NationStates Jolt Archive

I am an Atheist but let us assume, for the sake of intial argument, that God created the universe. I can understand the principle that God said "be" and all of the atoms came into being, the big bang, formation of Galaxies, the earth the oceans, monkeys etc followed afterwards. With this argument however I see it is perfectly possible that the evolution of humans from apes and God and be compatible (otherwise hominid fossils wouldn't be in the earth, what would be the point?). The bit I don't get is that God after creating this huge train set of a universe would he look down on earth and think "people, ooh how intersting". After doing that why would God lay down rules for human beings and answer prayers or care what we do etc.

Plus although we can observe the natural world around us we cannot observe heaven and hell. Why should you assume it exists? The only evidence for this relies on ancient tradition and superstition. It is on this point that I cannot empathise, I may see the point in God, I see no need for religion.

I think a theist would argue something along the lines that;

God made people because life is nice, he put them on earth so they could prove themselves to love god and be good. We can't see heaven and hell because if we did we couldn't "choose" to be good and love god. And if we don't have the choice we can't love god thus life would be pointless. Since the whole point of life is to strive to love god.

To be fair I'm not entirely sure why God made people in the first place.

Well it seems to me you got the basics. If you can look at nature and see a creator you have seen God. That's in the writings of Paul. Can't give you en exact quote right now.

The evidence in nature is the complete organization. Everywhere, gravity is gravity, water is water, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics. Even under the "chaos theory", the only reason something seems like chaos is because we don't know all of the inputs. The more inputs we learn the more organized nature is. If we knew all of the inputs we could predict the exact spot every drop of rain would fall.

What does this have to do with "God"? Organization indicates intelligence. When an archeologist looks at a pile of rocks, s/he determines if they are a manmade wall or a pile or rocks by whether they are organized. If organized, it took intelligence to organize them. So, isn't it interesting that the more science looks, the more organization they see?

Why would a creator care about his/her creation? Why does a song writer care if someone changes his song? Why does a painter care if someone brushes a few more strokes on his painting? Why does any creator care?

The prayer thing and Heaven/Hell thing you will have to ask of someone else. Prayer isn't always answered. (Before someone says "God sometimes says 'NO'", show me one place in the bible where God or Jesus said 'NO'----He delayed but never said NO.) And who knows what happens after death? A few near death people have gotten an image, but that can be disputed.

To me, the two great commandments makes life better for everyone. And Christianity is just that simple--Love God--Love everyone. If anyone tries to add more rules and regulations than that, they are illinformed.

Well it seems to me you got the basics. If you can look at nature and see a creator you have seen God. That's in the writings of Paul. Can't give you en exact quote right now.

The evidence in nature is the complete organization. Everywhere, gravity is gravity, water is water, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics. Even under the "chaos theory", the only reason something seems like chaos is because we don't know all of the inputs. The more inputs we learn the more organized nature is. If we knew all of the inputs we could predict the exact spot every drop of rain would fall.

What does this have to do with "God"? Organization indicates intelligence. When an archeologist looks at a pile of rocks, s/he determines if they are a manmade wall or a pile or rocks by whether they are organized. If organized, it took intelligence to organize them. So, isn't it interesting that the more science looks, the more organization they see?

Why would a creator care about his/her creation? Why does a song writer care if someone changes his song? Why does a painter care if someone brushes a few more strokes on his painting? Why does any creator care?

The prayer thing and Heaven/Hell thing you will have to ask of someone else. Prayer isn't always answered. (Before someone says "God sometimes says 'NO'", show me one place in the bible where God or Jesus said 'NO'----He delayed but never said NO.) And who knows what happens after death? A few near death people have gotten an image, but that can be disputed.

To me, the two great commandments makes life better for everyone. And Christianity is just that simple--Love God--Love everyone. If anyone tries to add more rules and regulations than that, they are illinformed.

Organization indicates intelligence

Eh, not so much, drop iron fillings on a bar magnet, their organization indicates a magnetic field. Nature organizes itself, just not the same way man or some intelligent being might.

And yeah, if you're about to die your mind might not be in the most rational state.

Love God--Love everyone.

That seems unfair to me. I'd be happy if they said be nice to everyone or treat everyone with some respect. But Love isn't something you can choose to do, and no way could I love everyone. As for God I know nothing about him, my mind won't accept he could exist especially in the christian sense its not a choice I've made any more than I could choose to believe the earth goes round the sun. By definition because of the way my mind works I'd be set for hell while someone who can live a live with faith agreeing with religious philosophy gets to shack it up with god for eternity (according to religion).. thats whats always botherd me about religion.

I am an Atheist but let us assume, for the sake of intial argument, that God created the universe. I can understand the principle that God said "be" and all of the atoms came into being, the big bang, formation of Galaxies, the earth the oceans, monkeys etc followed afterwards. With this argument however I see it is perfectly possible that the evolution of humans from apes and God and be compatible (otherwise hominid fossils wouldn't be in the earth, what would be the point?). The bit I don't get is that God after creating this huge train set of a universe would he look down on earth and think "people, ooh how intersting". After doing that why would God lay down rules for human beings and answer prayers or care what we do etc.

Plus although we can observe the natural world around us we cannot observe heaven and hell. Why should you assume it exists? The only evidence for this relies on ancient tradition and superstition. It is on this point that I cannot empathise, I may see the point in God, I see no need for religion.


Well, as far as people go, we are here for his greater glory. We exist to know God, which means to love him, serve him, and glorify him. The simplest thing you can say about our purpose is that God put us here to know Him. Rules and the answering of prayers fall under events occuring for His greater glory. Holy and right action is taken up by men who wish to serve God, which is to His glory. Prayers are answered by God so that men my find benefit and then worship Him all the more.

In terms of observation, I believe in heaven and hell because God told me it exists, and I believe God is a being of truth. How do I come to believe that God exists? I believe because man is a selfish creature. We are want to bring comfort to ourselves. As my good friend Sproul once said: The Christian God has some "attractive" features that might incline a person to embrace God as a narcotic to help him face the threatening character of life, but theres are overwhelmingly outweighed by the trauma of encountering God. Though man may desire and create for himself a diety who meets his needs and provides for him innumerable benefits, he will not instinctively desire a God who is holy, omniscient, and sovereign.

Religion in terms of churches and services, exists only as a means of glorifying God. It has no other point. When religion ceases performing that function, then is has no purpose, no point. We could get into a theological discussion on the finer points of the Protestant congregationalist idea, but that is a whole different topic from what you asked about.

Here we go again, I am going to bed now, in the morning there will be about 300 or so answers to this thread. The same old story, so many believe in god, so many don't. How sad.

Well, as far as people go, we are here for his greater glory. We exist to know God, which means to love him, serve him, and glorify him. The simplest thing you can say about our purpose is that God put us here to know Him. Rules and the answering of prayers fall under events occuring for His greater glory. Holy and right action is taken up by men who wish to serve God, which is to His glory. Prayers are answered by God so that men my find benefit and then worship Him all the more.

In terms of observation, I believe in heaven and hell because God told me it exists, and I believe God is a being of truth. How do I come to believe that God exists? I believe because man is a selfish creature. We are want to bring comfort to ourselves. As my good friend Sproul once said: The Christian God has some "attractive" features that might incline a person to embrace God as a narcotic to help him face the threatening character of life, but theres are overwhelmingly outweighed by the trauma of encountering God. Though man may desire and create for himself a diety who meets his needs and provides for him innumerable benefits, he will not instinctively desire a God who is holy, omniscient, and sovereign.

Religion in terms of churches and services, exists only as a means of glorifying God. It has no other point. When religion ceases performing that function, then is has no purpose, no point. We could get into a theological discussion on the finer points of the Protestant congregationalist idea, but that is a whole different topic from what you asked about.

What about man creating a diety that gives them power to control the masses? The diety that works best for that job just happens to be "holy, omniscient, and sovereign"

I see some of these answers as fundamental problems with orthodox Christianity.

1. because life is good and he wants to share it with us: Not really, only a lucky few get nice cushy lives. Just ask the poor Jewish babies that got incinerated in the Holocaust how nice life was for them. This answer seems to neglect the existence of evil in the world. The problem of evil is the greatest crux for Christianity and there are no easy answers for it, at least in orthodox Christianity. (and don't say free will, that does not solve the problem it only complicates it, i can go into more detail if need be)

2. for his greater glory: What sort of egomaniacal, self-centered god would need us to glorify himself? This is a pretty big character flaw, you are essentially attributing pride to God and pride is one of the big 7 mortal sins. Wrath is also often attributed to God and I think this is a issue of people speaking without thinking. If one were to consider the 7 divine attributes (which I might add were attributed by Aquinas and not the Bible) you would find that each of them poses a pretty big theological problem except perhaps for omnipresence.

For myself, I find myself siding with process theology in most issues like this. And process would very humbly say "don't know." Process doesn't nessitate that we are the crown of creation or that our existence plays any real significance in anything. They assume that God is trying something, some grand experiment, but what it is or what our role in it may be is anybody's guess. In that Agnostic vein, God and his (or her, whatever, seems disrespectful to say its) machinations are entirely beyond us.

It's hard for people to accept that we might not be as important as we think (remember Gallileo?) or that there may not be any meaningful existence after death. I have a theory that most Christians are Christians just out of fear of hell and desire for heaven, which is a bad reason morally speaking. I consider myself a Christian, but I think more people should analyze their beliefs rather than swallowing them whole.

(PS Paul is perhaps the worst thing to happen to Christianity. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in any of his writings. John is where it's at.)

Organization indicates intelligence

Eh, not so much, drop iron fillings on a bar magnet, their organization indicates a magnetic field. Nature organizes itself, just not the same way man or some intelligent being might.

And yeah, if you're about to die your mind might not be in the most rational state.
Magnatism isn't random. it works the same every time. I doesn't matter if it's on earth or on Alpha Sentari Just like gravity can be predicted everywhere in the universe. Gravity doesn't happen randomly, sometimes. It happens everytime. That is organization. The more we look the more organization and predictability we see. When we see rocks organized in a building 100 stories high, we say intelligence made that because it is organized, not just a pile of rocks. What is more organized than then nature?

What about man creating a diety that gives them power to control the masses? The diety that works best for that job just happens to be "holy, omniscient, and sovereign"

That would assume that its initial existance was to be accepted. If early Christians hadn't been persecuted, then I would see your point. Christians disrupted the proper order, not with their monotheistic outlook, but with their refusal to adhere to the proper rituals and sacrifices that please the gods. The Christian God couldn't have been created to control the masses, because as a religion it wasn't part of the current authority structure. Now had Jupiter been named omniscient, holy, and sovereign over all, then I would be on your side right now.

You are right that the religion can be corrupted and used as a means of control of the populace, as it was in the Middle Ages. Prior to the Thirty Years War, and a little after it, amoungst the nobles your choice of being Protestant or Catholic was a means of both appeasing your populace and sticking it to your higher ups. True, personal belief was also important, but on a broad scale it was a political tool. It was not created that way, however.

Magnatism isn't random. it works the same every time. I doesn't matter if it's on earth or on Alpha Sentari Just like gravity can be predicted everywhere in the universe. Gravity doesn't happen randomly, sometimes. It happens everytime. That is organization. The more we look the more organization and predictability we see. When we see rocks organized in a building 100 stories high, we say intelligence made that because it is organized, not just a pile of rocks. What is more organized than then nature?


Umm....yeah....that was my point....wasn't it? Magnetic fields are organized and natural. There need not be intelligence to organize something. The difference between a pile of rocks and another pile of rocks man has organized into a building is similar to the difference between graphite and a diamond. It's the way carbon atoms/rocks are organized, and happens with or without intellegence.

That would assume that its initial existance was to be accepted. If early Christians hadn't been persecuted, then I would see your point. Christians disrupted the proper order, not with their monotheistic outlook, but with their refusal to adhere to the proper rituals and sacrifices that please the gods. The Christian God couldn't have been created to control the masses, because as a religion it wasn't part of the current authority structure. Now had Jupiter been named omniscient, holy, and sovereign over all, then I would be on your side right now.

You are right that the religion can be corrupted and used as a means of control of the populace, as it was in the Middle Ages. Prior to the Thirty Years War, and a little after it, amoungst the nobles your choice of being Protestant or Catholic was a means of both appeasing your populace and sticking it to your higher ups. True, personal belief was also important, but on a broad scale it was a political tool. It was not created that way, however.

Eh, you're probably right, I 'm just not so sure "Man is a selfish creature" is a solid enough statment to be good justification that God can't be a man-made concept.

Magnatism isn't random. it works the same every time. I doesn't matter if it's on earth or on Alpha Sentari Just like gravity can be predicted everywhere in the universe. Gravity doesn't happen randomly, sometimes. It happens everytime. That is organization. The more we look the more organization and predictability we see. When we see rocks organized in a building 100 stories high, we say intelligence made that because it is organized, not just a pile of rocks. What is more organized than then nature?

The question then is, what could organize a God? Surely said being must be supremely organized, and therefore must have been created by some incredibly superior intelligence. You see the problem here? Organization implies an organized process, not necessarily an intelligent one.

Eh, you're probably right, I 'm just not so sure "Man is a selfish creature" is a solid enough statment to be good justification that God can't be a man-made concept.

Actually, its justification that God is a man-made concept. Man wants something to comfort him that things will turn out all right, he looks east, sees them doing a pretty good job with Krishna, copies it and applies it to Judaism. Tada, Christianity is born. Still works with selfish motives.

Actually, its justification that God is a man-made concept. Man wants something to comfort him that things will turn out all right, he looks east, sees them doing a pretty good job with Krishna, copies it and applies it to Judaism. Tada, Christianity is born. Still works with selfish motives.

Likely, but what about:

As my good friend Sproul once said: The Christian God has some "attractive" features that might incline a person to embrace God as a narcotic to help him face the threatening character of life, but theres are overwhelmingly outweighed by the trauma of encountering God.

I wouldn't know about the trauma of encountering God...perhaps that can be explained?

Eh, you're probably right, I 'm just not so sure "Man is a selfish creature" is a solid enough statment to be good justification that God can't be a man-made concept.

Well, how is man not a selfish creature, I would ask you? We seek after our own personal comfort and wants. Even acts that are deemed selfless, such as personal sacrifice, deliver to the individual a sense of personal happiness which is indeed comforting. Allowing yourself to die for another could be argued as truly the only non-selfish act a human can perform is the sacrifice of ones own life. Granted, even in this, we must look at the intentions of a person. Perhaps the person sacrificed his/herself because of the feeling that they could not deal with the loss of the person they were sacrificing their life for. It is a point that can be argued from both sides.

You are correct that diety is something that man would desire to go to for answers and comfort, but my argument is that the Christian God cannot, by definition of the nature of the Christian God.

Before I begin, let me say that I can prove most (if not all) of what I say using either the Bible or Science (although some of what I'll say refers to the Bible specifically in response to a previous statement).

First of all, Evolution and Creation cannot be compatible. You must believe all or none of the Bible (as demanded by the Bible itself). If you believe God created the world, you must also believe he created man in His image, and that each species was created specifically. A few points in my favor: 1. many fossiles in "jumbled order", not where they should be according to Evolution's theories. 2. no "missing links" have yet been found that successfully prove Evolution to be true. 3. Many species are built in such a way that the chances of evolving that way are infintesimal, to the point of being nonexistant.

Second, as the Bible says, God created man in His image, as a companion for Him. He also gave us a free will, something none of the animals got (note the instincts which control most animals, including semi-intelligent ones such as dolphins or elephants). He cares for us much like we would care for our own children.

Third, God does answer all prayers. Sometimes he does say no. (for proof I quote James 4:3, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.")

Lastly, just because you cannot see the things of the Spirit (Heaven and Hell, angels, demons, God) doesn't mean they don't exist. You cannot see air, yet we know it is there and can feel it's effects (wind). You cannot see microscopic organisms with the naked eye, yet we know they affect us (diseases). Now, you'd say we can see molecules with electron microscopes, but I give you a spiritual equivalent: 2 Kings 6:17, "And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha."



I apologize for the length of this post. If you'd like to discuss this with me, feel free to telegram me. I probably won't check this thread too often.

Likely, but what about:



I wouldn't know about the trauma of encountering God...perhaps that can be explained?

I think he's trying to say that because the Christian God is all powerful, etc., it is not desirable as a means of comfort. I would say that such a being is more desirable, almost as a sort of parent figure. You want someone who will punish those who you disagree with, reward those you agree with, and make sure that everything comes out all right, and only an omniscient sovereign can do that %100 of the time. Even if said being would not logically be so nice, religion has a long history of ignoring logic. It's part of the selfishness of humanity: if something feels good emotionally, it must be right.

The question then is, what could organize a God? Surely said being must be supremely organized, and therefore must have been created by some incredibly superior intelligence. You see the problem here? Organization implies an organized process, not necessarily an intelligent one.
So how did the process get organized? If it were organized at random it would be different in different places because different random factors would come together in each place. But it's not organized differently, its the same everywhere. What are the odds that the same random factors would come together everywhere in the universe and bring about exactly the same process. The more science looks the more they find the same processes everywhere. So if you were an archeologist looking at a pile of rocks what would you use to determine if you were looking at just a pile of rocks or a wall made by intelligence? What would be the factor that would prove intelligence?

Well, how is man not a selfish creature, I would ask you? We seek after our own personal comfort and wants. Even acts that are deemed selfless, such as personal sacrifice, deliver to the individual a sense of personal happiness which is indeed comforting. Allowing yourself to die for another could be argued as truly the only non-selfish act a human can perform is the sacrifice of ones own life. Granted, even in this, we must look at the intentions of a person. Perhaps the person sacrificed his/herself because of the feeling that they could not deal with the loss of the person they were sacrificing their life for. It is a point that can be argued from both sides.

You are correct that diety is something that man would desire to go to for answers and comfort, but my argument is that the Christian God cannot, by definition of the nature of the Christian God.

So in this definition, is selfishness always a bad thing, when it is only seeking comfort or happiness? If that's the meaning of selfishness, yeah, we are all selfish...but then, isn't God as well? He was satisfied with his work creating stuff, is that why he did it? Anyways, I should see what happens to this Raptor fellow.

You must believe all or none of the Bible (as demanded by the Bible itself).
There's the crunch. If there are parts in the bible that we're not supposed to believe, and that idea is in those parts, then we don't have to believe those parts, hence you don't have to go for the Black and White approach.

The most compelling scripture for that, though, would be in the three Gospels. Can you give just the statements in Matthew, Mark and Luke that back you up on that one?

So how did the process get organized? If it were organized at random it would be different in different places because different random factors would come together in each place. But it's not organized differently, its the same everywhere. What are the odds that the same random factors would come together everywhere in the universe and bring about exactly the same process. The more science looks the more they find the same processes everywhere. So if you were an archeologist looking at a pile of rocks what would you use to determine if you were looking at just a pile of rocks or a wall made by intelligence? What would be the factor that would prove intelligence?

It wouldn't necessarily be organization, I'd look for signs of unnatural machining to the wall.

The processes organized naturally, by nature, without intelligence. And yeah, if you do an experiment, and do it again exactly the same, you'll get the same results.

I am an Atheist but let us assume, for the sake of intial argument, that God created the universe. I can understand the principle that God said "be" and all of the atoms came into being, the big bang, formation of Galaxies, the earth the oceans, monkeys etc followed afterwards. With this argument however I see it is perfectly possible that the evolution of humans from apes and God and be compatible (otherwise hominid fossils wouldn't be in the earth, what would be the point?). The bit I don't get is that God after creating this huge train set of a universe would he look down on earth and think "people, ooh how intersting". After doing that why would God lay down rules for human beings and answer prayers or care what we do etc.

Plus although we can observe the natural world around us we cannot observe heaven and hell. Why should you assume it exists? The only evidence for this relies on ancient tradition and superstition. It is on this point that I cannot empathise, I may see the point in God, I see no need for religion.

Its just a bunch of stupid shit people made up, theres no point trying to make sense of it any more than theres a point trying to work out the logic of santa clause or harry potter. fictional characters can never fully make sense in the context of the real world

Before I begin, let me say that I can prove most (if not all) of what I say using either the Bible or Science (although some of what I'll say refers to the Bible specifically in response to a previous statement).

First of all, Evolution and Creation cannot be compatible. You must believe all or none of the Bible (as demanded by the Bible itself). If you believe God created the world, you must also believe he created man in His image, and that each species was created specifically. A few points in my favor: 1. many fossiles in "jumbled order", not where they should be according to Evolution's theories. 2. no "missing links" have yet been found that successfully prove Evolution to be true. 3. Many species are built in such a way that the chances of evolving that way are infintesimal, to the point of being nonexistant.

Second, as the Bible says, God created man in His image, as a companion for Him. He also gave us a free will, something none of the animals got (note the instincts which control most animals, including semi-intelligent ones such as dolphins or elephants). He cares for us much like we would care for our own children.

Third, God does answer all prayers. Sometimes he does say no. (for proof I quote James 4:3, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.")

Lastly, just because you cannot see the things of the Spirit (Heaven and Hell, angels, demons, God) doesn't mean they don't exist. You cannot see air, yet we know it is there and can feel it's effects (wind). You cannot see microscopic organisms with the naked eye, yet we know they affect us (diseases). Now, you'd say we can see molecules with electron microscopes, but I give you a spiritual equivalent: 2 Kings 6:17, "And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha."



I apologize for the length of this post. If you'd like to discuss this with me, feel free to telegram me. I probably won't check this thread too often.

Even though the topic of this thread has nothing to do with creationism, I'll bite:
You can't believe in the bible literally, as a literal interpretation happens to give Jesus's dad two different fathers. Sorry, does not compute.

1.That's exactly the kind of thing that would actually disprove evolution, and it hasn't been found yet.
2.Every fossil is a missing link.
3.Every species that people say this about, scientists in the next few decades at most find how it evolved. Example: the eye.

You can feel wind. You cannot sense hell in any way shape or form until you're there.

Finally, please be more original next time, I might get to think of new arguments before posting.

So how did the process get organized? If it were organized at random it would be different in different places because different random factors would come together in each place. But it's not organized differently, its the same everywhere. What are the odds that the same random factors would come together everywhere in the universe and bring about exactly the same process. The more science looks the more they find the same processes everywhere. So if you were an archeologist looking at a pile of rocks what would you use to determine if you were looking at just a pile of rocks or a wall made by intelligence? What would be the factor that would prove intelligence?

The process can get organized by another process, and etc. That's the advantage scientific explanations have over theological ones. Different emerging systems would probably cancel eachother out, or universes would form around laws rather than the other way around. A scientist looking at said pile of rocks would say it was formed by sociological processes that were formed by neurological processes that were formed by evolutionary processes, etc. One of those processes happens to be what we call intelligent, but another, similar process could fit just as well. In our world intelligence does said things, while it usually doesn't structure diamonds, for example.

Before I begin, let me say that I can prove most (if not all) of what I say using either the Bible or Science (although some of what I'll say refers to the Bible specifically in response to a previous statement).


Well, the Bible isn't exactly a source for proff, and science doesn't prove, it can only support, or disprove.

First of all, Evolution and Creation cannot be compatible. You must believe all or none of the Bible (as demanded by the Bible itself). If you believe God created the world, you must also believe he created man in His image, and that each species was created specifically. Eh, sure.


A few points in my favor: 1. many fossiles in "jumbled order", not where they should be according to Evolution's theories. 2. no "missing links" have yet been found that successfully prove Evolution to be true. 3. Many species are built in such a way that the chances of evolving that way are infintesimal, to the point of being nonexistant.

1. Yeah...there's these things....called earthquakes....massive portions of land shifting, rising, cracking, flipping.

2. And because evolution hasn't been absolutely, totally, irrefutably and 100% proved right now at this exact moment, the other theory with out any real-world evidence is the better choice

3. And these species are?

Second, as the Bible says, God created man in His image, as a companion for Him. He also gave us a free will, something none of the animals got (note the instincts which control most animals, including semi-intelligent ones such as dolphins or elephants). He cares for us much like we would care for our own children.

Point being? Great for a sunday school class, where the bible is infallible.

Third, God does answer all prayers. Sometimes he does say no. (for proof I quote James 4:3, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.")

Again, we've got a lot of "because the bible says" points here

Lastly, just because you cannot see the things of the Spirit (Heaven and Hell, angels, demons, God) doesn't mean they don't exist. You cannot see air, yet we know it is there and can feel it's effects (wind). You cannot see microscopic organisms with the naked eye, yet we know they affect us (diseases).

And my point is in your statment, micro-organisms and wind have an effect on us, where are the effects of the spirit?

Now, you'd say we can see molecules with electron microscopes, but I give you a spiritual equivalent: 2 Kings 6:17, "And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha."

And I reiterate, point being?



I apologize for the length of this post. If you'd like to discuss this with me, feel free to telegram me. I probably won't check this thread too often.

Dangit. I wait till now to read the end, I already typed everything.

You cannot sense hell in any way shape or form until you're there.
Ooh, au contraire. Hell is nothing more than the epitomy of earthly despair. You know that whole "Better have your eye removed than your whole body be cast into hell" quote? Put simply, Hell is a translation from the Greek name Gehenna; a burning refuse pit where people chucked their garbage and, apparently, "pagans" sacrificed people by chucking them in there. The idea of being given as a sacrifice to further the aims of followers of another God is seen as the worst kind of death possible.

The whole statement is one of earthly consequence; you sin and people will use you, deface your values and leave you a broken hulk of a man.

It's very much possible to sense Hell. People live in their own personal hells all the time nowadays. You just need to know what you're looking for.

First of all, Evolution and Creation cannot be compatible. You must believe all or none of the Bible (as demanded by the Bible itself). If you believe God created the world, you must also believe he created man in His image, and that each species was created specifically. A few points in my favor: 1. many fossiles in "jumbled order", not where they should be according to Evolution's theories. 2. no "missing links" have yet been found that successfully prove Evolution to be true. 3. Many species are built in such a way that the chances of evolving that way are infintesimal, to the point of being nonexistant. So you are saying that God doesn't talk in parables that are easier for people to understand? Since God doesn't change, if he spoke in parables in the NT then he would not do the same in the OT? What makes you think Genesis isn't a parable? 2. Don't know what "missing links" you are looking for. Every time a scientist turns a spoon of dirt the links are filled in. Do you mean you would only accept the original of 10 million steps? Well the original at each step is one creature. You want to find that one creature for every step? Sorry but most creatures rot not turn into rock. I recommend that you read "National Geographic" Nov. 2004. it gives detail on "missing links" that have been found.

Second, as the Bible says, God created man in His image, as a companion for Him. He also gave us a free will, something none of the animals got (note the instincts which control most animals, including semi-intelligent ones such as dolphins or elephants). He cares for us much like we would care for our own children. I agree 100%

Third, God does answer all prayers. Sometimes he does say no. (for proof I quote James 4:3, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.")
A parent praying for a dieing child is doing it for their lusts? Just one of millions of unanswered prayers. Jesus always answered requests and always gave the person what they asked for. This is something I will discuss with God someday.

Lastly, just because you cannot see the things of the Spirit (Heaven and Hell, angels, demons, God) doesn't mean they don't exist. You cannot see air, yet we know it is there and can feel it's effects (wind). You cannot see microscopic organisms with the naked eye, yet we know they affect us (diseases). Now, you'd say we can see molecules with electron microscopes, but I give you a spiritual equivalent: 2 Kings 6:17, "And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha." I'll agree with this also.

Ooh, au contraire. Hell is nothing more than the epitomy of earthly despair. You know that whole "Better have your eye removed than your whole body be cast into hell" quote? Put simply, Hell is a translation from the Greek name Gehenna; a burning refuse pit where people chucked their garbage and, apparently, "pagans" sacrificed people by chucking them in there. The idea of being given as a sacrifice to further the aims of followers of another God is seen as the worst kind of death possible.

The whole statement is one of earthly consequence; you sin and people will use you, deface your values and leave you a broken hulk of a man.

It's very much possible to sense Hell. People live in their own personal hells all the time nowadays. You just need to know what you're looking for.


So...it couldn't just be having a problem or some in life? No one's life is perfect, why would they be?

The process can get organized by another process, and etc. That's the advantage scientific explanations have over theological ones. Different emerging systems would probably cancel eachother out, or universes would form around laws rather than the other way around. A scientist looking at said pile of rocks would say it was formed by sociological processes that were formed by neurological processes that were formed by evolutionary processes, etc. One of those processes happens to be what we call intelligent, but another, similar process could fit just as well. In our world intelligence does said things, while it usually doesn't structure diamonds, for example.
The problem is when you leave it up to a process you get different answers in different places. That is why the animals are different on every continent. But the more science looks at the universe, the more they see that the basic laws or processes are the same everywhere. The laws of gravity are the same 10 million light years from earth as they are on earth. the laws of chemistry, physics---you name a scientific area. Put the same heat and pressure on carbon for the same length of time and you will always get a diamond. In fact, science makes diamonds and it works every time. The result is never random. If we find diamonds on Mars, we will know what made it. There is NO randomness in the laws of the universe. Science didn't evolve differently anywhere that we have looked. Had it been mindless, would this be true?

...
(PS Paul is perhaps the worst thing to happen to Christianity. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in any of his writings. John is where it's at.)

I'm a fan of Ringo myself. ;)

I'd say I'm a believer in God, but not necessarily in the bible or particular religions' interpretations of it. One thing that confuses me is that 'Jesus died to take away the sins of the world' bit. God is all powerful, why doesn't he just snap his fingers and boom, sins forgiven? Why does he need to send his son down to die on the cross for that to happen?

The problem is when you leave it up to a process you get different answers in different places. That is why the animals are different on every continent. But the more science looks at the universe, the more they see that the basic laws or processes are the same everywhere. The laws of gravity are the same 10 million light years from earth as they are on earth. the laws of chemistry, physics---you name a scientific area. Put the same heat and pressure on carbon for the same length of time and you will always get a diamond. In fact, science makes diamonds and it works every time. The result is never random. If we find diamonds on Mars, we will know what made it. There is NO randomness in the laws of the universe. Science didn't evolve differently anywhere that we have looked. Had it been mindless, would this be true?

Well, yeah, it would be. It is. The reasoning "when you leave it up to a process you get different answers in different places" doesn't seem quite right. What do animals have to do with gravity? It's not a very good comparison. Animals are different because the environment is different, repeat an expriment with the same variables, same result. Change one or more variables, change the result. The result is never random because the variables are never random. Science/physics doesn't "evolve" these laws are like that because matter is like that, naturally, and our universe is composed of matter, and these natural laws, can cause natural organization, without intelligence. What point are you tring to make here? If no one guided the laws of physics, they would change throughout the universe? Where's the basis for that again? What changes about other parts of the universe that should change the laws of science?

Well, yeah, it would be. It is. The reasoning "when you leave it up to a process you get different answers in different places" doesn't seem quite right. What do animals have to do with gravity? It's not a very good comparison. Animals are different because the environment is different, repeat an expriment with the same variables, same result. Change one or more variables, change the result. The result is never random because the variables are never random. Science/physics doesn't "evolve" these laws are like that because matter is like that, naturally, and our universe is composed of matter, and these natural laws, can cause natural organization, without intelligence. What point are you tring to make here? If no one guided the laws of physics, they would change throughout the universe? Where's the basis for that again? What changes about other parts of the universe that should change the laws of science?
I agree with nearly everything you say.

So how did the laws of nature develop is such a way that they would be the same everywhere?

I agree with nearly everything you say.

So how did the laws of nature develop is such a way that they would be the same everywhere?

Well, the laws of nature really just describe the way matter act/interacts with other matter, so really the laws of nature develop based on matter, and as long as matter is the same everywhere, wouldn't it have the same properties (and subsequently, the same actions/interactions) everywhere?

Now, as far as we know there could be areas in the universe consisting of...anti-matter for example, with different laws of nature than here, but one can assume that matter here will be the same as matter elsewhere in the universe.

I'm a fan of Ringo myself. ;)

I'd say I'm a believer in God, but not necessarily in the bible or particular religions' interpretations of it. One thing that confuses me is that 'Jesus died to take away the sins of the world' bit. God is all powerful, why doesn't he just snap his fingers and boom, sins forgiven? Why does he need to send his son down to die on the cross for that to happen?

ahaaa... that's true... that's true.... I am a christian myself.... and many question arised for me also. God knows everything, right ??.. and powerfull, right ??.. and why was God testing adam and eve ??.. why God put that damn apple tree in the middle of the garden so the snake can persue eve to eat apple and share it with adam ??.. is God create Earth just for fun ??.. 'cause He create eve and adam in paradaise garden and when they committed sin by eat that apple, God throw them in the earth. So earth is God's trash can ?? Why don't He just forgive adam and eve (He is forgiveness, right ?), kill that evil snake and cut or move that apple tree or even build protection for that tree and *snap* adam and eve back to they mind where they can't see the different between rigth and wrong. God is so powerfull, He can do anything that He wish.

So the whole thing is like when I played The Sims and Sim City.. I create everything, test it, try one or two things and see if everything goes right or wrong. I can fix it or even make it worst... hell, I can do almost anything. I can even kill my own creation....

sorry, should I make this reply in the new thread ??.. :D

Three lines with Three twists,
Who can't read as well will fear
for my life can not be real.

Three lines with Three twists
Who can't read as well will fear
for my life can not be real


*Whiff* Woah! Something just flew way over my head. What does that mean?

Well it seems to me you got the basics. If you can look at nature and see a creator you have seen God. That's in the writings of Paul. Can't give you en exact quote right now.

The evidence in nature is the complete organization. Everywhere, gravity is gravity, water is water, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics. Even under the "chaos theory", the only reason something seems like chaos is because we don't know all of the inputs. The more inputs we learn the more organized nature is. If we knew all of the inputs we could predict the exact spot every drop of rain would fall.


This is why a Christian God cannot exist. The brain is just another one of those inputs in chaos theory, what is it made of -- Chemicals and electrical signals sent along neurons (yes--it's more complicated than that) but let's assume for the sake of the argument, you're god and you know all of the inputs... That makes life pre-detirmined. And how could God condemn you for something he knew you were predetirmined to do from the start?

EDIT: To continue the argument... that means there could be no hell, because an all good God could not condemn you for something you were pre-detirmined to do, thus what is the point of life with a God in the picture if we have to go to heaven? Where's the point of us proving ourselves to him...

*Whiff* Woah! Something just flew way over my head. What does that mean?
What does "something just flew way over my head" mean?

What does "something just flew way over my head" mean?

I didn't understand it.

I didn't understand it.
Yes, I know.
But what is the whiff*whoa! thing over head?
You were actually scared while reading that by something flying over your head?

*Whiff* Woah! Something just flew way over my head. What does that mean?
It is obviously a riddle...

Three lines with Three twists
Who can't read as well will fear
for my life can not be real
Three lines with three twists might be a hexagram. In this case, the 'fear' would be a result of not knowing (reading) what it means. It is a symbol of "as above, so below," which utilizes the symbolic "self" (my life).

Is that close?

Magnatism isn't random. it works the same every time. I doesn't matter if it's on earth or on Alpha Sentari Just like gravity can be predicted everywhere in the universe. Gravity doesn't happen randomly, sometimes. It happens everytime. That is organization. The more we look the more organization and predictability we see. When we see rocks organized in a building 100 stories high, we say intelligence made that because it is organized, not just a pile of rocks. What is more organized than then nature?Makes me wonder: is there anything more organized than God?

Probability for something drops exponentially the more complex it is, right?

Is that close?
Dunno, found it in an old book... Tought it had something to do with the devil (666 are 3 lines with 3 twists maybe?) or magic... You guys have fun sorting that out, I'll be asleep. ;)

Dunno, found it in an old book... Tought it had something to do with the devil (666 are 3 lines with 3 twists maybe?) or magic... You guys have fun sorting that out, I'll be asleep. ;)
Rotfl!

I agree with nearly everything you say.

So how did the laws of nature develop is such a way that they would be the same everywhere?

As I said earlier, a universe forms out of a set of laws, not the other way around. One area has laws of physics that work like so, so it forms a universe with laws of physics like so. Another area has different laws of physics, so it forms a different universe. Said universes, even just because of size, are almost impossible to detect from vantage points inside eachother. We ended up in a nice universe because "nice" universes are those that eventually produce us.

Actually, its justification that God is a man-made concept. Man wants something to comfort him that things will turn out all right, he looks east, sees them doing a pretty good job with Krishna, copies it and applies it to Judaism. Tada, Christianity is born. Still works with selfish motives.

interesting.. i study krishna versus xtianity, actually. and i've found that the similarities are uncanny. krishna's been around at least 5,000 years. the idea of jesus seems definitely to stem from haré.. so much so that i've gotten really, really odd feelings about it as i've been studying. i'm not sure that god is a man-made concept.. i mean..

LIFE COMES FROM LIFE !! !! !! !! !!

Vegetarianistica']interesting.. i study krishna versus xtianity, actually. and i've found that the similarities are uncanny. krishna's been around at least 5,000 years. the idea of jesus seems definitely to stem from haré.. so much so that i've gotten really, really odd feelings about it as i've been studying. i'm not sure that god is a man-made concept.. i mean..

LIFE COMES FROM LIFE !! !! !! !! !!

The similarities between Krishna and Christ go beyond just general flavour stuff. I think there's a city that serves a certain role in the Christ mythos and a city with almost the same name serving the same role in the Krishna mythos. There's quite a bit of evidence that there was some copying going on.

Makes me wonder: is there anything more organized than God?

Probability for something drops exponentially the more complex it is, right?
You're right. That is why it is amazing that the more science looks into any factor of nature the more organized and consistant it is. Why should light always be the same, gravity always follow the same laws everywhere, chemistry and physics be the same everywhere, always? The more organized something is, the more likely that it was formed by intelligence.

Well, the laws of nature really just describe the way matter act/interacts with other matter, so really the laws of nature develop based on matter, and as long as matter is the same everywhere, wouldn't it have the same properties (and subsequently, the same actions/interactions) everywhere?

Now, as far as we know there could be areas in the universe consisting of...anti-matter for example, with different laws of nature than here, but one can assume that matter here will be the same as matter elsewhere in the universe.
And why is matter the same everywhere science looks? Why isn't it random instead of organized and consistant?

And why is matter the same everywhere science looks? Why isn't it random instead of organized and consistant?

Matter is fairly random... if you look on large enough, or small enough scale.

It is somewhat of a human vanity to assume that everything within the scope of our eyes has some overshadowing significance.

However, thus far matter seems to be 'governed' by universal rules... but why shouldn't it be? If it all originated in 'the same place' and/or 'at the same time'... it is only to be expected that there should be profound similarities.

You're right. That is why it is amazing that the more science looks into any factor of nature the more organized and consistant it is. Why should light always be the same, gravity always follow the same laws everywhere, chemistry and physics be the same everywhere, always? The more organized something is, the more likely that it was formed by intelligence.Meaning that God is infinitely complex.

ahaaa... that's true... that's true.... I am a christian myself.... and many question arised for me also. God knows everything, right ??.. and powerfull, right ??.. and why was God testing adam and eve ??.. why God put that damn apple tree in the middle of the garden so the snake can persue eve to eat apple and share it with adam ??.. is God create Earth just for fun ??.. 'cause He create eve and adam in paradaise garden and when they committed sin by eat that apple, God throw them in the earth. So earth is God's trash can ?? Why don't He just forgive adam and eve (He is forgiveness, right ?), kill that evil snake and cut or move that apple tree or even build protection for that tree and *snap* adam and eve back to they mind where they can't see the different between rigth and wrong. God is so powerfull, He can do anything that He wish.

So the whole thing is like when I played The Sims and Sim City.. I create everything, test it, try one or two things and see if everything goes right or wrong. I can fix it or even make it worst... hell, I can do almost anything. I can even kill my own creation....

sorry, should I make this reply in the new thread ??.. :D
I see the passage as a parable or explanation that humans can understand of how the human animal became aware of "good and evil". I also see it as a parable of how a human grows in understanding of "good and evil" individually.

As humans evolved, at some point, they became the only animal that became aware of "good and evil". When they reached that point of development they became something far different than any other animal. What else do we have that animals don't have? Animals live in a type of paradise where they don't have to worry about the "right thing" vs. "me/now". Animals always operate at the "me/now" level.

At the same time, babies are nothing more than animals. They grow without a knowledge of "good and evil". They totally operate at the "me/now" level. But as they age, there comes a time where they realize "good and evil". This is at a different point for everyone. When they reach that point, they begin to do evil when they choose to do what they know is not good. From then on, they will have left the paradise of childhood and entered the "real world" where they will have to constantly choose between "right thing" and "me/now".

This is why a Christian God cannot exist. The brain is just another one of those inputs in chaos theory, what is it made of -- Chemicals and electrical signals sent along neurons (yes--it's more complicated than that) but let's assume for the sake of the argument, you're god and you know all of the inputs... That makes life pre-detirmined. And how could God condemn you for something he knew you were predetirmined to do from the start?

EDIT: To continue the argument... that means there could be no hell, because an all good God could not condemn you for something you were pre-detirmined to do, thus what is the point of life with a God in the picture if we have to go to heaven? Where's the point of us proving ourselves to him...
The thing that took away "predetermined" is the human animal developed a knowledge of "right and wrong". Something no other animal did. With the knowledge of "right and wrong" came the choice to not follow nature. An animal has no choice of "right and wrong". An animal purely follows naure. An animal's life is predetermined to the point that they have no choice but to follow nature. By not following nature, man became the true chaos creature. The one random factor. The one unorganized creature.

The thing that took away "predetermined" is the human animal developed a knowledge of "right and wrong". Something no other animal did. With the knowledge of "right and wrong" came the choice to not follow nature. An animal has no choice of "right and wrong". An animal purely follows naure. An animal's life is predetermined to the point that they have no choice but to follow nature. By not following nature, man became the true chaos creature. The one random factor. The one unorganized creature.
God and everthing else we "know" we have arbitrarily created our selves. As far as we can "know" anyway.

Matter is fairly random... if you look on large enough, or small enough scale.

It is somewhat of a human vanity to assume that everything within the scope of our eyes has some overshadowing significance.
The problem is we are not looking at similarities we are looking at total sameness. If there were only similarities then there would be exceptions. The more we look, we find no exceptions.

However, thus far matter seems to be 'governed' by universal rules... but why shouldn't it be? If it all originated in 'the same place' and/or 'at the same time'... it is only to be expected that there should be profound similarities.
Universal rules that didn't evolve over billions of years, billions of miles, billions of conditions?

It is somewhat of a human vanity to assume that everything within the scope of our eyes has some overshadowing significance.
Not vanity! no, no, no.... it is survival.

The "world" is of prominent importance.

You're right. That is why it is amazing that the more science looks into any factor of nature the more organized and consistant it is. Why should light always be the same, gravity always follow the same laws everywhere, chemistry and physics be the same everywhere, always?
Um... because it is?

If it was something different, it wouldn't be.

It's like asking, I wonder what a zerba would be without stripes? (a white horse??)

The more organized something is, the more likely that it was formed by intelligence.

God and everthing else we "know" we have arbitrarily created our selves. As far as we can "know" anyway.
Or... perhaps our "selves" were created as a result of everything we know? (i.e. a result of having a subjective perspective of the world).

Or... perhaps our "selves" were created as a result of everything we know? (i.e. a result of having a subjective perspective of the world).
I was thinking more along the lines that we want there to be order, therefore we struggle to find it. We actually teach each other how to see this, and that perpetuates the systems we have in place to explain everthing around us.

The problem is we are not looking at similarities we are looking at total sameness. If there were only similarities then there would be exceptions. The more we look, we find no exceptions.


I use the term similarity because I lack the 'faith' that would be required to state 'total sameness, universal'... especially when I've seen so little of 'everything'.

Allegorically: All my fish started in the same place. I fished them all out of my pond, and my wife ran around and hid them around the house.

Then, I went and looked for them.

I rapidly found what I think were ALL of the fishes... largely because they leave wet-patches on the furniture, so I know what I'm looking for.

But - how can that be? ALL of the fish I found were wet? Surely, just because they ALL came from a wet environment, they can't ALL be wet, unless it was by divine interference?

Also - because I'm not sure HOW MANY fish were caught... I'm not even sure if I found them all. I seem to have, but there is ALWAYS the possibility that ONE fish was NOT wet, and I didn't find it because it didn't leave the tell-tale wet-patch?


Universal rules that didn't evolve over billions of years, billions of miles, billions of conditions?

Why would they? If gravity effects are determined by mass, for example, and mass is determined by atomic 'weight'... and atomic structures are so consistent because they are stable... then gravitational effects remain pretty much constant forever... until protons decide they want nuclear autonomy...

Not vanity! no, no, no.... it is survival.

The "world" is of prominent importance.

To us.

It is hubris to imagine that significance extends beyond our little human existence.

It's like asking, I wonder what a zerba would be without stripes? (a white horse??)

Nah ... different species ...

Zebra: Equus boehmi

Domestic Horse: Equus caballus

Nah ... different species ...

Zebra: Equus boehmi

Domestic Horse: Equus caballus

Tastes different, too.

Though, that could have been the garlic...

Tastes different, too.

Though, that could have been the garlic...

Oh yeah ... gotta be careful with that ... the true Zebra is a bit gamey and too much garlic will enhance that. Try more lime and onion with a hint of chilis (jalapenos or chipotle).

Horse is best left mild with a nice basil and cilantro herb sauce.

Oh yeah ... gotta be careful with that ... the true Zebra is a bit gamey and too much garlic will enhance that. Try more lime and onion with a hint of chilis (jalapenos or chipotle).

Horse is best left mild with a nice basil and cilantro herb sauce.

*sigh* Like I wasn't already hungry... :(

*sigh* Like I wasn't already hungry... :(

*eep*

Sorry ...

*hands G&I a Martini*

Hope that helps.

*eep*

Sorry ...

*hands G&I a Martini*

Hope that helps.

Never say no to a Martini. (The original 'handing' made more sense after my eyes informed my brain it was misreading a word... I was NOT being handed a 'martian'...)

Now, I just need to hunt me some horse. Hmmm. It's about Possum-time around here, actually.... where's me garlic?

Never say no to a Martini.

That proves you're a fine man of good caliber.

It's about Possum-time around here, actually.... where's me garlic?


NOOOOO!!!!!

Possum is to be seasoned with cracked pepper and cumin. Not garlic. Garlic would overpower the subtle flavor of possum! Oh ... and don't forget the fresh basil ... sweet basil ... not the Italian kind.

NOOOOO!!!!!

Possum is to be seasoned with cracked pepper and cumin. Not garlic. Garlic would overpower the subtle flavor of possum! Oh ... and don't forget the fresh basil ... sweet basil ... not the Italian kind.

I just like garlic. I'd put garlic in ice-cream... if I ate ice-cream...

I just like garlic. I'd put garlic in ice-cream... if I ate ice-cream...


True ... it's like I always tell my wife ... "There's no such thing as 'too much' garlic."

The evidence in nature is the complete organization. Everywhere, gravity is gravity, water is water, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics.
This is a non-statement; a tautological peice of meaningless semantics. Of course gravity is gravity; otherwise it wouldn't be gravity!

Even under the "chaos theory", the only reason something seems like chaos is because we don't know all of the inputs. The more inputs we learn the more organized nature is. If we knew all of the inputs we could predict the exact spot every drop of rain would fall.
I'm open to correction, since I'm no expert on chaos theory, but I don't think this is the case. Chaos theory postulates that certain events are inherently unpredictable and random, not that we simply don't yet understand all the inputs.

What does this have to do with "God"? Organization indicates intelligence. When an archeologist looks at a pile of rocks, s/he determines if they are a manmade wall or a pile or rocks by whether they are organized. If organized, it took intelligence to organize them. So, isn't it interesting that the more science looks, the more organization they see?
This is an unfounded assumption and logical fallacy. It just so happens that human intelligence is capable of organising things (within limits), but it does not follow from that that all organisation occurs in that way. Human beings can organize some things within the laws of nature, but there is not the slightest peice of evidence that intelligence could organise, let alone did organise, anything as fundamental as the laws of nature themselves.

The argument that "we can organise things with intelligence therefore all organisation must be a product of intelligence" is like a bird arguing that "we fly with natural-grown feathered wings, therefore everything which flies must have feathered wings". It shows a serious failure of observation and imagination.

God made a table(the Universe) and placed clockwork things on it(men, animals, et cetera). He watches to see what will happen. some bump into each other and break, some fall off.. some get caught up in each other, and form new mechanisms. We are a puzzle, a simulation for him to watch, for his amusement.

He does not interfere, because then the outcome is known. He does not think about what outcome may happen, because then he would know, and the fun would be lost.

Cynical? Yeah. that idea is..

God made the universe, is the universe, and placed us in it. It gave us free will and curiousity so that we will seek and learn. As we come to understand ourselves and the universe, we slowly come to understand (and meet) God.
The Universe self organizes so that we may take discrete steps towards God.

It is a sin to ignore and not explore new knowledge. Those bound in 4000 year old scripture are not getting the picture(keep it, but dont think its the whole and final answer).

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive... I like em both.

Why should light always be the same, gravity always follow the same laws everywhere, chemistry and physics be the same everywhere, always?
1) For the same sort of reason that the structure of DNA is the same in all terrestrial life - it all came from the same place, in the same process.

2) Because gravity is defined as a force which follows certain laws. Something which doesn't follow those same laws (e.g. electromagnetism) isn't called gravity.

The more organized something is, the more likely that it was formed by intelligence.
On what do you base this? The fact that on one puny little planet, one little species is able to use intelligence to organise some things? In all the universe, humanity is the only example of advanced intelligence we have : a sample of one proves nothing.

Also, the only intelligence we know (ourselves) can only organise things within the limits of their natural behaviour. The organisation of the nature and laws of the universe is an entirely different type of organisation from the mere re-arrangement of things within those laws, and the evidence that intelligence would be capable of such organisation, let alone that it performed it, is exactly zero.

EDIT : Also, intelligence itself is a form of organisation. Whether you think, as I do, that it is an organisation of synapses and neurons in the brain or whether you think it is something else, it is organised : it cannot be chaos. Therefore, God must be organised, and if organisation must be created by intelligence, then some other (organised) intelligence must have created God, and some other intelligence must have created that intelligence, and so on and so on. You're left with in infiinte impossibility : somewhere along the line, an original organised intelligence must have come into being without having been created by intelligence itself, which is exactly what you say can't happen.

The problem is when you leave it up to a process you get different answers in different places. That is why the animals are different on every continent. But the more science looks at the universe, the more they see that the basic laws or processes are the same everywhere. The laws of gravity are the same 10 million light years from earth as they are on earth. the laws of chemistry, physics---you name a scientific area. Put the same heat and pressure on carbon for the same length of time and you will always get a diamond. In fact, science makes diamonds and it works every time. The result is never random. If we find diamonds on Mars, we will know what made it. There is NO randomness in the laws of the universe. Science didn't evolve differently anywhere that we have looked. Had it been mindless, would this be true?
Perhaps by its very nature, a universe is "an entity which is held together by a coherent and consistent set of laws". Scientists do postulate that there may be places where other laws apply, but, by definition, they cannot be part of our universe, and therefore we cannot see them.

Well, how is man not a selfish creature, I would ask you? We seek after our own personal comfort and wants. Even acts that are deemed selfless, such as personal sacrifice, deliver to the individual a sense of personal happiness which is indeed comforting. Allowing yourself to die for another could be argued as truly the only non-selfish act a human can perform is the sacrifice of ones own life. Granted, even in this, we must look at the intentions of a person. Perhaps the person sacrificed his/herself because of the feeling that they could not deal with the loss of the person they were sacrificing their life for. It is a point that can be argued from both sides.
This assumes that we act rationally and that our driving force is the well-being of overselves as human beiings. Current scientific thinking suggests otherwise : in acts of altruism and self-sacrifice, we are acting on instinct (which our minds merely rationalise), and the driving force of the instinct is not our own well-being as human beings, but the well-being and survival of our genes. Hence the commonest form of self-sacrifice is for other members of our family (especially parents for children), although the presence of the instinct, and our evolution into mutually dependent social groups, also leads us to sacrifice for others too.

To us.

It is hubris to imagine that significance extends beyond our little human existence.
No offense, but who else is there? :)

'Significance' is importance with meaning. It requires there be someone to appreciate it.

1) For the same sort of reason that the structure of DNA is the same in all terrestrial life - it all came from the same place, in the same process.
Agreed---Ain't that strange?

2) Because gravity is defined as a force which follows certain laws. Something which doesn't follow those same laws (e.g. electromagnetism) isn't called gravity. But why the same everywhere?


On what do you base this? The fact that on one puny little planet, one little species is able to use intelligence to organise some things? In all the universe, humanity is the only example of advanced intelligence we have : a sample of one proves nothing. Also, the only intelligence we know (ourselves) can only organise things within the limits of their natural behaviour. The organisation of the nature and laws of the universe is an entirely different type of organisation from the mere re-arrangement of things within those laws, and the evidence that intelligence would be capable of such organisation, let alone that it performed it, is exactly zero. So, how could randomness be capable of such organization? How many times would you roll the dice to get the organization observed by science in EVERYTHING--Without one exception--- in the universe?

EDIT : Also, intelligence itself is a form of organisation. Whether you think, as I do, that it is an organisation of synapses and neurons in the brain or whether you think it is something else, it is organised : it cannot be chaos. Agreed Therefore, God must be organised, and if organisation must be created by intelligence, then some other (organised) intelligence must have created God, and some other intelligence must have created that intelligence, and so on and so on. You're left with in infiinte impossibility : somewhere along the line, an original organised intelligence must have come into being without having been created by intelligence itself, which is exactly what you say can't happen.
Agree with most. Don't know where the ultimate intelligence came from. But then you don't know where the laws of nature came from. I guess we can agree that it came from the same place.

This is an unfounded assumption and logical fallacy. It just so happens that human intelligence is capable of organising things (within limits), but it does not follow from that that all organisation occurs in that way. Human beings can organize some things within the laws of nature, but there is not the slightest peice of evidence that intelligence could organise, let alone did organise, anything as fundamental as the laws of nature themselves.

The argument that "we can organise things with intelligence therefore all organisation must be a product of intelligence" is like a bird arguing that "we fly with natural-grown feathered wings, therefore everything which flies must have feathered wings". It shows a serious failure of observation and imagination.
So let's say you're an archeologist out digging in the dirt. How would you know if a pile of rocks is a pile of rocks or a building? What things indicate to you that intelligence has acted on any given item?

No offense, but who else is there? :)

'Significance' is importance with meaning. It requires there be someone to appreciate it.

I think you might have misunderstood my post... I'm saying it MIGHT seem 'significant' to us... but outside of our perspective, it may mean nothing.

Or - am I misunderstanding your understanding of my post....:)

I am an Atheist but let us assume, for the sake of intial argument, that God created the universe. I can understand the principle that God said "be" and all of the atoms came into being, the big bang, formation of Galaxies, the earth the oceans, monkeys etc followed afterwards. With this argument however I see it is perfectly possible that the evolution of humans from apes and God and be compatible (otherwise hominid fossils wouldn't be in the earth, what would be the point?). The bit I don't get is that God after creating this huge train set of a universe would he look down on earth and think "people, ooh how intersting". After doing that why would God lay down rules for human beings and answer prayers or care what we do etc.

Plus although we can observe the natural world around us we cannot observe heaven and hell. Why should you assume it exists? The only evidence for this relies on ancient tradition and superstition. It is on this point that I cannot empathise, I may see the point in God, I see no need for religion.I agree with you, though i'm a theist. But look at the sheer WONDER of the world and the cosmos. It's almost magic. In my opinion God must exist...but I still belive in evolution.

To be fair I'm not entirely sure why God made people in the first place.
We're just a big game of SimEarth on God's computer. :)

I am still confused by this issue. Why would God care if he worship him or not. That is the question know one has answered.

I'll be frank, I think even if he does exist he doesn't care but religion exists because its a nice way of controlling society, for people to act in the general good or on behalf of a leader. The question is, should we, the enlightened few, seek to control it for the happiness of the masses or seek to destroy it as a lie?

The point the OP brought up seems one of the greatest reasons why evolution at least of humans is sort of silly when you throw God into the explanation, the question would have to be asked as to why God would want things to sit around for a couple hundred billion years before He could actually start making Himself known to something else that is concious. Yea, the Bible says that time, to God, can really be anything to Him no matter how long something really took, but there still doesn't seem to be much reason for all that time to be there in between creation and humans.

The point the OP brought up seems one of the greatest reasons why evolution at least of humans is sort of silly when you throw God into the explanation, the question would have to be asked as to why God would want things to sit around for a couple hundred billion years before He could actually start making Himself known to something else that is concious. Yea, the Bible says that time, to God, can really be anything to Him no matter how long something really took, but there still doesn't seem to be much reason for all that time to be there in between creation and humans.

If god is infinite, eternal and omnipotent.... doesn't it seem MORE unlikely that he'd feel the need to make everything out of mud, in a literal week?

If god is infinite, eternal and omnipotent.... doesn't it seem MORE unlikely that he'd feel the need to make everything out of mud, in a literal week?

Sure, but mud is not the sum total of the foundations of the universe, it's all Quantum Physics, and that's much more complicated than simple mud. Plus, think about it, if God had tried to explain to Moses how He made the universe on a quantum level and went through everything about valence electrons and probability charts and the structure of atoms, not only would it of been pretty unnecessary, but who back then is going to be able to understand all that kind of stuff? God keeping the explanation of how He made the universe simple is probably a good thing, otherwise the Bible would be like the size of a building.

Sure, but mud is not the sum total of the foundations of the universe, it's all Quantum Physics, and that's much more complicated than simple mud. Plus, think about it, if God had tried to explain to Moses how He made the universe on a quantum level and went through everything about valence electrons and probability charts and the structure of atoms, not only would it of been pretty unnecessary, but who back then is going to be able to understand all that kind of stuff? God keeping the explanation of how He made the universe simple is probably a good thing, otherwise the Bible would be like the size of a building.

So - you can coceive of a god that can create the universe on a whim, but not teach pre-college science?

I think you might have misunderstood my post... I'm saying it MIGHT seem 'significant' to us... but outside of our perspective, it may mean nothing.

Or - am I misunderstanding your understanding of my post....:)
I understood, and I think you did too. My point is that "outside of our perspective" is relatively meaningless. Without us, there would be no concept of "importance" or "significance" at all.

EDIT: I guess that's saying the same thing --no concept is indeed 'nothing' --but that also makes us of primary significance once we *are* in the picture. WE do exist, we have the viewpoints of the world from our perspective, and we are the assigners of significance.

I understood, and I think you did too. My point is that "outside of our perspective" is relatively meaningless. Without us, there would be no concept of "importance" or "significance" at all.

Unless... we are not the 'be all and end all' of existence?

And, no... that isn't an appeal for supernature...

Unless... we are not the 'be all and end all' of existence?

And, no... that isn't an appeal for supernature...
I understand that you're trying to cut down on prideful boasting about the importance of humanity. But I think it's a natural thing, and not necessarily bad. It's a part of us, and helps defines and shape us.

To go the other route and glorify the objective viewpoint is unnatural.

I understand that you're trying to cut down on prideful boasting about the importance of humanity. But I think it's a natural thing, and not necessarily bad. It's a part of us, and helps defines and shape us.

To go the other route and glorify the objective viewpoint is unnatural.

Oh, come now, Willamena... Buddhists achieve enlightenment when they understand how we fit into the bigger picture.... the Native Americans lacked this drive to assert themselves OVER nature, rather than consider themselves cogs within it.

Perhaps it is a 'western' thing to do... perhaps a European thing to do?

For me... my people are ALL people. My nation is the world. My importance, the same as that of every blade of grass.

To me - that seems pre-eminently 'natural'.

After doing that why would God lay down rules for human beings and answer prayers or care what we do etc.


Don't most parents lay down rules for their children and answer their children's requests for help?

I am an Atheist but let us assume, for the sake of intial argument, that God created the universe. I can understand the principle that God said "be" and all of the atoms came into being, the big bang, formation of Galaxies, the earth the oceans, monkeys etc followed afterwards. With this argument however I see it is perfectly possible that the evolution of humans from apes and God and be compatible (otherwise hominid fossils wouldn't be in the earth, what would be the point?). The bit I don't get is that God after creating this huge train set of a universe would he look down on earth and think "people, ooh how intersting". After doing that why would God lay down rules for human beings and answer prayers or care what we do etc.
.
Congrats-Thats an argument I've never heard before on a very over-argued topic. We need more origional thinkers like you. Anyways....

I think if what you've said is the case than God cares what we do because we are the only animals that can fall into evil, so God needs to make rules from preventing our becoming evil

I see some of these answers as fundamental problems with orthodox Christianity.

[QUOTE=Pimpsulvania]1. because life is good and he wants to share it with us: Not really, only a lucky few get nice cushy lives. Just ask the poor Jewish babies that got incinerated in the Holocaust how nice life was for them. This answer seems to neglect the existence of evil in the world. The problem of evil is the greatest crux for Christianity and there are no easy answers for it, at least in orthodox Christianity. (and don't say free will, that does not solve the problem it only complicates it, i can go into more detail if need be)

Well, I think a theist would argue evils such as the holocaust are largely man made evils, which stem from the ultimate gift we are given; "individual choice". This can even be extended to "extreme" weather which is the product of global warming (again a product of human choice). There are other evils such as natural disasters.. but then pain is also apart of life... pain helps us learn, helps us grow, makes us stronger. Weather it be the pain of personal injury or personal loss. Even as a responsible parent, if you wish to see your child grow to be self sufficent, many times you must let the child grow on his/her own.

2. for his greater glory: What sort of egomaniacal, self-centered god would need us to glorify himself? This is a pretty big character flaw, you are essentially attributing pride to God and pride is one of the big 7 mortal sins. Wrath is also often attributed to God and I think this is a issue of people speaking without thinking. If one were to consider the 7 divine attributes (which I might add were attributed by Aquinas and not the Bible) you would find that each of them poses a pretty big theological problem except perhaps for omnipresence.

Here I definatly agree.. many people seem content to draw God as an extremely egomaniacal figure, and are willing to see themselves as "servants". (more like slaves!). Instead, I belive I would go with your orginal comment, we are created so that god may share the glory of life, and its beauty. Humans were made apart of all other life, as he considers us his children. This is why we were created in his image and why he has such high expectations of us (as any parent would for their children). And I think the "wrath" of god is largely an overstated point by the church instill fear ( many aspects of religion are clearly meant as controls for the power structure). To what point would a supernatural all knowing being wish to inflict true suffereing and dispare on his children when we were knowingly created imperfect. A truely loving god would not indulge in the very things we see as a "capital sin" (Wrath).

For myself, I find myself siding with process theology in most issues like this. And process would very humbly say "don't know." Process doesn't nessitate that we are the crown of creation or that our existence plays any real significance in anything. They assume that God is trying something, some grand experiment, but what it is or what our role in it may be is anybody's guess. In that Agnostic vein, God and his (or her, whatever, seems disrespectful to say its) machinations are entirely beyond us.

Another excellent point. For everyone trying to dictate what God "expects" or argues other religions are "Wrong" etc..etc.. Who are we the lowly imperfect beings to persume to understand gods "Plan" ? How can we hope to ever understand the system by which he so designed...

And here is a thinking point for those content with critizing other religions... who ever said god has to come in one form ? God comes to each of us in the way that best fits us... to this point it can be argued every god.. from Zeus, to Behamut, to Allah, or God etc... may well all be "the" GOD just comming to different people in different ways.

Oh, come now, Willamena... Buddhists achieve enlightenment when they understand how we fit into the bigger picture.... the Native Americans lacked this drive to assert themselves OVER nature, rather than consider themselves cogs within it.

Perhaps it is a 'western' thing to do... perhaps a European thing to do?

For me... my people are ALL people. My nation is the world. My importance, the same as that of every blade of grass.

To me - that seems pre-eminently 'natural'.
Well, I wasn't thinking of any particular group of people. The imporance of the Native American in comparison to a blade of grass is *equal* importance; to them, the blade of grass has spirit, and so is equally a consciousness, and also assigns a significance to the world. (If I understand it correctly.)

Free will? are you sure it even exists? Aren't human beings simply making pleasure/pain descisions all the time. What is good and bad accept things you are scared will happen to you?
Still, I hate to repeat myself, why would God create religion? If he's so big then why should the opinions of those he has created matter to him? If it's a matter of gaining approval from something he can't control then why punish those who disobey him and reward those who do. It makes no sense.

. the Native Americans lacked this drive to assert themselves OVER nature, rather than consider themselves cogs within it.


This is off the subject, but I would recommend that you read the book "1491" by Mann.

He goes through the most recent research on native Americans before Columbus. Unlike the myth, they did manipulate their environment. They cut down the trees that didn't produce food and planted nut trees and fruit trees that did produce food. They also burned the land regularly to keep open areas. At the time of Columbus there were several cities in the "new world" that were larger than London and Paris at the time.

Free will? are you sure it even exists? Aren't human beings simply making pleasure/pain descisions all the time. What is good and bad accept things you are scared will happen to you?
Still, I hate to repeat myself, why would God create religion? If he's so big then why should the opinions of those he has created matter to him? If it's a matter of gaining approval from something he can't control then why punish those who disobey him and reward those who do. It makes no sense.
God didn't create religion. Religion is us relating to him, not the other way around. Religion is something we do because of God, not something God does.

Well, I think a theist would argue evils such as the holocaust are largely man made evils, which stem from the ultimate gift we are given; "individual choice". This can even be extended to "extreme" weather which is the product of global warming (again a product of human choice). There are other evils such as natural disasters.. but then pain is also apart of life... pain helps us learn, helps us grow, makes us stronger. Weather it be the pain of personal injury or personal loss. Even as a responsible parent, if you wish to see your child grow to be self sufficent, many times you must let the child grow on his/her own.

There are several problems with these (there are several theodicies in here: free will, soul-making, and greater good) arguments.

First of all, not all extreme circumstances can be extended to mankind: a volcano doesn't explode and bury a town because people made a choice to be evil; it just does something that causes nothing but ruin and misery. Unless you are willing to argue that The Fall caused not only changes in humanity but also rent the very earth and started plate tectonics, it's difficult to see how Augustinian logic applies to geological catastrophes. Furthermore, you still have to admit that any good parent knows when to step back, and when to step in. It's one thing for a child to decide to goof off for a day and get detention. It's parental abuse to simply let a child do whatever the hell he wants and expect him to deal with the consequences. In this context, it's one thing for God to allow people to choose to cheat another in a business deal. It's totally different to allow one group of people to attempt to systematically wipe out another group.

With respect to the soul-making argument, you certainly could argue that pain and suffering serve a legitemate educational purpose: if you burn your hand on the hot stove, you learn never to do it again intentionally. That being said, however, a truly good God who was interested in cultivating the maximization of our souls would have done well to tailor the amount of suffering in our lives to what we need to become better. This does not happen: instead, people get shattered by pointless tragedies and suffer far more than they need to make them a good person.

Finally, the greater good theodicy assumes that a good can come out any evil, but even more so, it assumes an awefully terrible view of morality. I mean, even supposing that the Holocaust had truly brought about the end to war and genocide, is there really any good that can justify the loss of ten million lives? And if so, what kind of God would use such a terrible instrument to bring about such a good result?

It seems to me that the only possible just response is to give up one of the three parts of the inconsistent triangle: either God is not all-powerful, or he isn't all-good. I'm a pretty firm advocate of the former myself, but either one could work to solve the problem.

So - you can coceive of a god that can create the universe on a whim, but not teach pre-college science?

But like I said, if God wanted to explain everything, he would have to explain, well, everything. the Bible would be increadibly huge if everything about the universe and all the theories and explanations involved was included in it in a manner that people thousands of years ago could understand, and if it was only say 6 inches tall like many books today, it's width would be increadible. There is so much to quantum physics we don't know because we have to be able to see farther and farther into the structure of the fundamental parts of the universe to get more answers to things, and we still can't even see where electrons literally are or how fast their going exactly, and God would have to go beyond pre-college science to explain that. If God just stopped at pre-college level, then everyone in college and everyone looking ahead would think "Boy, God didn't tell us everything, this sure seems deceptive, let's start yelling at everyone to stop worshiping him!" and we'd be in a situation similar to today. God would pretty much have to explain to us every single little thing about the universe and how He created the underlying fundamentals of it to finish the creation account compleatly, and that just isn't feasable.

It seems to me that the only possible just response is to give up one of the three parts of the inconsistent triangle: either God is not all-powerful, or he isn't all-good. I'm a pretty firm advocate of the former myself, but either one could work to solve the problem.

I'm a proponent of the latter myself. An all good creature would have no capacity for evil. Going simply by theology, God created the angels, including the ones who fell (led by Lucifer). As he created something with the capacity for evil, HE must have the capacity for evil, and therefore cannot be all good. Also, it is commonly believed that mankind was created in God's image. The human race is the epitome of combining good and evil in one container, further pushing the argument that God is not "all-good"

Judaism,Christianity,and Islam are evil religons that must be abolished in all western nations. These religons are all based on lies.

Judaism,Christianity,and Islam are evil religons that must be abolished in all western nations. These religons are all based on lies.
As opposed to.... ?

This is off the subject, but I would recommend that you read the book "1491" by Mann.

He goes through the most recent research on native Americans before Columbus. Unlike the myth, they did manipulate their environment. They cut down the trees that didn't produce food and planted nut trees and fruit trees that did produce food. They also burned the land regularly to keep open areas. At the time of Columbus there were several cities in the "new world" that were larger than London and Paris at the time.

The New World is a big place, with a host of different peoples. We know the Anasazi had cities.... we know Mayans had cities. Cities were less efficient for migratory peoples, however.

Also - manipulating the environment does not equate to being part of it.

But like I said, if God wanted to explain everything, he would have to explain, well, everything. the Bible would be increadibly huge if everything about the universe and all the theories and explanations involved was included in it in a manner that people thousands of years ago could understand, and if it was only say 6 inches tall like many books today, it's width would be increadible. There is so much to quantum physics we don't know because we have to be able to see farther and farther into the structure of the fundamental parts of the universe to get more answers to things, and we still can't even see where electrons literally are or how fast their going exactly, and God would have to go beyond pre-college science to explain that. If God just stopped at pre-college level, then everyone in college and everyone looking ahead would think "Boy, God didn't tell us everything, this sure seems deceptive, let's start yelling at everyone to stop worshiping him!" and we'd be in a situation similar to today. God would pretty much have to explain to us every single little thing about the universe and how He created the underlying fundamentals of it to finish the creation account compleatly, and that just isn't feasable.

With god, all things are possible. If god has the majesty to shape the universe from the ether, I'm sure he can phrase the meaning of life in a page or two.

Also - why do you assume our ancestors were less capable of understanding than we are now?

People who make such assumptions usually set themselves up for a fall.... like those who herald Babbage as the inventor of the world's first computing machine.... and now we find the Greeks had an almost identical technology...

Oh - by the way, the book you 'imagine' here, has actually been believed to exist, and is called the "Book of Raziel", after the angel that allegedly carried it...

The New World is a big place, with a host of different peoples. We know the Anasazi had cities.... we know Mayans had cities. Cities were less efficient for migratory peoples, however.

Also - manipulating the environment does not equate to being part of it.
Keeping off the subject.

There were very few migratory Native Americans. Nearly all were settled farmers and urban dwellers. Most of the hunters did so as a part time fill-in between crops. They were driven to be migratory when their culture collapsed due to disease killing up to 90% of the population. The huge herds of game developed because humans were removed and the animals were able to move into the previously settled areas. When the Pilgrims landed they picked up the rotting bodies from an Indian village and moved in. That is how they survived the winter without having to build shelter.

They had, before Columbus, changed their environment as much as any agricultural society on earth.

Also - why do you assume our ancestors were less capable of understanding than we are now?


I think that the people of the past had as much average intelligence as we have today. Because of that, God would have to simplify the story of creation. I can't (and I doubt if anyone on this forum can) imagine what a million years is, much less a billion. So how do scientists explain such concepts? They say "Imagine the history of the world is placed in "one year" or "one day", or perhaps "one week". We can understand a few days. So if God were a scientist he would probably say, "The times are too great even for your sons to the thousandth generation to understand, so I'm going to compare it to seven days---you can imagine seven days, can't you?" "Now man gained intelligence on the afternoon of the sixth day. On the evening of the sixth day, he developed the ability to understand right from wrong......"

Keeping off the subject.

There were very few migratory Native Americans. Nearly all were settled farmers and urban dwellers. Most of the hunters did so as a part time fill-in between crops. They were driven to be migratory when their culture collapsed due to disease killing up to 90% of the population. The huge herds of game developed because humans were removed and the animals were able to move into the previously settled areas. When the Pilgrims landed they picked up the rotting bodies from an Indian village and moved in. That is how they survived the winter without having to build shelter.

They had, before Columbus, changed their environment as much as any agricultural society on earth.

While I still think most of this is sweeping generalisation, extrapolated from one or two cultures (like the Anasazi - who the evidence does support fitting something like that profile)... that is not the point.... the point is that the Cherokee, for example, taught and practised a 'unity' with their environment, rather than a dominance over it.

I see the passage as a parable or explanation that humans can understand of how the human animal became aware of "good and evil". I also see it as a parable of how a human grows in understanding of "good and evil" individually.

As humans evolved, at some point, they became the only animal that became aware of "good and evil". When they reached that point of development they became something far different than any other animal. What else do we have that animals don't have? Animals live in a type of paradise where they don't have to worry about the "right thing" vs. "me/now". Animals always operate at the "me/now" level.

At the same time, babies are nothing more than animals. They grow without a knowledge of "good and evil". They totally operate at the "me/now" level. But as they age, there comes a time where they realize "good and evil". This is at a different point for everyone. When they reach that point, they begin to do evil when they choose to do what they know is not good. From then on, they will have left the paradise of childhood and entered the "real world" where they will have to constantly choose between "right thing" and "me/now".

well... you still not answer my question... :D...
if the story above just to explain people the process of growing up from baby to the christian adultry... than it still not explain why God do that ??... is because God want give an example for the future humankind how is the process to become a good christian or God just played rough to adam and eve. God know they will not obey, but who cares... is a good example for the future people... right ??...

I think that the people of the past had as much average intelligence as we have today. Because of that, God would have to simplify the story of creation. I can't (and I doubt if anyone on this forum can) imagine what a million years is, much less a billion. So how do scientists explain such concepts? They say "Imagine the history of the world is placed in "one year" or "one day", or perhaps "one week". We can understand a few days. So if God were a scientist he would probably say, "The times are too great even for your sons to the thousandth generation to understand, so I'm going to compare it to seven days---you can imagine seven days, can't you?" "Now man gained intelligence on the afternoon of the sixth day. On the evening of the sixth day, he developed the ability to understand right from wrong......"
But he didn't! Man became man at something after 11:59pm on the seventh day, and probably had a rudimentary sense of right and wrong before that.

It's fine to simplify, as long as the simplification is consistent with the reality, but the Biblical creation story isn't. It's description of events is like saying "Imagine the history of the USA all took place within a week. One the first day, man landed on the moon; on the second day the slaves led a civil war to gain their freedom, on the third day (known as 9/11) Americans fly planes into a Tokyo skyscraper, on the fourth day they fought a War of Independence and crowned George Washington as Emperor ....". Genesis doesn't just simplify - it distorts the sequence and nature of events beyond meaningful recognition. It is very obviously not an attempt to make cosmology and evolution comprehensible to ancient peoples : it is an entirely different, made-up, story.

I think that the people of the past had as much average intelligence as we have today. Because of that, God would have to simplify the story of creation. I can't (and I doubt if anyone on this forum can) imagine what a million years is, much less a billion. So how do scientists explain such concepts? They say "Imagine the history of the world is placed in "one year" or "one day", or perhaps "one week". We can understand a few days. So if God were a scientist he would probably say, "The times are too great even for your sons to the thousandth generation to understand, so I'm going to compare it to seven days---you can imagine seven days, can't you?" "Now man gained intelligence on the afternoon of the sixth day. On the evening of the sixth day, he developed the ability to understand right from wrong......"
In other words, it's not amateur historians and theologians who think our ancestors were stupid, it's God who thinks we're all stupid. :)

In other words, it's not amateur historians and theologians who think our ancestors were stupid, it's God who thinks we're all stupid. :)
In the same way that you look down on a three year child and explain something to him/her at their level. If God understands a billion years, he is certainly aware that I don't.

When my children were young we would always tell them how long a trip would be or how much longer to get there by "Sesame Streets". It's two Sesame Streets to Grammy's. 16 to Grandma's. This trip will take a Sesame Street. etc.........

Keeping off the subject.

There were very few migratory Native Americans. Nearly all were settled farmers and urban dwellers. Most of the hunters did so as a part time fill-in between crops. They were driven to be migratory when their culture collapsed due to disease killing up to 90% of the population. The huge herds of game developed because humans were removed and the animals were able to move into the previously settled areas. When the Pilgrims landed they picked up the rotting bodies from an Indian village and moved in. That is how they survived the winter without having to build shelter.

They had, before Columbus, changed their environment as much as any agricultural society on earth.

You're simply ignoring some of the major cultures in the Americas. How migratory a culture was, is evidenced by how built up there dwellings. There were those in South and Central America that built full cities out of stone. There were those in the south west that built dwellings out of the land, big, elaborate dwellings. There were those in more northern areas that were able to pick up entire villages and move them to follow the food, hunters and gatherers, that primarily let the land feed them as opposed to more agrarian cultures. Your summary is an oversimplification to the point of absurdity.

I am an Atheist but let us assume, for the sake of intial argument, that God created the universe. I can understand the principle that God said "be" and all of the atoms came into being, the big bang, formation of Galaxies, the earth the oceans, monkeys etc followed afterwards. With this argument however I see it is perfectly possible that the evolution of humans from apes and God and be compatible (otherwise hominid fossils wouldn't be in the earth, what would be the point?). The bit I don't get is that God after creating this huge train set of a universe would he look down on earth and think "people, ooh how intersting". After doing that why would God lay down rules for human beings and answer prayers or care what we do etc.

Plus although we can observe the natural world around us we cannot observe heaven and hell. Why should you assume it exists? The only evidence for this relies on ancient tradition and superstition. It is on this point that I cannot empathise, I may see the point in God, I see no need for religion.

One, you are choosing a very limited view of the Christian religion. There are thousands of different views out there. Check that, nearly every person has a unique view on the subject.

Two, I think of the purpose of life as being wisdom. One of the great wisdoms is that we don't know anything and that everything we hold to be true is a matter of faith of one kind or another. You have faith in your eyes and your ears when some types of insanity warrant neither and other types allow neither. Others simply accept that they don't know anything and accept that we have to act as if we do or we'd all be behaving like a bunch of nutjobs. The great wisdoms require no action at all.

Well it seems to me you got the basics. If you can look at nature and see a creator you have seen God. That's in the writings of Paul. Can't give you en exact quote right now.

The evidence in nature is the complete organization. Everywhere, gravity is gravity, water is water, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics. Even under the "chaos theory", the only reason something seems like chaos is because we don't know all of the inputs. The more inputs we learn the more organized nature is. If we knew all of the inputs we could predict the exact spot every drop of rain would fall.

What does this have to do with "God"? Organization indicates intelligence. When an archeologist looks at a pile of rocks, s/he determines if they are a manmade wall or a pile or rocks by whether they are organized. If organized, it took intelligence to organize them. So, isn't it interesting that the more science looks, the more organization they see?

Why would a creator care about his/her creation? Why does a song writer care if someone changes his song? Why does a painter care if someone brushes a few more strokes on his painting? Why does any creator care?

The prayer thing and Heaven/Hell thing you will have to ask of someone else. Prayer isn't always answered. (Before someone says "God sometimes says 'NO'", show me one place in the bible where God or Jesus said 'NO'----He delayed but never said NO.) And who knows what happens after death? A few near death people have gotten an image, but that can be disputed.

To me, the two great commandments makes life better for everyone. And Christianity is just that simple--Love God--Love everyone. If anyone tries to add more rules and regulations than that, they are illinformed.

False. You try to equate a wall to the organization in the universe, but they are not equal. An archeologist looks for organization that looks human-made to indicate intelligence. There are tons of types of organization that we accept to not be the product of intelligence at all. Ever heard of the concept of equllibrium? Things reach an equillibrium without intelligent influence. Look at a forest. Go in and upset the equillibrium and it will right itself with no guiding hand at all.

And I totally agree with that last part. It goes right in there with judge not and concentrate on your own plank. It would be nice if all of the people who claim to follow such rules actually did so.

Magnatism isn't random. it works the same every time. I doesn't matter if it's on earth or on Alpha Sentari Just like gravity can be predicted everywhere in the universe. Gravity doesn't happen randomly, sometimes. It happens everytime. That is organization. The more we look the more organization and predictability we see. When we see rocks organized in a building 100 stories high, we say intelligence made that because it is organized, not just a pile of rocks. What is more organized than then nature?

And why would such effects have to be intelligent? Your argument is that there are rules to this thing called the universe so it must have a creator? What's your counter-example? Can you name anything created by something lacking intelligence that operated completely without any governing laws?

So how did the process get organized? If it were organized at random it would be different in different places because different random factors would come together in each place. But it's not organized differently, its the same everywhere. What are the odds that the same random factors would come together everywhere in the universe and bring about exactly the same process. The more science looks the more they find the same processes everywhere. So if you were an archeologist looking at a pile of rocks what would you use to determine if you were looking at just a pile of rocks or a wall made by intelligence? What would be the factor that would prove intelligence?

Exactly the right question - what are the odds? And it's a question you don't know the answer to. You don't know this is the only universe that would work. You don't know this is the only way the universe could have ended up organized.

What are the odds that I would roll 17 billion dice and get a particular outcome? Before it happens 1 X 6 to the power of 17 billion. After it happens, the odds are 100%. You're looking the result of the dice and saying the odds of you rolling that particular combination is 1 times 6 to the 17 billionth power, and you're correct. However, if you insinuate that it's astronomically impossible, you better to be able to show that it is the only acceptable combination.

You are basing your argument on the assumption that the outcome we got is the only 'acceptable' outcome and to do so you're assigning intelligence. Otherwise, it's just an outcome and there always was going to be an outcome and this one happened to be the one we got. You argue that this must be the 'outcome' because this outcome was 'desired' and then use it to prove intelligence. You assign intelligence to the process to prove the intelligence of the process. Circular arguments are fallacious.

I think what you are all really doing is trying to bind God to your understanding. God isn't anything like us. His ways are infinitely above ours. You, nor anyone else will EVER understand why God does what he does. God does not make sense. He is not something you understand, but that you must feel. If we could understand we wouldn't need faith. He loves all of mankind. Now, I am assuming that now you will say "If He loves humans then why does he let us suffer?" - because WE chose Satan when we were first created. God won't force anyone to love Him, He doesn't want that. I think He created us not only for His glory but because He knew how much he would love to be loved, even if only by a few. I am reading a book called "Blue Like Jazz" by Don Miller and he talks about things like this, caging God in math and science. Here are some quotes from his book. "Many of our attempts to understand Christian faith have only cheapened it. I can no more understand the totality of God that the pancake I made for breakfast understands the complexity of me."

"All the wonder of God happens right above our arithmatic and formula."

"There is no up and down. There has never been an up and down. Things like up and down were invented so as not to scare children, so as to reduce mystery to math."

"Too much of our time is spent trying to chart God on a grid, and too little is spent allowing our hearts to feel awe."

I think what you are all really doing is trying to bind God to your understanding. God isn't anything like us. His ways are infinitely above ours. You, nor anyone else will EVER understand why God does what he does. God does not make sense. He is not something you understand, but that you must feel. If we could understand we wouldn't need faith. He loves all of mankind. Now, I am assuming that now you will say "If He loves humans then why does he let us suffer?" - because WE chose Satan when we were first created. God won't force anyone to love Him, He doesn't want that. I think He created us not only for His glory but because He knew how much he would love to be loved, even if only by a few. I am reading a book called "Blue Like Jazz" by Don Miller and he talks about things like this, caging God in math and science. Here are some quotes from his book. "Many of our attempts to understand Christian faith have only cheapened it. I can no more understand the totality of God that the pancake I made for breakfast understands the complexity of me."

"All the wonder of God happens right above our arithmatic and formula."

"There is no up and down. There has never been an up and down. Things like up and down were invented so as not to scare children, so as to reduce mystery to math."

"Too much of our time is spent trying to chart God on a grid, and too little is spent allowing our hearts to feel awe."
If that's the god you want, then that's the god you have. God, to me, though, does make sense. I much prefer god that way.

How do you know what God wants? Did he write you a post card?

How do you know what God wants? Did he write you a post card?

Reading is fundamental. She said, "if that's the God YOU want" and "I much prefer". Who said anything about what God wants or are we just supposed to guess who you're responding too out of all of these posts?

How do you know what God wants? Did he write you a post card?

If you are Christian... then 'yes', I guess.

(Same is true for other 'scriptured' religions, also).