NationStates Jolt Archive

My point is that while science helps us to work with time and the laws of nature, it cannot explain e.g what time really is. The effect of time is change, perhaps, and to define time as a measurement of rates of change implies that our definition depends on how we relate to time. But it doesn't go that one step 'deeper' and tell us what it is.

let's say you're right. What, pray, is the "deeper" explanation religion gives us of time, and how is that "deeper" underanding helpful?

and, finally, what are its practical applications?

I took it as reference "Graven Idols", which are forbidden by the Old Testament, so maybe he's Jewish or just witty, or both.

As for the rendering Grave and Idle, I thought it might reference that certain dour lethargy that grips thoughtful people at times...
I'm pretty sure you covered all the bases!!!
But I shan't do the speaking for him. I will say however that you've apparently come to the same conclusions i did.
And, btw, i'm pretty sure he's not practicing any particular religion at the moment, he's just well versed in nomenclature. And understands it very well, i might add.

And three hundred years ago, it couldn't say what fire is. Now it can.

Two hundred years ago, it couldn't explain precisely the behavior of benzene. Now it can.

The fact that science doesn't know everything about everything only indicates that more work remains to be done. It says nothing about whether those answers can be determined.

Religion served the same purpose, only in a cruder way, and everything that wasn't understood was simply lumped together under the banner of "It's this way because god wills it to be so." It represents a very primitive form of scientific reasoning, only with an added ontological hypothesis.

Note that nowhere does Christianity, for example, explain what radiation is or where it comes from. It utterly lacks an explanation of what the basis for the replication of traits from parent to offspring is. Such things are simply explained as "god's will."

I think you are mixing the past forms of the abuse of religion with the true role of religion, and trying to make an argument from the confusion. Religion was never meant to define e.g. fire for us in such as way that we could apply it to the creation of electricity. That some people did it that way in the past did not mean that every religious person does it that way. To do so would indicate a misunderstanding of what true religion really is.

As has been said about you before,
your posts are truly poetic.

*bows*

You ROCK.

Actually, you had the flag at the top of the hill before I got here...if this were an argument with real stakes (not just internet chatter), I'd consider you as good zone cover, and I'd find somewhere else to be useful.

EDIT: Not that you probably agree with me on everything, or even most things. For all I know, you could be a militant Scientologist or a Depeche Mode fan or something...

On the contrary, since science cannot provide very good explanations for things like time and the laws of nature, nor love or morality or even a consciousness, one has to wonder how anyone could imagine the limited attempts of science to explain such things could ever be considered superior to e.g. Christianity's version of the meaning of life--the great adventure of a personal relationship with none other than the Creator of all things.

You're comparing apples & oranges here

My point is that while science helps us to work with time and the laws of nature, it cannot explain e.g what time really is. The effect of time is change, perhaps, and to define time as a measurement of rates of change implies that our definition depends on how we relate to time. But it doesn't go that one step 'deeper' and tell us what it is.

I understand your point. It's a very poorly considered one.

The effect of time isn't change. The nature of time is change. Time is a measurement of change. That's WHAT it is. End of story. It doesn't need to go "one step deeper" because there isn't another step to take. Time is a construct that is useful to measure the extent of change. You're conflating cause and effect here. Our definition depends on how we relate to time because time itself is a mental construct, just as any measurement is a mental construct.

The "laws of nature" are themselves explanations of what things are and where they came from. What your point boils down to is that you're demanding that any explanation include an ontological ideal. Again, this is circular reasoning. You're demanding something for which there is no necessity except, itself, in terms of your own mental construct of how things MUST be.

Unfortunately for our point, reality need not conform to your expectations of it.

When we consider the claims of both the Israelites and the claims of Hitler to be 'doing the work of God', we don't have to accept those claims simply because they are made. Jesus himself warned that many would come in his name. What we need to do is to see if those claims are consistent with the revealed truth of God. Hitler's claims obviously were not. Whereas, Jesus himself is recorded as quoting Moses, and criticising the religious leaders for not believing Moses.

You're right we don't have to accept claims just because they're made. By Hitler, Jesus, Moses, or any combination thereof. And quoting Jesus quoting Moses quoting God is like a big game of telephone....

i sorry i need to ask, why do the people hear why the people dont belive in god care enough to come and discredit him?

If i can figure out why you believe, and how you came to said believe i might come to an understanding what faith is, since i lack it and seem unable to comprehend it.

Basicly, i'm trying to figure out *why* people believe

let's say you're right. What, pray, is the "deeper" explanation religion gives us of time, and how is that "deeper" underanding helpful?

and, finally, what are its practical applications?

Good question. It relates to the why's of the universe. I suppose every religion will have it's own definition of time. Within religion, Christianity explains time as the creation of God. It serves His purposes until He is finished with it. Time provides us with the opportunity for choice. While we are in time, it is ours to do what we will with it (within certain limitations). When time is over, our choices will have been set for all eternity. Can it get any more practical than that?

When we consider the claims of both the Israelites and the claims of Hitler to be 'doing the work of God', we don't have to accept those claims simply because they are made. Jesus himself warned that many would come in his name. What we need to do is to see if those claims are consistent with the revealed truth of God. Hitler's claims obviously were not. Whereas, Jesus himself is recorded as quoting Moses, and criticising the religious leaders for not believing Moses.

By what authority do you assert this?

Which "holy" wars are okay, and which not?

On what basis do we discern the difference?

Who gets to decide what "the revealed truth of God" is?

Trust me when I tell you this: as sure as you are that Hitler's actions were not consistent with that "revealed truth," he was sure they were. Please tell me which method I should use to determine which of you to believe.

My atheistic inclination is to not kill any Jews, but I'd sure hate to ignore God's revealed truth.

It's one thing to kill in obedience to a direct command of God, quite another to kill for your own purposes.

It's all the same to me, because they were told to do it through prophets, whom are men, susceptable to the fallability of man, and who could have been abusing their status to enforce their will.

In the minds of the people of that day, I reckon they would have seen God's word as the way to determine wrong from right. With such a mindset, it would have been possible to go to war against another culture, carrying out God's commands, with a clear conscience. Thus, your appeal to justice in such a 'slaughter' would be against God, not the Israelites. But once you go there, you end up criticising God over His sense of justice, as if you know all the details and could have done things better. While questioning God is not forbidden in the Bible, we are warned that our wisdom is quite a lot less than His, and that such questioning is madness, unless such questions come from integrity.

I disagree, because there is no motive to believe that they truly acted according to god's will. The bible is written by man, in the language of man, and for man, thus it is susceptable to all the fallicies that mankind possesses and thus not thrustworthy as a devine text. By the mere concept of any written text to be manmade it can not be concidered sacret or holy

If i can figure out why you believe, and how you came to said believe i might come to an understanding what faith is, since i lack it and seem unable to comprehend it.

Basicly, i'm trying to figure out *why* people believe

I can tell you why I believed, when I did. It doesn't hold true for anybody but me, but its one reason.

I wanted to feel important, loved, and guaranteed of eventual justice. Religion made me feel all of that, until I realized I was forcing the belief to satisfy the want.

You're right we don't have to accept claims just because they're made. By Hitler, Jesus, Moses, or any combination thereof. And quoting Jesus quoting Moses quoting God is like a big game of telephone....

Like no game of telephone that I have ever played.....

But if you want to criticise Christianity, it has to be done from within the Christian framework of ideology, otherwise you are just showing up your prejudice.

One is able to use one's reason to see if truth is present in such claims. Hence, it is easily seen that Hitler's idea of doing God's will was not consistent with the ideology of Christianity. Thus he was a fraud. Moses and Jesus's claims were consistent with the ideology of the time, thus, we recognise what may be considered truth, through our ability to reason.

Who gets to decide what "the revealed truth of God" is?
.

I'm going to pretend I asked this.

It's all the same to me, because they were told to do it through prophets, whom are men, susceptable to the fallability of man, and who could have been abusing their status to enforce their will.



I disagree, because there is no motive to believe that they truly acted according to god's will. The bible is written by man, in the language of man, and for man, thus it is susceptable to all the fallicies that mankind possesses and thus not thrustworthy as a devine text. By the mere concept of any written text to be manmade it can not be concidered sacret or holy

You have a point. However, the claims of the Bible are also that God was rather involved in the writing of the Bible, through inspiration. If true, then it is possible that the messages of the Bible are trustworthy. Sure, the details may be vague, and even inaccurate. But that is different from being false, deliberately misleading.

By what authority do you assert this?

Which "holy" wars are okay, and which not?

On what basis do we discern the difference?

Who gets to decide what "the revealed truth of God" is?

Trust me when I tell you this: as sure as you are that Hitler's actions were not consistent with that "revealed truth," he was sure they were. Please tell me which method I should use to determine which of you to believe.

My atheistic inclination is to not kill any Jews, but I'd sure hate to ignore God's revealed truth.
Only the wars are in the bible are holy no others, even despict what is clames by the starters

Good question. It relates to the why's of the universe. I suppose every religion will have it's own definition of time. Within religion, Christianity explains time as the creation of God. It serves His purposes until He is finished with it. Time provides us with the opportunity for choice. While we are in time, it is ours to do what we will with it (within certain limitations). When time is over, our choices will have been set for all eternity. Can it get any more practical than that?

so, god made time so that I can do some stuff, and at some point in the future, time will cease to be, at which time, the stuff I do will have repercussions for all time.

but wait, you just said time will be over.

and why does god need time anyway? isn't he/she omnipotent? what "purpose" can a god have?

this is trite, but it is reason's revealed truth writ small:

can your god make a stone he/she could not move?

But if you want to criticise Christianity, it has to be done from within the Christian framework of ideology, otherwise you are just showing up your prejudice.

One is able to use one's reason to see if truth is present in such claims. Hence, it is easily seen that Hitler's idea of doing God's will was not consistent with the ideology of Christianity. Thus he was a fraud. Moses and Jesus's claims were consistent with the ideology of the time, thus, we recognise what may be considered truth, through our ability to reason.

So Christianity is allowed to apply "reasoning" that would be considered unsound if used by anybody else. More double standard.

A claim that is "consistent with the ideology of the time" is therefore recognized as truth? That explains a lot about where you're coming from...

I think you are mixing the past forms of the abuse of religion with the true role of religion, and trying to make an argument from the confusion. Religion was never meant to define e.g. fire for us in such as way that we could apply it to the creation of electricity. That some people did it that way in the past did not mean that every religious person does it that way. To do so would indicate a misunderstanding of what true religion really is.

I think you're just going to keep twisting things around. Whether it's willful I can't say, but:

Religion was conceived as a way for improving the lot of the culture in which it was created. It was created, in fact, to do exactly what you're demanding be done; provide explanations. The necessity for those explanations was to better interact with the universe in which we live, to either prevent suffering or at least make it worthwhile. It was looking for knowledge using the best tools it had at the time. That's not an abuse, that's what human beings do.

We have developed better tools. We no longer need to lump everything we don't yet understand under the aegis of "well, that's just what an unknowable deity wants." We've progressed and can come up with accurate, useful, reliable answers to many of the very questions that religion sought to address.

Science isn't the contradiction of religion, it's the fulfilling of what religion set out to do. It's not a coincidence that much of early scientific knowledge came from the priestly class of various religions. They set out to determine answers to the questions using the same spirit of inquiry, and in some cases the very same methodology, as science does now. They didn't seek to hinder such progress; they were its very agents.

The problems came along only when some people got attached to the particular propositions of particular religions, declaring that millenia-old models were immutable truth. In order to support this, it became necessary to posit baroque, complex, and often self-contradictory ideas in support of those models. In some cases, it required the invention of entire knew layers of meaning that go beyond reason itself.

This is not what the founders of religion had in mind at all. They put forth the most logical and consistent models they could based upon the knowledge they had at the time. We know more now than we did then, and can create better, more consistent, more reliable models. I have no doubt that, confronted with a more thorough understanding of the universe, the founders of religion would have revised their models — because they did exactly that. If they didn't, there'd be no such things as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or any number of other religions that were [B]precisely[B] the reformations of those that came before them.

If you're a Christian, you're the kind that I hope winds up in the leadership. If you're not, sorry.

Ex-Christian.

It just didn't work for me...

Mainly for the sorts of reasons that I'm discussing here.

There ARE Christians 'like me' out there, though... they just aren't the ones that get heard... mainly because they are too busy trying to live Christlike lives, to spend all their time shouting about what other people should and shouldn't do.

The Bible says that Christians should be a 'separate' people. If more Christians paid attention to the contents of the scripture, more non-Christians would have a whole lot less complaint to level against them.

(By the way, I'm not insulted... I've been told before that, apart from that pesky not-believing-in-god thing, I make a pretty good Christian).

Right so you care because people do? i am sorry i am not convinsed.

I have heard that some eople care, and i am not saying you are one of them, because the idea of God makes them so uneasy because it means thier life would have change, so they go out their to prove he is not true

I care because it indirectly affects me, If my government were to eg impose prayer upon me through legislation it would rather piss me off seriously. This is an extreme example you might think, but this has already happened in some countries, take a look at the world arround you to see why non-believers, or believers in other faith systems might care

It would have sucked to be living your life in Jericho - a wife, kids and a dog... a good job at the olive oil plant... and then have some guy claim that God commanded his people to lay siege to the city, destroy the walls and exterminate everyone living there. Of course, as God's army killed you and everyone you loved, you could take heart in the knowledge that it was "God's Will".

However, the claims of the Bible are also that God was rather involved in the writing of the Bible, through inspiration.

All x and y satisfying x^2 + y^2 = r^2 for some constant number r.

-Descartes

I took it as reference "Graven Idols", which are forbidden by the Old Testament, so maybe he's Jewish or just witty, or both.

As for the rendering Grave and Idle, I thought it might reference that certain dour lethargy that grips thoughtful people at times...

:D

Both aspects were considerations when choosing the name... plus, I liked to think it was (at least a little) witty.

Jewish ancestry, Christian upbringing, loss of faith, search for truth... the name was supposed to convey all that, in symbolic form.

Actually, you had the flag at the top of the hill before I got here...if this were an argument with real stakes (not just internet chatter), I'd consider you as good zone cover, and I'd find somewhere else to be useful.

EDIT: Not that you probably agree with me on everything, or even most things. For all I know, you could be a militant Scientologist or a Depeche Mode fan or something...
Goshdarned right i'm a DM fan!
But to be fair, not much of the new album. ;)
And i've never read Dianetics with any sincere interest, or anything along those lines. I'm more pretty militantly anti-religion, but very pro-spiritual, for the record.

So, when you say .... I'd consider you as good zone cover, and I'd find somewhere else to be useful.,
do you mean to say you'd leave me out there as the brazen target i am? ;)

Thanks for the compliment, DM snide aside. ;)
Seriously, when people mean to do the right thing, i feel i must give them their due. And you do indeed rock. *bows*

As has been said about you before,
your posts are truly poetic.

*bows*

You ROCK.

I think it was I, that said it before....

Very good, isn't he/she?

I understand your point. It's a very poorly considered one.

The effect of time isn't change. The nature of time is change. Time is a measurement of change. That's WHAT it is. End of story. It doesn't need to go "one step deeper" because there isn't another step to take. Time is a construct that is useful to measure the extent of change. You're conflating cause and effect here. Our definition depends on how we relate to time because time itself is a mental construct, just as any measurement is a mental construct.

The "laws of nature" are themselves explanations of what things are and where they came from. What your point boils down to is that you're demanding that any explanation include an ontological ideal. Again, this is circular reasoning. You're demanding something for which there is no necessity except, itself, in terms of your own mental construct of how things MUST be.

Unfortunately for our point, reality need not conform to your expectations of it.
And ANOTHER good post!!

Ex-Christian.

It just didn't work for me...


Interesting. Ex-Jew here. I was born into an orthodox Jewish family. I have relatives who are Hassidic rabbis (in the Lubovitch sect). I never did believe in the religion, though, even when I was as young as 10. Since my family believed so strongly that religion was a necessary thing, though, I wound up going off on my own to learn about any number of other religions. I've covered everything from the Gnostics to Hare Krishna to the Yezidis because of that. That experience has been valuable in and of itself, though I can't say I believe in the particulars of any of the religions I've encountered.

What the journey did do, though, was open my eyes to the central common desire of all of these religions, and that probably had a great deal to do with my interest in science.

I'm pretty sure you covered all the bases!!!
But I shan't do the speaking for him. I will say however that you've apparently come to the same conclusions i did.
And, btw, i'm pretty sure he's not practicing any particular religion at the moment, he's just well versed in nomenclature. And understands it very well, i might add.

Why, thank you, my friend... and, in this particular case, I think you could have spoken for me with impunity.

Covered on all bases... I hardly need to turn up... ;)

It would have sucked to be living your life in Jericho - a wife, kids and a dog... a good job at the olive oil plant... and then have some guy claim that God commanded his people to lay siege to the city, destroy the walls and exterminate everyone living there. Of course, as God's army killed you and everyone you loved, you could take heart in the knowledge that it was "God's Will".

Heh, yeah.

I think it was I, that said it before....

Very good, isn't he/she?
Absitively, posulutely!
And you are indeed whom i was quoting.

And ANOTHER good post!!

Thanks. I'm flattered. I've had a lot of time to think about the questions, examine the arguments, and synthesize. It's been a lifelong passion, and while I'm not yet a senior citizen, I've probably had a bit more time to think about this stuff than a lot of folks in here. I'm a cow that's been chewing its cud for awhile, that's all.

Interesting. Ex-Jew here. I was born into an orthodox Jewish family. I have relatives who are Hassidic rabbis (in the Lubovitch sect). I never did believe in the religion, though, even when I was as young as 10. Since my family believed so strongly that religion was a necessary thing, though, I wound up going off on my own to learn about any number of other religions. I've covered everything from the Gnostics to Hare Krishna to the Yezidis because of that. That experience has been valuable in and of itself, though I can't say I believe in the particulars of any of the religions I've encountered.

What the journey did do, though, was open my eyes to the central common desire of all of these religions, and that probably had a great deal to do with my interest in science.

Indeed - you have followed a similar path to mine, it seems... although I have diverged more into the 'roots of religion', trying to find 'truth' BEHIND all the stories, if you will.

So - I have some familiarity with the modern exercise, but I am far more about the origins of Christianity in Mithraism, or the influence of Mesopotamian religion on Judaism... for example.

Also - the same on the science... part of my fascination with the sciences (I'm a kind of chemist, by trade), is that it is such an elegant tool in the search for 'truth'.

I understand your point. It's a very poorly considered one.

The effect of time isn't change. The nature of time is change. Time is a measurement of change. That's WHAT it is. End of story. It doesn't need to go "one step deeper" because there isn't another step to take. Time is a construct that is useful to measure the extent of change. You're conflating cause and effect here. Our definition depends on how we relate to time because time itself is a mental construct, just as any measurement is a mental construct.

The "laws of nature" are themselves explanations of what things are and where they came from. What your point boils down to is that you're demanding that any explanation include an ontological ideal. Again, this is circular reasoning. You're demanding something for which there is no necessity except, itself, in terms of your own mental construct of how things MUST be.

Unfortunately for our point, reality need not conform to your expectations of it.

For you to define time as a measurement of change is simply an indication of how you see it. But you have to admit that you (and I) are not in the position to claim this definition as the absolute one. Such a definition is the one that works, for science. You seem to be say that that is all we need....end of story. Typical argument for an atheist. But when I ask you where time came from, and when it began, you resort to the big bang, naturally. And when I ask you how the big bang came to happen, and why it happened, you say that there is no why. At every point, you keep ruling out the need for a why, because in your world view, there is no why. So you just stick to your arguments, and see everything as a mechanistic interaction of material that came to be through a freak accident. Thus it is possible for you to consistently define every observation in mechanistic terms (eg. your definition of time), but never allowing for a deeper meaning. So long as you hold your position, and I hold mine, we will be forever labelling each others arguments as weak. You say that my assertion of the existence of God is weak. And I say that you assertion that things like time and matter and the laws of nature all arising from the Big Bang, not holding meaning, are weak.

It's not that we have circular reasoning. It's that we begin with assertions that lead into opposite directions and will never be reconciled. It is only circular when we criticise the opposite point of view using our own point of view as the basis of reason (which may have been the point of your comment).

Actually, you had the flag at the top of the hill before I got here...if this were an argument with real stakes (not just internet chatter), I'd consider you as good zone cover, and I'd find somewhere else to be useful.

EDIT: Not that you probably agree with me on everything, or even most things. For all I know, you could be a militant Scientologist or a Depeche Mode fan or something...

Oops... I'm the Depeche Mode fan.... :(

I can tell you why I believed, when I did. It doesn't hold true for anybody but me, but its one reason.

I wanted to feel important, loved, and guaranteed of eventual justice. Religion made me feel all of that, until I realized I was forcing the belief to satisfy the want.
Indeed. These are painful and true words to me as well.
It occurred to me what the true relationship of hope was to despair.
Then again, it occured to me i had surrendered the integrity of my own soul and experiences to the malign nature of people capitalizing on that relationship between hope/despair, and thus i revoked their agenda from mine.
And i have NEVER regretted that since.
I instead grew to appreciate Gandhi ever more ...
Be the change you want to see in the world.

Interesting. Ex-Jew here. I was born into an orthodox Jewish family. I have relatives who are Hassidic rabbis (in the Lubovitch sect).

Is it true that Jewish religious scholars have a broader approach to theological discussion? That is to say, I'm told that their discourse is perhaps more tautologically developed than what goes on among some public Christian groups (not all, I'm sure).

Oops... I'm the Depeche Mode fan.... :(
Well, we could team up .... ;)

Like no game of telephone that I have ever played.....

But if you want to criticise Christianity, it has to be done from within the Christian framework of ideology, otherwise you are just showing up your prejudice.

One is able to use one's reason to see if truth is present in such claims. Hence, it is easily seen that Hitler's idea of doing God's will was not consistent with the ideology of Christianity. Thus he was a fraud. Moses and Jesus's claims were consistent with the ideology of the time, thus, we recognise what may be considered truth, through our ability to reason.

Are you aware of the crusades?

Do you believe is St. Thomas Aquinas's "just war" theory?

Christ was a jew. Some jews thought he was the messiah, some thought he was just another prophet, some thought he was an utter nutter. By what standard do you side with the first? How is it "easily" seen that Hitler's idea was wrong?

finally, I'll leave you with these thoughts to chew:

I've been plaing CivIV lately, and one of the technology advances presents with a quote I can't recall verbatim, but it essentially says god wouldn't have given us reason and a world that would fool reason - that is, if there is a god, and he/she is responsible for us being the way we are, what we discover through the use of our faculty for reason is likely to be true. More explicitly: all the discoveries of science are expressions of god's will. So, when you argue against science and the scientific method, you're actually arguing against god.

and more on point, my favorite quote of all time:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg

Indeed - you have followed a similar path to mine, it seems... although I have diverged more into the 'roots of religion', trying to find 'truth' BEHIND all the stories, if you will.

So - I have some familiarity with the modern exercise, but I am far more about the origins of Christianity in Mithraism, or the influence of Mesopotamian religion on Judaism... for example.

Also - the same on the science... part of my fascination with the sciences (I'm a kind of chemist, by trade), is that it is such an elegant tool in the search for 'truth'.

I take it then you'd have no problem with my question about the orbitals in a water molecule. ;)

I'm a returning graduate student in biology myself. I've also had an interest in the history of religions (which I think you're referring to), but as I was once also a philosophy student many moons ago, I had a habit of picking apart the religions I encountered to get at the heart of the questions they were addressing. It led me straight back to scientific inquiry, and particularly to the questions of life.

So it all makes perfect sense how I ended up on a career track toward mycology in the end (?)

By what authority do you assert this?

Which "holy" wars are okay, and which not?

On what basis do we discern the difference?

Who gets to decide what "the revealed truth of God" is?

Trust me when I tell you this: as sure as you are that Hitler's actions were not consistent with that "revealed truth," he was sure they were. Please tell me which method I should use to determine which of you to believe.

My atheistic inclination is to not kill any Jews, but I'd sure hate to ignore God's revealed truth.

In the days of Moses, a prophet was listened to on the basis of the truth of his prophecy. If what he prophesied came true, then the people didn't stone him to death. As for Moses himself, he was able to perform miracles of God. This convinced the people as to his authenticity. In each case, the people were in a position to use reasoning to recognise truth. A false prophet would not be able to make water come out of a rock to water millions of people, for example. Actually, reason and faith are two very important ingredients for determining the 'revealed truth of God'. I suggest that Christianity does not believe the Bible simply because it is a book, even a very old book, but because it consistently reveals God in ways that ordinary people can experience for themselves. There is present the elements of reason and faith. Jesus himself said that people will recognise his followers by the love that they show for each other. That introduces the third element. Experience.

But when I ask you where time came from, and when it began, you resort to the big bang, naturally. And when I ask you how the big bang came to happen, and why it happened, you say that there is no why.

I don't.

it's the natural result of the eternal physical laws of the universe, which we do not fully comprehend yet.

there's no difference between my claim for the eternalness of physics and your claim for an eternal god.

except this: your claim has implications that force you to do cartwheels of explanation, i.e. you have to create an explanation for the holocaust that doesn't undermine your model of god. my claim lacks this rather significant flaw - the holocaust presents no difficulties to quantum physics, as it does to christianity.

For you to define time as a measurement of change is simply an indication of how you see it. But you have to admit that you (and I) are not in the position to claim this definition as the absolute one. Such a definition is the one that works, for science. You seem to be say that that is all we need....end of story. Typical argument for an atheist. But when I ask you where time came from, and when it began, you resort to the big bang, naturally. And when I ask you how the big bang came to happen, and why it happened, you say that there is no why. At every point, you keep ruling out the need for a why, because in your world view, there is no why. So you just stick to your arguments, and see everything as a mechanistic interaction of material that came to be through a freak accident. Thus it is possible for you to consistently define every observation in mechanistic terms (eg. your definition of time), but never allowing for a deeper meaning. So long as you hold your position, and I hold mine, we will be forever labelling each others arguments as weak. You say that my assertion of the existence of God is weak. And I say that you assertion that things like time and matter and the laws of nature all arising from the Big Bang, not holding meaning, are weak.

It's not that we have circular reasoning. It's that we begin with assertions that lead into opposite directions and will never be reconciled. It is only circular when we criticise the opposite point of view using our own point of view as the basis of reason (which may have been the point of your comment).

I'll let McV answer for himself, but you're misrepresenting a lot of people's views here. We don't seek "deeper" (as you use the word) meaning for lack of need. A scientist doesn't "need" the universe to be anything, and presupposes or dismisses no level of meaning beyond what sound experimentation calls for.

Please don't superimpose your "need" for "meaning" on everybody. We don't all have it.

When we consider the claims of both the Israelites and the claims of Hitler to be 'doing the work of God', we don't have to accept those claims simply because they are made. Jesus himself warned that many would come in his name. What we need to do is to see if those claims are consistent with the revealed truth of God. Hitler's claims obviously were not. Whereas, Jesus himself is recorded as quoting Moses, and criticising the religious leaders for not believing Moses.

You're not looking at it objectively are you, there is no consistancy in the truth of god as recorded in the bible

Thanks. I'm flattered. I've had a lot of time to think about the questions, examine the arguments, and synthesize. It's been a lifelong passion, and while I'm not yet a senior citizen, I've probably had a bit more time to think about this stuff than a lot of folks in here. I'm a cow that's been chewing its cud for awhile, that's all.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg

That is a most excellent quote.

What the journey did do, though, was open my eyes to the central common desire of all of these religions, and that probably had a great deal to do with my interest in science.

I can truly relate, and it would seem your spirit is, give-or-take, as strong as ever, none the worse for wear.

Good luck/providence to you. *bows*

In the days of Moses, a prophet was listened to on the basis of the truth of his prophecy. If what he prophesied came true, then the people didn't stone him to death. As for Moses himself, he was able to perform miracles of God. This convinced the people as to his authenticity. In each case, the people were in a position to use reasoning to recognise truth. A false prophet would not be able to make water come out of a rock to water millions of people, for example. Actually, reason and faith are two very important ingredients for determining the 'revealed truth of God'. I suggest that Christianity does not believe the Bible simply because it is a book, even a very old book, but because it consistently reveals God in ways that ordinary people can experience for themselves. There is present the elements of reason and faith. Jesus himself said that people will recognise his followers by the love that they show for each other. That introduces the third element. Experience.

actually, in the days of moses the word we now translate as "prophet" just meant what we today think of as a poet or bard.

you're also cheating here, claiming Moses' "miracles" as presented in the "bible" as evidence for the truth and efficacy of that "bible."

and actually, any atheistic geologist could make water come out of a rock. I've done it myself.

Finally, how does the bible "consistently" reveal god in ways "ordinary" people can "experience" for themselves? examples please. I'll be happy to give you such examples from science.

As for Moses himself, he was able to perform miracles of God. This convinced the people as to his authenticity. In each case, the people were in a position to use reasoning to recognise truth.

Just demonstrate a miracle that we can all experience (that is self-evident and inarguably a miracle, not "the laughter of children" or "miracle of existence") and you'll have made the first palpable point for your position.

Why, thank you, my friend... and, in this particular case, I think you could have spoken for me with impunity.

Covered on all bases... I hardly need to turn up... ;)
Well i hope not to represent you unfairly or unseemingly. I'm still working on doing that for myself.
But i would hope never to trespass to the event that you wouldn't post.
...'less you didn't feel like it.

Just demonstrate a miracle that we can all experience (that is self-evident and inarguably a miracle, not "the laughter of children" or "miracle of existence") and you'll have made the first palpable point for your position.
Looks like the jig is up. :eek:

For reference, i should point out that there is a specific passage about god confounding the wise .... for which again reason must be abandoned and furnishings of faith would be the order of the day. Or the order.

Looks like the jig is up. :eek:

For reference, i should point out that there is a specific passage about god confounding the wise .... for which again reason must be abandoned and furnishings of faith would be the order of the day. Or the order.

Well, then why do people keep presenting miracles as reasonable evidence? (*gets unnecessarily cranky*)...

grumble...silly to even put "reason" and "miracle" in the same chain of ideas in the way he's trying to get away with...

For you to define time as a measurement of change is simply an indication of how you see it. But you have to admit that you (and I) are not in the position to claim this definition as the absolute one. Such a definition is the one that works, for science. You seem to be say that that is all we need....end of story. Typical argument for an atheist.

Kind of funny, considering that I'm not an atheist (and you can look elsewhere in this very thread for evidence of that fact).

But when I ask you where time came from, and when it began, you resort to the big bang, naturally. And when I ask you how the big bang came to happen, and why it happened, you say that there is no why.

Thank you for attempting to save me the time of writing my own posts on this subject by assuming that you know what I think. However, at the expense of further tuiring out my fingers, I'll take the initiative and write my own words.

In terms of how the big bang happened, it's not a different question than why it happened. There are physical laws. In fact, science has gone back to fractions of seconds after the big bang occurred. It's worked all the way back to the beginning. You may or may not understand all of the physics involved with this, but the explanation does exist. What you're doing, again, is positing that an ontological reason must exist, something beyond physical laws. You're starting from your conclusion that something intelligent and willful had to set it in motion. No necessity for this has been demonstrated, however, and in fact the whole thing can be explained in terms of physical laws.

At every point, you keep ruling out the need for a why, because in your world view, there is no why.

It's called Occam's Razor, a very basic logical law; that is, in explaining a thing, one avoids the unnecessary multiplication of entities. In my world view, the necessity for a "why" apart from the laws that we know make the universe work must be demonstrated before the question is even asked. There are lots of "whys" in my world view; they simply don't require the assumption of incorporeal, morally-driven beings separate from matter and impossible to understand through reasonable faculties to answer them.

So you just stick to your arguments, and see everything as a mechanistic interaction of material that came to be through a freak accident. Thus it is possible for you to consistently define every observation in mechanistic terms (eg. your definition of time), but never allowing for a deeper meaning.

Meaning is something that is assigned by consciousness, not an integral trait. In other words, we humans assign meaning, and meaning is relative to ourselves in all cases. Thus, I don't deny that meaning exists, I question its origins and whether it is necessary for an explanation of anything other than our own mental function. Again, why is there any necessity for integral, ontological meaning apart from our own desire for one to exist?

So long as you hold your position, and I hold mine, we will be forever labelling each others arguments as weak. You say that my assertion of the existence of God is weak. And I say that you assertion that things like time and matter and the laws of nature all arising from the Big Bang, not holding meaning, are weak.

I say the evidence of the kind of god that you assert isn't just weak, it doesn't exist at all. Your explanation literally requires discarding the very mechanism by which all of humanity understands the universe and has thus been able to progress beyond huddling in caves and hoping the gods didn't throw lightning bolts at their heads for stepping on the witch doctor's shadow. The models upon which I base my estimations are repeatable and most often mathematically sound. They are also open to revision in the face of new contradictory evidence when and if it comes to light. Yours relies on either no new understanding, or upon rejecting the same when it is demonstrated as applicable to the universe. Apples and... well... vanadium.

It's not that we have circular reasoning. It's that we begin with assertions that lead into opposite directions and will never be reconciled. It is only circular when we criticise the opposite point of view using our own point of view as the basis of reason (which may have been the point of your comment).

It's not that we have circular reasoning. It's that you use cuircular reasoning.

1. Things must have ontological relevance.
2. For ontological meaning to exist, this model of deity must be true.
3. If this model of deity is true, then things must have ontological relevance.

Circular.

Is it true that Jewish religious scholars have a broader approach to theological discussion? That is to say, I'm told that their discourse is perhaps more tautologically developed than what goes on among some public Christian groups (not all, I'm sure).

I'll risk offending as a non-jew by saying, yeah, but we've got jesuits and franciscans trying to close the gap. ;)

I sometimes think this is likely the result of the closeness of Judea and Arabia to the re-discovery of classical greek thought, but then I have to figure out a way to explain Aquinas and the rampant platonism in the catholic church.

*makes a stained-glass Averroes*

*see god's revealed truth*

*head explodes*

Is it true that Jewish religious scholars have a broader approach to theological discussion? That is to say, I'm told that their discourse is perhaps more tautologically developed than what goes on among some public Christian groups (not all, I'm sure).

That's what I hear, but as I'd already decided that I didn't believe in the religion very early on, I never got too deep into that end of things. It's not like my rabbi counsins ever had much use for me. :)

You have a point. However, the claims of the Bible are also that God was rather involved in the writing of the Bible, through inspiration. If true, then it is possible that the messages of the Bible are trustworthy. Sure, the details may be vague, and even inaccurate. But that is different from being false, deliberately misleading.

Yet you seem to assign more credit to the claim 'that god was involved in the writing of the bible', a claim that can not be proven, nor can it be reasoned to be more or less correct then any other theology.

This brings the question why do you consider these claims to be of a greater value then say, the Qu'ran? Or other religious texts or even ancient, now extinct, religions?

Well, then why do people keep presenting miracles as reasonable evidence? (*gets unnecessarily cranky*)...

grumble...silly to even put "reason" and "miracle" in the same chain of ideas in the way he's trying to get away with...
Indeed.
I think that little confounding-the-wise thing is the be-all, catch-all of the INEVITABLE catch of reason that someone would trip over if they were to consciously interpret biblical prose. Seriously, it's the best catch in there so far to not only praise stupidity but to keep people in line with it in hopes they're fulfilling their faith to "god".
As far as i'm concerned, a miracle is something that permanently alters the callousness of a heart, not any amount of misunderstanding of physics or trickery or chicanery or anything .... but then, i'm not in line very well with what is being preached, in that sense.

I'll risk offending as a non-jew by saying, yeah, but we've got jesuits and franciscans trying to close the gap. ;)

I sometimes think this is likely the result of the closeness of Judea and Arabia to the re-discovery of classical greek thought, but then I have to figure out a way to explain Aquinas and the rampant platonism in the catholic church.


Is it true that Jesuits, Franciscans, various monastic or priestly orders, serve in schools and universities to train Christians in the developed ideology? I got some recruitment info from a Catholic Law School, I have to admit I didn't give it a lot of attention.

Only the wars are in the bible are holy no others, even despict what is clames by the starters

On what grounds can you judge the wars in the bible to be holy, and other wars in other religions as not holy? On what grounds can you know & believe that your believe is the one true faith?

It's not that we have circular reasoning. It's that you use cuircular reasoning.

1. Things must have ontological relevance.
2. For ontological meaning to exist, this model of deity must be true.
3. If this model of deity is true, then things must have ontological relevance.

Circular.
Damn if that isn't one of the best sizzlers i've ever seen.
Excellent post, again. *bows*

This thread has taken quite a few very interesting turns.
I'll have to return to it later, but for now, Morpheus beckons.
A good eve to you all.

As far as i'm concerned, a miracle is something that permanently alters the callousness of a heart, not any amount of misunderstanding of physics or trickery or chicanery or anything .... but then, i'm not in line very well with what is being preached, in that sense.

Miracles like that would be okay, although I'm leary of messing with the hearts of sentient beings (outside the Vivien Thomas/Alfred Blalock kind of thing). At least they wouldn't leave big Star Trek style "spacetime ruptures"...

This thread has taken quite a few very interesting turns.
I'll have to return to it later, but for now, Morpheus beckons.
A good eve to you all.

Is that what that smiley means? Tired, like yawning?

Holy crap, I thought it meant you were doing the "Lion's Roar" technique from Kung Fu Hustle...

Don't dream of terrible, shattering insights, images and visions that shred your mind, and when you awake, you have Seen, and would die to unsee...

On what grounds can you judge the wars in the bible to be holy, and other wars in other religions as not holy? On what grounds can you know & believe that your believe is the one true faith?

I am no one to judge Gods actions, Is anyone here wants to say that god, if he exist is not holy, let them speak! The bible itself calls these war holy, unless that serman was wrong,which i doubt.

The grounds i base my faith on being the one only faith, is the fact that god himself claims it! And that is uiquie to the christian reglion

Is it true that Jesuits, Franciscans, various monastic or priestly orders, serve in schools and universities to train Christians in the developed ideology? I got some recruitment info from a Catholic Law School, I have to admit I didn't give it a lot of attention.

My experience with fransicans, and a friend's with jesuits was that they value education and reason, and an actually examined faith. I guess I should admit that while I largely consider myself an atheist, I've internalized plenty of ethical codes from the more liberal side of the Catholic Church, but it was going to a catholic university with those franciscan friars that led me to a real questioning of the basis of my supposed faith, my realization that that basis was common to all religions, and my final conclusion that the commoness of that basis likely said more about human beings than it did about the posited divine.

all-in-all, I remain sympathetic to the catholic teaching orders even while I have become overtly hostile to Rome, and religion in general.

for what it's worth.

;)

I am no one to judge Gods actions, Is anyone here wants to say that god, if he exist is not holy, let them speak! The bible itself calls these war holy, unless that serman was wrong,which i doubt.

The grounds i base my faith on being the one only faith, is the fact that god himself claims it! And that is uiquie to the christian reglion

Erm... no. Actually, all gods in all theistic religions that ever existed on this planet have claimed that.

Try reading the Q'uran, the Bagvadh-Gita, or any books on ancient mythology you can find.

I am no one to judge Gods actions, Is anyone here wants to say that god, if he exist is not holy, let them speak! The bible itself calls these war holy, unless that serman was wrong,which i doubt.

The grounds i base my faith on being the one only faith, is the fact that god himself claims it! And that is uiquie to the christian reglion

no it's not, infidel.

All-in-all, I remain sympathetic to the catholic teaching orders even while I have become overtly hostile to Rome, and religion in general.
Me, too, except I'm agnostic. They broke me. :p

I am no one to judge Gods actions, Is anyone here wants to say that god, if he exist is not holy, let them speak! The bible itself calls these war holy, unless that serman was wrong,which i doubt.

The grounds i base my faith on being the one only faith, is the fact that god himself claims it! And that is uiquie to the christian reglion

The "bible itself" is just a written version of your claims, not verification of them.

You believe your God is real because you believe your God says he's real. That's reasoning so flawed, it hurts the eyes to read it.

And if you seriously claim that circular reasoning and/or devotion to something based solely on faith is unique to your religion, than I have to suspect you are somebody's puppet, meant to discredit the position you claim to represent.

Me, too, except I'm agnostic. They broke me. :p

lol

I was lying anyway, they got me too.

I still reflexively "pray" for my loved ones in need. It's only after I've done it that it occurs to me that I *think* of myself as an atheist.

*turns beet red*

The "bible itself" is just a written version of your claims, not verification of them.

You believe your God is real because you believe your God says he's real. That's reasoning so flawed, it hurts the eyes to read it.

And if you seriously claim that circular reasoning and/or devotion to something based solely on faith is unique to your religion, than I have to suspect you are somebody's puppet, meant to discredit the position you claim to represent.

Right, ok! i am no expert, but faith breaks into the circular reasions, you belive in god, therfore your going to belive his claims. That for other cycles what came first the chicken or the egg? well?

I belive in God therefore i belive him when he say thats hes the only way to heaven, so call me a pupput if you like, as long as God is pulling the strings i dont care.

My experience with fransicans, and a friend's with jesuits was that they value education and reason, and an actually examined faith. I guess I should admit that while I largely consider myself an atheist, I've internalized plenty of ethical codes from the more liberal side of the Catholic Church, but it was going to a catholic university with those franciscan friars that led me to a real questioning of the basis of my supposed faith, my realization that that basis was common to all religions, and my final conclusion that the commoness of that basis likely said more about human beings than it did about the posited divine.

all-in-all, I remain sympathetic to the catholic teaching orders even while I have become overtly hostile to Rome, and religion in general.

for what it's worth.

;)


I'm sorry: I've been away for eleven hours! Correct me if I'm wrong but who said anything about Catholicism? I made this point way earlier on like page 16...

3) I never said that I agreed with Catholocism. No offence to Catholics but I don't think that their principals are right. They worship saints and Mary but isn't one of the commandments (sorry for the quote) II. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments." so that among other things is a total contradiction to their religion.

Right, ok! i am no expert, but faith breaks into the circular reasions, you belive in god, therfore your going to belive his claims. That for other cycles what came first the chicken or the egg? well?

I belive in God therefore i belive him when he say thats hes the only way to heaven, so call me a pupput if you like, as long as God is pulling the strings i dont care.

I would be willing to engage you in a discussion about ornithological meiosis and gestation if I thought you were equipped, but as I am not an expert, I am not qualifed to educate you. Its certainly a interesting question, I wish you'd apply it to your own reasoning as well...

Also, I'm not accusing you of being a puppet to your God, I'm suggesting that you may be a facade, a screen name created by someone to either discredit religion, or just have fun being deliberately obtuse.

Be clear on this. I'm saying that you have put your ideas forth so badly that I can only wonder if you are even an authentic mind.

I'm sorry: I've been away for eleven hours! Correct me if I'm wrong but who said anything about Catholicism? I made this point way earlier on like page 20...

3) I never said that I agreed with Catholocism. No offence to Catholics but I don't think that their principals are right. They worship saints and Mary but isn't one of the commandments (sorry for the quote) II. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments." so that among other things is a total contradiction to their religion.

I apologize, I brought up Catholocism, in an off-topic discussion with another user about styles of theological discourse. It added nothing to this discussion, it was a tangent. My fault.

Right, ok! i am no expert, but faith breaks into the circular reasions, you belive in god, therfore your going to belive his claims. That for other cycles what came first the chicken or the egg? well?

I belive in God therefore i belive him when he say thats hes the only way to heaven, so call me a pupput if you like, as long as God is pulling the strings i dont care.

god ain't pulling the strings, though, even if he/she exists.

so whose puppet are you, really?

Well i hope not to represent you unfairly or unseemingly. I'm still working on doing that for myself.
But i would hope never to trespass to the event that you wouldn't post.
...'less you didn't feel like it.

:D

I'm not about to give up, grab my ball, and go home, yet. :)

I am no one to judge Gods actions, Is anyone here wants to say that god, if he exist is not holy, let them speak! The bible itself calls these war holy, unless that serman was wrong,which i doubt.

The grounds i base my faith on being the one only faith, is the fact that god himself claims it! And that is uiquie to the christian reglion

But that claim is "recorded" by man, how can you know that what some dude 1000+ years ago wrote is the actual truth? How can anything made by man be holy or devine? And make no mistake about it, in the end, the bible is nothing more then a man made book.

Can you entertain the thought that you might be wrong? That the bible might be wrong? You come over as someone who would be unable to accept the possibility that he's wrong.

I participate in these dicsussions to learn new insight in what it is to have faith, you seem to be here solely to defend your view, and you seem unable, or even unwilling to entertain thoughts that conflict with your current world view. Making you look very close minded.

Posts like those made by Grave'nIdle has provided me with more indepth understanding of what faith is, while your posts are like brick walls meant to protect your own ideology

:D

I'm not about to give up, grab my ball, and go home, yet. :)

Rounding up, the average human being has one testicle.

Right, ok! i am no expert, but faith breaks into the circular reasions, you belive in god, therfore your going to belive his claims. That for other cycles what came first the chicken or the egg? well?

I belive in God therefore i belive him when he say thats hes the only way to heaven, so call me a pupput if you like, as long as God is pulling the strings i dont care.

Note to Nikkil. Note how to spell believe. Belive means 'Forthwith; speedily; quickly'. Sorry about that, just that you use it in a lot of your posts! I can't believe that you're still arguing this case!

Posts like those made by Grave'nIdle has provided me with more indepth understanding of what faith is, while your posts are like brick walls meant to protect your own ideology

If I were a mason (not the organization, the job), and you compared Nikkil's reasoning to one of my walls, I would throw a brick at your car.

I belive in God therefore i belive him when he say thats hes the only way to heaven, so call me a pupput if you like, as long as God is pulling the strings i dont care.

So much for free will....;)

I would be willing to engage you in a discussion about ornithological meiosis and gestation if I thought you were equipped, but as I am not an expert, I am not qualifed to educate you. Its certainly a interesting question, I wish you'd apply it to your own reasoning as well...

Also, I'm not accusing you of being a puppet to your God, I'm suggesting that you may be a facade, a screen name created by someone to either discredit religion, or just have fun being deliberately obtuse.

Be clear on this. I'm saying that you have put your ideas forth so badly that I can only wonder if you are even an authentic mind.

I have difficulty in expressing me self, and i am sorry for this. I love if you tryed to engage me, messaging me in-game would help. As for being a puppit i was joking, in christ i am free. I will however agree i try aline with God but i am in no way fixed.

And if i am being obtuse i am sorry. But how am i decreding religion?

I'm sorry: I've been away for eleven hours! Correct me if I'm wrong but who said anything about Catholicism? I made this point way earlier on like page 16...

3) I never said that I agreed with Catholocism. No offence to Catholics but I don't think that their principals are right. They worship saints and Mary but isn't one of the commandments (sorry for the quote) II. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments." so that among other things is a total contradiction to their religion.

I remember using said quote against you in the discussion that god is not benevolent.

:D

I'm not about to give up, grab my ball, and go home, yet. :)

Yea,wouldn't want to lose your status as Uber Spamgirl now would you? :p

So much for free will....;)

He has a choice whether or not he acts as God's puppet. That's free will. Technically if you're not being controlled by God then you're being controlled by sin and satan, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Rounding up, the average human being has one testicle.

And, on that note... :D

Be back later, my friends... 'real life' beckons...

I just want to give a quick commendation, though...

Straughn is always something of an artillery piece for the side of 'reason' in this kind of debate... but, I'd like to formerly extend my gratitude to McVenezuela, Tartare, Kefren and Saint Curie, for some excellent, insightful, and sometimes 'poetic' work.

And, all (I believe) with below 1000 post-counts, too... are we having a renaissance on the General Forum?

You have my thanks.

I'm sorry: I've been away for eleven hours! Correct me if I'm wrong but who said anything about Catholicism? I made this point way earlier on like page 20...

3) I never said that I agreed with Catholocism. No offence to Catholics but I don't think that their principals are right. They worship saints and Mary but isn't one of the commandments (sorry for the quote) II. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments." so that among other things is a total contradiction to their religion.

point 1: you should pay attention to who I was responding to.

point 2: there is no point 2.

point 3: the "commandments" aren't necessarily an integral part of christianity.

point 4: WTF is a jealous god, anyway? Jealous of what, exactly? Ain't you omnipotent and omnipresent? Dude, if you can smite teenagers just for looking at their dad naked, and you're still jealous of a little Buddha statue I put incense in when I'm getting high, you've got to be the saddest, most insecure "god" around. You probably just need a good friend. Enkidu's pretty cool, if you don't mind stone-age animal-skin fashion, or maybe Inana, she's pretty hot. IN any case, you really need to get out more if this plastic St. Christopher bobble-head on my dashboard is sending you into paroxysms of jealousy. Seriously.

point 5: you kept me up til way past my bedtime again, jesus.

I remember using said quote against you in the discussion that god is not benevolent.

Yes, and we already discussed it. I was just bringing to light something that I wrote earlier for someone else...not you.

If I were a mason (not the organization, the job), and you compared Nikkil's reasoning to one of my walls, I would throw a brick at your car.

Well, if your wall that so solid that you can just rip out a brick & toss it at me, then that wall would indeed be very simular :p

Rounding up, the average human being has one testicle.

can I use this as my universal internate sig?

please?!?

He has a choice whether or not he acts as God's puppet. That's free will. Technically if you're not being controlled by God then you're being controlled by sin and satan, whether you choose to believe it or not.

That is your belief, and your projection of said believe on me, my way of living and my mind, wich doesn't hold up to logical discussion since they are your biased beliefs in the first place

I have difficulty in expressing me self, and i am sorry for this. I love if you tryed to engage me, messaging me in-game would help. As for being a puppit i was joking, in christ i am free. I will however agree i try aline with God but i am in no way fixed.

And if i am being obtuse i am sorry. But how am i decreding religion?

Well, I should clarify that one poorly presented argument doesn't really disprove anything. Christianity could be true, I suppose, despite the fact that you support it with circular reasoning.

Just try to understand that some may feel that, because you arrived at your religion by flawed logic, the religion itself is flawed. Its not necessarily true, but it makes Christians have to work harder to undo the damage you do. It just reflects poorly on other Christians (in some views), and a lot of them don't deserve it.

can I use this as my universal internate sig?

please?!?

S'not mine, take 'er. Can't remember where I saw it, I used it once to illustrate why a certain microbial pathogen could be most dangerous to young children and the very old, and still have an "average" victim age in the mid-30's. A classmate felt that if the average victim was mid-30's, they should be the ones first innoculated.

Wound up, most victims were younger than 5 and older than 60, but each interval had roughly equal numbers, so...you know.

Technically if you're not being controlled by God then you're being controlled by sin and satan, whether you choose to believe it or not.

I think applying the term "technically" to this statement may suggest a tautological basis that is unmeritted.

point 1: you should pay attention to who I was responding to.

point 2: there is no point 2.

point 3: the "commandments" aren't necessarily an integral part of christianity.

point 4: WTF is a jealous god, anyway? Jealous of what, exactly? Ain't you omnipotent and omnipresent? Dude, if you can smite teenagers just for looking at their dad naked, and you're still jealous of a little Buddha statue I put incense in when I'm getting high, you've got to be the saddest, most insecure "god" around. You probably just need a good friend. Enkidu's pretty cool, if you don't mind stone-age animal-skin fashion, or maybe Inana, she's pretty hot. IN any case, you really need to get out more if this plastic St. Christopher bobble-head on my dashboard is sending you into paroxysms of jealousy. Seriously.

point 5: you kept me up til way past my bedtime again, jesus.

I was quoting an earlier quote that I made. Go back to page 16.
True, the commandments aren't the main commandment of Christianity. But they still must be obeyed. I don't even know who Saint Christopher is! I'm not interested in plastic idols, just God and not statues of him either. And anyway idols aren't always literally statues or God. They are things that you worship more than God. Say if you're obsessed with television...
I wasn't responding to you.
As I said earlier God can be jealous because he made you and loves you, and if you go about worshipping something else and giving it all the credit he's pretty annoyed. If someone else got all the credit for something you did you'd be pretty annoyed, too. More than annoyed. You'd be gutted. God is capable of jealousy. But not in a spiteful way in that he'd destroy what you worship instead.
Sorry for keeping you up but it was your choice. I didn't point a gun at your head or anything and make you stay.

And, on that note... :D

Be back later, my friends... 'real life' beckons...

I just want to give a quick commendation, though...

Straughn is always something of an artillery piece for the side of 'reason' in this kind of debate... but, I'd like to formerly extend my gratitude to McVenezuela, Tartare, Kefren and Saint Curie, for some excellent, insightful, and sometimes 'poetic' work.

And, all (I believe) with below 1000 post-counts, too... are we having a renaissance on the General Forum?

You have my thanks.

You're welcome, i must say i really enjoyed this thread, and your posts are truly a gem to read

I think applying the term "technically" to this statement may suggest a tautological basis that is unmeritted.

Whatever. Technically I'm not even an adult yet and my vocabulary isn't that vast. And also it's a word that people who live in my area would use a lot.

Well, I should clarify that one poorly presented argument doesn't really disprove anything. Christianity could be true, I suppose, despite the fact that you support it with circular reasoning.

Just try to understand that some may feel that, because you arrived at your religion by flawed logic, the religion itself is flawed. Its not necessarily true, but it makes Christians have to work harder to undo the damage you do. It just reflects poorly on other Christians (in some views), and a lot of them don't deserve it.

Ok please tell me what damage did i do? As for arrive that the reglion though poor logical, i am sorry is i made it seem that way.

I believe i had no faith before i became a christian. Then i developed faith, in the trying to understand and digest the religion.I had to gain faith because, not everything can be explaned by the law of physics. I belive this to be true of any religion. This faith turned me to god

It that better?

ah people are still discussing the existance of god and the relavence of the church... how quaint.

its laughable that this debate still rages in america with some degree of importance (i can understand a bunch of know-it-alls "debating" the issue on the internet, but IRL? sad.)

As I said earlier God can be jealous because he made you and loves you, and if you go about worshipping something else and giving it all the credit he's pretty annoyed. If someone else got all the credit for something you did you'd be pretty annoyed, too. More than annoyed. You'd be gutted. God is capable of jealousy. But not in a spiteful way in that he'd destroy what you worship instead.

However, he's not only jealous, he's also malevolent, as he doesn't just punish you, but according to that quote also your kids, and their kids and so forth for several generations. I don't believe in punishing people of sins of their parents/ancestors.

Well, I should clarify that one poorly presented argument doesn't really disprove anything. Christianity could be true, I suppose, despite the fact that you support it with circular reasoning.

Just try to understand that some may feel that, because you arrived at your religion by flawed logic, the religion itself is flawed. Its not necessarily true, but it makes Christians have to work harder to undo the damage you do. It just reflects poorly on other Christians (in some views), and a lot of them don't deserve it.

That's your opinion. I don't consider myself to be a 'fire in brimstone' sort of person. I've known them and honestly I don't really like them. People will always mock Christians for some reason or other. The bible says that we should expect it and if we put up with it then we will be rewarded. There are lots of Christians who I don't believe are right. But they are people. Every religion has stupid and strangely opinionated people. Don't judge all Christians by only a few...

As I said earlier God can be jealous because he made you and loves you, and if you go about worshipping something else and giving it all the credit he's pretty annoyed. If someone else got all the credit for something you did you'd be pretty annoyed, too. More than annoyed. You'd be gutted. God is capable of jealousy. But not in a spiteful way in that he'd destroy what you worship instead.
Sorry for keeping you up but it was your choice. I didn't point a gun at your head or anything and make you stay.

Wow, to know the mind of God, how he feels about things...

Is a behaviour of God (that you posit) reasonable because, in the same circumstances, we'd do it too? Even when I was religious, I wouldn't have applied a standard like that.

Ok please tell me what damage did i do? As for arrive that the reglion though poor logical, i am sorry is i made it seem that way.

I believe i had no faith before i became a christian. Then i developed faith, in the trying to understand and digest the religion.I had to gain faith because, not everything can be explaned by the law of physics. I belive this to be true of any religion. This faith turned me to god

It that better?

It still doesn't awnser the question why you felt the need to resort to religion, faith and a deity in general, wich is the question that truly intrests me

ah people are still discussing the existance of god and the relavence of the church... how quaint.

its laughable that this debate still rages in america with some degree of importance (i can understand a bunch of know-it-alls "debating" the issue on the internet, but IRL? sad.)

It is an intresting subject, and one worth discussing, besides, it's better to discuss it then to blow up the opposition ;)

Wow, to know the mind of God, how he feels about things...

Is a behaviour of God (that you posit) reasonable because, in the same circumstances, we'd do it too? Even when I was religious, I wouldn't have applied a standard like that.

That's the only way I can relate it. You don't know God so I can only compare with what you know.

Whatever. Technically I'm not even an adult yet and my vocabulary isn't that vast. And also it's a word that people who live in my area would use a lot.

Your vocabulary seems fine, and from your posts thus far, I would say thats true for an adult or an adolescent.

I just think we might better apply the term "technically" to those axioms and suppositions that are agreed upon.

It still doesn't awnser the question why you felt the need to resort to religion, faith and a deity in general, wich is the question that truly intrests me

Resort to religion? You must really think Christians are desperate. Perhaps one day you'll realise that nothing in your life is really fulfilling and you'll 'resort' to religion too.

That's your opinion. I don't consider myself to be a 'fire in brimstone' sort of person. I've known them and honestly I don't really like them. People will always mock Christians for some reason or other. The bible says that we should expect it and if we put up with it then we will be rewarded. There are lots of Christians who I don't believe are right. But they are people. Every religion has stupid and strangely opinionated people. Don't judge all Christians by only a few...

I am not a fire and brimstone and i disagree with them. I try to help people to understand how i live my life. I dont go shouting your going to hell at the top of my voice

That's your opinion. I don't consider myself to be a 'fire in brimstone' sort of person. I've known them and honestly I don't really like them. People will always mock Christians for some reason or other. The bible says that we should expect it and if we put up with it then we will be rewarded. There are lots of Christians who I don't believe are right. But they are people. Every religion has stupid and strangely opinionated people. Don't judge all Christians by only a few...

Mockery is good, aslong as it's lighthearted, i don't mind if people have a cheap shot at me, aslong as it's funny & witty ;)

I also don't think that playing the victim role is beneficial to your cause

It is an intresting subject, and one worth discussing, besides, it's better to discuss it then to blow up the opposition ;)

I agree with you there. With the amount of rubbish being debated online this subject seems far more relevant.

That's your opinion. I don't consider myself to be a 'fire in brimstone' sort of person. I've known them and honestly I don't really like them. People will always mock Christians for some reason or other. The bible says that we should expect it and if we put up with it then we will be rewarded. There are lots of Christians who I don't believe are right. But they are people. Every religion has stupid and strangely opinionated people. Don't judge all Christians by only a few...

Do you feel that people like Nikkil add to your sides credibility?

As I said, its only in some views that Christianity is discredited by individual members, and I don't think Christianity is factually tarnished by Nikkil, he's just spending a lot of energy and perhaps not adding to the Christian community's ability to be seen as reasonable by its neighbors.

I can prove to you that its much closer than that but that would be hijacking this thread. If you want a discussion on the acuracy of the gospels I suggest you make another thread



You still dont understand. Lets say I put a copy of "Snow falling on Ceaders" into a room, on its own. I then claim that it has a great deal of metophorical imagery, social commentary and political message woven into the story. However the scientist can find no evidence of this. He sees a series of pieces of a carbon based chemical bound together by adhesive chemicals, with various markings on them made with a possibly lead based chemical of a darker coulor. Science cannot be used to examine whether or not there is a God in the same way that it cannot be used to analyise art. Its not the sort of thing it is capable of analysing. God is supernatural. Science explains the natural


No my friend, it is you who do not understand.
Science can tell us things like how old a book is.
We can carbon date such items and get a fairly accurate idea of when this book was alive, (in tree form, or papyrus) and when it was altered from that state.
This can tell us that there isnt any way that it could be a true historical documentation of what the text actually claims to be.

In this way, science may not be able to tell us that god exists one way or the other, but it can tell us that the book is mistake, and probably innacurate.

You keep mentioning that science cannot analyse the supernatural.
Thats simply not true in all cases, and maybe you should read a bit about parapsychology, although personally, I wouldnt waste too much time on it.
The fact is, that while modern science doesnt usually examine such things, what it can do, is eliminate that wich is NOT supernatural.

Ghost hunters, for instance, or at least credible ones, will only assume some occurance or event is supernatural, when all other avenues have been exhausted.
This means, a thing isnt to be considered "supernatural", until it can be determined that no mundane explanation can be found.

If you believe texts of the bible to be evidence of god, then NOT to look for obvious errors on its part is the ultimate folly.
How on earth can a person WORSHIP something, that may be wrong?

"You have to take it on faith." ...thats answer most give.
But only if "faith" means "blind faith"

Its borderline insanity to think that "evidence" of god in text form, that claims to be an first hand account of a ressurection, may have been written 200 years after the vent.
This means that this book, is not only a first hand acount, its probably not even a second, third, or even fourth hand telling of the events, or.....the strong possibility exists, or it being entirely an elaboration, or fabricated, or exxagerated events.

So can science explain the supernatural?
Yes, sometimes, becuase it can clearly eliminate that wich is not.

I am not a fire and brimstone and i disagree with them. I try to help people to understand how i live my life. I dont go shouting your going to hell at the top of my voice

I never meant to make it sound like you were a fire in brimstone sort of person. What I meant to say is that if they thing you're bad then they haven't really met fire in brimstone people. I think what you are doing is very commendable and you need all the support you can get. Sorry.

Resort to religion? You must really think Christians are desperate. Perhaps one day you'll realise that nothing in your life is really fulfilling and you'll 'resort' to religion too.

Okay, saying that somebody else has nothing fulfilling in their life because they don't have your religion is thick, putrid, pig-wretching feces.

I've met fulfilled people. I've watched people I love in my life spend 50 years in the study and preservation of human life, and they did it after they LEFT religion, and it brought them fulfillment.

If religion fulfills you, great. But don't think its the only fulfillment to be had.

It still doesn't awnser the question why you felt the need to resort to religion, faith and a deity in general, wich is the question that truly intrests me

I think, that we all need something to believe? Without something to believe can we have hope? and i am speak for believing in everything here. Thens there is the question what is religlion, it not just a set of believes?

The reasion i believe in god is because i came to relise that i was heading for in life was wrong, for me. This opened me to faith to save myself.

How am i doing?

Do you feel that people like Nikkil add to your sides credibility?

As I said, its only in some views that Christianity is discredited by individual members, and I don't think Christianity is factually tarnished by Nikkil, he's just spending a lot of energy and perhaps not adding to the Christian community's ability to be seen as reasonable by its neighbors.

Like I said I didn't intend to make it sound like I was being mean to Nikkil. How do you know that she's not adding to the Christian community? How do you know that someone hasn't been affected by her posts? Someone who hasn't maybe commented. You can't know. Neither can she. It's often an unrewarding business. But hey, she chose it.

ah people are still discussing the existance of god and the relavence of the church... how quaint.

its laughable that this debate still rages in america with some degree of importance (i can understand a bunch of know-it-alls "debating" the issue on the internet, but IRL? sad.)

I hear what you're saying. I thought it was funny too until I noticed that churches were gathering politicians to speak on how to pass laws that are more "God Based".

There are people in our legislature that identify the Bible as their source for reason. So, if they can pass laws that affect me with this basis, I respond with more than just a vote, I like to talk about the ideas involved.

You're right though. Its sad and funny, like a clown getting hit by a red demolition ball...

That's the only way I can relate it. You don't know God so I can only compare with what you know.

But, by the very nature of your faith, you don't know god neighter, so you cannot make any logical nor reasonable comparisation of god, his motives and how you should relate to him

Okay, saying that somebody else has nothing fulfilling in their life because they don't have your religion is thick, putrid, pig-wretching feces.

I've met fulfilled people. I've watched people I love in my life spend 50 years in the study and preservation of human life, and they did it after LEFT religion.

If religion fulfills you, great. But don't think its the only fulfillment to be had.

Religion doesn't fulfil me, Jesus does. And if you feel fulfilled then good for you. But how do you know that other people are really fulfilled? Content, maybe for a while, but you can't read their thoughts. Maybe in life you will be fulfilled but according to my religion it won't last when you die.

Resort to religion? You must really think Christians are desperate. Perhaps one day you'll realise that nothing in your life is really fulfilling and you'll 'resort' to religion too.

But my life *is* fullfiling, i have no need for religion, nor do i see a need for it's existance in the current world, i can understand it's existance as a means to explain things we couldn't even comprehend at one time, but times change, people evolve & learn, and this process has for me eliminated the need of a deity or faith

Like I said I didn't intend to make it sound like I was being mean to Nikkil. How do you know that he's not adding to the Christian community? How do you know that someone hasn't been affected by his posts? Someone who hasn't maybe commented. You can't know. Neither can he. It's often an unrewarding business. But hey, he chose it.

I know you weren't being mean to him. If anything, I was. I just worry that your bunch wants people that would be swayed by his presentation.

Do you feel that people like Nikkil add to your sides credibility?

As I said, its only in some views that Christianity is discredited by individual members, and I don't think Christianity is factually tarnished by Nikkil, he's just spending a lot of energy and perhaps not adding to the Christian community's ability to be seen as reasonable by its neighbors.

I dont go shoving my religion in any face, only in debates such as this. I am nice and will help anyone with meantioning the word chirst. I want to make others happy. I am open to anything and i an enjoin hearing to people views here and am taking them onboard. And i am just trying to give mine. How am i being unreasonable?

AND I AM FELMALE

I am not a fire and brimstone and i disagree with them. I try to help people to understand how i live my life. I dont go shouting your going to hell at the top of my voice

Didn't you say earlier i'll be going to hell? :rolleyes: :p

But, by the very nature of your faith, you don't know god neighter, so you cannot make any logical nor reasonable comparisation of god, his motives and how you should relate to him

On the contrary through prayer Christians have a 'relationship' with God. I'm sure that there are loads of books written on this. I know it sounds stupid but I'm not sure how to explain it. They don't actually get him answering back in a voice, but I guess through events in their life they get replies. This may seem naive and stupid I know but what can I say? There are some things that are difficult to explain to someone who's never experienced it.

AND I AM FELMALE

I am so sorry! I was just taking the 'he' from the previous quote. I don't ever think I've referred to you as a 'he' before that. If you're a female, then all the better. Nice to see more of the female race on this forum! =)
I'll go and change the he's to she's...

Didn't you say earlier i'll be going to hell? :rolleyes: :p

i think i did, it was related to that we were saying, so you cant blame for adding it. I mean i dont go around shouting it

Religion doesn't fulfil me, Jesus does. And if you feel fulfilled then good for you. But how do you know that other people are really fulfilled? Content, maybe for a while, but you can't read their thoughts. Maybe in life you will be fulfilled but according to my religion it won't last when you die.

Jesus is central to your religion, but down that road lies semantics and it doesn't matter.

Interesting that you now ask "How do you know that other people are really fulfilled?". Look at your own post. YOU made a statement about whether somebody was fulifilled, specifically saying that he was not fulfilled. So, ask yourself, how would you know if he's fulfilled or not? Practice what you preach, please.

But I'm glad you get the idea that people can be fulfilled in life without religion, and as to the afterlife, we'll let it speak for itself.

Didn't you say earlier i'll be going to hell? :rolleyes: :p

It's a truth that many people are unhappy with. It's not being 'fire in brimstone' it's just being honest.

It's a truth that many people are unhappy with. It's not being 'fire in brimstone' it's just being honest.


Or blazingly ignorant, depending on how you look at it.

I think, that we all need something to believe? Without something to believe can we have hope? and i am speak for believing in everything here. Thens there is the question what is religlion, it not just a set of believes?

The reasion i believe in god is because i came to relise that i was heading for in life was wrong, for me. This opened me to faith to save myself.

How am i doing?

You're doing very well, i think this is the best post you've made sofar ;)
However.... You assume we all need something to believe in in order to have hope, i disagree, i "believe" we make our own hope, i use the word believe in a different meaning then you, i use it to represent my own opinion on this matter, and not in a theological view. I also have the opinion one should have the right to end his own life if he so wishes to do, and i have the opinion that religion should not infere with that right.

As for the question "what is religion" for me it's the believe in a deity of *any* form, be it god, mana, gaia or whatever

Jesus is central to your religion, but down that road lies semantics and it doesn't matter.

Interesting that you now ask "How do you know that other people are really fulfilled?". Look at your own post. YOU made a statement about whether somebody was fulifilled, specifically saying that he was not fulfilled. So, ask yourself, how would you know if he's fulfilled or not? Practice what you preach, please.

But I'm glad you get the idea that people can be fulfilled in life without religion, and as to the afterlife, we'll let it speak for itself.

Can i ask, since you said you were a christian, do you now feel fulfilled?

Jesus is central to your religion, but down that road lies semantics and it doesn't matter.

Interesting that you now ask "How do you know that other people are really fulfilled?". Look at your own post. YOU made a statement about whether somebody was fulifilled, specifically saying that he was not fulfilled. So, ask yourself, how would you know if he's fulfilled or not? Practice what you preach, please.

But I'm glad you get the idea that people can be fulfilled in life without religion, and as to the afterlife, we'll let it speak for itself.

Like I said you might feel fulfilled for a while: i.e. during your own lifetime but when you die it'll all fade away.

I dont go shoving my religion in any face, only in debates such as this. I am nice and will help anyone with meantioning the word chirst. I want to make others happy. I am open to anything and i an enjoin hearing to people views here and am taking them onboard. And i am just trying to give mine. How am i being unreasonable?

AND I AM FELMALE

My honest apologies, I will use the correct pronouns henceforth.

Several people illustrated where you were using circular logic. Other flaws in your position have been presented. Please review the thread.

Also, not to be glib, but several people will mention the word "Christ" in a context that may not be...reverent.

Or blazingly ignorant, depending on how you look at it.

Yes, everyone has different outlooks and opinions. Glad to know that you've learned something. I'm just expressing my opinion, that's the best I can do.

You're doing very well, i think this is the best post you've made sofar ;)
However.... You assume we all need something to believe in in order to have hope, i disagree, i "believe" we make our own hope, i use the word believe in a different meaning then you, i use it to represent my own opinion on this matter, and not in a theological view. I also have the opinion one should have the right to end his own life if he so wishes to do, and i have the opinion that religion should not infere with that right.

As for the question "what is religion" for me it's the believe in a deity of *any* form, be it god, mana, gaia or whatever

I also think the word can appied to our own opinons, but then arent be believing in ourself?

My honest apologies, I will use the correct pronouns henceforth.

Several people illustrated where you were using circular logic. Other flaws in your position have been presented. Please review the thread.

Also, not to be glib, but several people will mention the word "Christ" in a context that may not be...reverent.

Ok time to be honest. I am having diffculty because to me it cant be circlar because i had i start point. Dam i wish could explain my thoughts better

Can i ask, since you said you were a christian, do you now feel fulfilled?

I feel more fulfilled now than when I was a Christian. Leaving religion was a good thing for me. It presented me with the impetus to examine my life outside a set of external, pre-defined beliefs. It freed me from the need for the supernatural, and I feel much better.

(I stress here that my practice or observation of the Christian religion may be completely different from yours or anyone's. I was part of an "Assembly of Christ" church and later, another denomination. I respect if others find something in religion, but I suspect for some, its more of a crutch than anything.)

I also think the word can appied to our own opinons, but then arent be believing in ourself?

Um...building a religion on your opinions may be courting a problem, whether God's real or not.

I don't.

it's the natural result of the eternal physical laws of the universe, which we do not fully comprehend yet.

there's no difference between my claim for the eternalness of physics and your claim for an eternal god.

except this: your claim has implications that force you to do cartwheels of explanation, i.e. you have to create an explanation for the holocaust that doesn't undermine your model of god. my claim lacks this rather significant flaw - the holocaust presents no difficulties to quantum physics, as it does to christianity.

I certainly do not have to create cartwheels of explanation for the holocaust. The simple explanation is that man deviates from obeying God. While, on the other hand, what is so horrible about a holocaust if there is no God involved? In fact, why not have another one, if it is helpful for the evolution of man? Is it not because there is something within us that we rather horrible about a holocaust, that is connected to our innate sense of good and evil, which has been rather frequently explained away of late (however weakly) in terms of the survival of the fittest.

As for you, personally, when I refer to 'you', what I mean is the position from which you are criticising Christianity. Inevitably, Christianity gets criticised from a whole variety of world views. When I write 'you', I don't mean it personally.

Dam i wish could explain my thoughts better

I think we all feel like this at times.

Ok time to be honest. I am having diffculty because to me it cant be circlar because i had i start point. Dam i wish could explain my thoughts better

I wish I could explain my thoughts better, too.

I feel more fulfilled now than when I was a Christian. Leaving religion was a good thing for me. It presented me with the impetus to examine my life outside a set of external, pre-defined beliefs. It freed me from the need for the supernatural, and I feel much better.

(I stress here that my practice or observation of the Christian religion may be completely different from yours or anyone's. I was part of an "Assembly of Christ" church and later, another denomination. I respect if others find something in religion, but I suspect for some, its more of a crutch than anything.)

I would like to say that i glad am to see that have found what your looking for. And i wish you every happness

On the contrary through prayer Christians have a 'relationship' with God. I'm sure that there are loads of books written on this. I know it sounds stupid but I'm not sure how to explain it. They don't actually get him answering back in a voice, but I guess through events in their life they get replies. This may seem naive and stupid I know but what can I say? There are some things that are difficult to explain to someone who's never experienced it.

Could it not be argued, that since they *want* to believe that they are themselves the cause for said events?

I feel more fulfilled now than when I was a Christian. Leaving religion was a good thing for me. It presented me with the impetus to examine my life outside a set of external, pre-defined beliefs. It freed me from the need for the supernatural, and I feel much better.

(I stress here that my practice or observation of the Christian religion may be completely different from yours or anyone's. I was part of an "Assembly of Christ" church and later, another denomination. I respect if others find something in religion, but I suspect for some, its more of a crutch than anything.)

Are you sure that you were a Christian? In that you believe that Jesus died for your sins and repented. Because if that's true then I will meet you in heaven some day. The problem is that so many religions classify themselves as 'Christian'. Catholocism being one of them but there are others.

. The simple explanation is that man deviates from obeying God. While, on the other hand, what is so horrible about a holocaust if there is no God involved? In fact, why not have another one, if it is helpful for the evolution of man? Is it not because there is something within us that we rather horrible about a holocaust, that is connected to our innate sense of good and evil, which has been rather frequently explained away of late (however weakly) in terms of the survival of the fittest.


The implication here is that, if you were an atheist, you'd bring about another holocaust. Please let me propose to you that not all of us are the same kind of athiest you say you would be. Lots of us can come up with all sorts of great reasons not to have a holocaust, and they don't have to involve God. Not everybody's "innate sense of good and evil" needs a God.

Could it not be argued, that since they *want* to believe that they are themselves the cause for said events?

Yes you could. It could happen to anyone and from an external point of view it's highly possible. But as a Christian? No. It's not strange coincidences. It's a firm assurance. It's not madness as tests would show that I am as sane as any other normal person.

It's a truth that many people are unhappy with. It's not being 'fire in brimstone' it's just being honest.

Hey, i don't fear eternal damnation & suffering, atleast suffering makes you feel alive :p

And no, it's not being honest, it's being biased

Like I said you might feel fulfilled for a while: i.e. during your own lifetime but when you die it'll all fade away.

Well, ceasing to exist does imply that you fade away :p

What you've described here is a beautiful case study for what this use of the term "abdication" means. You summed up everything important when you said "understanding may be lacking, but trust should not".

As soon as you admit that you don't understand where the light is coming from, or the reasoning of the entity aiming the light, then this light is exactly what has blinded you.

Not necessarily. A student may not understand everything that the professor is saying, but he knows that the professor is more intelligent than he, so rather than assuming the professor is wrong, the student concludes that his intelligence may not be strong enough yet to understand. Meanwhile, in taking such a position, the student is 'trusting' that the professor isn't just plain nuts. It is not that the student is blind, but that he is taking into consideration his limits, and tries to make the best of such a situation. In a sense, he risks his own education on the intelligence of the professor. If the professor really is a nut case, the student will have wasted his time learning from him. That is the risk.
If God really is a nut case, or is an invention by man, Christians are wasting their time believing in him (except for the rewards that belief itself brings, in which case I may as well choose a pink rabbit to believe in). If, however, His intelligence is far greater than our, as would be reasonable, considering He was intelligent enough to create the universe, then it certainly is not stupid or blind to trust in His intelligence.

Hey, i don't fear eternal damnation & suffering, atleast suffering makes you feel alive :p

And no, it's not being honest, it's being biased

Its being biased depends like most things on your point of view.

As for the suffering part :fluffle: :headbang: hey it works!

I also think the word can appied to our own opinons, but then arent be believing in ourself?

Believing in oneself is less of a leap then believing in a deity, i believe i exist, therefor it's easy to believe in myself, i don't believe god exists, therefor i find it very hard to believe in him/her/it

Note that i said "i believe i exist" because there's a whole load that can be said about that too ;)

Are you sure that you were a Christian? In that you believe that Jesus died for your sins and repented. Because if that's true then I will meet you in heaven some day. The problem is that so many religions classify themselves as 'Christian'. Catholocism being one of them but there are others.

Yes, at one time I firmly believed that Jesus died for my sins, and engaged in what I feel was sincere repentence.

Unfortunately, even if Heaven is real, I don't think you'll see me there. I have now rejected the idea that one person can take true responsibility for the acts of another. To punish someone, even a volunteer, for the crimes of another, is grotesque and I reject it.

I also don't believe that anything a person can do in one lifetime deserves punishment for eternity. I also cannot respect a God who creates a life that he knows he will choose to torture forever because it didn't choose the way he wanted.

Its like buying ten puppies, and you know 5 of them will pee on the floor, you even know which five. And you decide that any puppy that pees on the floor will be put in the microwave and cooked alive. And the day before, you bought five microwaves...

The implication here is that, if you were an atheist, you'd bring about another holocaust. Please let me propose to you that not all of us are the same kind of athiest you say you would be. Lots of us can come up with all sorts of great reasons not to have a holocaust, and they don't have to involve God. Not everybody's "innate sense of good and evil" needs a God.

Atheists cannot bring about another holocaust. You seem to think that they have that power. They don't. The holocaust has been coming since the Fall of Man.

Well, ceasing to exist does imply that you fade away :p

By your logic, yes, but not by mine.

So, say for instance a theoretical physicist began interrelating time with space, and even positing a kind of curvature to them. Would that be one step "deeper"? And is that kind of investigation of time less deep than just saying "Um...I dunno, lets say God"?

Yes. Because the 'deep' that you are referring to is a kind of digging into the details of the how, and not approaching the why. The deep that you refer to is only for those who are educated enough to grasp it. While the deep that religion offers is for children too. And it is more connected to every day life. For example, understanding the WHY of time means that I should use it wisely. It may be better to use my time to spend it with my family (in a balanced sort of way) than to use it to postulate a curvature between space and time, if it means excluding time spent with my family. Of course, a good mixture of both would be optimal, if I was that sort of scientist.

Not necessarily. A student may not understand everything that the professor is saying, but he knows that the professor is more intelligent than he, so rather than assuming the professor is wrong, the student concludes that his intelligence may not be strong enough yet to understand. Meanwhile, in taking such a position, the student is 'trusting' that the professor isn't just plain nuts. It is not that the student is blind, but that he is taking into consideration his limits, and tries to make the best of such a situation. In a sense, he risks his own education on the intelligence of the professor. If the professor really is a nut case, the student will have wasted his time learning from him. That is the risk.


If my professor told me to dash a babies head against a rock, I would say "no". Thats the difference. You believe your God is infallible and behave accordingly. If you really want to compare that to how we might view a professor, I hope you can see that the analogy doesn't carry in any important way.

If you want to trust your GPA, your time, or your education to an intelligence you don't understand, that's great. That you give unwavering obedience to a concept of a belief of a dogma is a bigger risk.

Hey, i don't fear eternal damnation & suffering, atleast suffering makes you feel alive :p

And no, it's not being honest, it's being biased

Bias in terms of opinion. Well then that said anything can be biased. Anyway I've come across loads of people who have the same view of hell. Like at least I'll be in hell with all my friends. At least I'll 'feel' pain. The pain will never end. You will never numb to it. You'll want to stop 'feeling' but won't be able to. Who wants that?

Atheists cannot bring about another holocaust. You seem to think that they have that power. They don't. The holocaust has been coming since the Fall of Man.

I don't think we're talking about the same holocaust. Do you mean the "apolocalypse"?

Yes you could. It could happen to anyone and from an external point of view it's highly possible. But as a Christian? No. It's not strange coincidences. It's a firm assurance. It's not madness as tests would show that I am as sane as any other normal person.

You misunderstood my post i think, i said that, since someone wants to believe, and see signs, they will eventually see things they *will* interprate as said signs eventhough the things they see are the result of their own actions.

It's like if you believe you are ill, you will eventually feel ill

Yes, at one time I firmly believed that Jesus died for my sins, and engaged in what I feel was sincere repentence.

Unfortunately, even if Heaven is real, I don't think you'll see me there. I have now rejected the idea that one person can take true responsibility for the acts of another. To punish someone, even a volunteer, for the crimes of another, is grotesque and I reject it.

I also don't believe that anything a person can do in one lifetime deserves punishment for eternity. I also cannot respect a God who creates a life that he knows he will choose to torture forever because it didn't choose the way he wanted.

Its like buying ten puppies, and you know 5 of them will pee on the floor, you even know which five. And you decide that any puppy that pees on the floor will be put in the microwave and cooked alive. And the day before, you bought five microwaves...

What said about the puppy seems unfair to because it is not a true resentation.

God, if you believe in him gives the chance for repentance

so, god made time so that I can do some stuff, and at some point in the future, time will cease to be, at which time, the stuff I do will have repercussions for all time.

but wait, you just said time will be over.

and why does god need time anyway? isn't he/she omnipotent? what "purpose" can a god have?

this is trite, but it is reason's revealed truth writ small:

can your god make a stone he/she could not move?

The point that God created time and the universe does not therefore mean he had no other alternative. It simply means that that is the way he decided he would do it. It also implies that, all things considered, it was the best way.

The answer is, no, God cannot make a stone that he cannot move. Neither can God do what is wrong. He can never lie. He can never be unjust. That is what the Bible says about God. Does that mean he is limited. I suppose, if you want to see it that way. Does that mean he is not omnipotent? Not in my opinion. Omnipotent means that you have unlimited power. If you define doing what is wrong as a weakness, then why should God not be omnipotent simply because he cannot do a wrong. Omnipotent does not mean completely free of limitations. Otherwise you would end up saying that God is not free from having to exist. This is a dead end in logic. I think you need to revise what a working definition of omnipotent really is.

Not necessarily. A student may not understand everything that the professor is saying, but he knows that the professor is more intelligent than he, so rather than assuming the professor is wrong, the student concludes that his intelligence may not be strong enough yet to understand. Meanwhile, in taking such a position, the student is 'trusting' that the professor isn't just plain nuts. It is not that the student is blind, but that he is taking into consideration his limits, and tries to make the best of such a situation. In a sense, he risks his own education on the intelligence of the professor. If the professor really is a nut case, the student will have wasted his time learning from him. That is the risk.

Accepting something because someone tells you it's like that, when you don't understand the logic behind it is a very *BIG* risk in my eyes.

If God really is a nut case, or is an invention by man, Christians are wasting their time believing in him (except for the rewards that belief itself brings, in which case I may as well choose a pink rabbit to believe in). If, however, His intelligence is far greater than our, as would be reasonable, considering He was intelligent enough to create the universe, then it certainly is not stupid or blind to trust in His intelligence.

You are assuming that if he exists, and did create us, that he did so intelligently, for all we know we could be nothing more than the materialisation of his subconcience manifesting in a dream

Yes. Because the 'deep' that you are referring to is a kind of digging into the details of the how, and not approaching the why. The deep that you refer to is only for those who are educated enough to grasp it. While the deep that religion offers is for children too. And it is more connected to every day life. For example, understanding the WHY of time means that I should use it wisely. It may be better to use my time to spend it with my family (in a balanced sort of way) than to use it to postulate a curvature between space and time, if it means excluding time spent with my family. Of course, a good mixture of both would be optimal, if I was that sort of scientist.

You still don't see that your "why" is synthetic, supernatural, and is a belief, not an understanding. By all means, keep assigning supernatural answers to unaswered questions in science. It means I will never have to compete with you for a job in science.

On that last bit, yes, a balance of family and work is good, but nobody said otherwise. Richard Feynman, a famous theoretical physicist, loved his wife more than his work. Didn't need God to do it, though.

You misunderstood my post i think, i said that, since someone wants to believe, and see signs, they will eventually see things they *will* interprate as said signs eventhough the things they see are the result of their own actions.

It's like if you believe you are ill, you will eventually feel ill

I know what you meant, maybe I didn't express it very well. And I agree that that happens. Which is why often when they use placebos in drug testing they don't tell people. I agree there. But in terms of God? Like I said it might seem naive but to me it's not. I can't explain it.

Its being biased depends like most things on your point of view.

As for the suffering part :fluffle: :headbang: hey it works!

Hey, why do you think SM exists? :p :fluffle:

What said about the puppy seems unfair to because it is not a true resentation.

God, if you believe in him gives the chance for repentance

Imagine the time before time, or a place beyond time, where God might live. He can see everything that will happen, nothing surprises him.

When he makes a soul, he can look into the future and see what choice it will make. Every so often, he makes a soul that he knows will reject repentance, and he will make it suffer for all time. He makes the soul anyway.

Puppies in microwaves.

Accepting something because someone tells you it's like that, when you don't understand the logic behind it is a very *BIG* risk in my eyes.



You are assuming that if he exists, and did create us, that he did so intelligently, for all we know we could be nothing more than the materialisation of his subconcience manifesting in a dream

God doesn't dream. He doesn't need to, unlike us. And yes he created us. We are intelligently made. There are so many complex parts of life that couldn't possibly just 'happen'. They were carefully planned by God.

If my professor told me to dash a babies head against a rock, I would say "no". Thats the difference. You believe your God is infallible and behave accordingly. If you really want to compare that to how we might view a professor, I hope you can see that the analogy doesn't carry in any important way.

If you want to trust your GPA, your time, or your education to an intelligence you don't understand, that's great. That you give unwavering obedience to a concept of a belief of a dogma is a bigger risk.

If you had to kill something, what is the best way to do it? with the least amount of pain. I grew up on a farm in Australia, and we often had plagues of rabbits. We had to learn how to kill lots of rabbits quickly and cheaply (or starve). We realize that a sharp blow to the head of an unsuspecting rabbit, while sounding rather grotesque, is most likely the most humane and cheap way to end a life. The same applies to an animal that has been hit by a car and is not quite dead. You end the suffering of the poor creature as quickly and humanely as possible. The Israelites, I suppose, may have found themselves in such a position, although I am only speculating. Due to the history of the Caananites, God had to make an end of their civilisation. One cannot ignore the warnings of God forever. Nobody can.

Perhaps I could ask you to expand a little on your last sentence, just so I don't get you wrong. what exactly is the risk that you are referring to, and how am I giving unwavering belief to a concept of a dogma?

Bias in terms of opinion. Well then that said anything can be biased. Anyway I've come across loads of people who have the same view of hell. Like at least I'll be in hell with all my friends. At least I'll 'feel' pain. The pain will never end. You will never numb to it. You'll want to stop 'feeling' but won't be able to. Who wants that?

Since i don't believe in hell, i don't concern myself with it, but if i'm wrong, and i do go to hell, there's nothing i can willingly and with honesty do about it.

Imagine the time before time, or a place beyond time, where God might live. He can see everything that will happen, nothing surprises him.

When he makes a soul, he can look into the future and see what choice it will make. Every so often, he makes a soul that he knows will reject repentance, and he will make it suffer for all time. He makes the soul anyway.

Puppies in microwaves.

It's not as simple as puppies in microwaves. It's more like yes they will all pee. But instead you give them a choice. If before 100 pees they learn to go on the newspaper then you won;t microwave them...

Imagine the time before time, or a place beyond time, where God might live. He can see everything that will happen, nothing surprises him.

When he makes a soul, he can look into the future and see what choice it will make. Every so often, he makes a soul that he knows will reject repentance, and he will make it suffer for all time. He makes the soul anyway.

Puppies in microwaves.

Ok what is the puppies enjoyed peeing on the carpet, and got to enjoy life? and what if the puppies peeing on the carpet taught the others not too? Was the ower being mean then (lets forget about the mircowave part) he gave the puppies a chance to enjoy themself and the puppys helped the other puppies

I've got go guys. I'm afraid I can't answer any more questions. If you want to ask more message my nation.

Since i don't believe in hell, i don't concern myself with it, but if i'm wrong, and i do go to hell, there's nothing i can willingly and with honesty do about it.

You can't by then. But you can now. If you think you're better than the system, then so be it.

If you had to kill something, what is the best way to do it? with the least amount of pain. I grew up on a farm in Australia, and we often had plagues of rabbits. We had to learn how to kill lots of rabbits quickly and cheaply (or starve). We realize that a sharp blow to the head of an unsuspecting rabbit, while sounding rather grotesque, is most likely the most humane and cheap way to end a life. The same applies to an animal that has been hit by a car and is not quite dead. You end the suffering of the poor creature as quickly and humanely as possible. The Israelites, I suppose, may have found themselves in such a position, although I am only speculating. Due to the history of the Caananites, God had to make an end of their civilisation. One cannot ignore the warnings of God forever. Nobody can.

Perhaps I could ask you to expand a little on your last sentence, just so I don't get you wrong. what exactly is the risk that you are referring to, and how am I giving unwavering belief to a concept of a dogma?

As to your first paragraph, that is the most monstrous rationalization I've ever heard. If most Christians think like that, I now must consider you all a very dangerous threat. How did those babies ignore the "warnings of God"? The sins of the fathers, visited on the sons...I thought Christians like you went out with the Inquisition.

As to your second paragraph, the risk is the risk of being wrong, something I know you don't recognize. If I'm wrong, when God calls me up and presents Him/Herself fairly and openly, I'll hear Him/Her out. As to your last question, your first paragraph answers it. Completely.

Since i don't believe in hell, i don't concern myself with it, but if i'm wrong, and i do go to hell, there's nothing i can willingly and with honesty do about it.

Do you really think that after all thats being said

Could it not be argued, that since they *want* to believe that they are themselves the cause for said events?

I could not agree with Kefran anymore. My experiences in life has led me to the conclusion that people just do not merely believe in a faith, they want to believe in it therefore it would make sense for someone to claim an uncommon fluke as the work of a diety and their communication to us. and ironically these dieties always seem to move in mysterious ways which means a so called message could be interpreted that many ways that the belief of such a message starts to become well.......'less scientific and more blind faith'

Yes you could. It could happen to anyone and from an external point of view it's highly possible. But as a Christian? No. It's not strange coincidences. It's a firm assurance. It's not madness as tests would show that I am as sane as any other normal person.

Armistria you seem to think that because Christianity is a religion you are not susceptible to believing in something strongly that you misinterpret certain life experiences. Where religion is concerned it has happeaned since the creation of religion. This firm assurance are you just not sure that you cannot accept a life without a diety (an absence of life in death), cannot accept that life could be a mere fluke where certain conditions are just perfect (100 trillion to 1). The biggest problem ironically is that you cannot tell whether you are actually seeing a message or if you want to see the message hence there they are. (unless in hindsight e.g. the enlightenment period)

Ok what is the puppies enjoyed peeing on the carpet, and got to enjoy life? and what if the puppies peeing on the carpet taught the others not too? Was the ower being mean then (lets forget about the mircowave part) he gave the puppies a chance to enjoy themself and the puppys helped the other puppies

Yes, and without the microwave, that works fine. Withdraw the concept of hell from Christianity, and it works better, too.

It's not as simple as puppies in microwaves. It's more like yes they will all pee. But instead you give them a choice. If before 100 pees they learn to go on the newspaper then you won;t microwave them...

You're completely missing the point. For God, there is no "if". He already knows, when he buys the puppies, which ones will wind up in the microwave. You can give them 100 chances, or a 1000. He already knew which ones will fail, and prepared the microwaves ahead of time.

Armistria you seem to think that because Christianity is a religion you are not susceptible to believing in something strongly that you misinterpret certain life experiences. Where religion is concerned it has happeaned since the creation of religion. This firm assurance are you just not sure that you cannot accept a life without a diety (an absence of life in death), cannot accept that life could be a mere fluke where certain conditions are just perfect (100 trillion to 1). The biggest problem ironically is that you cannot tell whether you are actually seeing a message or if you want to see the message hence there they are. (unless in hindsight e.g. the enlightenment period)

I am aware that anything I say can be interpreted as flawed or narrowminded. I know that. But would I rather reamain silent? No. I'd rather speak my mind knowing that others don't agree with it.

You still don't see that your "why" is synthetic, supernatural, and is a belief, not an understanding. By all means, keep assigning supernatural answers to unaswered questions in science. It means I will never have to compete with you for a job in science.

On that last bit, yes, a balance of family and work is good, but nobody said otherwise. Richard Feynman, a famous theoretical physicist, loved his wife more than his work. Didn't need God to do it, though.

On the contrary, I do see that my 'why' is a 'product' of my belief, and have said as much in my previous posts (although perhaps they were not to you). I also feel that the common human search for meaning in life fits in very well with the meaning offered by religions, answers that cannot be provided by science (or Godless philosophical view points). Consistent with this view point, I see science as inadequate to satisfy the longings of the human heart, because the human heart was made to be filled with none other than God himself. For those who do not believe in God, the human desire for meaning will always be a mystery, and they will always marvel at why there seems to be such a prevailing desire.

As for loving your wife, thankfully, God made us in such a way that we can love our wife regardless of whether we actually believe in His existence. That way, humanity does not immediately self destruct upon the rejection of God, but can continue living in a meaningless vacuum temporarily, until such a time as one has the opportunity to embrace meaning with gladness, and in so doing, find the sort of fulfilment one part of himself has been deeply longing for. This is, of course, the Christian view point. I do not expect you to agree, so don't feel the need to get upset.

As for competing with me for a job in science......just to demonstrate how irrelevant that is...I already have a job in science. Do you?

You're completely missing the point. For God, there is no "if". He already knows, when he buys the puppies, which ones will wind up in the microwave. You can give them 100 chances, or a 1000. He already knew which ones will fail, and prepared the microwaves ahead of time.

I know. We cannot see into the future as such. I can't comprehend being able to do so. The topic of free will vs. predestination is beyond our puny minds.

Yes, and without the microwave, that works fine. Withdraw the concept of hell from Christianity, and it works better, too.

I will not denife the fact it would! and about if i was to skip and dance with a ribbion and hand out choclates, would that make it better to? I am trying to that people often liking sugurcoating on tough areas. But its because we have free choice that we have hell, for the people who do not want god. And plus i believe that hell, is open to everyone if you do or do not believe in God

God doesn't dream. He doesn't need to, unlike us. And yes he created us. We are intelligently made. There are so many complex parts of life that couldn't possibly just 'happen'. They were carefully planned by God.

Evolution disagrees with you on this one

Evolution disagrees with you on this one

Yes I know. But then again it disagrees with religion on virtually everything.

That should be "Science doesn't explain everything yet"
BINGO
And it never will, the universe is a BIG place and there will always remain something undefined or unexplained (like why do Germans love David Hasselhoff so much?). It is to be truly arrogant to claim the human race knows the answer to everything. At least with science we are finding out for ourselves and constantly updating/replacing theories always thinking, putting our "God-given", if you like, grey material between our ears to use. Surely that is meaning enough.

You can't by then. But you can now. If you think you're better than the system, then so be it.

No i can't, that's why i said willingly & honestly, i can *not* fathom the idea of a god, a heaven or a hell, i can not honestly repend because i don't believe in repenting, nor can i change my beliefs because that would undermine the very essence of my being, hence i can not willingly or honestly change my destiny incase hell exists.

I once theorized that if timeless God would already have a PC (not a mac, but that is another argument) and downloaded a trial of "universe.exe" and after playing for a while forgot all about it and it continued to run in the background.
Now I think that it might have been spyware and not actually installed by himself at all.
Planet has right temperature and climate to support life, are we not just planetary algae?

Do you really think that after all thats being said

Why yes i do, i've been thinking about life, death, the afterlife & wether or not god exists for a long time now, and all i read, understand, see and hear further strengthens my belief that there is no god, heaven or hell nor a meaning to life

No i can't, that's why i said willingly & honestly, i can *not* fathom the idea of a god, a heaven or a hell, i can not honestly repend because i don't believe in repenting, nor can i change my beliefs because that would undermine the very essence of my being, hence i can not willingly or honestly change my destiny incase hell exists.

Well then I'll pray that God will give you the wisdom to believe in him. That's the best I can do.

As to your first paragraph, that is the most monstrous rationalization I've ever heard. If most Christians think like that, I now must consider you all a very dangerous threat. How did those babies ignore the "warnings of God"? The sins of the fathers, visited on the sons...I thought Christians like you went out with the Inquisition.

As to your second paragraph, the risk is the risk of being wrong, something I know you don't recognize. If I'm wrong, when God calls me up and presents Him/Herself fairly and openly, I'll hear Him/Her out. As to your last question, your first paragraph answers it. Completely.

The problem, as I see it, is your refusal or inability to see the position from God's point of view. What is time compared to eternity? What is this life compared to the next? What is better, 7 days or 70 years? We cannot make those judgements, but God can, and he alone knows if it is better for a baby to die after seven days or to live for 70 years. Since we can't know which is better, we assume that it is better to live for 70 years, and to help everyone around us live for 70 years.

When a baby dies after 7 days, whom do we blame? God? That would not be wise. Yes God is responsible for allowing a baby to die, since he was in a position to keep it alive. But if he knows that it is better in the interests of the baby that it dies and enters the next life ahead of us, who are we to criticise God, particularly as he is the only one who could know? Do you see my argument. Like I have said before, if you really want to criticise the Christian point of view, you have to be prepared to look at it from God's point of view, including that this life is just a blip compared to the next, and that some people live a miserable 70 years, while others die after a couple happy ones.

On the contrary, I do see that my 'why' is a 'product' of my belief, and have said as much in my previous posts (although perhaps they were not to you). I also feel that the common human search for meaning in life fits in very well with the meaning offered by religions, answers that cannot be provided by science (or Godless philosophical view points). Consistent with this view point, I see science as inadequate to satisfy the longings of the human heart, because the human heart was made to be filled with none other than God himself. For those who do not believe in God, the human desire for meaning will always be a mystery, and they will always marvel at why there seems to be such a prevailing desire.

As for loving your wife, thankfully, God made us in such a way that we can love our wife regardless of whether we actually believe in His existence. That way, humanity does not immediately self destruct upon the rejection of God, but can continue living in a meaningless vacuum temporarily, until such a time as one has the opportunity to embrace meaning with gladness, and in so doing, find the sort of fulfilment one part of himself has been deeply longing for. This is, of course, the Christian view point. I do not expect you to agree, so don't feel the need to get upset.

As for competing with me for a job in science......just to demonstrate how irrelevant that is...I already have a job in science. Do you?

Yes, I do. (EDIT: I am a low level employee, if thats important) I find it hard to believe that a scientist would present "The human heart was made to be filled with none other than God himself" as a categorical fact, rather than as a doctrinal belief (which is fine). May I ask, how does your work fair in peer-reviewed journals? I'm unpublished as yet, but I"ve had my work evaluated by senior scientists, and they would never let me get away with stuff like that.

I once theorized that if timeless God would already have a PC (not a mac, but that is another argument) and downloaded a trial of "universe.exe" and after playing for a while forgot all about it and it continued to run in the background.
Now I think that it might have been spyware and not actually installed by himself at all.
Planet has right temperature and climate to support life, are we not just planetary algae?

That argument runs on the fact that someone created the game. God created the universe out of nothing. Have you ever noticed that any other world created by others in their minds is full of similarities to this world. Imagine that there were no such 'world'. That there were something else and that you created something unlike it that is this world. Hard to imagine? It is for me. I can't imagine what God looks like. Doesn't mean he isn't there.

Yes, I do. I find it hard to believe that a scientist would present "The human heart was made to be filled with none other than God himself" as a categorical fact, rather than as a doctrinal belief (which is fine). May I ask, how does your work fair in peer-reviewed journals? I'm unpublished as yet, but I"ve had my work evaluated by senior scientists, and they would never let me get away with stuff like that.

Who says that they use these ideas in their scientific work? I know Christian scientists wo get on with their work. The fact that they work in science reinforces their belief in God as they realise that the world is far too complex to happen by chance.

The problem, as I see it, is your refusal or inability to see the position from God's point of view..

And you have the ability to see from God's point of view? You fit that perspective in your head?

If and when you meet God, tell him you have the ability to see from His point of view.

Seriously, in your work as a scientist, do you continue to assign supernatural reasons to unanswered questions in science? How do your bosses feel about that?

Who says that they use these ideas in their scientific work? I know Christian scientists wo get on with their work. The fact that they work in science reinforces their belief in God as they realise that the world is far too complex to happen by chance.

That, I can live with (EDIT: That a scientist with religion can just get on with his work. The part about "too complex" is contestable. Heavily). I have no problem with a Christian who works as a scientist, or a Muslim or Shinto Buddhist or anything else.

But not one whose mindset is to habitually assing supernatural causes to unanswered questions in science.

Unanswered questions in religion or philosophy, sure. But the two should be kept separate.

Okay now I really must go. Bruarong I wish you all the best in your arguments. Nikkil, if you're still there, well done. Everybody else (namely Kefren and Saint Curie) I admire your intelligence and ability to question the religion even if I don't agree with you.

I see science as inadequate to satisfy the longings of the human heart, because the human heart was made to be filled with none other than God himself. For those who do not believe in God, the human desire for meaning will always be a mystery, and they will always marvel at why there seems to be such a prevailing desire.

I disagree, the need for a "why" to this question is purely related to the human psyche, and it's a need that not all people have, i for once, don't have a need for life to have a meaning, instead i strongly believe our lifes are meaningless.

Okay now I really must go. Bruarong I wish you all the best in your arguments. Nikkil, if you're still there, well done. Everybody else (namely and) I admire your intelligence and ability to question the religion even if I don't agree with you.

Take care, have a good day/night, whatever your timezone is.

That argument runs on the fact that someone created the game. God created the universe out of nothing. Have you ever noticed that any other world created by others in their minds is full of similarities to this world. Imagine that there were no such 'world'. That there were something else and that you created something unlike it that is this world. Hard to imagine? It is for me. I can't imagine what God looks like. Doesn't mean he isn't there.

Whoa there... Maybe you missed the point of my post being jovial.
But whatev.. I'll bite.
Maybe the game was an accident that just happened over time given long input from its players alone?
Imagination is not standard, and claiming that there are always "similarities" is just plain naïve. It's almost like saying, "you have no free will or freedom of imagination, it has all been imagined for you"
I have to admit I lost you after that point. Imagine that there were no what world? I created something unlike something else?
Are you OK?

Are you OK?

Yes I'm fine thank you.

Take care, have a good day/night, whatever your timezone is.

It's actually 1:42 in the afternoon here!

I disagree, the need for a "why" to this question is purely related to the human psyche, and it's a need that not all people have, i for once, don't have a need for life to have a meaning, instead i strongly believe our lifes are meaningless.

I think the beauty of there being no unilateral "meaning" is that you get to pick one that you find compelling and run with it.

Okay now I really must go. Bruarong I wish you all the best in your arguments. Nikkil, if you're still there, well done. Everybody else (namely Kefren and Saint Curie) I admire your intelligence and ability to question the religion even if I don't agree with you.

Thank you very much. enjoy class

Just demonstrate a miracle that we can all experience (that is self-evident and inarguably a miracle, not "the laughter of children" or "miracle of existence") and you'll have made the first palpable point for your position.


My decision to follow Christ was the beginning of a marvelous mystery, indeed, I would describe it as a miracle if I was sure that you wouldn't deliberately misunderstand me. Not the 'miracle' that happens every time a baby enters the world, but a deeper miracle, that of a changed life with a new set of motivations and a new source of gladness. It confirmed to me that the God of the Bible is alive and well and still at work in the world today. The wonderful thing about this is that it is there in the Bible that the beginning of such a journey is available to all.


actually, in the days of moses the word we now translate as "prophet" just meant what we today think of as a poet or bard.

you're also cheating here, claiming Moses' "miracles" as presented in the "bible" as evidence for the truth and efficacy of that "bible."

and actually, any atheistic geologist could make water come out of a rock. I've done it myself.

Finally, how does the bible "consistently" reveal god in ways "ordinary" people can "experience" for themselves? examples please. I'll be happy to give you such examples from science.

I was never presenting the miracles of Moses as evidence to you, but evidence to the people who witnessed them. I'm not quite that stupid.

Making water come out of rock, eh. Reckon you are up to it? I would like to see you have a go at Ayers Rock, for example. I reckon that would test you.

The 'ordinary' miracle is where one meets Jesus. It happens every day, and the option is open to you.

Who says that they use these ideas in their scientific work? I know Christian scientists wo get on with their work. The fact that they work in science reinforces their belief in God as they realise that the world is far too complex to happen by chance.

Chance (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chance)
Noun

chance (plural: chances)

1. An opportunity or possibility.
2. Random occurrence.

~~
So what you're saying is that random possibility is not possible?

Yes I'm fine thank you.
Glad to hear it.
Although that isfrom your point of view...

Just like to say Armistria, your points were great!

Not the 'miracle' that happens every time a baby enters the world, but a deeper miracle, that of a changed life with a new set of motivations and a new source of gladness. It confirmed to me that the God of the Bible is alive and well and still at work in the world today. The wonderful thing about this is that it is there in the Bible that the beginning of such a journey is available to all.


And only the "God of the Bible" you believe in can create a "changed life witha new set of motivations and a new source of gladness"?

Narrow, Bruarong, real narrow.

How about this. Do you believe there are other religions in the world that can do everything your religion does?

Better yet, are there people who believe in other religions that, through this beilef, get everything you get out of your religion?

Well then I'll pray that God will give you the wisdom to believe in him. That's the best I can do.

Except it's not wisdom i lack, it's faith...

Chance (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chance)
Noun

chance (plural: chances)

1. An opportunity or possibility.
2. Random occurrence.

~~
So what you're saying is that random possibility is not possible?

No that people as they are today came to be in existance on this earth by chance. So yes maybe you could say that. Random possibility is possible. But nothing can come of nothing. This world couldn't form out of nothing.

Except it's not wisdom i lack, it's faith...

Well, look at it this way. Faith can be conjured by need, developing spontaneously as a coping mechanism.

I don't imagine wisdom does that.

Except it's not wisdom i lack, it's faith...

Fine then. Scratch that word and insert faith.

Fine then. Scratch that word and insert faith.

Are you gonna be late for something? I don't want you to leave or anything, I just hate to think we're getting you in trouble. :)

The problem, as I see it, is your refusal or inability to see the position from God's point of view. What is time compared to eternity? What is this life compared to the next? What is better, 7 days or 70 years? We cannot make those judgements, but God can, and he alone knows if it is better for a baby to die after seven days or to live for 70 years. Since we can't know which is better, we assume that it is better to live for 70 years, and to help everyone around us live for 70 years.

When a baby dies after 7 days, whom do we blame? God? That would not be wise. Yes God is responsible for allowing a baby to die, since he was in a position to keep it alive. But if he knows that it is better in the interests of the baby that it dies and enters the next life ahead of us, who are we to criticise God, particularly as he is the only one who could know? Do you see my argument. Like I have said before, if you really want to criticise the Christian point of view, you have to be prepared to look at it from God's point of view, including that this life is just a blip compared to the next, and that some people live a miserable 70 years, while others die after a couple happy ones.

The problem is we *CAN NOT* look at things from his perspective, we are supposed to take it all on faith, that what happens is god's will, no matter how fcked up it might be, that's the problem right there, the dependence on blind faith, that's one of the reasons why i can not bring myself to believe in the Christian god

No that people as they are today came to be in existance on this earth by chance. So yes maybe you could say that. Random possibility is possible. But nothing can come of nothing. This world couldn't form out of nothing.

What did God come from? And if He/She was always there, why can't that same property apply to the universe?

Just like to say Armistria, your points were great!

Thank you, Nikkil. Yours were great too. :D

Well, look at it this way. Faith can be conjured by need, developing spontaneously as a coping mechanism.

I don't imagine wisdom does that.

can we not though wisdow regconsise the need tho? Therefore wisdom is all so needed to require faith

Yes, I do. I find it hard to believe that a scientist would present "The human heart was made to be filled with none other than God himself" as a categorical fact, rather than as a doctrinal belief (which is fine). May I ask, how does your work fair in peer-reviewed journals? I'm unpublished as yet, but I"ve had my work evaluated by senior scientists, and they would never let me get away with stuff like that.

Aha, then, brother scientist, you will not find it hard to believe that I do not present my Christianity in peer review journals. (Chortles at the idea..) In such journals, we simply present material that is relevant to our hypothesis and our conclusions. Usually, the word limit means that we hardly get to do that adequately enough (unless it is a review, and even then). My idea of science is that it is an exploration of truth in the material world. The human heart that I refer can not be measured in the material world. (Perhaps I should say that this heart is more like a soul, just to help those who may have mistaken if for the heart of muscle.) At any rate, I cannot use my science to test for the truth that I find in Christianity (unless you count archeology, and I am not one of those sort of scientists).

That argument runs on the fact that someone created the game. God created the universe out of nothing. Have you ever noticed that any other world created by others in their minds is full of similarities to this world. Imagine that there were no such 'world'. That there were something else and that you created something unlike it that is this world. Hard to imagine? It is for me. I can't imagine what God looks like. Doesn't mean he isn't there.

How do you explain god's existance & origin?

What did God come from? And if He/She was always there, why can't that same property apply to the universe?

I have no idea. It is something I have thought about since the age of about 6. I cannot comprehend it. Nobody can comprehend it as everything in this world has a beginning and an end.

can we not though wisdow regconsise the need tho? Therefore wisdom is all so needed to require faith

I'm sorry, I don't entirely follow what you're saying.

I don't think Wisdom requires a belief in a God.

How do you explain god's existance & origin?

You and Saint Curie think alike.

And only the "God of the Bible" you believe in can create a "changed life witha new set of motivations and a new source of gladness"?

Narrow, Bruarong, real narrow.

How about this. Do you believe there are other religions in the world that can do everything your religion does?

Better yet, are there people who believe in other religions that, through this beilef, get everything you get out of your religion?

Did I ever ever mention that my religion was the only one that can change a life? Sheesh.

I'm sorry, I don't entirely follow what you're saying.

I don't think Wisdom requires a belief in a God.

I agree with you, to say that would limit wisdom. I am trying to ask, if you think, you need wisdom to have faith, to see the need as you said

I agree with you, to say that would limit wisdom. I am trying to ask, if you think, you need wisdom to have have faith, to see the need as you said

That's what I was getting at. You don't need to be a genius to have faith, neither can all geniuses see faith.

Aha, then, brother scientist, you will not find it hard to believe that I do not present my Christianity in peer review journals. (Chortles at the idea..) In such journals, we simply present material that is relevant to our hypothesis and our conclusions. Usually, the word limit means that we hardly get to do that adequately enough (unless it is a review, and even then). My idea of science is that it is an exploration of truth in the material world. The human heart that I refer can not be measured in the material world. (Perhaps I should say that this heart is more like a soul, just to help those who may have mistaken if for the heart of muscle.) At any rate, I cannot use my science to test for the truth that I find in Christianity (unless you count archeology, and I am not one of those sort of scientists).

Then I applaud your ability to keep your belief and work separate.

Science and Religion make fine neighbors as long as they don't park in each other's garages.

Your last statement is one of the few statements you've made so far that I find to be very sound.

If you truly say that your religious beliefs do not come from a scientific mindset, and that you apply science and its methods to other problems, then we have only one thing to disagree about.

In terms of laws that are to be enforced on the whole population, religious and non-religious, would you vote for a law whose only basis was religious?

Okay now I really must go. Bruarong I wish you all the best in your arguments. Nikkil, if you're still there, well done. Everybody else (namely Kefren and Saint Curie) I admire your intelligence and ability to question the religion even if I don't agree with you.

I enjoyed our discussion, don't stay away too long :p

Did I ever ever mention that my religion was the only one that can change a life? Sheesh.

Read your post. You defined that as a miracle, and I'd dare say that you believe miracles are sourced soley from God, and you only believe in one God, right?

I'm not trying to be combative, but it seems like someone with an analytical mindset would see the implications.

So, you DO feel that other religions are equally valid, or don't?

Maybe a little off the wall here, but I just got back from tutoring a student in freshman chemistry (he's got his final exam tomorrow afternoon and the poor kid's sweating bullets), and there was a sample question given by his professor that made me think of this thread.

I'm going all the way back to the original title of the thread, "science can't explain everything." The opposite assertion was that religion CAN explain everything. Thus, I'd like to see the religious explanation for the following:

A bruised apple will rot completely after four days if left at room temperature (20° C), but will take 16 days to rot completely if stored at 0°C.

Why?

I know already that there is a scientific explanation for this. I would like to see a religious explanation that will allow any one of us, regardless of belief or assumption, to determine how long it will take a bruised apple to rot completely at 12° C. The explanation must be completely religious in nature and must reveal something about the model of god that it involves that we can always rely upon the explanation, in other words.

Ready.
Set.
Go.

No that people as they are today came to be in existance on this earth by chance. So yes maybe you could say that. Random possibility is possible. But nothing can come of nothing. This world couldn't form out of nothing.
This world didn't form out of nothing, there was this star right, and this gravity right and this stuff right that orbitted this star (we'll go ahead and call it the sun) and as stuff is of different mass and stuff it circled this sun at different distances (am I going too fast for you?) and it just so happened that our plaet formed of stuff at the right distance away from the sun to have oceans of this stuff we like to call water (which can be turned into wine by adding fruit sugars and yeast and sat for a while) humans beings evolved from small water dwelling creatures to drink this wine (and guinness like in the ads) because we didn't like the taste of muddy water...

And you have the ability to see from God's point of view? You fit that perspective in your head?

If and when you meet God, tell him you have the ability to see from His point of view.

Seriously, in your work as a scientist, do you continue to assign supernatural reasons to unanswered questions in science? How do your bosses feel about that?

What I mean as 'from God's point of view' is simply that presented in the Bible. I do not claim to understand the mind of God, except as I find it in the book and in my personal experience of Him. If you want to criticise God fairly, then you have to do it on the basis of the Bible being reasonably accurate. However, if you then say that the Bible is completely not accurate, that is a different issue, and it hardly makes sense to criticise God on the basis of an inaccurate book. That would be like me criticising you on the basis of some junk article written about you in Dolly.

In my work as a scientist, I tend to restrict my work to science. I do not try to use the tools of science to uncover the meaning of life or supernatural reasons. Why is that so hard to grasp? In that case, my boss doesn't care what I believe, and in fact may even share my beliefs, so long as I provide good results.

I'm going all the way back to the original title of the thread, "science can't explain everything." The opposite assertion was that religion CAN explain everything.
Um.... no. Substituting two words does not an opposite make.

This world didn't form out of nothing, there was this star right, and this gravity right and this stuff right that orbitted this star (we'll go ahead and call it the sun) and as stuff is of different mass and stuff it circled this sun at different distances (am I going too fast for you?) and it just so happened that our plaet formed of stuff at the right distance away from the sun to have oceans of this stuff we like to call water (which can be turned into wine by adding fruit sugars and yeast and sat for a while) humans beings evolved from small water dwelling creatures to drink this wine (and guinness like in the ads) because we didn't like the taste of muddy water...
Now can you say it without introducing right and wrong? ;)

Um.... no. Substituting two words does not an opposite make.
Science Can explain everything
Science Can Not explain everything
Religion Can explain everything
Religion Can Not explain everything...

Hmm nope... I think it makes sense as opposites for the sake of this argument

Um.... no. Substituting two words does not an opposite make.

The assertion was made that science cannot explain everything, and that religion is superior to it in that it can provide an explanation for everything. I am asking for an explanation of the example — surely a trifling matter of an apple — in those terms.

What I mean as 'from God's point of view' is simply that presented in the Bible. I do not claim to understand the mind of God, except as I find it in the book and in my personal experience of Him. If you want to criticise God fairly, then you have to do it on the basis of the Bible being reasonably accurate. However, if you then say that the Bible is completely not accurate, that is a different issue, and it hardly makes sense to criticise God on the basis of an inaccurate book. That would be like me criticising you on the basis of some junk article written about you in Dolly.


So, you said the problem was my "inability to see from God's point of view".

It sounds like you wanted to say "we disagree because you don't believe he bible". Is that fair?

Can we at least agree that your original statement, that the "problem" was my "inability see from God's point of view" did imply that you didn't have this "problem" of "inability to see from God's point of view"?

Honestly, I very sincerely believe your statement clearly implied that you had the ability to know the perspective of god.

Science Can explain everything
Science Can Not explain everything
Religion Can explain everything
Religion Can Not explain everything...

Hmm nope... I think it makes sense as opposites for the sake of this argument
Except that the claim that science can or cannot do something has zero impact on the claim that religion can or cannot do something. The first makes no assumption about the latter.

This world didn't form out of nothing, there was this star right, and this gravity right and this stuff right that orbitted this star (we'll go ahead and call it the sun) and as stuff is of different mass and stuff it circled this sun at different distances (am I going too fast for you?) and it just so happened that our plaet formed of stuff at the right distance away from the sun to have oceans of this stuff we like to call water (which can be turned into wine by adding fruit sugars and yeast and sat for a while) humans beings evolved from small water dwelling creatures to drink this wine (and guinness like in the ads) because we didn't like the taste of muddy water...

I'm not talking about the world. I'm talking about the universe. Without this star none of that could've hapenned.

Now can you say it without introducing right and wrong? ;)
Certainly for those with no humour here follows the non light-hearted version:
This world didn't form out of nothing, there was a star , and some gravity and some matter that orbitted this star (we'll go ahead and call it the sun) and as matter is of different mass and density it circled this sun at different distances (am I going too fast for you?) and it just so happened that our planet formed of matter at the random distance from the sun to have oceans of this stuff we like to call water (which can be turned into wine by adding fruit sugars and yeast and sat for a while) humans beings evolved from small water dwelling creatures to drink this wine (and guinness like in the ad) because we didn't like the taste of muddy water...

You and Saint Curie think alike.

I take that as a compliment ;)

The assertion was made that science cannot explain everything, and that religion is superior to it in that it can provide an explanation for everything. I am asking for an explanation of the example — surely a trifling matter of an apple — in those terms.
The assertion by you, yes.

Except that the claim that science can or cannot do something has zero impact on the claim that religion can or cannot do something. The first makes no assumption about the latter.
So can you explain what this thread is all about.
If stating that Science cannot explain everything who can?

Read your post. You defined that as a miracle, and I'd dare say that you believe miracles are sourced soley from God, and you only believe in one God, right?

I'm not trying to be combative, but it seems like someone with an analytical mindset would see the implications.

So, you DO feel that other religions are equally valid, or don't?

You like the direct questions.

To give you a direct answer, no, I don't think that other religions are equally valid. I shall try to give you a very brief set reasons.

Firstly, other religions contain truth. That we should not lie and be good to one another is a basic truth found in most religions. On that level, you will find a good deal of similarities between Christianity and other religions. However, Jesus is recorded as saying that he is the I AM. That means he was saying that he is the creator. By accepting repentence and offering the forgiveness of sins, he was really saying that he was God. he also said that he, God, is the only way to God, in other words, that he is the only God that can truly save people from their sins.

Secondly, my points are founded on the scriptures. I did not come up with them all by myself. You may accuse me of arrogance (or narrowmindedness), but that is not fair. Because my reasons come from scripture, not from me, you cannot accuse me of arrogance in saying that other religions are not equally valid. You can, however, accuse the writers of the scriptures of arrogance. That would be to accuse them of deliberately misleading people into thinking that Jesus is the only true source of such a miracle. However, if what they said was true, that if they were witnesses of the life of Jesus, then this would not be an issue of arrogance, but of fact or falsehood.

Certainly for those with no humour here follows the non light-hearted version:
This world didn't form out of nothing, there was a star , and some gravity and some matter that orbitted this star (we'll go ahead and call it the sun) and as matter is of different mass and density it circled this sun at different distances (am I going too fast for you?) and it just so happened that our planet formed of matter at the random distance from the sun to have oceans of this stuff we like to call water (which can be turned into wine by adding fruit sugars and yeast and sat for a while) humans beings evolved from small water dwelling creatures to drink this wine (and guinness like in the ad) because we didn't like the taste of muddy water...
But it's not random, is it? It's determined by physics.

So can you explain what this thread is all about.
If stating that Science cannot explain everything who can?
Well, it's not about religion explaining anything. Perhaps you should read the original post. ;)

It's not about religion being any sort of substitute for science.

The assertion by you, yes.

No, I didn't make that assertion. The words were literally stated by someone on this thread in reply to something I said, that religion was superior to science in that it provided universal explanatioons whereas science doesn't.

So I'm calling in that marker. If religion does indeed provide universally applicable explanations, then it must be able to explain this without resorting to a scientific explanation.

As I neither have time nor will to read the whole thread, I'll probably repeat something that someone has already stated, but is important that everybody is aware of. Scientific determinism died in the early 20th century, when Werner Heisenberg formulated his Uncertainty principle. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle is inherent to all observations and measurements, so it represents a limit to our observations of the world. Since our observations of the world are inherently limited, so are the scientific explanations.

But it's not random, is it? It's determined by physics.

Yes but does the physics explain how the universe, not just earth came into existence?

No, I didn't make that assertion. The words were literally stated by someone on this thread in reply to something I said, that religion was superior to science in that it provided universal explanatioons whereas science doesn't.

So I'm calling in that marker. If religion does indeed provide universally applicable explanations, then it must be able to explain this without resorting to a scientific explanation.
Ah, my bad then. I was thrown off by you referencing the title of the thread, which is associated with the original post.

I'm not talking about the world. I'm talking about the universe. Without this star none of that could've hapenned.
OK to go further back..
There was a BIIIIIIIIIG bang...
There are telescopes that can see the first moments after this explosion.
I suppose next you will say that God created this big bang...
But I really thought he created the Earth all in one go and the sun and the moon and the stars ohmygosh the pertty stars. That just happen to be millions of miles away and a large number of them already extinct the light taking so long to reach us... *ahem* no seriously back to being serious, this is my serious face, I was taught religion when I was too young to question but I did often wonder why God if God created the heaven and the earth (and the stars) why did he put the stars in the order he put them in, and why did they move, and why did we see different ones from one month to the enxt (slide show?) other than being useful to navigate by and oh say, calculate the distance to the sun, moon not to mention the circumference of this planet... oops was that science again. Erk, Sorry. (Gotta admire them Egyptians)

Yes but does the physics explain how the universe, not just earth came into existence?
It doesn't have to.

The universe could always have existed and the physics would still be there.

As I neither have time nor will to read the whole thread, I'll probably repeat something that someone has already stated, but is important that everybody is aware of. Scientific determinism died in the early 20th century, when Werner Heisenberg formulated his Uncertainty principle. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle is inherent to all observations and measurements, so it represents a limit to our observations of the world. Since our observations of the world are inherently limited, so are the scientific explanations.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to very small particles of indeterminate nature, most notably electrons and photons, and all it says is that you cannot simultaneously predict their velocity and location at a given instant. That's it. It says nothing about macro events.

EDIT: Actually, let me rephrase. What it says is that the degree of uncertainty decreases as mass increases. Anything with an appreciable amount of mass has such an incredibly low degree of uncertainty associated with it that it is utterly negligible. Even at the level of something with as much mass as a single proton, the degree of uncertainty is extremely small.