, diversified. Some of these diversifications are, in my educated opinion, infiltrations of secular influence that have no business being in the Christian church.

The fact of evolution is the critical point with which I agree in this. Prior to Christianity, religious myths were in a state of evolution as well. The development of Christianity was an evolution out of the past with added opinions, spreads, and infiltration. There is clear evidence to support that. Such infiltration of the secular have been a part of the evolution of Christianity since religious myths have been evolving. Rome exerted enormous infiltration into Christianity from 300 A.D.

Your statement about �no business� is failure to acknowledge what I just stated here. The business of infiltration which brings about doctrinal shifts is a constant pressure on myths. It is inevitable. Religious myths change in the wake of informational drives into their false assumptions. That is not unique to Christianity -- it applies universally to religious mythologies.

Quote:

Other specific behaviors have no business being performed by anyone, let alone anyone who calls themselves Christian.

I have no idea to what this vague generality makes reference.

Quote:

Yet Christianity, and specifically its founder, Jesus Christ, does not deserve to be condemned or blamed for the actions of those who might do awful things in its name.

Since you acknowledge the �founder,� what does that mean? You cannot argue there were �Christians� before the founder of the religion. You did that previously. It was double-talk then and is refuted by your statement here.

Who blames Jesus for �actions of those who might do awful things in its name�? I am doubtful about that. There is no question that people use Christianity to justify �awful things.� I doubt it is the same thing. Perhaps this is a semantic problem.

It is perhaps a default of another kind. Bush goes to war with the intent to kill people. He prays to his Christian God for protection of his soldiers as they kill and brutalize humans of another faith in another nation. When he says, �God Bless America,� Bush is speaking as a Christian attempting to solicit favor from God for him, for his side, and for America. While he never says God help us kill Saddam and Osama publicly, that IS his policy and his intent. Along with that intent and in the meantime, Bush has orchestrated the deaths of 550 Americans (many of whom killed each other by mistake) and the deaths of countless Iraqis. I never hear American politicians say, God Bless Iraq.

Bush�s appeals to God to intervene on his side appeal to notions of a Christian God. He also claims that Jesus Christ leads him. My position is consistent -- God is irrelevant. God is a notion and notions are unreliable. Whether Bush is successful or not, the fact of many deaths as well as thousands of Americans physically and psychologically ruined for life cannot be hidden. God is irrelevant.

Quote:

Did Jesus Christ teach that one should kill all pagans who would not convert? OF COURSE NOT.

(Biblical scripts are not reliable.) Jesus was alleged to have said "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matt 10:34. Some Christians argue from that script that use of the sword to kill is acceptable. The fact is that people interpret scripts to say what they want them to say -- just as you do. But your interpretation is different from that of others who use the same 66 books and come to different conclusions.

Quote:

Sometimes people act this way with Christianity too. Because a Christian has treated them badly, or a church has done so, or because they have learned that historical acts of violence have been attributed to people calling themselves 'Christian', the person wants nothing to do with Christianity. While I can understand where that person is coming from, it is certainly not fair to reject Christianity unless one at least reads through the Bible (or parts of it at least, such as the New Testament) and understands its clear teachings.

Much of this is surely correct analysis. No genuine �clear teachings� can be established here. Evidence for that is the fact that we have more than 1,000 groups which have variations on �teachings.� If there were universal agreement, and if there were in fact �clear teachings,� no such fracturing of Christianity would exist. At every major divide, politics and power was at the root of differing interpretations. �Teachings� are nothing absent interpretation. Every group imposes its own interpretation. That makes the scripts unreliable.

Contradictions do not make for �clear teachings.� This site has much evidence and analysis regarding the notion incorporated in your notion that there are �clear teachings� which can be �understood.�

You have not refuted the fact of more than 1,000 groups which claim they are Christian. If they were of one mind, they would be of one group.

Quote:

Christianity has not changed because the Bible has not changed.

You are quite incorrect in this. Christianity has been evolving ever since the earliest people who regarded themselves as Christian. The evidence which I cited and much more is abundant to demonstrate the false claim here. Christianity is nothing without writing, interpretation, translation, and claimed new insights. It has been an evolving mythology and continues to evolve as we discuss it. 1,000+ groups make claims about what Christianity teaches. They do not agree, they are in competition, they assert their own authority over the authority of others. You know that if you do no more than look at the list of churches in a large city. You know if you watch a day of all religion all the time on a religious programming TV channel. You know that if you watch the Roman Catholic channel.

Every religion has undergone evolution over time. It is only by putting on blinders that you fail to recognize that Christianity is as other religions in that evolution. I would again refer you to many links which demonstrate with evidence differing views within Christianity as well as failed reliability.

The fact is the Bible has changed through translations too numerous to list. Why new translations -- because some group of Christians concluded that the old or older translations were inadequate correctly detail Christianity. It is incorrect to conclude that �the Bible has not changed.� There are numerous translations on-line with attending interpretations of them. They do not agree.

Quote:

Battles rage on within Christian academia over vastly important doctrines such as predestination (the Calvinist viewpoint, that is, since all of Christianity believes in SOME sort of predestination), and over such petty things as whether organs are still appropriate means by which to worship. Christians like to argue just like everyone else.

And how do you (or anyone else) know what the correct �viewpoint� is as a result of the very truth you speak here? It cannot be known given the fact of debate and eventual evolution of position. Karyn, your own information should demonstrate the absence of validity in any conclusion reached through argumentation about the truth of that which cannot be varied.

Similarities exist in the mythologies. That does not make them valid. The assumptions absent evidence inherent in Christianity render it invalid. And Christianity, like other religions, maintains Truth by Assertion. That is inherently flawed as a method for discovery. But it is the method of religion. You are correct about some near universal doctrines stemming from various translations of similar scripts. That does not give them validity. (Belief that the earth was flat did not make it valid even though the belief was virtually universal.)

Quote:

A Christian church, for instance...

Any church which claims itself to be Christian can be counted as A Christian church. The particulars of what it claims or fails to claim are merely a part of the fractured religion.

Quote:

A Christian church, for instance, does not teach that Jesus was not resurrected. Or that Jesus was not God in flesh. Or that humans are sinners in need of salvation.

Some Christian churches teach (indoctrinate) that �humans are sinners in need of salvation.� To claim as you do is exclusionary for the churches which you wish to exclude. How do you justify such arbitrary and capricious lumping? You cannot. You just make up a definition here to suit your own bias. Those thousand groups have to claim uniqueness in order to distinguish themselves from all the others which claim uniqueness as well. That is the competition for claiming to be true Christian.

Quote:

The Baptists will be blunt and tell you you're going to hell. The touchy-feely new denominations such as Covenant and Foursquare will never be that openly judgmental of put-offish. It doesn't change the doctrine but it does change the delivery

On the contrary, those represent different doctrines. God loves everybody is different than God chooses whom to love. Christians do not agree on the doctrines involved with either heaven or hell. They don�t agree on what it takes to achieve either of these claimed mythologies. Absent agreement, tested result, and demonstration -- God is irrelevant as are doctrines about heaven and hell. Since all are claims absent evidence for all to see and evaluate, such claims are irrelevant.

Quote:

In this way Christianity has evolved and continues to. My pastor once said "unity on the essentials, respect for diversity on the non-essentials".

This may have a nice ring for you, but it begs the question -- What are the essentials? There is not agreement among the many groups of Christians on that. Again I compliment your flicker of recognition that Christianity is an evolving religion. You earlier objected to secular influences on Christianity. Others would regard those as part of the maturing of Christianity. What is essential? There is no agreement on that. And as with the flat earth example, belief is irrelevant to fact. It does not matter what people believe today or yesterday. What does matter is what we know and can know. Speculation of religious myth is not relevant.

Quote:

I think that's a point of reference for the general attitude of Christians today. Yet I know many who do not fit this.

Yes, the disagreement among Christians can be well documented, and I am at least glad you recognize that (bold) point. Christianity today is forced to push doctrine more and more into the speculative because the real world challenges doctrines. So what Christianity does in self protection is make claims which defy testing. In the Bible there was a great deal of testing, and God killed people off who failed even killing all the people on earth along with anything that could not live under water according to the myth.

Notions of a �forgiving� God came along later. However, even today, there is disagreement of that doctrine.

Quote:

Do I believe there are false Christian churches and false Christians? Absolutely.

Interesting that you seem to set yourself up as the judge in this paragraph. How do you know which are false? Those you call �false� likely read exactly the same Bible (collection of 66 multi-authored books). [And the Bibledoes not say anything -- people speak and people write. You have challenged that but never offered any refutation.]

Just how do you know with such confidence as �absolutely�? The fact is, you don�t. You impose your notions of what the Bible teaches and conclude that your notions are superior to the notions of others who have different beliefs and practices than do you.

Quote:

The 'universalist' Christian church claiming that you don't have to believe in Jesus to get to heaven?

I think you intend to refer to the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Their interpretations are simply more liberal than yours.

If their God myth is an all-loving, all-inclusive perception of God, such an entity could hardly exclude anyone. Of course one has to assume heaven there as well -- for which there is no evidence. ...No evidence for hell either.

Why should one �have to believe in Jesus to get to heaven�? Only if one�s God mythology is confined to the past 2000 years of Christian doctrine and excludes liberal Christian doctrine which declares that God is more universal than requiring belief in Jesus. And �Jesus� is of major historical dispute as pictured in the New Testament. No one recorded for 30 to 125 years anything which survives in script. That is, there is no genuine historical evidence for the Jesus as depicted in Christian mythology.

Quote:

These are examples of falsity within the Christian church.

Rather than your statement, it is a reflection of the diversity or fracturing in Christianity. When Galileo's views on planetary motion were expressed, he was charged with �falsity� just as you would like to charge for those who disagree with your Christian theatre.

Galileo made such great contributions to science in the thermometer, the telescope, and the study of solar spots that he was tried by the Roman Catholic Church. The danger to religion is inherent in scientific discovery. He dared to doubt that the earth was at the center of the universe. The 1616 theologians declared that his philosophy was �absurd� and that it was �expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.�

In short, the RC Church declared him a heretic. That was only about 400 years ago. The RC Church was not only saddened, it held an inquisition. He was forced to lead a life of silence and was in the custody of the Inquisition. While not all of his findings were confirmed, many were and the confirmation threatened the doctrines of Christianity.

�What the Bible teaches� is a misnomer as I have previously demonstrated. Everyone who claims that deals with the limited position in which he finds himself.

My demonstration is threatening to your perceptions since you want to claim what is false. I think you are smart enough to know it is false despite your claim.

Quote:

Its a personal relationship between you and God. Of course there is community there, but the falsity of one person need not exclude you from having a wonderful and genuine experience for yourself.

It is all about self. It is also about having been indoctrinated and emotional dependency. Your claim of a personal relationship with an entity which you are unable in any way to define is unsubstantiated. Given your many statements, your comment is also about selfishness.

Quote:

The Bible makes no claims
I am surprised by this comment...that you would make it, specifically. If there is one thing that the Bible does, it makes claims. It claims that God exists...

Incorrect. People who wrote scripts which ultimately are found in the Bible made the claims -- not the Bible. And the claims those various people make are at odds with one another and with interpretations which permeate the religion today. The script writers of the Koran claim God as well, and their claim is different in some respects than those who claim in the Bible. Jews perceive God in a different way. Because these perceptions are different and make different claims, they are unreliable. You happen to be in a small religious theatre. For you just the claims you want are valid, the claims of others who disagree with you are not. You fail completely to recognize the larger picture -- even as large as the single planet earth (4.5 billion years old). You have demonstrated that you cannot deal with questions of the earth which you claim was created by your God.

Quote:

It claims that God exists, that mankind are sinners (i.e. not capable of doing God's will), that we need 'salvation', that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human and came to pay the penalty for the sins of the elect, which was death.

Address questions of man 10,000 years ago.
Address questions of the 160,000,000 year reign of the dinosaur.
Address questions of when �soul� (which you claim) emerged in man.

There are many more, but you have not addressed them. Your view and focus is so narrow, the theatre so small that you accept the invention of a very small God with meanness, anger, hatred, and preferred certain humans over others (all of whom this God is presumed to have created). This God is a pretty ugly invention.

You said your God was responsible for the whole of the universe, yet you can address no questions of the universe and make God relevant.

In the end of this post, you simply throw out claim upon claim upon claim for which you have offered no support. I gave you websites which demonstrate the inconsistencies, false science, and false history.

You very much take the position of the blind believer. Whatever the particular fundamentalist doctrine to which you have had exposure, you accept mindlessly. You clearly demonstrate the I believe, I believe syndrome that excludes dealing with facts.

What is ironic about that is that you accuse others of being closed-minded. Nothing could be more closed minded than your #3 near the end of the post.

Quote:

The fact the Bible consists of many different authors does not in any way hinder its overall message. Even if one refuses to acknowledge the canon, one can still see that individual authors make claims in their own works.

Finally, you recognize the Bible had many different authors. So, rationally, you should be willing to conclude the many different authors were the ones saying. Can you also recognize the Bible has been rewritten, revised, translated, and now has many versions none of which are original language? If so, you could be open to awareness of inconsistency and error. If so, you could be open to failed reliability. But I am absolutely confident you are not.

You are a committed fundamentalist willing to reject all intellectual probe into questions I asked and more on the validity of Christian mythology.

Quote:

that the Bible makes claims is a given, and not worth debating.

On the contrary, the authors to which you agreed make claims -- not the Bible. And the claims made are not agreed to by Christians as evidenced by the fractured and splintered groups. If ever there were a statement of My mind is made up, don�t talk facts of present discussion, this final statement is clearly that.

You demonstrate that you are indeed the one with a closed mind -- unwilling to address questions of inquiry which I have placed for consideration.

Throughout the history of humans, many have managed to live with closed minds and never confront with honesty larger perspectives.

I want to close with an apology if my civility was failing as I pressed you for confrontation of questions and ideas. If you thought me insulting, I apologize. It was rather my intention to pursue with vigor issues and views in larger context.

JAK

Re: 2nd Rejoinder

Author: Karyn
Date: 03-31-04 20:27

JAK,

Let me be frank here. I've come to realize that you do nothing but waste the time I spend in actually responding to your accusations that I 'fail to respond'. Why? As soon as I respond, you immediately parrot yet again that I have 'failed to respond'. And then you bring up an entirely unrelated topic and accuse me of 'not responding', when that topic has not even been brought up on this thread. The fact is, we are supposed to be discussing theories for the beginnings of this universe. If you want to take a look at track records for not responding, let's look at yours. To date, your only response has been a trite website link while you then continue on to preach the same old things you always preach (which are, incidentally, not required nor requested for the discussion at hand).

Instead of sticking to a topic, we have you throwing in everything but the kitchen sink into our discussions. This has become a pattern with you. We cannot progress because you attempt to have me "chase my tail" continuously. You expect me to answer every question of the universe (for example: what is the relevance of 'what was God doing for 160 million years'?), while at the same time, you expect to remain unaccountable for your own positions. You speak without any regard to what I have actually said.

For example, I addressed your assertion that Christianity started around 0-100 AD. In FACT, it did not. Calling Christianity a myth to begin with, I would hardly consider you to be the expert on the religion, and although I would not go so far as to describe myself as an 'expert', I am at least familiar enough with Biblical doctrine to realize this fundamental fact: That God promised the Messiah to the people of the Old Testament. This is the basic tenet of the Jewish religion today - in fact Christianity and Judaism used to be one religion. As evidenced in 'The Passion of the Christ' (not to mention the Gospels), the Jews missed the boat. Are you cognitively able to see past linguistic labeling to real meaning? To you, Christianity is just a label to define a myth. You have no real comprehension what the word 'Christianity' means or entails. You have no real comprehension for Jewish religious history, either.

Because you refuse to listen to me and instead continue to incessantly spout your staggering narrow-mindedness, you have persuaded me to give up all manner of meaningful communication with you.

The only thing I can thank you for is the link to the cosmology-related websites on your post "Rejoinder response Part 1 - Evidence for God".

Without acknowledging your counterpart's arguments, your own arguments are entirely irrelevant. You cannot have a one-sided conversation and expect anyone else to continue to participate in the absurdity of making time on your threads a priority when it is clear you are not even giving them the courtesy of reading their words.

You still have my respect, JAK, but you won't have any further of my time. I'm sure you will be very self-satisfied with my admission...but quite frankly, I don't really care any more! After all, I'm going to Tahiti this weekend...I have better things I can be doing.

Karyn

Tahiti

Author: JAK
Date: 03-31-04 23:18

Karyn,

It is a wonderful place to visit with exotic beauty and is a great get-away vacation spot.

I hope you enjoy and have a great time!

JAK

Re: rpcman's review of dopey's heroes

Author: damndope
Date: 04-01-04 00:07

At least I bother to read books Martin....I have seen no evidence you do so.............

DD

have a good trip

Author: marg
Date: 04-01-04 01:25

Hi Karyn,

I've been trying to follow the discussion your are having with Jak, 'trying' because I have guests visiting and therefore limited time. I have a few comments..since it appears you have reached a critical frustration point and have had enough.

You say: Let me be frank here. I've come to realize that you do nothing but waste the time I spend in actually responding to your accusations that I 'fail to respond'. Why? As soon as I respond, you immediately parrot yet again that I have 'failed to respond'.

When I read Jak's responses to you...he quotes you and then comments. He gives examples for just about everything he says. He plays no word games...instead he requests clarification and definitions. The only time I've noticed him say you have 'failed to respond' is when he's asked a question and in your response you haven't addressed it. He'll then mention you have not responded ..but will give the particular question he is referring to. If that isn't the case could you be more specific and give an example..to illustrate what you are talking about? I do notice him saying you aren't giving evidence for your assertions..but that isn't the same thing as saying you have failed to respond. I realize you are going to Tahiti..but if you should revisit this it's something I'd be interested in from you.

And then you bring up an entirely unrelated topic and accuse me of 'not responding', when that topic has not even been brought up on this thread. The fact is, we are supposed to be discussing theories for the beginnings of this universe.

Karyn, part of the discussion has been about" theories for the beginnings" but it's been about much more than that...and Jak hasn't veered off into anything unrelated from what I can see. God, the christian god, other religions and their gods, how and why people believe or accept certain religions has all been part of the discussion. At what point was god or religions supposed to be left out? Again in the quote above...you accuse him of accusing you of not responding..but I don't understand where you get that from.

If you want to take a look at track records for not responding, let's look at yours. To date, your only response has been a trite website link while you then continue on to preach the same old things you always preach (which are, incidentally, not required nor requested for the discussion at hand).

Every single comment you make Jak quotes and responds to. His responses have been in depth. It appears to me he is wanting you to think about your beliefs, to step back, be objective and look at the larger picture. My perspective on your beliefs is that it isn't just faith which you have....you believe..your particular religion and it's associated belief are completely true..all else which differs is wrong. And you appear to have no doubts about that.

You think Jak preaches the same old thing...it appears to me he preaches..that one should always be questioning..and whenever possible use evidence for beliefs. As he points out to you ..the weakness in your god belief is that there is no worldwide consenus by experts on what your god is. There is no evidence to prove your god is better or more true than another religion's god or god's. Jak brings up science. Scientific theories are open to continual questioning...what is accepted currently is only accepted as Jak puts it by 'consensus' of those recognized with the expertise in that field. It doesn't mean that science has all the answers or even that current theories will not be proven wrong in the future...but with the evidence available those accepted theories are the best according to consensus agreement.

Instead of sticking to a topic, we have you throwing in everything but the kitchen sink into our discussions. This has become a pattern with you. We cannot progress because you attempt to have me "chase my tail" continuously. You expect me to answer every question of the universe (for example: what is the relevance of 'what was God doing for 160 million years'?), while at the same time, you expect to remain unaccountable for your own positions. You speak without any regard to what I have actually said.

He does ask a heck of a lot of questions. Questions get one to think but they are work and time consuming to deal with. I think many questions he asks he doesn't expect answers for such as the one you mentioned above..but rather to stimulate thought on your part or the reader's.

For example, I addressed your assertion that Christianity started around 0-100 AD. In FACT, it did not. Calling Christianity a myth to begin with, I would hardly consider you to be the expert on the religion, and although I would not go so far as to describe myself as an 'expert', I am at least familiar enough with Biblical doctrine to realize this fundamental fact: That God promised the Messiah to the people of the Old Testament. This is the basic tenet of the Jewish religion today - in fact Christianity and Judaism used to be one religion. As evidenced in 'The Passion of the Christ' (not to mention the Gospels), the Jews missed the boat. Are you cognitively able to see past linguistic labeling to real meaning? To you, Christianity is just a label to define a myth. You have no real comprehension what the word 'Christianity' means or entails. You have no real comprehension for Jewish religious history, either.

So then Karyn, I guess the Mormons are correct as well and their religion started the same time as yours..with adam and eve...since they use the same bible.

Because you refuse to listen to me and instead continue to incessantly spout your staggering narrow-mindedness, you have persuaded me to give up all manner of meaningful communication with you.

Karyn he dealt point by point with everything you said. He discussed accepted history and science. There was nothing illogical about anything he said. He gave examples and reasoning for his points. Where was the narrowmindedness? Can you give examples?

The only thing I can thank you for is the link to the cosmology-related websites on your post "Rejoinder response Part 1 - Evidence for God".

Of course you have nothing to thank him for, you've obtained no reward in your discussions with him. His objective was to get you to think and question..but from what I can gather you don't want to do that.

Without acknowledging your counterpart's arguments, your own arguments are entirely irrelevant. You cannot have a one-sided conversation and expect anyone else to continue to participate in the absurdity of making time on your threads a priority when it is clear you are not even giving them the courtesy of reading their words.

If there is one thing Jak does is he reads words...and also makes sure that the words both parties are using in a discussion are understood. He has addressed every point you have made.

You still have my respect, JAK, but you won't have any further of my time. I'm sure you will be very self-satisfied with my admission...but quite frankly, I don't really care any more! After all, I'm going to Tahiti this weekend...I have better things I can be doing.

Karyn, you do appreciate that Jak has given much of his time to you as well. Your accusations toward him in this post...do not appear to me to have much merit if any at all. They are accusations without support for what you say. I appreciate my words will mean little to you as due to bias on my part you will in all likelihood brush them off...but it's possible (though not likely) that you won't.

Have a good holiday in Tahiti...and thanks for continuuing your discussions with Jak up to this point...I did enjoy learning from it.

Post Edited (04-01-04 01:34)

Re: Tahiti

Author: Karyn
Date: 04-01-04 13:21

Thanks JAK, perhaps we can try again after I get back. Its just that, as marg said, I've reached a critical point of "not willing to invest more time". Perhaps that is because I know my time is coming to a close as I will be leaving very soon.

Honestly, it would be much less overwhelming for me if we could try and stick to one topic...to reiterate, I do feel as though you bring up all kinds of very large and very debatable issues on every thread...perhaps we can try to discuss one issue per thread. That is what I had hoped to accomplish on this thread, with our cosmology discussion.

Of course, I will check out your links as I have time.

Talk to you later...

Karyn

flood, etc.

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-01-04 14:28

God flooded the earth for His own reasons. The state of the earth after the waters receded was however He wanted to leave it. God was not limited to the "natural" effects which we would assume a flood would cause. God could have flooded the earth and then left everything the way it was before. We'll find out exactly what happened one day.

Now you see it; now you don't. Magic! n/t

Author: Craig
Date: 04-01-04 18:14

.

Not the flood again

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-01-04 20:18

Ryan, you wrote: God flooded the earth for His own reasons. The state of the earth after the waters receded was however He wanted to leave it. God was not limited to the "natural" effects which we would assume a flood would cause. God could have flooded the earth and then left everything the way it was before. We'll find out exactly what happened one day.

Now me: I have a hard time accepting the flood account as literal. Science not withstanding, I don't understand how an unchanging God could produce a creation, pronounce it "good", then
change his mind then decide to drown it. Further, I do not understand how God could spare one "righteous" man and his family, a man who according the Genesis account did not once plead mercy for the rest of humankind, and when spared from destruction became a pass out drunk. How righteous is that?

I do not see the imprint of God in these accounts. I see the imprint of man.

Jersey Girl

Post Edited (04-01-04 20:35)

Still relying on "Division-by-Zero Logic, Ryan?

Author: Gunnar
Date: 04-02-04 02:22

You said:

"God flooded the earth for His own reasons. The state of the earth after the waters receded was however He wanted to leave it. God was not limited to the "natural" effects which we would assume a flood would cause. God could have flooded the earth and then left everything the way it was before. We'll find out exactly what happened one day."

Using that kind of logic, it becomes possible to justify belief in any nonsense imaginable and explain why anything conceivable is not as it appears to be. We could, by similar logic, just as easily justify the belief that we and the entire universe were actually created five minutes ago, along with false memories of having already lived for many years and fabricated evidence of the universe having been around for 15 billion years. Merely having to fall back on that kind of approach to salvage the credibility of any given belief system is as damaging to that credibility (if not actually fatal to it) as anything I can imagine!

Gunnar

Modern Evolution

Author: Ramona
Date: 04-02-04 11:33

Here are a couple of cases of modern proofs for evolution that will help you to understand:

Antibiotic resistance bacteria, mrsa is a specific bacteria that devoloped in modern time. Once upon a time, not too long ago, Staph. aureus was not Methicillan resistant. That is evolution in action.

Pesticide resistant insects. Once upon a time, again not long ago, their were insects not resistant to pesticides. Over time they ceased to work because evolution allowed survival despite the toxic levels of poison.

Ramona

Re: have a good trip

Author: JAK
Date: 04-02-04 20:47

marg,

Thank you for your analysis and the time you took to detail the points. Only a third party to the discussion could have effectively made comments as you did.

Of course I think you are correct in evaluation and observation. My purpose was much the same in the sequence in this discussion on another thread.

JAK

a question

Author: marg
Date: 04-03-04 14:02

Hi Jak,

I really appreciated your discussion with Karyn. It was a treat to read and I hope I learned from it.

I have a question... Do you think Karyn would be better off without her particular religious beliefs?

Re: a question

Author: JAK
Date: 04-03-04 20:04

Hi marg,

Of course absolutely all I know of Karyn is posts to this board -- which is to say that I really know very little of her.

In short, I don�t know the answer. In addition, there appears to be a large space for modification of beliefs. Many people who become more informed, find that their beliefs are amended almost without their realizing it is happening. Enlightenment in one area leads to that in another. Soon they have a different perspective on their previous views which they may have regarded as beliefs.

Most who have such transformation of mentality regard the transformation as growth and as valuable. Few people with widened perspectives regard themselves as worse off for the experience of gaining that wider perspective.

I do not know Karyn�s age. Older people have much greater difficulty gaining wider perspective than do college age youth or younger.

Based on her responses, I suspect she sees modification as all or nothing -- black or white -- All Christian fundamentalism or assertive Godless atheism. �Suspect� (as you know I mean) is that this viewpoint is open for modification.

However, I think virtually everyone of youthful mentality (regardless of their chronological age) would like to perceive themselves as capable of growth and not entirely fearful of doctrinal shift regarding religious perceptions of the moment.

I am not trying deliberately to beg your question, �Do you think Karyn would be better off without her particular religious beliefs?�

She would likely be better off without the very rigid positions which she seems to hold. That she would be capable to acknowledge here or elsewhere in her real life the possibility {I don�t know} to some questions she declares (or implies) knowledge -- IS also relevant to your thoughtful question. We all have a mother and a father (many still living and with whom we interact on religious matters) and some of us have siblings and children of our own for which that interaction is required.

So �better off� in your question has to encompass the totality of a person�s (Karyn�s) situation. I do think it is possible here for people to be more thoughtful (honest) if they so choose than in real life. One can always leave here for any reason and never return. We can�t do that with people in our physical/family/friends encounters.

We have seen some genuine shifts on this forum -- but not many. Some have done much reading and thinking long before encountering this forum. In that case, persuasive communication is required to shift position. By the same token, many are so indoctrinated with religious dogma that education is inherently a painful challenge. In some cases too painful and too much a challenge to restructure their now sacred, insulated beliefs.

Since my response was so extended, may I turn the question on you? How would you respond to the same question? And in that, please be free to challenge my considered answer here. Since part of my answer is I don�t know, I am open to your sentiments on the question.

JAK

Re: a question

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-04-04 14:28

Hello marg,

I, too, read the majority of exchanges between JAK and Karyn. You ask JAK if he thinks Karyn would be better off without her presently held beliefs. I would rather have liked to see you ask Karyn, first, what she thinks her presently held beliefs contribute to her life.

In one of the posts on this thread there was a statement to the effect that Karyn (or other believers) have a hard time thinking outside of their belief "box". Let's call it that.

I don't think it's necessarily compartmentalization that's being indentified. As a believer myself, when I've posed difficult questions to other believers they skirt around answering directly. Even when the logical answer would be "I don't know".

Believers, such as myself and others, are raised up to believe that the Bible is God's word, infallible, and contains the truth. We are taught to rely on prayer and answers in scripture for all our needs. We are taught (and Karyn will recognize these phrases) that Christ is the solid rock on which we stand, all else is sinking sand. That God is an unchanging God, that God knows the beginning and the end of our lives, that God is in control of all things, and that He loved us so much that He sent His Son to atone for our sins through torturous death on the cross, raised him up on the third day where He returned to the Father...all this because of us, Jesus never fails and that we should be ready to give an answer who ask where our hope lies.

When you ask a believer a question they honestly don't know, in our heads someplace there is a sense that we are letting God down because we see that we aren't ready, as instructed, to give the answers and if we say we "don't know" perhaps we think it means we are not presenting Christ as the solid rock we believe He is, and we feel we have let Christ down, since we likewise believe that we are His representatives to the world.

I, personally, have no problem acknowledging that while I believe that Christ is the solid rock, that *I* am not. I do not expect to have all the answers, I, personally, enjoy pondering and exploring all the possiblities and I don't see it as letting Christ/God down. There are many instances in my life where I do feel that way but none of those has to do with not knowing an answer or asking tough questions. Perhaps age has something to do with it. I've lived long enough to know that "not knowing" isn't fatal. I am very skeptical of anyone who claims they do have all the answers about things.

I recently debated a fairly high profile believer on another board. The topic was the Mormon concept of eternal life vs the Evangelical Christian concept of eternal life. Not how you get there...but the nature of eternal life itself. To my great surprise, when I pressed for an answer, the other poster told me things like 'it's far more complicated than you think', or 'you need to read such and such a book', instead of answering me on point. That person exited the discussion. I hope to engage them again one day.

It just goes to show you, that the majority of believers (even those who are well known authorities on one or more topics) experience that sense of letting God down when we don't have the answers. Something in our instinct can make us avoid the question without consciously meaning to. I hope that makes some sense.

Speaking only for myself again. I don't ever expect to have all the answers about God until I die, in which case I will either wake up in the presence of God or never wake again. Until then, I am comfortable with my presently held Christian philosophy for living. It suits me well and brings about the kinds of results I hope for myself and others I interact with.

Anyway, when you all are pressing for answers from a believer, I hope you will consider the internal sense of letting God/Christ down or that we are failing the Christ who never fails us, that we sometimes experience in not knowing how to answer.

Jersey Girl

Post Edited (04-04-04 14:53)

Re: a question

Author: marg
Date: 04-04-04 16:41

Hi Jak,

What I had in mind when I asked the question was the phrase 'that which gets rewarded gets done.' So I was wondering what would motivate a religious believer to understand that most of their beliefs are evolved man created myths. I then thought...would their daily lives be better off if they realized this fact? That would be one motivation. To answer my question...I think it probably depends on what are the rewards versus costs each believer (in this case Karyn) has with their religion. For some the personal costs (as members of a religious group) might be quite high and if they appreciate this..they would be open to acknowledging the realities and fantasies of their religion. For others though..who receive greater rewards than costs..the opposite would be true.

So for an individual such as Karyn..who has invested lots of time and thought in her faith and from what I can gather receives high rewards...i.e. she has a social network, a community she is comfortable with, a spouse who is part of it...she has much to lose. She has satisfying answers ... she knows if she believes in jesus she has a good chance of being with God in the future, God is real to her and is something or someone she wants to be with. She knows how the world came about, how mankind was created etc. So she has little desire or incentive to question her beliefs and even if she did and decided she has been believing in myths her whole life..then what.? If she leaves her church she loses a satisfying social community.

I think you make good points...one of them...that as believers become more informed they amend their beliefs without realizing. What I have noticed on here..is that few believers seem to acknowledge when they are wrong...when logic and the facts make it so obvious...as has been the case recently between Craig with DD & Void. Or believers will ignore those posts which are too challenging, or find some excuse to not respond. I'm not referring to Karyn when I say this...I think she is trying ..I believe trying very hard...to have an honest dialogue with you.

Post Edited (04-04-04 16:52)

Re: a question

Author: marg
Date: 04-04-04 17:32

Hi vicki...

I, too, read the majority of exchanges between JAK and Karyn. You ask JAK if he thinks Karyn would be better off without her presently held beliefs. I would rather have liked to see you ask Karyn, first, what she thinks her presently held beliefs contribute to her life.

Well actually I think for karyn the rewards of being a member of a religious group exceed the costs...which is why it wasn't important for me to ask karyn. Please don't confuse that with me thinking that others, friends, relatives, her children or her community or the country receives greater rewards than costs due to her participation with her group.

In one of the posts on this thread there was a statement to the effect that Karyn (or other believers) have a hard time thinking outside of their belief "box". Let's call it that.

I don't think it's necessarily compartmentalization that's being indentified. As a believer myself, when I've posed difficult questions to other believers they skirt around answering directly. Even when the logical answer would be "I don't know".

I've noticed what you've noticed.

Believers, such as myself and others, are raised up to believe that the Bible is God's word, infallible, and contains the truth. We are taught to rely on prayer and answers in scripture for all our needs. We are taught (and Karyn will recognize these phrases) that Christ is the solid rock on which we stand, all else is sinking sand. That God is an unchanging God, that God knows the beginning and the end of our lives, that God is in control of all things, and that He loved us so much that He sent His Son to atone for our sins through torturous death on the cross, raised him up on the third day where He returned to the Father...all this because of us, Jesus never fails and that we should be ready to give an answer who ask where our hope lies.

While these may be comforting beliefs for the individual..to have all answers supplied from outside oneself...from my perspective..it is brainwashing. If one is taught or rather brainwashed from a young age that the Bible is God's word and infallible then one is programmed to accept without question whatever interpretations are made from the Bible.

When you ask a believer a question they honestly don't know, in our heads someplace there is a sense that we are letting God down because we see that we aren't ready, as instructed, to give the answers and if we say we "don't know" perhaps we think it means we are not presenting Christ as the solid rock we believe He is, and we feel we have let Christ down, since we likewise believe that we are His representatives to the world.

Do you notice what you said above? "we see that we aren't ready, as instructed, to give the answers" It's about brainwashing...and it stops believers from being honest. Instead of admitting they don't know, or that the other person is right, or their beliefs are wrong...they are brainwashed to stop thinking. The brainwashed answer to justify is that it's inadequacy on their part because they aren't representing god/jesus but really what's happening is the brainwashing lectures of their church organization are not able to stand up to the truth or facts of others.

I, personally, have no problem acknowledging that while I believe that Christ is the solid rock, that *I* am not. I do not expect to have all the answers, I, personally, enjoy pondering and exploring all the possiblities and I don't see it as letting Christ/God down. There are many instances in my life where I do feel that way but none of those has to do with not knowing an answer or asking tough questions. Perhaps age has something to do with it. I've lived long enough to know that "not knowing" isn't fatal. I am very skeptical of anyone who claims they do have all the answers about things.

Recently you dropped discussion with Jak giving the reason that you were disappointed in him. I looked at the post which caused your disappointment and it was about him copying from other sites...supposedly not using his own thinking and words. What utter nonsense. The websites he copied portions from were facts from the news..not opinions. And he used these news facts to begin a discussion about a topic. I do not think you enjoy "pondering and exploring all the possibilities." I'm not saying this to be critical ..it's my observation.

I recently debated a fairly high profile believer on another board. The topic was the Mormon concept of eternal life vs the Evangelical Christian concept of eternal life. Not how you get there...but the nature of eternal life itself. To my great surprise, when I pressed for an answer, the other poster told me things like 'it's far more complicated than you think', or 'you need to read such and such a book', instead of answering me on point. That person exited the discussion. I hope to engage them again one day.

Good luck.

It just goes to show you, that the majority of believers (even those who are well known authorities on one or more topics) experience that sense of letting God down when we don't have the answers. Something in our instinct can make us avoid the question without consciously meaning to. I hope that makes some sense.

No it's not something in your instinct..it's called brainwashing.

Speaking only for myself again. I don't ever expect to have all the answers about God until I die, in which case I will either wake up in the presence of God or never wake again. Until then, I am comfortable with my presently held Christian philosophy for living. It suits me well and brings about the kinds of results I hope for myself and others I interact with.

I think religion provides comfort and benefits..it must otherwise it wouldn't be so popular.

Anyway, when you all are pressing for answers from a believer, I hope you will consider the internal sense of letting God/Christ down or that we are failing the Christ who never fails us, that we sometimes experience in not knowing how to answer.

Well now I know how the church gets believers to stop thinking, and being honest with those who dialogue sincerely with them. I hope you will consider what I have said and realize..what you call "internal sense of letting God/Christ " down is really what your church has brainwashed into you on how to deal with opposition which you can't answer regarding your church's dogma.

Wait a second, marg

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-04-04 19:26

I'd like to ask you a question about these comments:

"Do you notice what you said above? "we see that we aren't ready, as instructed, to give the answers" It's about brainwashing...and it stops believers from being honest. Instead of admitting they don't know, or that the other person is right, or their beliefs are wrong...they are brainwashed to stop thinking. The brainwashed answer to justify is that it's inadequacy on their part because they aren't representing god/jesus but really what's happening is the brainwashing lectures of their church organization are not able to stand up to the truth or facts of others."

Why do you identify the phrase I used as brainwashing? Brainwashing by whom?

Vicki

raised to believe

Author: marg
Date: 04-04-04 19:40

Brainwashing by the religious organization and those who perpetuate their teachings..i.e. parents. You mentioned " believers are raised to believe....."

Quickie reply

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-04-04 20:01

Hi marg,

My computer is blinking so I'll make this brief. The phrase I used is one of over 7,000 verses found in the NT. 1 Peter 3:15. The use of it in regards to this forum is a misuse.

Vicki

Re: Quickie reply

Author: marg
Date: 04-04-04 20:41

Not sure what point you are trying to make. I looked at the verse you mentioned and it says to be prepared to give an answer to those who should ask about your beliefs..it doesn't say to ignore, give an excuse or even answer 'I don't know.'

Here is the verse
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in christ may be ashamed of their slander

So this is interesting...believing in Christ as Lord is considered "good behavior"? And that infers those who don't believe exhibit the opposite 'bad behaviour'. Those who speak negatively (or against) "Christ is Lord" speak maliciously..and they should be ashamed..and they have slandered. Those are strong..emotionally provoking words.

This one verse alone...exhibits brainwashing. It is teaching believers how to handle non believers but it sets up an 'us (the inside group) as good guys and the outside group as bad guys. Those who oppose our beliefs are automatically malicious...and they don't just oppose they slander. It's okay... in fact encouraged to try to convert the outsiders...but don't get too emotional or negative while doing so...you'll lose the fight.

Post Edited (04-04-04 20:42)

Re: Quickie reply

Author: JAK
Date: 04-04-04 23:09

marg,

Of course you are right about brainwashing. With your thinking, the most effective brainwashing is that which is done to persons who have no clue that they are in fact being brainwashed.

It works in politics and other areas. Religion is unique in some respects. Consider the suicide missions of the Japanese pilots in the mid 1940s. These pilots wished to die for their country. Kamikaze pilots under Admiral Soema Toyoda launched 1,400 suicide missions. 26 ships were sunk during this campaign. This was in the defense of nation and a product of brainwashing for nationalism.

Consider also the suicide missions of Muslims today as they say �God is great� when they willingly die to kill Americans or American surrogates.

Brainwashing is used in sales of most kinds. The trainee must believe in the product. Questions in training sessions are acceptable only if they are about how to persuade someone to buy. Questions are not acceptable which express doubt or misgivings about the product. And trainees, if possible, are expected to buy or use the product. The Cadillac dealer does not want an employee to come to work driving a Lexus -- not unless the dealership ALSO sells Lexus. But a Cadillac/Lexus dealership is not likely -- not impossible, but not likely.

There are clearly levels, if you will, of brainwashing. To various degrees each of us is brainwashed in some fashion.

The United States could have no military were it not for brainwashing in the placing of nation ahead of self for those who serve at risk of life in Iraq or elsewhere.

Many on this forum have departed or stopped responding to questions which challenge them. Certainly there are many scripts in the Bible which have the effect of brainwashing -- and they have been effective.

The either/or construction fits with brainwashing technique. You are either with us or you are against us. Such a position allows for no neutral territory or doubt. You either are Christian or you are not. You either believe or you don�t. You are either going to heaven or hell.

There are scripts which tell believers to disassociate themselves from people who express question or doubt about the dogma. There is no question that skepticism, doubt, and too many questions of fact undermine religious dogma.

Implied or stated, we hear The Bible is the word of God, and that�s a given. Following that, we have a myriad of interpretations which are at odds with one another. That is one reason people tend to attend the same church, hear the same doctrine, sing the same hymns, and use the same creed (if they have a creed). In the case of creed use, it is often repeated at every service. The �Lord�s Prayer� is a creed and repeated in some churches at every service.

Repetition is a form of brainwashing in a cultural setting.

JAK

Re: raised to believe

Author: JAK
Date: 04-04-04 23:42

marg,

Why America Slept by Gerald Posner has many insights into the mind of the Islamic fundamentalist. While most informative, it is frightening as well.

The author discusses jihad which is �a rallying cry for modern-day Islamic Fundamentalists and is usually interpreted by Westerners to mean �holy war.� In fact, it literally translates as �striving,� and encompasses the violent struggle that is the duty of all Muslims to wage to extend conservative Muslim rule to non-Muslims as well as to lands with large Muslim populations ruled by secular governments.�

Clearly Muslims are �raised to believe.� My religion is right carried to its extreme translates to My God is right and it is my duty to help my God triumph over your God. It is my duty to kill you.

The Bush prayer after major speeches, �God Bless America� is a call to greater terror in the Islamic fundamentalists. It is seen as a direct affront to the one true God -- the God of Islam.

With sufficient brainwashing, Muslims are made to do anything to take down Americans -- not only Americans but moderate Muslims who appear to cooperate with Americans in making a secular government in Islamic countries.

Terror becomes the tool of God for the Islamic fundamentalists. Prayer 5 times daily with purpose is a product of �raised to believe.�

Where this leaves humans in growing fundamentalism with claims and counter claims that God is with us is frightening, I think.

JAK

Re: Quickie reply

Author: marg
Date: 04-05-04 00:05

Jak,

I did feel I went off tangent in my brief discussion with vicki. I do think religions brainwash...but as you say we are brainwashed in our everyday lives from various sources. We get brainwashed from our exposure of ideas within our environment...though some sources are more deliberate than others.

In the discussion with vicki...what I was wanting to challenge was that her explanation for why believers avoid answering difficult questions about their faith. She said essentially that when they don't have answers they feel they are letting down their god or jesus ...and so without being conscious of it they avoid answering.

What I wanted to emphasize to her, is that while that is one way of looking at it...from my perspective..it sounds more likely that what is happening is they have been brainwashed. They can respond with preprogrammed answers (which they are taught) but difficult questions ..they ignore or deny. And you don't hear them saying they are wrong or the church is wrong.

I remember fairly recently..you said to rockwalk something about catholic priests molesting children. And his comment I found interesting...rather than say yes, it's wrong for priest to do that, or the church is in someway responsible...he said something to the effect of...'if the priests read the bible more carefully about abuse perhaps they wouldn't have abused the children'. He didn't blame the religion, the organization or even the priests...the only thing he blamed was that the priest hadn't read the bible carefully enough. It illustrated to me..his programmed thinking of refusing to blame the church ...even when it's obvious it must be partially at fault. Priest of all people must know the bible well.

Re: raised to believe

Author: marg
Date: 04-05-04 00:27

It seems to me from the little I know..correct me if I'm wrong that Judaism is a more rational religion than christianity and islam. They have no interest in seeking converts, they treat the fantasy stories in the bible more as myths than literal events..at least this is my impression. They still promote the problem of 'us' we help those who are part of our group as opposed to those outside the group which creates problems. Can you enlighten me briefly (don't spend too much time on it) just an outline...on what you are aware of regarding the pros and cons of Judaism if you happen to know?

Re: Quickie reply

Author: JAK
Date: 04-05-04 21:01

marg,

I concur with your conclusions in this.

Quote:

What I wanted to emphasize to her, is that while that is one way of looking at it...from my perspective..it sounds more likely that what is happening is they have been brainwashed. They can respond with preprogrammed answers (which they are taught) but difficult questions ..they ignore or deny. And you don't hear them saying they are wrong or the church is wrong.

This fact is why certain questions in Sunday - School are discouraged. Sometimes young people ask �the wrong questions� such as the very kind you referenced here. Programmed answers work -- up to a point. There is no question that �difficult questions..they ignore or deny.�

In discussion/debate some options are:

Dismiss evidence
Deny evidence
Charge evidence is ridiculous
Shift the subject
Attack those who present evidence
Refute evidence

While there are other options which I have omitted, these are rather common.

Quote:

I remember fairly recently..you said to rockwalk something about catholic priests molesting children. And his comment I found interesting...rather than say yes, it's wrong for priest to do that, or the church is in someway responsible...he said something to the effect of...'if the priests read the bible more carefully about abuse perhaps they wouldn't have abused the children'. He didn't blame the religion, the organization or even the priests...the only thing he blamed was that the priest hadn't read the bible carefully enough. It illustrated to me..his programmed thinking of refusing to blame the church ...even when it's obvious it must be partially at fault. Priest of all people must know the bible well.

Rockwalk�s response was an attempt to shift the debate -- change the subject of the debate. Sometimes that is a legitimate approach if one goes on to support that the shift is relevant and ultimately applies to the issue at hand. That was not the follow-up in the case of Rockwalk, as you observed.

JAK

Re: raised to believe

Author: JAK
Date: 04-05-04 21:55

Quote:

It seems to me from the little I know..correct me if I'm wrong that Judaism is a more rational religion than christianity and islam. They have no interest in seeking converts, they treat the fantasy stories in the bible more as myths than literal events..at least this is my impression. They still promote the problem of 'us' we help those who are part of our group as opposed to those outside the group which creates problems. Can you enlighten me briefly (don't spend too much time on it) just an outline...on what you are aware of regarding the pros and cons of Judaism if you happen to know?

marg,

Some have said, God, by definition, is a given.

In that definition, religions which make the claim depart the rational. However, religions which do not actively seek growth through converts have differences which are inherent. I would not think �Judaism is a more rational religion.� Without a long discussion (but I could make one), religion is inherently not rational. That is not to that all ideas contained in religion are irrational. Principles of behavior advocated by religious spokespersons may be rational. The religion itself is irrelevant.

I cannot answer your last question on pros and cons of Judaism.. It seems to me that Jews are perhaps more comfortable with their religion than many Christians and certainly Muslims. I think it, but certainly can�t prove it. Christianity is a far more fractured religion than Judaism. Islam is fractured as well.

Perhaps the most important teaching of Judaism is that there is one God who wants people to do what is just and merciful. Judaism teaches that a person serves God by studying the scriptures and practicing what they teach. One of the most fundamental of these teachings concerns behavior toward other people. Judaism teaches that all people are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The moral and ethical teachings play a more important role in Judaism than do teachings about God.

From that last perception one could draw the conclusion you drew that Judaism is more rational. Jews perceive themselves as the Chosen People, meaning that God chose them to carry out special duties and responsibilities. For example, the Jews believe they must establish a just society and serve God. They perceive their Covenant with God assures the Jews of God�s love and protection, but it also makes them accountable for their shortcomings or sins.

As you observed, Judaism does not try to convince others to adopt its beliefs and practices. However, it does accept people who choose to convert to Judaism.

Judaism is one of the oldest major religions and was likely the first religion to teach the belief in one God. Unlike other major religions, Judaism is the religion of only one people -- the Jews. Both Christianity and Islam developed from Judaism and in their evolution accepted the Jewish belief in one God.

These observations demonstrate that I have not answered your question about �pros and cons� of Judaism. I think I am essentially correct on the characterization but if there is a serious flaw in the points, it was not intentional.

Perhaps one advantage for Jews is that they are at greater peace with themselves and their religion. Those who want to take over others, persuade others that their religion is the true one, -- those seem much less at peace with themselves as well as their religion.

Islamic extremists who what to kill as a demonstration of their faith do not seem at peace even with themselves and certainly not with the world.

JAK

Re: raised to believe

Author: marg
Date: 04-06-04 03:05

Jak,

Thanks for your insights.

I'll write my thoughts on why I have the impression I do. As you know, I have limited knowledge about religions in general. I learn bits and pieces but don't have a good overall grasp. So I'll give some of my perceptions ..& feel free to comment/critique. If I rated beliefs of religions, Judaism, mormonism and christianity on a "wackiness" scale... I'd put mormonism as the wackiest, then christianity then judaism with the followers coming in the same order. Islam I have to leave out..don't have enough info.

Mormonism:

created by known con man...using Bible and similar stories written during his time period.
The story of how J Smith writes the BOM is absurd...reading behind sheets while he dictates to a scribe...using a special pair of spectacles which enable him to translate story of a few Jews...who go to America ...have written their history on gold plates which can not be verified because the angel who led J.Smith to them...took them back to heaven. The plates are written in supposedly some sort of egyptian language (which no one recognizes) ..instead of Hebrew their mother tongue. There is no archeological evidence, no linguistic evidence, no genetic evidence that anything in the BOM is true. In fact the opposite..genetics, linguistic evidence show N. american indians are Asian descent. The story is so ludicrous it's incredible anyone would believe it.

Christianity: steal Hebrew Bible ...add to it...create a ridiculous story that a God comes to earth as a man...plans to die for man's sins..so that in the afterlife they can live with him. After his death he supposedly comes back to earth and then leaves again. He is supposed to have been born from a virgin birth. Again it's a very wacky story.

Judaism. Well at least the story is based on real places, real people, real history as opposed to The BOM..with some myths thrown in. It appears to me that God is meant and is used as a unifying ideal for followers to identify with, the focus of god is not to worship..but to encourage certain behaviours favourable to the group/tribe (particularly back in the days they were written) leader's claim of association with God enables them greater power due to increased respect , religious customs and practices tend to be beneficial to the group and actually serve a purpose i.e. circumcision. So although god belief is irrational, and lots of the biblical stories must be fabricated...the religion is not as wacky as the other two. The Biblical stories are written in times when people had fewer answers and god sufficed to deal with the unknown. The concept of one god made sense...it increased the authority & power of leaders and rulers. More than one god would water their power down.

So my impression is that Judaism is the least irrational of the above 3. As far as negative aspects..I think the teaching that they are 'god chosen' that god looks over their group and directs them ..creates conflict with those outside their group.

Re: Response Part 1 - Evidence for God

Author: Louie
Date: 04-07-04 11:04

Karen, Hello I am new and this is my first post so bear with me.

Quote:

The first thing I would like to consider is, what did the universe consist of at the time of the big bang? Atheists - not crackpots but published atheists who are considered leaders in their field (a la Quentin Smith) - have proposed that the universe consisted of a single point 'so small that its size was zero'. Obviously this notion is absurd, and he has been criticized quite strongly for it. But these are the gymnastics atheists must go through to get around the problem of causality. Let me explain further.

First of all the universe did not exist before the big bang as has been acknowledged by most scientists (atheist or not).

Quote:

Anthropic principle - we have had lengthy discussions on this before, but the fact is that this universe contains between 23 and 25 principles or laws which specifically support life. It seems as though this indicates 'design'.

Is it possible that life evolved because of these laws. And not that the laws were (designed) to support life.

Quote:

More on Design - the complexity of biology, without going into too much detail, seems incredible for me to believe it was a product of pure, random chance. And not just chance which had many, many chances to screw up, but one chance to get it right..

What makes you think that the universe only had one chance to get it right. We are talking only about the earth, for it is the only place we know for sure that life exists. Over the many millions and millions of years that life had the chance to evolve it is a known scientific fact that the earth has changed dramaticaly over the years giving life many varied climates and circumstances in which to get it's start.

Quote:

Man's quest for God - You state that man throughout history has always created religions yet we are clearly the only animal ever to do so. A simple question which you may have never pondered deeply: Why? Why do we have a yearning for God? I do not have a yearning for unicorns. Where did the initial idea of God come from? What possessed Moses to write the Pentateuch as though God were speaking to him? Where on earth did he get the idea 'god' to begin with? If he were an evolved being, shouldn't he be more concerned with natural selection and simply surviving and ensuring his offspring survived?

Man has always created religions. It is a well known fact that all previous civilizations of this world have created some sort of god or gods.
I have no yearning for a god, as I have no need for one.
Man created god to explain the things he did not understand.
As for Moses, if he existed at all probably got the idea form previous creations of god that have existed throughout history.

Quote:

Evidence for a Soul - Why are we the only animals to possess intelligence and emotion? Why are we capable of such complexities as love, hatred, anger, fear, judgment, sorrow, grief...the list goes on and on. As evolved creatures I would expect anything non-physical to be utterly missing. Yet we feel pain in a very non-physical way. It is possible to 'break our hearts'. What does it mean to break the heart of an evolved creature? Emotion and human meaning become irrelevant -meaningless - to the evolved creature. (A clarification: by 'evolved creature' I am referring to a creature evolving in a world without God or God's help - atheistic evolution)

This does not even deserve a response, but here goes anyway. Do you honestly beleive we are the only animals to have emotions? Have you ever seen an adult female gorilla or chimp mourn over the death of it's offspring? Until you do so dont even suggest that other animals might not have emotions. As for love and emotions, it is to our survival advantage to become close to the ones that comfort and share with us. Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction to someone we feel close to, someone that will provide for and watchout for our well being.

Quote:

atheistic evolution

Why do you keep useing this term. DO you believe all evolutionist are atheistic? If so maybe you better let the pope know he is an atheist.

Quote:

I submit to you that guilt is a pointer to moral absolutes, and moral absolutes cannot come from human society. In an atheistic world with no supreme being who makes ultimate law, there is no good and evil. There is no "I ought to do this" or "I shouldn't do that". Yet no human alive, save the most severely psychotic, has never run into this concept of 'should' and 'shouldn't'. It is the very basis by which we judge others. We say 'Hitler should not have killed all those Jews'. We say 'Hussein should not have raped all those Iraqi women'. Why? Who really cares in a world with no moral law?

So are you telling me that because I am an atheist that I have no moral value? Are you saying that because I am an atheist and by raising my 2 childern to be open minded and to think for themselfs that they are also without moral value.
You say Hitler should not have killed all those Jews. Well he was a christian. Does that make him moral?

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." ------ Albert Einstein

Quote:

You say you do not believe in God because there is no evidence for God. I have just presented evidence which I find to be very compelling for the existence of God, and I am not alone. Until the 19th century, almost all intellectuals and scholars were theists of some kind. With the coming of Darwin, Hume and Hawkings, the atheistic movement became more popular. But we are again seeing a swing toward theism, because people are finding that science cannot, in fact, answer many of life's ultimate questions.

You have presented no scientific evidence what so ever. This is where your belief comes from, the lack of reason and the lack of scientific understanding. The very reason man created god in the first place.

Quote:

In summary - Reason may not lead us directly to God as definitive proof, but with the things we know today, Reason should not keep us from belief in God.

"Reason should not keep us from belief in god"
It is for the very fact that some of us understand the reasoning and logic used in science that we can not have a belief in god.

I can not say that god does not exist, all I can tell you is I have no belief in a god. Weather he exists or not is irrelivant to me.
I can also tell you that I have no need for a god.
I can also tell you that for me the whole aspect of god is not logical, it is not reasonable, it is not based on any scientific evidence what so ever.
I simply have no need for a god.

Sum Ergo Cogito

Re: flood, etc.

Author: TLC
Date: 04-07-04 12:49

Ryan; Please tell me why you think a God would use "natural" effects, such as a flood to drown and kill all terrestial life except Noah and his family and pairs of worldwide species, and then turn right around and use "unnatural" (supernatural) methods to bring it all back to normal? Sounds rather inconsistant for an omnipotent power that could have just waved his wand and said "let them all be dead" in the first place. I'm sure the lord must be interested in the concept of "conservation of energy".

Yeah yeah yeah I know, "The Lord works in mysterious ways."

If I had been around in Noah's time and observed him building a big ass boat as large as it would have to have been to accomplish the job, I would have started building my own boat. I suspect that many others would do likewise. Don't you think a project this size would have gathered more than passing attention as to it's purpose?

TLC

Re: Not the flood again

Author: TLC
Date: 04-07-04 18:53

Hi Vicki; How is life in Colorado these days? I agree, haven't we driven this Biblical Flood story into the ground by now? You have demonstrated over and over that you don't buy all the myths and allegorys of the bible in a literal sense. But many do, and does that make them more of a better believer than you? Are there different grades of belief, say ranging from full belief to 50% or 10% or .000001%? Or is it enough to say you believe in God and that alone is enough, without regard to the validity or accuracy of the gospels as being pertinent?

To a basically nonreligious, pragmatic person such as myself, it all seems so much up for grabs, with nothing concrete whatsoever to depend on, in the sense that I would require much more to be convinced of such a serious matter. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The way I see it all, is that everyone has a different level, quality wise, as to what is acceptable evidence for their beliefs. There seems to be no common standard.

What is the difference between "Faith" and "Wishful Thinking"? How would we ever differentiate between the two?

Still your friend,

Terry

I'll tell you what it would take to make me a believer

Author: TLC
Date: 04-08-04 14:26

Karyn; If I witnessed someone stopping the earth's rotation on command. (same result as stopping the sun in the old testament) If I witnessed enough water raining down to cover Mt. Everest (29,032 ft. ASL) while some guy sailed away in a big boat and let me and all other terrestial life on earth drown. If a burning bush talked to me and instructed me as to how to run my life as well as murder my son. If I witnessed someone turned into a pillar of salt by disobeying and gazing back on a city of sin. If I witnessed terrestial plants growing on the earth before the Sun turned on.

If I witnessed someone actually turning water into wine on the spot, let alone all the bread he produced. If I witnessed someone healing blind, crippled or Leprosy infected individuals on the spot. If I witnessed an individual ascending up towards the sky (as if heaven is in a "physical" direction) after I had confirmed his death.

Then, mark my words, I would be an instant believer and would spread the Gospel the rest of my life.

These are but a trickling of events claimed to be authenic by many bible believers, however I have never met anyone who has witnessed one "miracle" in their lives that could not be answered by rational means.

With all due respect, I find nothing in any of man's religious beliefs, ancient texts, and scriptures that indicate any more than heresay. That is not to say that all heresay is not credible. I have never witnessed George Washington either, but there is substantial, credible evidence that he did exist in history. The overwhelming evidence is there.

"Let there be light" (Genesis, I believe) Does this mean that God had been sitting around all alone in the dark for eons, bored out of his mind and one instant he said to himself "Hey, this sucks......I think I better whip up something". "Hmmmm...what can I do?" So he created the heavens and the earth, a tiny dust mote somewhere off in the corner of one galaxy of hundreds of billions of galaxies and created a chemical form of protoplasm called life to grow and evolve there. "And he saw that it was good." He was still somewhat bored, so he says "ok I'm going to make up some rules (good and evil and sin and all that) and these little bastards better show me some respect, or there will be "hell" to pay." "I can't kill them all or I will be all alone again". Light bulb comes on in his head. "When their little pea brains have developed to a point where I can communicate with them, I will send down a part of me (I can do anything I want can't I?) in the form of one of them and have him perform just enough magic to get their attention." "I will introduce him into the eastern hemisphere where help seems to be the most needed. Never mind the western hemisphere. The Eskimos aren't ready for my message yet, those idiots are still worshiping the Sun." "After I deliver the message, I will arrange to have this part of me killed and returned home." " The ones that don't adhere to my instructions after all I have done for them, will pay dearly forever." " After all, I am the one and only "loving" God."

Does this anthropomorphication of the Christian God sound about right?

I have been monitoring your interlocuting, along with Rocky and Dopey on the subject of the origins of the universe and the meaning of it all with the likes of JAK, Fer-De-Lance, Craig, and yes, Martin. This latter group of fellows are among the most knowledgeable, intellectually adept people I have ever experienced.

In my observation, with all due respect, it seems that when debating the subjects of space, quantum physics and origin's, your knowledge, as well as others here, is respectable, however just enough to get you into trouble. You seem to use words like "absurd" and "impossible" whenever you are confronted with a statement that doesn't gell with your preconceived notions. It is the same reaction that many had when the few were trying to explain that the earth is indeed spherical and people wouldn't ever fall off, or a multitude of reality altering discoveries in our past. Round earth? Impossible and absurd. What an insane idea!!

In many ways, using spiritual religious beliefs based on heresay to debate is not ammunition at all. Science would not dare to use heresay as arguable facts. We have Apples and oranges here in many ways.

TLC

Post Edited (04-08-04 14:52)

for with God, all things are possible?

Author: TLC
Date: 04-08-04 15:04

Nice statement. Would the possibility of God not existing be included in "ALL THINGS"? What does "ALL" mean to you?

TLC

Re: On Dark Energy

Author: TLC
Date: 04-08-04 15:17

Karyn; From what I have read, Dark Energy is strongly suspected as being present to satisfy some of the action that the Universe is observed to be undergoing. Something is there for sure, but like gravity which we know exists without knowing what it is, is assumed without explanation. Perhaps the two are interconnected somehow.

I suspect for now it will be used as a "fudge factor" to satisfy certain otherwise unexplainable phenomena until such time it's true identity is nailed down. Such is science. We learn as we go.

Maybe someday,

TLC

Re: I'll tell you what it would take to make me a believer

Author: marg
Date: 04-08-04 15:18

I found your post to be very funny...I had a good laugh... but you had me a little concerned at one point. When you got to the talking burning bush...I thought hmmm..I don't think that would convince me...you'd be more easily converted than I would. It's amazing what magicians can do..and have you ever seen those talking plants in stores that are activated by sound.

Here's a quote off the net I read recently which I thought amusing:

"Believe it or not every fool you meet is the end result of millions of years of evolution" anonymous

One for you

Author: TLC
Date: 04-08-04 15:34

Hey Marq;

"A fool standing in a crowd of fools, always looks less foolish."

TLC

Re: One for you

Author: marg
Date: 04-08-04 16:00

Here's what's called a grook from Piet Hein

All we know
We learn to doubt
in life's successive schools
Which goes to show
we started out
unutterable fools

Re: The Question of Universe

Author: TLC
Date: 04-08-04 16:05

Karyn; A billion is not that hard to contemplate. It is equivalent to the number in a stack of $100 bills 1000 feet high. Small potatoes when compared to a "Googol" which is a 1 followed by 100 zeros.

What if our Universe is but one of a Googol of Universes? How about a Googol of Gods, each with their own Universe to run?

How about if these are all are part of a larger conglomerate called a "Multiverse".?

Then you may have a Googol of "Multiverses" overseen by the "Grand Master".

All this nonsense just proves that the human imagination is virtually limitless.

TLC

Re: One more

Author: TLC
Date: 04-08-04 16:11

"As a rule, man's a fool

When it's hot, he wants it cool

When it's cool, he wants it hot

He always wants it what it's not"

TLC

Re: The Question of Universe or just endless space

Author: TLC
Date: 04-08-04 16:59

Karyn; You are among the many ( and understandably so) who envision wrongly, the "Big Bang" as a small bundle of an incomprehensible amount of energy somehow suddenly expanding into an empty "space" that was already there waiting for it to expand in to.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Space itself, in the beginning, did not exist, and is being created in the expansion. Matter ( galaxies and planets and all that) is congealed pockets of energy that are being formed along with the expansion of this seemingly empty space. It isn't expanding into anything that is already there. There is no "there" in the general 3-dimensional Euclidian coordinate sense.

Even though the universe is finite , but boundless, there is no outside. As space (space time) itself is curved, if you had a powerful enough telescope and looked far enough in a "straight" line (to you) you would be able to see the back of your head.

The origin of all this originated from a dimensionless point. It had no size at all because dimensions as we envision them, did not exist at that time.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we "can" imagine.

TLC

Contradictions

Author: JAK
Date: 04-08-04 17:16

TLC,

Your question: �Nice statement. Would the possibility of God not existing be included in "ALL THINGS"? What does �ALL� mean to you?�

It is quite a critical one for claims which Karyn has made. In addition, her closing statement is a problem for her as well.

Karyn stated:

Quote:

Your religion must be compatible with science. But your religion is utterly incompatible with any aspect of science. Redefining your concept of God into a more Biblical view would be a good starting point for further research.

That statement was addressed to Rockwalk. However, the claims which Karyn has made for her religion (denomination, sect, or cult) are not �compatible with science.�

In her statement, she pretends that which is not the case. Fundamentalism in any religion (Christian, Islam, etc.) is at odds with science. Were than not the case, scientists would be fundamentalists (of some religious group). Scientists are not fundamentalists of any religious group.

While Karyn is attempting to argue against Mormon beliefs by observing those beliefs are not compatible with science, she fails in any discussion to demonstrate fidelity to science in her assertions.

I am sure you knew this. I only add to your comments to demonstrate the multiple problems which Karyn has in her many posts.

Asking questions of apologists is often sufficient to quickly get them to make contradictory statements. When they construct contradiction (as they wish to appear rational), they are required to make further assertions to cover the contradiction with another God description.

While there are those who claim that science and religion need not be contradictory, I have not found that the case. And when religious doctrines are revised (as they have been), they are revised in favor of what science has discovered. Science (consensus) does not revise its tentative conclusions based on religious doctrines. It ignores them.

JAK

Conclusion --

Author: JAK
Date: 04-08-04 17:26

TLC,

A clever saying! Is it not exactly what makes for the creative man? We want what is not.

That want is the what drives creativity, discovery, change.

JAK

Re: Conclusion --

Author: Bahman
Date: 04-08-04 17:49

I am with you on this one JAK. As a matter of fact, I am sometimes weary of some oneliners in which only "one side of the coin" is presented.

Re: Not the flood again

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-09-04 01:44

Hi Terry,

I'm afraid it's quite late and I don't have time to prepare a half way decent reply but I'll at least "begin" replying to what you've posed to me.

There are so many "strands" of belief in Christianity. The Southern Baptists (I'm a member of) insist on complete literalism from Genesis to Revelation. That perspective falls flat from the get go since The Book of Revelation is entirely metaphor. And that is why I often find myself in conflict in my own church. SB's believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God in it's entirety. How can that be?

SB's believe that God is unchangeable. Following that line of thought...let's go briefly back to Genesis.

In the Garden of Eden story we have see that the "unchangeable" God has created human beings told them not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. They eat from it and get banished from Eden. I would guess that the majority of Christians will tell you they got banished because they disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That's NOT what the Bible says! It says that they were banished because God was afraid that they'd also eat from the Tree of Life and live forever LIKE HIM.

So, what have we here? The unchangeable God ousts human beings from the pristine conditions of Eden because they might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever like him. Fast forward to the NT and we see the same God offering his Son (or himself depending on your trinity doctrine) as a sacrifice so that humanity can do what? Live forever.

SB's believe that God is infallible. Following that line of thought..let's take a look at Noah.

According to the OT, the unchangeable God changed his mind about his creation and decided to drown it. He chooses one "righteous" man, our old friend Noah, and his family to spare from the destruction to repopulate the earth. The unchangeable God is giving humanity a second shot and hopefully propagiting it from "righteous" seed.

So, Noah builds the ark, God sends the animals two by two, the flood occurs, and they are spared. How does this righteous man respond? He becomes a pass out drunk. Was Noah really righteous? Did God make a mistake?

I could go on and on...and probably will in another post..however, I personally believe that God is almighty and in ways I cannot begin to fathom. Given the above assessments...I have to believe that those particular scriptures are attempts by ancient humans to explain their beginnings.

I think it helps to research the ancient cultures in order to discern what is myth and what is historical. Also, when I consider the scripts, I try to visualize what I'm reading. Does it make sense? Does it make sense to claim that God is unchangeable and read about a god who changed his mind about the creation that he originally pronounced "good"?

Okay, I'm burning out here. I'll reply tomorrow if I can.

Blue Skies,
Vicki

Post Edited (04-09-04 01:57)

Question for Karyn

Author: Gunnar
Date: 04-09-04 02:47

How do you justify the conclusion that a God that has always existed is any less unreasonable or more believable than a universe that has always existed?

Gunnar

The difference

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-09-04 18:26

Gunnar,

Your "division by zero logic" doesn't apply here. dbzl is supposedly related to that which is patently impossible and invalid. Stating as I have that an omnipotent God could do anything is certainly not illogical or invalid. OF COURSE, you don't have to believe in the existance of such a God to understand the logical connection I have made, which only applies IF such a God exists.

Try to open your mind and think of it like this: suppose we all knew God existed, we saw Him all the time and we took for granted His presence. Suppose one day he declares that thousands of years ago He flooded the whole Earth. Would geologists stand up and argue against Him, saying, "No, no-- you couldn't have because a, b and c..."? Of course not. They may point out that a global flood seems inconsistant with a, b and c but they would do so in a different context. They would ask God how a, b and c are compatible with the flood. Of course, it would never be a big deal because God is able to do anything and there's no reason to suspect that He is making up His claim.

Those of us who acknowledge God see things this way. We know that nothing can be a big deal because God is able to do anything. This is not an excuse, it is merely the logical inference of my beliefs. You can not turn around and use petty evidence such as geology to argue against a God. My belief system is logical and valid, which I can prove despite your insults, and I also believe it to be sound-- which I cannot prove because I cannot prove my premise. You are the one who limits his self by demanding that God prove himself to you instead of listening to the quiet voice in you that tells you He is there. If you knew that God existed, as I do, you would see the evidence against Him very different. It would be laughable if it weren't so deceitful.

your friend,

Ryan

edited for grammar

Post Edited (04-09-04 18:29)

Re: The difference

Author: Louie
Date: 04-09-04 23:24

Ryan!
You say your belief system is logical and valid, yet you can not prove it.
Well I am sorry to inform you of the fact that there is nothing logical or valid about your belief.
It is just that, a belief, and a belief needs no logic and it does not have to prove it's validity. This is what bothers me the most about believers. It is the fact that for some reason they think they have to prove that their belief is valid or logical. Why must you do this? If it was anything but a belief, then it would be valid/logical.
But as you stated it is your belief, so let it go at that and stop trying to validate it or use revolving logic to make it anything else.
I do not believe in god for the same reason I do not believe in mother goose!
It is not logical, it is not reasonable, it is not varifiable.

Sorry ryan

Sum Ergo Cogito

Louie, Louie

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-09-04 23:33

Yo Louie,

You say that Ryan's belief is not logical and cannot be proven. May I ask you if you believe you are loved by a significant other? Can you prove it?

Vicki

I couldn't possibly disagree with you more!

Author: Gunnar
Date: 04-10-04 06:34

I insist that "division by zero logic" does indeed apply here. To explain away evidence, gelogical or otherwise, that so strongly refutes what you would rather believe by simply claiming, "anything is possible for God" is a tremendous copout. You know full well that almost any conceivable nonsense can be and has been justified in that manner. I still say that merely having to fall back on that type of ploy to defend something is as damaging to the credibility of whatever is thereby defended as anything I can possibly imagine. Besides, whether God caused such a flood and then deliberately erased the physical evidence of it happening or simply lied about it having happened, that still leaves us with a God that is deliberately deceitful and playing tricks on us. I cannot believe in such a God.

TLC made a very good point that you have not come even close to satisfactorily addressing: "Ryan; Please tell me why you think a God would use "natural" effects, such as a flood to drown and kill all terrestial life except Noah and his family and pairs of worldwide species, and then turn right around and use "unnatural" (supernatural) methods to bring it all back to normal?"

Why would God cause such a flood, then try to eliminate the evidence that he did it, and then tell us to believe he did it anyway? This makes not the slightest bit of sense!

You talked of geophysical evidence against the flood, as if that were the only evidence against it. Just as damaging is the historical evidence against it. If Biblical chronology is taken to be at all accurate, the flood could not have occurred any earlier than about 2400 BCE. The problem with that is that we have the written records left by several civilizations in several languages that show a historical record of their existence starting well before that date and continuing unbroken until well after that date. Did God fabricate these records as well, which further implies deliberate deceit on his part? Why would he do such a stupid thing as creating such records and then telling us not to believe them? Neither would it be credible to claim that these ancient civilizations were engaged in a coordinated, multinational, multilingual and multigenerational Satanic plot to deceive all futue generations about the reality of the flood.

You place such great stock in your inner conviction or faith that God has confirmed his existence to you. I say that no belief or belief system is more deservedly suspect than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of divine revelation or inspiration for it. This is so obvious to me that it frankly amazes me that anyone could seriously doubt that! Can you deny that there are numerous, mutually contradictory beliefs whose adherents sincerely claim such authority for them? What stronger evidence can you have than that of the inherent unreliability of that approach to discerning truth? Do you seriously think that the 9/11 terrorists believed any less strongly than you do that their own beliefs and actions were divinely inspired and authorized?

I think it is safe to conclude that subjective faith in the divine origin of one's convictions, no matter how strong that faith, is, by itself, very far from a reliable indication that said convictions are correct!

Sincerely;

Gunnar

Another good example of evolution in action.

Author: Gunnar
Date: 04-10-04 06:54

When European rabbits were brought into Australia, they thrived and quickly multiplied to enormous numbers, having a devasting effect on crops and the Australian ecology, because they had no natural predators in Australia. The proposed solution to this problem was to introduce a virus into the rabbit population that was known to be deadly to rabbits only and highly infectious. Evolutionary biologists correctly predicted the result, which was an initial, massive die-off of rabbits, greatly decimating the rabbit population, followed by a tremendous population increase of the descendents of the very few individuals that had a natural resistance to the disease, leaving the problem as great as it was before the attempted solution.

Gunnar

I agree! nt

Author: Gunnar
Date: 04-10-04 07:01

:

Re: Louie, Louie

Author: TLC
Date: 04-10-04 08:30

Vicki love; Emotions such as we describe as "love" or hate or joy or sorrow are results of chemical reactions in the brain that provide feeling and perception to the physical world in which we experience everyday.

Love and other emotions are an abstraction of the mind and therefore cannot be proven. IMO, God is in the same category.

Wasn't Louie Louie by the "KIngsmen"?

Terry

Oh, but Gunnar, don't you know.......

Author: TLC
Date: 04-10-04 08:42

.......that God decided that he is not about to let those Aussies determine how many rabbits there are going to be. After all, who is really in charge here?

TLC

Evidence for Love

Author: JAK
Date: 04-10-04 10:45

TLC,

Consider a somewhat different tack on this. The questions were:

Quote:

May I ask you if you believe you are loved by a significant other? Can you prove it?

Emotions are certainly much as you describe. However, we have genuine evidence for �love� as example. Behavior is critical as evidence for that emotion. How do we treat people whom we love? How do they treat us? Action is also quantifiable. We take a loved ones to the doctor or go to a program with them. �Proof� is a tricky word in the context here. We certainly have accumulating evidence regarding the emotions of people -- whether that be love, hate, generosity, fear, etc. Just what all qualifies might be open to discussion on the feeling of love.

But the question here was on love. What parents do for their children is evidence of love. While there are clearly elements of �abstraction� in love, there are also and perhaps more importantly, evidences that the sense of love is underlying the context of a relationship. And since love is such a broad term applicable to many kinds of relationships including love of nation, we look to behavior as a clear indicator that love (that emotion as a result of chemical reactions in the brain) is indeed present.

After many years of marriage to the same person (one marriage), the evidence that I am loved -- and I hope the evidence that I love is so consistent and in tact, it is virtual proof. Of course, we can give mathematical analysis to that word �proof� and deal with it in other ways. So, my response differs somewhat from yours.

There are clear, unambiguous, measurable evidences for love.

It seems to me that the word �prove� is misused or the wrong word here.

JAK

Oh, of course!

Author: Gunnar
Date: 04-10-04 18:26

How foolish of me not to have thought of that!

Gunnar

Re: I couldn't possibly disagree with you more!

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-11-04 05:06

I insist that "division by zero logic" does indeed apply here.

You think that if an all-powerful God exists, the option of flooding the earth and then restoring it to it's natural state is as impossible as trying to divide by zero? If you really believe that, you are thinking with too many emotions. Gunnar, it doesn't take a genius to deduce that an all-powerful being can do anything so long as it isn't logically inconsistant. There's nothing inconsistant about destroying something which has been corrupted and then restoring it to it's pre-corrupted state.

To explain away evidence, gelogical or otherwise, that so strongly refutes what you would rather believe by simply claiming, "anything is possible for God"

Anything IS possible for God, Gunnar. Try to judge this from my paradigm, not yours. And, yes, there is good reason why God would flood the earth (symbolizing baptism) and then restore it to it's state before wickedness had run rampant. It's not a copout, it's simple logic. When you believe in God, EVERYTHING is seen through different lenses.

You know full well that almost any conceivable nonsense can be and has been justified in that manner. I still say that merely having to fall back on that type of ploy

Nonsense can be justified through any number of means. The difference here is that you are the one challenging whether or not God could have done something. Do you see the difference between someone going through the streets declaring all manner of nonsense in 'the name' of God and someone who yells loudly, as you have done, that God is not capable of doing something a certain way, that it is logically invalid? You are both making unfounded assertions. You are the one making the assertion that omnipotent doesn't really mean omnipotent and that God should be held accountable not by what He says in scripture but by what our scientists say. You are confusing my place in this argument with your own.
As for the ploy, What ploy? If you believe God is all-powerful, it all makes sense. You seem to be adding all sorts of mental clutter to this issue. The point is simple, logical and straightforward. God tells us exactly what happened. We can believe it or not. If we don't believe it, it's a matter of self-deception-- don't blame it on God. If you ask God to tell you something but you are determined already in your mind that even when He tells you exactly what happened, it's deceitful, why should He tell you anything?

"whether God caused such a flood and then deliberately erased the physical evidence of it happening.... that still leaves us with a God that is deliberately deceitful and playing tricks on us."

What's so deceitful about saying that something that happened happened?

TLC made a very good point that you have not come even close to satisfactorily addressing: "Ryan; Please tell me why you think a God would use "natural" effects,

There's good reason I haven't addressed it. It's silly. God intervening in the world's state and creating a global flood is hardly 'natural' effects. God flooded the earth with His power, it was supernatural.

such as a flood to drown and kill all terrestial life except Noah and his family and pairs of worldwide species, and then turn right around and use "unnatural" (supernatural) methods to bring it all back to normal?"

Gunnar, I thought you didn't believe in the concept of supernatural, theologically or elsewise. You said that all things are natural, although we haven't discovered everything yet. That answers the silly, silly question you quote here. The fact that you speak so highly of such nonsense says something of your unintentional bias on this issue.

Why would God cause such a flood, then try to eliminate the evidence that he did it,

Gunnar, I've come to expect more intellectual honesty from you. God hasn't tried to eliminate any evidence. God had his reasons for the earth being just as it is. The real evidence, the only evidence that God offers or cares about is right there if you are willing to kneel in humility and ask for His advice.

and then tell us to believe he did it anyway? This makes not the slightest bit of sense!

If you assume he's lying or trying to deceive you, a priori.

You talked of geophysical evidence against the flood, as if that were the only evidence against it. Just as damaging is the historical evidence against it. If Biblical chronology is taken to be at all accurate, the flood could not have occurred any earlier than about 2400 BCE. The problem with that is that we have the written records left by several civilizations

Time and dating are understood differently in the context of God's reasons for doing everything His way.

You place such great stock in your inner conviction or faith that God has confirmed his existence to you. I say that no belief or belief system is more deservedly suspect than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of divine revelation

Yet I have only words on a screen to confirm your existance. The manifestation of God's spirit is far more than that.

Can you deny that there are numerous, mutually contradictory beliefs whose adherents sincerely claim such authority

There's also a devil, and the fact that God deals with each individual's understanding so things can seem contradictory. You don't have to belong to a certain Church to receive revelation from your Heavenly Father. When you die and see the world of spirits, you will remember all the things that really are of substance. This world and all the erroneous thinking you had here will be but a sad afterthought. The gospel is not part of this life, life is part of the gospel. It would really be sad if you let the ideas and understanding of this world stand in the way of loving the Heavenly Father you knew as a child. The way to know the truth is to ask God. The only truth that has any substance at all.

Re: The difference

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-11-04 05:08

The difference is between valid and sound. Do you understand that difference?

talking of evidence

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-11-04 05:13

"love" or hate or joy or sorrow are results of chemical reactions

And the name of the chemical that generates the feeling of love is? Oh, you don't know it do you? How does it generate the sensation of conscious thought? You don't know this, yet you assert it. tsk tsk. So much for the accusation that religion doesn't support it's claims.

Re: Evidence for Love

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-11-04 05:14

That's great, JAK.

Nail on the head, TLC

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-11-04 13:06

Hi Terry,

You: Vicki love; Emotions such as we describe as "love" or hate or joy or sorrow are results of chemical reactions in the brain that provide feeling and perception to the physical world in which we experience everyday.

Me: You are exactly right. Love is an emotional/pschological perception. Sometimes our interpretations of love, no matter how convincing we believe the "evidence" is, are inaccurate.

You: Love and other emotions are an abstraction of the mind and therefore cannot be proven. IMO, God is in the same category.

Me: Yes, God and love are intangible.

You:Wasn't Louie Louie by the "KIngsmen"?

Me: You are most correct.

"Me gotta go",
Vicki

terrorist epistemology

Author: Craig
Date: 04-11-04 13:23

Ryan,

How does your method of deciding what is true and false differ from that of the 9-11 terrorists or - bringing it one step closer to Mormonism - the method that led Ron Lafferty to conclude that God had directed him to murder his sister-in-law and her daughter?

"If God Asked Me to, I'd Kill You Right Now"

Craig

Post Edited (04-11-04 16:15)

But that is not what happened, Ryan

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-11-04 14:41

Hi Ryan,

I'm going to identify what I see as inconsistencies in your statments weighed against the Bible account. I hope you are up for a bit of friendly challenge. Here goes.

"You think that if an all-powerful God exists, the option of flooding the earth and then restoring it to it's natural state is as impossible as trying to divide by zero? If you really believe that, you are thinking with too many emotions. Gunnar, it doesn't take a genius to deduce that an all-powerful being can do anything so long as it isn't logically inconsistant. There's nothing inconsistant about destroying something which has been corrupted and then restoring it to it's pre-corrupted state."

Ryan, in your own comments here you yourself place conditions on a god who can do anything when you say "so long as it isn't logically inconsistent". Let's see how that pans out against the Genesis account.

You say "There's nothing inconsistent about destroying something which has been corrupted"

Yes, there is, Ryan. God pronounced his creation "good" then changed his mind and decided to drown it save for one righteous man who after he was saved responded by becoming a pass out drunk.

You say: "and then restoring it to it's pre-corrupted state".

Ryan, to start with, using a man whom God himself reportedly characterized as "righteous" and who later became a pass out drunk isn't returning creation to it's pre-corrupted state. God did NOT return his creation to a pre-corrupted state. If he had, there would be no need for the cross. The very concepts/arguments that you've put forward here are inconsistent in and of themselves.

If God truly intended to return his creation to it's pre-corrupted state, he really messed up when he used "seed" from the corrupted crop to replant it. Or could it be, Ryan, that God NEVER messes up, only the humans who try to explain him do. Like the authors of Genesis for example.

Boy these discussions are easier to deal with when I'm not in the center!

Vicki

Post Edited (04-11-04 14:49)

Re: I couldn't possibly disagree with you more!

Author: Gunnar
Date: 04-11-04 17:31

Ryan, what is dishonest about pointing out that the physical evidence for a world-wide flood simply is not there? How can the absence of such evidence possibly be explained other than by concluding either that such a flood did not occur or that God deliberately erased such evidence? If the latter, then it is God who is being deceitful and dishonest, not I!

With regard to the historical evidence you replied, "Time and dating are understood differently in the context of God's reasons for doing everything His way."

It amazes me that you cannot see how incredibly weak that argument is! If anyone else used a similar argument to justify a belief contrary to compelling evidence and sound reason, and which you acknowledge as false, you would agree with me that they are using "division by zero logic." Why is that type of argument even the slightest bit more reasonable when you use it to defend your beliefs? Because you have the truth and anyone who disagrees with you doesn't? Do you honestly believe that no one whose religious convictions are contrary to yours could possibly be as sincere or honest as you are in claiming to have received them via divinely inspired answer to prayer? You stoutly maintain (or at least strongly imply) that anyone whose religious "testimony" conflicts with yours must be either dishonest or inspired by Satan, rather than by God, and that only you and those whose religious beliefs are consistent with your own could possibly be inspired by God. Can you understand why anyone would perceive such an attitude as incredibly arrogant?

I repeat again, merely having to fall back on that kind of approach to defend something is enormously damaging if not actually fatal to whatever is thus defended. Even if it is taken for granted that anything is possible for God, using that alone as an excuse for believing something that would not otherwise be believed by anyone with a modicum of sense is an extremely weak and unacceptable argument!

I ask you again, do you think that the 9/11 terrorists' "testimony" that they were doing the will of Allah was any weaker than your own testimony? They gave their lives for that testimony, for God's sake (or, rather, Allah's sake)!

You said, "Yet I have only words on a screen to confirm your existance. The manifestation of God's spirit is far more than that." The only evidence I have that "the manifestation of God's spirit is far more than that" is your flat, unsupported assertion that it is so. Even if I shared your "testimony" of the truthfulness of the Gospel, it would still be a very weak argument! Must I point out again that the simple fact that there are so many mutually contradictory belief systems whose adherents apparently sincerely believe are manifestations of God's spirit very strongly refutes that assertion? I guess your answer to that would be that it only proves that those belief systems contrary to your own are not genuinely "manifestations of God's spirit," despite what their adherents may claim.

By the way, if you don't want to believe in my existence based only on "words on a screen," that would not hurt my feelings at all. Be assured, though, that I do believe in yourexistence based on the same evidence.

Still your friend, despite our differences of opinion;

Gunnar

PS In another post, our mutual friend, Craig, pointed out another example of the unreliability of subjective, spiritual testimony. Just before the mass suicide of the Jonestown community, they held what was, in effect, a "testimony meeting" wherein many of them stood before the congregation and testified of their commitment to the truthfulness of the cause for which they were giving up their lives. Do you think that they were any less convinced than you are of the validity of their own testimony and commitment?

Wow! what a chilling story! n/t

Author: Gunnar
Date: 04-11-04 17:44

:

Out on the limb, as usual

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-11-04 19:04

Craig,

You ask how Ryan's (or even my own) method of deciding what's true or false is any different than what's his face up in Utah or the 9-11 terrorists. I don't know the precepts of Islam but I do know the commandments against killing in the OT and commandments to love one another in the NT. If God tells us not to kill or via Christ tells us that the next greatest thing to loving HIM is loving eachother, and the commandment itself seems based on sound reasoning...then someone comes along and says that God told him to kill...I'd say that the commandment is correct and the guy (even some of the OT guys) are wigged out.

Vicki

No, this is spot on

Author: Craig
Date: 04-11-04 20:15

Yes, I deliberately picked provocative examples, Vicki.

But I am not out on a limb. I can provide scriptures to demonstrate that the Christian/Mormon versions of God can be ruthless. (Note that i said "can be", not "aways is" or "usually is"). I can also provide historical accounts to show that followers of these versions of God can be utterly ruthless, when they feel motivated to act in that way by their beliefs or revelations.

This issue is a major reason I feel so passionately about this forum, and why I cannot sit on the sidelines while people promote potentially dangeous epistemologies.

I do find certain religious beliefs frightening, especially when they are taken to extremes - as Ryan does with his magical and deceptive God. Ryan describes a world in which "revelation" is taken as "evidence" which can then be used to decide what is true and what is false. Do you also believe that?

I want to see where this goes.

Craig

Post Edited (04-11-04 20:32)

is the bible only partially true?

Author: marg
Date: 04-11-04 20:51

Or could it be, Ryan, that God NEVER messes up, only the humans who try to explain him do. Like the authors of Genesis for example.

Vicki I don't understand how you can expect Ryan to think some parts of the bible are written by humans and have no connection to god..yet other parts are true. What makes one story more true than another? Why for example is this story ... Jesus..is god..comes to earth..dies for mankind's sins...is resurrected..and whatever else goes along with the story...yet the flood isn't?

It seems to me you are a few steps away from believing in a god..but not the god written in the bible..and perhaps close to using Jesus's teachings as moral values ..but not view him as a god..because as with the flood story you might end up appreciating it is but another story written by humans.

Check out "Under the Banner of Heaven"

Author: Craig
Date: 04-11-04 21:09

Gunnar,

The complete account of the Lafferty brothers and related Mormon fundamentalism is available in Jon Krakauer's book:

Under the Banner of Heaven

I have read it and can strongly recommend it.

Craig

Post Edited (04-11-04 22:01)

Uh, Craig?

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-11-04 21:50

I meant that *I* was going out on the limb...sorry I didn't make that clear enough. I'll reply to you tonight, after my work is done.

Vicki

Re: I'll tell you what it would take to make me a believer

Author: that Christian guy
Date: 04-11-04 23:56

Do you seriously think God would go around imposing Himself and His existence on people? What kind of God would that be? God is love, and God wants us to come to Him of our own volition. He would not force Himself upon us.

Re: I'll tell you what it would take to make me a believer

Author: TLC
Date: 04-12-04 07:34

Hey Christian dude; How do you know that you are not "imposing" human terms like love on a master of the universe. The tongue in cheek, satirical description that I coined in my post above, exactly fits the God of Genesis in the old Hebrew Bible. If you're good, you go to heaven. If you're not, you better invest in a flame retardent suit. Those that arrogantly apply descriptive terms to a God to suit their own desires, might just be considered in the latter category.

Food for thought?

TLC

Re: Louie, Louie

Author: Louie
Date: 04-12-04 11:15

Vicki,
You asked,

Quote:

You say that Ryan's belief is not logical and cannot be proven. May I ask you if you believe you are loved by a significant other? Can you prove it?

The answer is YES, I can. Simply by their reactions to things I say/don't say and do/don't do. And YES, by my reaction to things they say/don't say and do/don't do.

Sum Ergo Cogito

Re: talking of evidence

Author: Louie
Date: 04-12-04 11:44

Ryan,

Quote:

And the name of the chemical that generates the feeling of love is?

phenylethylamine.

Quote:

How does it generate the sensation of conscious thought?

It has really nothing to do with conscious thought, Love and its emotions are interpereted by the brain on an unconscious level. It is however this unconscious level that affects our conscious logical decisions to act or not to act.

Quote:

You don't know this, yet you assert it. tsk tsk. So much for the accusation that religion doesn't support it's claims.

Before you judge what it is you think I know or do not know you should ask yourself this question. "What is it that I KNOW" know being the key word here.

You my refute the peer reviewd scientific studies that support these claims, (and I can give you many) as most relegious selots claim, that the were made by athiests.
However peer review is how the modern world determines what scientific claims are founded and unfounded. It is how we as reasoning and logical animals have gotten this far in our quest for knowledge.

Remember, when relegion ruled the world " they called it the dark ages" and rightly so. Because to think and reason or to use logic was forbidden if the conclusions that were reached did not fit traditional relegious doctrine. Some who were outspoken were even burnt at the stake by the very church that tells you to love on another, the same church that says do not judge lest ye be judged.

I could go on and on here but as the old saying goes you can not reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves in to in the first place.

Later

Sum Ergo Cogito

Re: The difference

Author: Louie
Date: 04-12-04 12:06

Ruan , you stated that

Quote:

If you knew that God existed, as I do, you would see the evidence against Him very different. It would be laughable if it weren't so deceitful.

Look, Ryan I make no claims about the existance or nonexistance of god because when it all comes down to it you will never be able to prove scientificaly that he exist. And I can not prove that he does not exist.
However I can factually state that there is not one shred of evidence that he does. I can also tell you that I have absolutly no belief in a god for the same reason I have no belief in invisible little green men living under the carpet in my living room. And those I can also never prove that they do not exist.

I simply have no need or belief for a god.

Sum Ergo Cogito

On imposition

Author: Ramona
Date: 04-12-04 13:33

The bible shows that God does indeed "impose Himself" upon us. Or was someone else telling Abraham to sacrific Isaac on the altar? BTW that action did wonders for creating a dysfuntional family. You may note you don't hear about Abe with Isaac until it's time to pick a wife. Sounds like dysfunction to me. You may also note a recent Texas trial in which, in modern times we perceive, a mentally ill woman "sacrificed" her children because god told her to do so.

Yes, there are indeed many other biblical stories to show imposition.

Ramona

Re: is the bible only partially true?

Author: Ramona
Date: 04-12-04 14:15

Per a number of orthodox commentaries, one can easily find that the relevance to the flood is not in the literal meaning, but rather it's intended meaning. Here is one such example: In other words, whether or not a global flood occurred, which I do not, there is additional use for the tale.

I would think Vicki is well aware that the bible is not a historical document in the classic sense. Unquestionably, there are some historical facts in both the Hebrew bible and the New Testament.

Ramona

Disconnect, marg

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-12-04 15:25

Hello marg,

Very often when I read your replies to me, I get a sense that you haven't read the post you're replying to. I don't know what to do about that feeling of disconnect. Here you've isolated ONE sentence out of all the main points I listed to Ryan as if you are ignoring the body of my post in favor of one specific statement.

I don't expect Ryan to do anything but perhaps read my reply and offer a response. If he chooses not to do so that is his business. The gist of my post (and I'm not going to write it twice) was pointing out inconsistencies in Ryan's statements.

He says that he believes that God can do "anything" then places his own condition on it.

He made statements about Genesis that are not borne out in Genesis.

Are there any significant inconsistencies in the story of Christ? What are they?

As for your closing paragraph. I find the entire series of statements irrelevant coming from one who has not got a grasp on the Bible or Christianity to begin with and therefore is in no position to guage the belief of another.

Vicki

Well stated! N/T

Author: TLC
Date: 04-12-04 16:22

.

Unquestionable historical facts?

Author: TLC
Date: 04-12-04 16:47

Ramona; Very bold statements you claim. I would like someone to state one "unquestionable" historical fact from the old testament and one from the new testament. If they are unquestionable, they have to be accepted by everyone , believer or not, I would think.

TLC

Re: is the bible only partially true?

Author: marg
Date: 04-12-04 17:06

Per a number of orthodox commentaries, one can easily find that the relevance to the flood is not in the literal meaning, but rather it's intended meaning. Here is one such example: In other words, whether or not a global flood occurred, which I do not, there is additional use for the tale.

I understand , myths can be and are helpful tools for teaching..they do not have to be literal to have value.

I would think Vicki is well aware that the bible is not a historical document in the classic sense. Unquestionably, there are some historical facts in both the Hebrew bible and the New Testament.

Again I understand....but Vicki has accepted the flood story as myth...written by humans. I believe her reasoning is that it's inconsistent with her understanding of how a (or her) god would act and so therefore could not be true or literal. Yet she accepts the story of Jesus...of him being god in human form..come to earth to eventually die for mankinds sins, that there are 3 forms of god...jesus, god, holy ghost, that jesus died and was resurrected. This belief was not consistent with all christians from it's beginnings..but is consistent with the traditional/orthodox christians during the period of 200 - 500 CE who along with roman authorities help were able to forcefully establish their particular religion which is the dominant belief of present day. Although vicki may think...that her particular beliefs relating to jesus are true..with the reasoning that they are consistent with her god beliefs..her beliefs are no more true than ryan's. They are still stories created and written by man. That's not to say...that the stories can serve no benefit. One can still appreciate the morals taught by Jesus whether one believes he ever existed or was a god. And that's what I said in my post...it seemed that vicki was getting closer to this understanding. If she can appreciate the flood is not literal... was a story written by man..it's not that many more steps to appreciating the same thing about the story of jesus..which orthodox christians along with roman leaders started to promote a few hundred years after jesus's supposed time.

Re: Disconnect, marg

Author: marg
Date: 04-12-04 17:10

Perhaps it's best you read my reply to Ramona it pretty much is a response to yours..I did read and understand your post.

Re: Contradictions

Author: TLC
Date: 04-12-04 17:26

JAK; Yes of course, science and religion are contradictory. I see this as a result of religion(s) being much older (established) than (modern) science. Science presents us with new discoveries that are verifiable and provable everyday. Most of science is relatively new. Religion offers nothing new in the way of ideas or beliefs that aren't centuries old, Mormonism notwithstanding.

I don't see a contradiction of a possible God (just for the sake of arguement) and science. I just don't see religions, scriptures, churches, synagogs, sacrements, prayer, spiritual awakenings, voices from above, perceived miracles, baptizing, facing mecca, crusifixes hanging from the neck, angels, devils, or any of the dogma, symbols or beliefs as having one iota of a connection to reality, God existing or not.

To believers, science is an affront to the importance of humans in the big picture. Understandable. I have always questioned believers that if humans are an important part of Gods plan in the universe, why are we such a small, almost imeasurable part of it?

TLC

Re: talking of evidence

Author: TLC
Date: 04-12-04 17:51

Thanks Louie; Phenylethylamine is the one eh? I know that lower levels of Serotonin and Dopamine, the main chemicals in aiding nuerotransmitters to function at their most efficient, have been shown to contribute to humans having higher spiritual and religious experiences. Of course Ryan would already know this, him being close to the top of religious zealots in his thinking.

TLC

Re: terrorist epistemology

Author: TLC
Date: 04-12-04 18:15

In my opinion, what this fellow really deserves, if he were in my jail, and I could get away with it, he would have that stupid beard dry shaved off and would be treated in a manner that would make Jesus's treatment in Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" look like a slap on the hand. He would be begging for forgiveness on a regular basis. I guarantee it. I would kill him eventually, most likely at his pathetic request and I would sleep soundly that same night.

Do I make myself clear?

TLC

I don't think i want to get on your bad side. n/t

Author: Craig
Date: 04-12-04 19:00

Re: I'll tell you what it would take to make me a believer

Author: that Christian guy
Date: 04-12-04 19:43

For this argument one will have to assume that the Bible is the word of God. That is not the question here, imposition is, so please don't try cluttering up the thread and fudging the argument with a completely different one.

John 3:16 says "God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

Now if God says it himself, than is it an arrogant application of a descriptive term by a mere mortal? Yes, of course, this was written by a man but what Christians believe is that God inspired the writers of the Bible to write what they did, which would imply that it is, in fact, God stating this.

And by the way, a flame retardant suit isn't going to do anyone any good.

Re: is the bible only partially true?

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-12-04 19:44

"closer to this understanding"

Thanks for the religious developmental assessment, marg. You crack me up!

Lol,
Vicki

Post Edited (04-12-04 19:47)

Re: On imposition

Author: that Christian guy
Date: 04-12-04 19:47

Did Abraham absolutely have to sacrifice his son? Did Abraham even have to go out of Haran? Did anyone have to do anything God told them to? BTW that bit doesn't necessitate (spelling?) a dysfunctional family, there was just probably nothing notable in what was going on with Isaac. One notices it in the history books. Times that are prosperous and without turmoil get substantially fewer pages than major wars and revolutions.

I would also appreciate it if you would be so kind as to cite these other stories.

Re: I'll tell you what it would take to make me a believer

Author: that Christian guy
Date: 04-12-04 19:53

'"Let there be light" (Genesis, I believe) Does this mean that God had been sitting around all alone in the dark for eons, bored out of his mind and one instant he said to himself "Hey, this sucks......I think I better whip up something". "Hmmmm...what can I do?"'

Umm, eons didn't exist. Time didn't exist. "In the beginning, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) Sounds like God was the only thing in existence to me. If God created the heavens and the Earth, three of our dimensions, would he not have created however many other ones exist?

It was good

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-12-04 20:12

God's creation was good. Adam and Eve had their agency, though, as did their children. That agency-- and the ability to choose evil over good--- is part of what was good about God's creation. The choices people made to work evil, however, were bad.

God created the earth a certain way for man to live on in his mortal probation. God wanted it that way, and if the flood disrupted anything, God could have simply restored the earth to it's former state. Or God could have flooded the earth without letting the waters cause any erosion. Or that erosion may have occurred and God could have left it that way and critics today could have all the facts wrong concerning the effects of a global flood. To me, the issue is moot.

I don't really want to draw myself into a lengthy theological discussion, suffice it to say that using the claim of a flood against those who believe in it doesn't work. If you believe that God caused the flood, it doesn't matter what anyone other than God says. It's as futile as arguing and Christ raising Lazarus from the dead because of all the "evidence" that that sort of thing is impossible--- and then complaining when beleivers say that God could have done it because He can do anything.

Atheists and agnostics shouldn't argue against God, at least not from their own paradigm. It's a fact that they cannot demonstrate religious beliefs to be unsound. They can try to demonstrate that they are invalid, but even that is hard. They shouldn't use religious claims as evidence that the beliefs are inconsistant with their own belief systems, they should try to show that the religious beliefs are inconsistant with themselves.

Ryan

Re: Unquestionable historical facts?

Author: Ramona
Date: 04-12-04 20:15

Did King Solomon exist?

Did Paul exist?

Ramona

huh

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-12-04 20:18

This isn't about trying to prove my beliefs to be true. It's about the fact that you cannot prove them false by arguing from the standpoint of your paradigm. Even if you argue against them from my paradigm, you can only hope to prove them invalid, not unsound.

It's not a fun fact for you, I know, but it's true. Yes, anything is possible with God. That doesn't mean that you should pretend that everything that mentions God's omnipotence is a copout. You can't prove it false, I can't prove it true to you. The best you can do is try to demonstrate that my beliefs are inconsistant with themselves.

yours,

Ryan

Re: The difference

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-12-04 20:23

The little men have no bearing on this discussion. It's a manipulative tactic that others have used, trying to discredit by association. The green men argument can be incorporated to try to discredit anything that can't be proven. In this case, you chose something supernatural because that's the context of the discussion, but other cases can incorporate the unlikely yet possible according to known physics.

sound and valid

Author: Ryan
Date: 04-12-04 20:27

Gunnar,

If you accept that God exists, is aware of all our affairs, etc. the paradigm is totally different than if you don't. All I'm saying is that while my claims regarding the flood are consistant with my paradigm, they are not consistant with yours. From your perspective and the premises you accept, it is division by zero logic. But not from my set of premises. you have to judge according to mine, not yours
your pal

edited to add:

If you want to debate the validity of my beliefs, you need to understand what my beliefs are. Of course, you don't need to accept my beliefs and without being able to demonstrate their truthfulness, I shouldn't force them on you.

Look at it like this: if I tell you that you're dreaming right now, you likely wouldn't believe me. You couldn't prove that you are awake, though! Neither of us would have the advantage, except that to you it seems as though you are awake. It's a personal feeling and I could argue that your personal feeling doesn't mean anything and that personal feelings have been used to justify all sorts of atrocities. I could ask if someone else was any less convinced than you are of their personal feelings and conviction.

Why would I argue this way? Perhaps I am convinced that you are sleep-walking or perhaps I am disingenuous. Either way, this analogy of mine serves the purpose of demonstrating that paradigms must be judged from the context of their own merits. I could argue that if you are awake you should be able to read, and that would be a valid argument. Aside from that, you can't really prove whether you are dreaming. There are lots of invalid arguments that could be made. I don't have time to get into it further right now, and I know this is kind of choppy. Hope you can make some sense of it.

Post Edited (04-12-04 20:49)

Re: is the bible only partially true?

Author: Ramona
Date: 04-12-04 20:31

Marg,

As a non-christian I actually understand what you are saying. But I don't see the two as being equal, but more of an apple v. orange debate, based on my experience. There are those Christians that seem to virtually reject the O.T., it's very confusing to me. The point is that Christians sometimes/often place different value on the O.T. v. N.T.

The O.T. only speaks of history, law and of a coming Messiah, but the Christian N.T. "guarantees" or seals salvation. I would think it obvious that a Christian would cling to what is perceived as the "meat" of the bible. Perhaps, I'm a vegetarian and don't need the meat. But then I suppose I come from a long line of non-meateaters.

Also for perspective, look at the whole "passion" movie brouhaha. From the people I have spoken to regarding the movie, it's as though the F.B.I. came out to interrogate witnesses. Clearly, the weight of O.T. v. N.T. is not equal.

Ramona

142 Posts

Author: nofaith
Date: 04-12-04 20:39

This thread will be locked when it reaches 150 posts.

-Dan

Re: On imposition

Author: Ramona
Date: 04-12-04 20:40

Nope Abraham didn't have to sacrifice his son, but to disobey God one only needs to look at Adam and Eve, Sodom, Jonah... and the list goes on. Hmm, and if Abraham didn't need to sacrifice his son why would a seemingly loving father God, need to sacrifice his own? But wait, was He sacrificing anything if His son was Himself? And did God punish Himself by sending Himself to Hell, a place that ultimately He needed to create if you believe in Hell which I don't.

The whole sacrifice a child reminds me of the real Hell, Gehenna, the real pit for child sacrificing pagans of ancient times.

BTW If your father had you on an altar to be sacrificed, you would be alright with that? I'd bet my money on dysfunctional and the reasons should be obvious. Apparently all of these women that have sacrificed their children in recent times were doing God's will. Sorry I don't believe in your God.

Ramona

Re: On imposition

Author: that Christian guy
Date: 04-12-04 21:52

You're missing the point. The book of Hebrews says that the whole exercise was a test of faith, i.e. whether Abraham would be willing to sacrifice his son. And you seem to be overlooking the fact that right before Abraham was about to kill Isaac an angel stopped him. For another thing, Abraham probably didn't know about most of those people. For one thing, Sodom and Gommorah hadn't been destroyed yet, Jonah hadn't been born yet, and Abraham would likely have almost no knowledge whatsoever about Adam and Eve. It's been more than a thousand years since their deaths if you take the Bible as truth.

And Jesus and Isaac are different. Would you give your life for your best friend? Spouse if you have one? Child? unless you are a person of great fortitude I greatly doubt that (no insult intended). Much less would you give your life for something you created. Jesus took away our sins because He, being God, was the only Person capable of forgiving sin. Why he did what he did is a completely different topic.

BTW, does it really matter? And about sacrificing their children, a) Abraham didn't actually sacrifice Isaac, as I said earlier it was a test of faith. b) yes God does abhor human sacrifice, He describes it as one of the greatest abominations.

Re: Contradictions

Author: JAK
Date: 04-12-04 22:40

TLC,

Well stated, thoughtful observations, as always. Let me take one idea you mention and add something.

Quote:

I don't see a contradiction of a possible God (just for the sake of arguement) and science.

Inherent in this is an implied or inherent definition. I am not making an argument -- at least I don�t think so.

If one develops some kind of definition for God which allow for all that science has discovered and further allows for all that may be discovered in the future, you could make that statement.

However, in doing so, God is a concept/idea/notion subject to continuing revision -- wholly compatible with all that is discovered.

In many respects such a definition seems to make any God irrelevant. That is, the statement embraces all discovery. That necessarily includes all discovery of cause.

I liked your very lengthy list in paragraph two.

Your last paragraph points to the conclusion that no God concepts and certainly not concepts previously of gods emerged from sufficient information to describe what we now know of the universe. And there can be little doubt that human information about what we call the universe will be modified by what is yet to be discovered.

While off-topic here, I continue to think that medical science is likely to be of the greatest interest to the greatest number of people. Were we able to put the wealth used for more effective ways to kill people (the expense in preparation for war world wide) into medical science, the discoveries would be enormous. The rewards would surpass anything we can achieve with better, more effective killing devices.

JAK

Ramona, I'm surprised at you!

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-12-04 22:57

No Ramona,

Haven't you been paying attention? Paul didn't exist, Peter and the remaining Apostles didn't exist, Caesar didn't exist, Herod didn't exist, Pilate didn't exist, Jesus didn't exist, Ramses didn't exist, Solomon didn't exist therefore...you got it...God doesn't exist. Neat package, eh?

Vicki

P.S. I almost forgot, all that talk about the Temple destruction 70 a.d? That didn't happen either. The Bricks of Pithom that match the Bible account? Total spin! The 20,000 hand copied Greek translations don't exist. Joseph of Aramathia? Nope, he didn't exist therefore no tomb to bury the non-existent Jesus. Josephus? Also made up...no non-Biblical sources for Christ, the stone with Pilate's name on it? You guessed it! Bogus! Three census taken by Caesar Augustus..totally fabricated! Ciaphus? No, honey, no Ciaphus. Dead Sea Scrolls? Nope they aren't kept in the Room of the Book in Israel. Infact there IS no Room of the Book and get this...no Israel either! Since Israel doesn't exist, well you had to see this coming...there are no Jews! No Jews? No Jewish God! It's all non-historical nonsense, Ramona...kind of like a Disney dream without the Imagineers to glitz it up. Sheesh, try to keep up, okay?

Post Edited (04-12-04 23:16)

Re: I'll tell you what it would take to make me a believer

Author: that Christian guy
Date: 04-12-04 22:58

one more thing, is that related to the topic we are discussing at all?

Re: No, this is spot on...Craig?

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-12-04 23:21

I don't quite understand what you're asking me here:

"Ryan describes a world in which "revelation" is taken as "evidence" which can then be used to decide what is true and what is false. Do you also believe that?"

Could you say that another way or give me an example?

Vicki

Craig, this thread is going to get locked at 150

Author: Jersey Girl
Date: 04-12-04 23:35

If my answer is important to you feel free to put it in a new thread if you like.

Vicki

Threaded View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

This thread is closed

Copyright 2thinkforums.org 2007 All Rights Reserved

The content of all posts is the reponsibility of the author.
2thinkforums, its hosters, and administrators take no responsibility for any of the content posted by 2thinkforums posters