Let me start off by saying that I believe in a GAD, not a christion god. I have no proof or reason, only my belief. Also I do not intend to offend anyone.

quiestion 1:

The bible say's god is omnipresent right? If that is the case then every atom, electron, quirk, etc... is a part off god. In fact it means that nothing exsists outside of god. That means that we are all a part of god. It means that hell is a part of god. It means that satan is a part of god. right? if not right please explain why. no one has answered this question where it held up to any kind of logic.

Also if you had a kid and your kid killed someone. WOuld you send them to a lake of fire forever? that is a really long time don't you think. Well if we humans are evil by nature which the bible does say, and god is all loving, and forging, then how can do such a thing? to himself no less. I know I would never send myself or anyone to hell forever, for anything.

Please don't say that our logic isn't gods logic, 'cause that would mean that since the bible is written in human terms and logic that it is all wrong anyway.

Any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated.

/* You must be the change you wish to see in the world --- Ghandi */

let me start with a qoute from a book I have been reading in my bible study, "Know WHAT You Believe" by Paul E. Little:

"'Verbal insperation' indicates that inspiration extends to the words of the Bible themselves, not only the ideas. God did not dictate the Scripture mechanically, but guided and superintended the writers within a framework of their own personalities and backgrounds. This guidence would of necessity include their choice of woeds, since thoughts are composed of words, much as a theme of music consists of individual notes. Altering notes alters the song."

and from that I get that we each need to interpret the bible from our own perspective to recieve the meaning God intended us to see.

I am not sure where in the bible it says he his omnipresent, do you happen to know? Because I would like to see it in full context before I try and answer that.

------------------
What is Time?

[This message has been edited by RedCat (edited February 15, 2001).]

Gnulinux,

Hi and welcome.

Don’t be worried about offending anyone with a reasoned argument, so be as forceful as you wish, simply avoid personal offensive language.

I don’t think any of the omni properties assigned to the Christian god can be found in the bible. These are all part of the early Church definitions for their god, and most Christian sects have accepted them while others interpret or deny them.

So if god is everything and everywhere then our logic and reason are also part of god. Omnipresence seems to indicate that we could rename the universe and call it God. The effect seems to be the same; we are still left with our abilities to reason and deduce that there is no god.

Redcat

…we each need to interpret the bible from our own perspective to receive the meaning God intended us to see.

This is quite wonderful. The same issue exists in the real world with our own laws. They are often so complex that they can be interpreted in different ways. This gives rise to lawyers. There is a neat quote that says ‘the person who tries to defend himself has a fool for a client’.

The question arises of why such an infallible god would create such a confusing set of his own rules where multiple interpretations could arise. The obvious answer is that no super being created any such rules, the so-called ‘word of God’ was written by confused men similar to men today, who simply can’t develop clear laws.

Your statement simply recommends that one should interpret the bible according to how they feel at the time. That’s a convenient way to avoid the colossal number of bible contradictions.

Have fun
Cris

Gnulinux,

Well, since I can't seem to find it in the Bible either I'll just announce my present belief, that God CAN be omnipresent, though he is only present in those who accept him and open their hearts to him, therefore hell and Satan cannot be part of God.

As for my kid killing someone, it is not a choice of mine to send him to hell, only God can determine what happens to him.

Evil Human Nature: I have looked this up in a few differant places, however yet again I must revert to a passage from my book that I feel best describes this.

"The sin of Adam and Eve, as we have seen, was something for which they were personally responsible. They did not have sinful natures such as we have, so the temptation to sin must have come from outside them. The Bible this source as 'the serpent' (Gen. 3:1), used by the Devil to alienate man from God."

Why did he not prevent this evil from entering this world, you might ask?

Because we would not have the image of God or be human beings with freedom of choice, we would be robots. As for the origin of evil it is useless to try and speculate, God knew it would happen, and in the words of C.S. Lewis, "thought it was worth the risk."

------------------
What is Time?

RedCat,

Originally posted by RedCat:
"The sin of Adam and Eve, as we have seen, was something for which they were personally responsible.

Does this mean that they knew that sin (disobedience of God) was evil? But that would have been impossible since they would not have known about evil until they had eaten from the tree that gave the knowledge of good and evil, and they hadn’t eaten from the tree at this point.

They did not have sinful natures such as we have, so the temptation to sin must have come from outside them. The Bible this source as 'the serpent' (Gen. 3:1), used by the Devil to alienate man from God."

We must assume that the devil commits evil acts and so temptation is evil in this regard. Again Adam and Eve would not have been able to recognize temptation as evil since they had not eaten of the tree and therefore had no way to determine that their action was evil.

Why did he not prevent this evil from entering this world, you might ask?

If God is omnipotent then he could have prevented it, since he didn’t then the only other explanation is that he wanted it this way and he planned it this way. That must be obvious since he had not given Adam or Eve the necessary capabilities to detect, understand or comprehend the nature of sin, disobedience, or temptation. He maliciously trapped them; they had no choice. They were completely blameless and innocent. They only knew of their guilt once they had eaten of the tree – catch22, a paradox of God’s creation.

Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 16, 2001).]

Well i wont answer all of those questions because honestly i dont know. But about if my kid were to kill someone, i can answer that. Now im only 17 so i dont have a kid but i would not wish for anyone to go to hell for eternity.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

I am not sure where in the bible it says he his omnipresent, do you happen to know? Because I would like to see it in full context before I try and answer that.

RedCat,

Although the word, "omnipresent" or "omnipresence" appears nowhere in the bible, here is biblical evidence of God's omnipresence:

<font color="red">Psalms 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

Psalms 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Psalms 139:9 I take the wings of the morning, [i]and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

Psalms 139:10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

Psalms 139:11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

Psalms 139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

Psalms 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

Psalms 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Psalms 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.</font>

Interestingly enough, Jesus is apparently not omnipresent:

<font color="red">Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.</font>

Go figure.

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Well, since I can't seem to find it in the Bible either I'll just announce my present belief, that God CAN be omnipresent, though he is only present in those who accept him and open their hearts to him, therefore hell and Satan cannot be part of God.

RedCat,

The following passage should dispel the notion that God cannot be in hell:

<font color="red">Psalms 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.</font>

To this I would like to add:

<font color="red">Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.</font>

Any questions?

Emerald


------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Originally posted by gnuLinux:
The bible say's god is omnipresent right? If that is the case then every atom, electron, quirk, etc... is a part off god. In fact it means that nothing exsists outside of god. That means that we are all a part of god. It means that hell is a part of god. It means that satan is a part of god. right? if not right please explain why. no one has answered this question where it held up to any kind of logic.
This is a good question.

A person could ask the same of happiness or some other concept, too.
Happiness is omnipresent in that a person can be happy anywhere, if they wish. They do not have to be, again if they wish.
If they choose to be happy will standing on a particular sidewalk, does that mean the sidewalk is part of happiness?
Also if you had a kid and your kid killed someone. WOuld you send them to a lake of fire forever? that is a really long time don't you think. Well if we humans are evil by nature which the bible does say, and god is all loving, and forging, then how can do such a thing? to himself no less. I know I would never send myself or anyone to hell forever, for anything.
Who says it is forever?
(Zephaniah 1:18, KJV)
18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD'S wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.

(Jeremiah 5:14, KJV)
14 Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.

(Malachi 4:3, KJV)
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

(Psalms 37:20, KJV)
20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.



[This message has been edited by tony1 (edited February 17, 2001).]

Originally posted by gnuLinux:
The bible say's god is omnipresent right? If that is the case then every atom, electron, quirk, etc... is a part off god. In fact it means that nothing exsists outside of god. That means that we are all a part of god. It means that hell is a part of god. It means that satan is a part of god. right? if not right please explain why. noone has answered this question where it held up to any kind of logic.
••••••••••••••••

gnuLinux, Cris,

If you look at the psalm Emerald quoted, you can see that the idea is that there is no way to escape from God's presence. (literally "face" in verse 7). Even if you were in Hell (literally Sheol, grave, abode of the dead) you would not be able to escape Him. This does not mean that He is you and you are Him; nor does it mean that because He is there He is somehow proved to be wicked.


Why would it strike you as logical to predicate the quality of His Spiritual being upon His geographic location?
Why is it logical to collapse identity and location?
When is it logical to say that one spiritual presence cannot be distinct from another?

Just some questions to consider

-Aiden
God's identity is not dependent upon His physical location,
even if He can occupy all locations simultaneously.


[This message has been edited by aiden (edited February 23, 2001).]

Aiden, gnulinux,

There is also a much simpler explanation that omnipresence is just a religious nonsense term and has no relationship with reality. So it would be quite understandable for someone to become confused when attempting to make sense of nonsense.

My dictionary shows omnipresent to mean – present in all places at the same time. With nothing to demonstrate how this could be possible the rational person should conclude that such a state is impossible.

Christianity, in typical fashion, has lavished this super superlative on its god only to find that the claim needs desperate and convoluted explanations to support what is obviously impossible. Delving into mythological religious texts in hope of an answer will simply increase confusion.

We do live in Him, and in Him we have our being.

This is as clear as nonsense can be, the word drivel seems an appropriate description.

Hi Aiden, welcome.

Cris

Cris,

I invite you to read my revised reply to gnuLinux.
Aiden.
ps. Thanks for the welcome.

Emerald--

I'm rolling on the floor over here, indirectly because of what you said.

Oh, Bowser! You might want to be in on this.

First, the Catholic Encyclopaedia says nothing about the omnipresence of God, but it has much to say on the omnipotence of God.

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. "Hence," says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it." To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. "God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power," says Hugh of St. Victor, "and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless" (De sacram., I, ii, 22).

So we have an opinion, at least, on the extent of God's authority in the Universe. We might call it fact, but that would require establishing that God is a creation of human beings.

Now, is everyone paying attention? It may as well be twenty past four (wink-wink). I hereby resurrect an old argument out of mere amusement:

As intrinsically impossible must be classed:

1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
2. Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.

Ah, nostalgia. ;)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm is the link for the above Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on omnipotence.

The following is from the Encyclopaedia, regarding infinity.

Infinity is a concept of the utmost importance in Christian philosophy and theology.

The actually infinite, however, is now and at every moment complete, absolute, entirely determined. The immeasurable omnipresent spirit does not advance from point to point without end, but is constantly everywhere, fills every "beyond" of every assignable point.

The actual infinity of God in every respect is Catholic dogma.

The actual infinity of God in every respect is Catholic dogma. In accordance with the Holy Bible (III Kings, viii, 27; Ps. cxliv, 3; cxlvi, 5; Ecclus., xliii, 29 sqq., Luke, i, 37, etc.) and unanimous tradition, the Vatican Council at its Third Session (cap. i) declared God to be almighty, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and every perfection, really and essentially distinct from the world, infinitely blessed in Himself and through Himself, and inexpressibly above all things that can exist and be thought of besides Him. The infinity of God can also be proved from philosophy. God is the self-existing, uncreated Being whose entire explanation must be in Himself, in Whom there can be no trace of chance; but it would be mere chance if God possessed only a finite degree of perfection, for however high that degree might be, everything in the uncreated Being -- His perfections, His individuality, His personality -- admit the possibility of His possessing a still higher degree of entirety. From outside Himself, God cannot be limited, because, being uncreated, He is absolutely independent of external causes and conditions. Limitation would be chance; the more so because we can maintain not only that any given finite degree of perfection may be surpassed, but also, in a positive way, that an infinite being is possible. Moreover, if God were finite, the existence of other gods, His equals or even His superiors in perfection would be possible, and it would be mere chance if the y did not exist. Of such gods, no trace can be found, while on the other hand, God's infinity is suggested by various data of experience, and in particular by our unbounded longing after knowledge and happiness. The more man a man is, and the more he follows his best thoughts and impulses, the less he is satisfied with merely finite cognitions and pleasures. That the essential cravings of our nature are not deceptive, is demonstrated at once by experience and speculation.

There's plenty more on infinity, but what's the point of reproducing the whole article here when it's already at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm ...?

also ...

The Christian writers took their concepts of the infinity of God from the Bible

Among these Christian writers, the article lists: Augustine, Candidus, Abelard, Albert the Great, and others, and goes on to assert that:

Among Christians, the dogma itself has rarely been denied, but the freer tendencies of modern Protestantism in the direction of Pantheism, and the views of some champions of Modernism in the Catholic Church, are in fact, although not always in expression, opposed to the infinity of God.


I'm curious which of the major Protestant churches explicitly cited the Catholic idea of the infinite God was a falsehood of the Church. I can't recall it ever having come up, but I've never put myself through that many of the reform texts.

Anyway, some notes on omnipotence, infinity, and square circles. I laughed, I cried, I fell down and changed my life .... Well, it's not quite that amusing, but still, it makes me smile. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)

__________________

RedCat,

The following passage should dispel the notion that God cannot be in hell:

Psalms 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

To this I would like to add:

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

Any questions?
___________________________


The same comments I extended to Boris in the creation/evolution thread apply to you. Biblical hermeneutics is not your forte.

Hell in Psalm 139:8 refers to the Hebrew "sheol." I believe three words are rendered hell in the kjv. Reading another version like th Niv might help avoid confusion.

"If I go to the heavens you are there. If I make my bed in the depths you are there."

The two extremes are used. The Niv text note says on verses 7-12, "There is no hiding from you--Here no abstracts doctrine of omnipresence but an awed confession that God cannot be escaped (see Jer 23:23-24).

The Bible cannot be read as if it were a contemporary legal document. I prefer employing the historical-critical method when studying scripture. "The historical-critical method seeks to interpret a text in view of lexical, grammatical, syntactical, comparative lexical, author-related, literary,comparitive religious, secular historical and other factors or to see the text, as far as possible, in the light of its total context and situation." (James Leo Garrett. Systematic Theology, pg 147)

The evil in Isaiah 45:7 is referring to natural disasters. "Something that causes harm, misfortune, suffering, or destruction ids one definition of evil." God is recorded as sending plagues and stuff or causing calamity in judgement of things.According to this definition of the word, God creates evil. Moral, ethical evil is not created by God. By very definition, that which is contrary to God's will is evil.

Evil lies in the intent. Sin is a nonconformity between our will and God's will. Heres my old gun analogy again ;)

Think about this. I have a gun and am going to rob and shoot you. Is my gun evil in itself? No. Is my gun, if used to shoot someone, evil in itself? No. Even if I shot you with my gun the gun or the bullet cannot be considered evil. In fact, unless it was a GOOD shot I wouldn't hit you. Evil is found in the intent. It is my intent to shoot and rob you that was evil. The gun is not evil. The evil lies in a nonconformity between my will and God's will. God doesn't want me to shoot and to rob you. He wants me to love you as I love myself and do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Doing something contrary to God's will is evil. God is the standard that is used to measure "good" and "evil." Good is that which is an accordance with His will while evil is that which is not.

"(1) Evil is...intentions and intentional acts (both being 'acts' or 'personally directed events' and not 'things') of intelligent agents, that violate the God-derived principles of love, fairness, or loyalty.

(2) No, 'acts' and 'events' are not 'made'--they are 'done'. God made and created 'things' and 'agents', not their 'acts' or 'events'...He 'did' His own 'acts' (of course), but other agents 'do' their own 'acts'. So God did not 'make evil' (the phrase is meaningless and nonsensical)"

Miller, thinktank http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmakevil.html

A very informative artivle on this subject can be found here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iamwrong1.html

Peace,
Vinnie


------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

a simple answer to all these questions:

reason and logic do not belong in religion. They cannot coexist and to logically question a religion will not get you anywhere. That is why they call it faith!

FA_Q2,

Yes I agree. And that explains why many interractions with Christians simply end nowhere. The two sides are speaking a differrnt language and there isn't a neutral translator in sight.

It is impossible to reason with someone who is not using reason in response.

Cris

If there is no God, then one of these days some scientist will have to answer a few questions:

1) Where did all the material for this universe come from?
2) Does this universe expand, contract & 'Big Bang' ad infinum?
3) Is life and conscientiousness an accident?
4) And how do they prove it? By numbers? Words? Facts? Or Faith?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like this quote!!! Live long and prosper!

Of course they would have to answer such questions. Those questions are some of the holy grail of science. But be under no illusions -- even if those questions are answered, there is a good chance of yet more fundamental questions arising from those very answers.

As to the method, it appears straightforward enough: not statistics, not numbers -- but chains of cause and effect. It is ultimately misguided to calculate probabilities while having only one trial outcome to analyse, and having no clue as to the processes that generated this outcome. Following your quote, my estimation of Fred Hoyle is rather low; he commits a basic mistake of a beginner statistics student.

"a simple answer to all these questions:

reason and logic do not belong in religion. They cannot coexist and to logically question a religion will not get you anywhere. That is why they call it faith!"

Maybe for you. My posture is not blind fideism but eminent reasonableness. Some of us Christians believe faith and reason can never contradict--we believe that science and the Bible cannot contradict. Why? We believe God authored both. Dual revelation. He created the world and He inspired the Bible and God does not lie. What God speaks is truth. When properly understood, both science and the Bible cannot contradict. Thats what some of us Christians believe.

I understand the difference between systematic theology and science, according to its most germane definition, but your caricature of religion is pretty useless. Its an extremely broad statement that makes categorical assertions. Maybe you could substantiate it with some facts (if there were any facts to actually support it)? My "religion" tells me to "Test Everything. Hold on to that which is good." Saint Paul to the Thessalonians...

"Yes I agree. And that explains why many interractions with Christians simply end nowhere. The two sides are speaking a differrnt language and there isn't a neutral translator in sight. "

Its a failure on both sides a lot of the time. People just can't transcend their beliefs. People will spend 25 hours arguing over evil without even addressing what the word means! Definitions and methodology are crucial. Thats where one should start. We all have selective worldview goggles on that slant the facts. Without first discussing definitions and methodology you end up talking past one another. Both of you may use good reasoning based upon your presuppositions but sometimes the presuppositions are where the debate needs to be.

I'm reading "Does God Exist?" Its a debate between J. P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen. Peter Kreeft, Antony Flew, William Lane Craig, Keith Parsons, and Dallas Williard add contributions. A lot of big names there (atheists and Christians). Flew and Nielsen are considered two of the top atheist philosophers if my readings were correct. Its the same with the Christians and the other atheist there. Top of their game. After this I'm going to read Nielsen's defense of atheism. Peter Kreeft authored the introduction and it was very informative. He told of each authors stance and what the specific aspect of this debate will be covering. For instance, Kai's stance prevents him from appealing to the problem of evil. Why? He uses linguistic and epistemological rather than ontological arguments. Traditionally the problem of evil has been the strongest argument for atheism but Nielson contends that the very concept of God is logically confused or meaningless. If he is right this would render both sides of the traditional argument about evil confused. God is used as a meaningful term in arguments concerning evil. If Kai is right this argument becomes nonsensical because Kai posits the very concept of God is meaningless. Therefore, it is irrational to argue what God could and what God could not do.

". Following your quote, my estimation of Fred Hoyle is rather low; he commits a basic mistake of a beginner statistics student."

Where at? The origin of life estimate?

"2) Does this universe expand, contract & 'Big Bang' ad infinum?"

The notion of a reincarnating universe has been dead for a while now. Sooner or later the public will catch on ;) We now think (know?) our universe is expanding at an accelerate rate! Again, the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating! 'God's Equation: Eisnstein, Relativity, and the Expanding Universe' by Amir D. Aczel discusses this (1999). I read Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe' (1999) and I was disappointed when he said this: "The fate of our presently expanding universe, therefore, is as yet unclear." (pg 235)

I liked the book. I thought the beginning was very good. When you read books like that the problem is the repetive nature of reading about relkativity and quantum mechanics. Most books on strings and guts and the like include chapters on general relativity and quantum mechanics. Either you must skip or just read about it again. In TEU I thought Greene did a good job of discussing this stuff. It kept me interested the whole time. More than just another account. But, a few things he said later on made me uneasy. Such is life.

"I like this quote!!!"

Here ye go:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (1)


George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (2)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (3)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (4)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (5)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (6)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (7)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (8)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (9)

Roger Penrose (mathamatician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (10)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (11)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (12)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (13)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (14)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (15)

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(16)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (17)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."(18)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (19)

1 Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

2 Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Envirnoments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

3 Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

4 Davies, P. 1984. Superforce:The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.

5 Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Atronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

6. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.

7 Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

8 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

9 Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

10 Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Parmount Pictures, Inc.

11 Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.

12 Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.

13 Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. NewYork, W.W. Norton, p. 116.

14 Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.

15 Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

16 Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

17 Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

18 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.

19 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.

I was going to post a link to the website but it seems to be down. I saved that page though;)

Peace,
Vinnie

It just seems hard to believe that our universe just started 'ex nihilo', so whether the early Empiricist were right or not, I agree that for every effect there is a cause. And as a Christian I now know the Ultimate 'Cause'. Everything starts somewhere, someone had to have the 'spark' to start it all. If we are a giant accident, pure ultimate chance, then man what are the odds??????????????????????
Live long and prosper.

Randolfo,

Originally posted by Randolfo
I agree that for every effect there is a cause. And as a Christian I now know the Ultimate 'Cause'

If the first part is true then what or who created your god?

If the second part is true then the first part must be false.

If the first part is therefore false (every effect does not need a cause) then the universe could have been created out of nothing.

If the universe was created out of nothing then there is no creator god.

This nonsense is possible only because of the paradox created by your two mutually exclusive statements.

An ultimate cause, or uncaused first cause, implies that something exists that has no beginning. The only concept that fits that description is infinity.

You claim to know the ultimate cause, this implies that you can prove that something is infinite.

Please state your proof for infinity.

Cris

"If the first part is true then what or who created your god? "

What was the first part?


"for every effect there is a cause. "

Cris says (remember the if ;)):


1. For every effect there is a cause (premise)

2. The universe was created and needs a cause (premise)

3. God created the universe (premise)

4. Therefore, God needs a cause (from 1, 2, and 3 by disjunctive syllogism)

If that argument is true then we need a cause for that cause, and a cause for that cause, and a cause for that cause, ad infinitum. An infinite regression won't do. There must be an uncaused first cause:p

I think you are limiting God to a half dimension of time. He doesn't seem to be subject to cause and effect phenomenon in the same way that the creation is. God transcends and actually created time. I am stuck on this issue as of late: Is our view of God anthropomorpic or are we theopomorphic (created in God's image)?

Sticking with special revelation, God is the alpha and the omega. I am. Eternally existant. The beginning and the end. It is also said that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord and vice versa or as a watch in the night.

Quick analogy

O--->

Our timeline. Has a beginning and keeps going.

God's possible timeline

<------->

No beginning and no end. Always existing.

Thats quick but some of us belive God has the equivalent of extra time dimensions. Thats why we believe He can answer a billion prayers at the same time if need be.

What if I said, cause and effect phenomenon take place in our limited time dimension. The necessity of creation applies to the whole universe and everything in it. God transcends the universe.

I would suggest reading Beyond the Cosmos or The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross.

"An ultimate cause, or uncaused first cause, implies that something exists that has no beginning. The only concept that fits that description is infinity. "

Define infinity. According to the dictionary God is not infinite. He told us Himself that He cannot lie. He also told us He cannot be tempted by evil. Some of us would also argue that God can't will Himself out of existence or split His essence a la cell division...

On a side note, most of the time when Christians refer to God as infinite its merely a catch-all phrase--at least, it should be ;)

"It just seems hard to believe that our universe just started 'ex nihilo', "

And thats why unobjective cosmologists like to speculate...*hint hint* Stephen Hawking *hint hint*

Not to single anyone out but...Imaginary time? Pea instanton?

Quantum gravity metaphysics sound like fun huh?

Merely joining the ranks of loophole seekers who realize the theistic implications...

la la la la la la la la la

Oh yeah, the big bang definately doesn't lack evidence. I can quip 30 lines of evidences supporting it all briefly discussed in Facts For Faith, Quarter 3, 2000.

The same logic that ilgwamh uses can be used as evidence on either side of the fence. The question of where it all came from is a mute point because no one can provide an answer. Christians say that god created it and atheists say it was a big bang that came from no where. Atheists speculate without much evidence and Christians place it on belief. We both have illegitimate answers to the question. No evidence for either side.

I think I made that to wordy, oh well. Its 1 am and I'm tired.

Originally posted by Cris
If the first part is true then what or who created your god?
If the second part is true then the first part must be false.

If the first part is therefore false (every effect does not need a cause) then the universe could have been created out of nothing.
...
This nonsense is possible only because of the paradox created by your two mutually exclusive statements.
This is where people such as yourself perform a service.
In a logical sense, what you are saying is true.

Originally posted by FA_Q2
Christians say that god created it and atheists say it was a big bang that came from no where.

Both say the same thing.
The Christian says, "Nothing exploded."
The big-bang atheist says, "Nothing exploded."

This is the heart of the problem. It isn't differing world views, or semantics, or opposite ways of looking at things.

One group just plain does not understand.

Hi Vinnie,

I assume Randolfo didn’t mind you answering a question I put to him, kinda rude since I didn’t see you apologize. But whatever.

…. some of us believe God has the equivalent of extra time dimensions. That’s why we believe He can answer a billion prayers at the same time if need be.

What if I said, cause and effect phenomenon take place in our limited time dimension. The necessity of creation applies to the whole universe and everything in it. God transcends the universe.

This is no different to speculative fantasy and science fiction. At best your claims are no more than human created concepts that have no factual basis. A belief in such things is not reasonable until you can at least show that such concepts can be real, and next you would have to show that they are real.

Your fantasies are an unnecessary and complicated stretch of credibility in order to satisfy the imaginative ramblings of ancient mythmakers. I give you credit for such imaginative fiction, but zero for factual credibility.

Your assertion of ‘necessary creation’ is premature since we do not know whether the universe has boundaries (time or otherwise). It is only necessary in your fantasy to satisfy that extra level of creative imaginative complexity and your personal desire for a supernatural creator.

Can you demonstrate extra time dimensions or that our time dimension is limited? A big bang does not offer proof of a beginning of time; it is merely the limit of our current ability to observe. As a hypothesis I suggest that the big bang may only be a tiny fraction of an as yet unobserved larger universe. I’m not claiming this as true but just as an example that we have inadequate data to conclude that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. Since we are also unable to observe the future then we also cannot claim that there is an end time for the universe. Again there is inadequate data for a valid conclusion.

Given this lack of data you are not free to accurately conclude that our time dimension is limited. We simply don’t know yet.

As a more credible alternative to your fantasies it seems more reasonable to suggest and hypothesize that our time dimension is not limited, i.e. has no boundaries and is therefore infinite. If this were true then there would be no justification for a creator god. This suggestion fits all currently observed material phenomena and there is no good reason to believe otherwise.

Cris

Say Cris: if there is no God, then how did the universe develop? Where does matter come from? Does the universe oscillate between Big Bang & contraction? Are the laws of physics always the same in every new universe? Is life on Earth an accident? Why does it seem that there is a 'design'? And can you prove any of your answers irrefutably?

What "design"? Everything is random in this universe. However, human beings have the tendency to try to find order in such chaos. One example is we look at the clouds on the sky, and says, "That looks like a sheep."

Life can be explained as a chain of chemical reaction modified by another chain of chemical reaction.

Randolfo,

Originally posted by Randolfo
Say Cris: if there is no God, then how did the universe develop? Where does matter come from? Does the universe oscillate between Big Bang & contraction? Are the laws of physics always the same in every new universe? Is life on Earth an accident? Why does it seem that there is a 'design'? And can you prove any of your answers irrefutably?

Ah ha. All wonderful questions, and most will require long answers and from those of a more scientific orientation than myself. To many of them the simple answer is that we don’t know yet. We simply do not have enough information on which to base factual conclusions. Patience is a real pain, but we have little choice but to wait and search for evidence. My objections to the religious contingent are that they are impatient and want to insist that they KNOW already despite the lack of evidence and facts.

But rather than cop out completely from given you a proper reply, I’ll offer my favorite guess/fantasy, mainly because it is often overlooked and is not mainstream, and despite Boris’s objection to it.

The big bang and the expansion/contraction cycle I guess is one reasonable idea that I don’t think has been entirely trashed yet, all we seem to know with some certainty is that a big bang occurred and that we can’t see or perceive the universe before this event.

So here is my alternative guess for the size and nature of the universe. Imagine that the big bang is not unique but in fact there are a countless number of big bangs occurring simultaneously in different parts of a much larger universe that we are unable to observe. Think of our big bang and all related material as just a small bubble in an infinite expanse populated by other big bang bubbles all at potentially different stages of their life cycles. With this idea it doesn’t really matter if the out flying galaxies never contract back into a center, in fact latest theories indicate that the ‘universe’ is likely to continue expanding forever. So how do big bangs start? Here I think the key is black holes or singularities, or in other words a gravity well of some type. Such entities will attract drifting matter left over from other big bangs and grow in size and power until they reach an explosive threshold – voila another big bang.

But really we don’t know enough yet to reach reliable conclusions. Just be patient.

Cris

"I assume Randolfo didn’t mind you answering a question I put to him, kinda rude since I didn’t see you apologize. But whatever. "

You didn't ask him something like "What did you eat for breakfast?" did you? This is a debate board. Send a private message if you only want one person to respond to material of that nature.

"This is no different to speculative fantasy and science fiction. At best your claims are no more than human created concepts that have no factual basis. A belief in such things is not reasonable until you can at least show that such concepts can be real, and next you would have to show that they are real. "

We are pretty sure extra dimensions exist and we also know God transcends our universe. Many verses in the Bible speak of God experiencing "time" different from us. I believe there are many verses in the Bible speaking of an extra dimensional creator. I would simply assert, you cannot limit God as you would the universe.

"Your fantasies are an unnecessary and complicated stretch of credibility in order to satisfy the imaginative ramblings of ancient mythmakers. I give you credit for such imaginative fiction, but zero for factual credibility. "

Call it what you will. Refute it, you cannot. The BiBle says God created time and now, so does science. God transcends time. You assert that God need be created like everything else. I assert God need not be created as He transcends time, the realm where all the cause and effect phenomenon we see takes place. I can call you imaginative for speculating God must need to be created.

"Your assertion of ‘necessary creation’ is premature since we do not know whether the universe has boundaries (time or otherwise). It is only necessary in your fantasy to satisfy that extra level of creative imaginative complexity and your personal desire for a supernatural creator. "


Cris, send Hawking and email and ask him about the creation of time. Big Bang according to the standard mod= everything was created including time, all the space, matter, dimensions and energy. In 1970, Hawking, George Ellis and Roger Penrose extended the solution of the equations of general relativity to include space and time. If general relativity is valid for the universe then time had a beginning!

But Stephen will probably start talking about the pea instanton or something:confused:

Hawking himself has proposed an alternative model to the standard theory in order to erase the singularity at the universe's origin. He is not at all reticent about what theological implications he sees in his new model.

"The idea of space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profund implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?" (A Brief History of Time, 140-141)

This conclusion has been trumpeted in the popular press.
But what the layman may not realize is that Hawking's model is based upon at least two metaphysical assumptions that disqualify it as a realistic theory of the universe. William Lane Craig contributing in, Does God Exist? page 147

You can join the ranks of loophole seekers. Hawking's speculations were based upon assumptions. As far as we know right now, time had a beginning. Both the Bible and science seems to teach this. Just remember who taught it first ;)

Today we now get string theory speculations. Blah blah blah.

"A big bang does not offer proof of a beginning of time; it is merely the limit of our current ability to observe. "

Obviously, you don't know much about cosmology. In the book I am reading I feel pity for one of Kai Nielson's responses on the big bang. He is an atheist debating with J.P. Moreland. "Craig is perfectly right in saying that it is "absurd to claim that something literally came out of nothing." If the universe had an origin, it indeed had to have a cause. But the absurdity is to think the universe had, let alone had to have, an origin or that it even makes sense to talk that way . . .to think this way comes from thinking of the universe as a thing or an entity . . . but the "universe" is just an umbrella term for all the events, processes, things that there are. It is not itself a label for anything . . . it is not a name for some mysterious additional thing or entity that might have popped into existence with a Big bang. . . We should carefully sort out genuine experimental results in the science in question from the bad metaphysics or idealogy that has gotten imbedded in it. Craig naively, and Moreland as well, takes all that cosmological talk at face value." (page 276, Does God Exist?)

Apparently, he doesn't know much about cosmology either. The big bang has shown the creation of our universe.

Have you read any writing on to why some deny the big bang or try to show how it wasn't the absolute beginning of everything as the data shows?

Hows this, "I don't like the idea of God and the big bang strongly points to it so we need to find some way around it." What a good methodology. It makes for objective research:rolleyes: Its sad but true. Chrisitians were justly accused of appealing to the God-of-the-gaps but now we get to see Atheism-of-the-gaps and Astronomy-of the-gaps.

Peace,
Vinnie

Chrisitians were justly accused of appealing to the God-of-the-gaps but now we get to see Atheism-of-the-gaps and Astronomy-of the-gaps.

If Christians take their evangelical authority to meddle with entire nations' lives and stuff it, then you can trump the gaps of atheism and astronomy. In the meantime, as long as "God" says things that don't reflect reality, and demands that we believe what He says instead of what We observe, it is most incumbent upon the faithful of God to demonstrate the reality of God else they're just blowing snobby smoke.

Reality is definitive. The God you describe is a psychosis. You want me to believe that Jesus healed someone with his hands, demonstrate the mechanical effect within the Universe. In the meantime, consider that the scientists you challenge will hand you the technology to demonstrate God before the religionists will figure out it's worth doing.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
In the meantime, as long as "God" says things that don't reflect reality, and demands that we believe what He says instead of what We observe, it is most incumbent upon the faithful of God to demonstrate the reality of God else they're just blowing snobby smoke.
If what God says doesn't reflect "reality" then your understanding of "reality" may be what's lacking.

You want me to believe that Jesus healed someone with his hands, demonstrate the mechanical effect within the Universe.
Expecting mechanical evidences of non-mechanical processes is futile.

As an example, take two people, one wide awake, the other in a coma, and speak to them.

The mechanical processes are the same and the non-mechanical processes are different.

The mechanical processes of speech and hearing are relatively easy to describe, but understanding what you hear is a non-mechanical process.

You presumably claim to understand. Show the mechanical effect of that in the universe.

I always thought of this board & the lately departed exosci.com as one big chat room among the whole 'cyberworld', so, no I don't mind people jumping in with answers, (especially with good quotes). And since I wont break down & buy my own computer, I use the public librarys', my nephew's & my friends', so there will be breaks of a few days to weeks before I log on.

I'm not impressed, with what I consider 'clunker' technology, so until computers are more 'Star Trek' -like with something better than ViaVoice or Naturally Speaking, I'm not buying one. At work we have fiber optics, but once on, still subject to slow search engines(soooooooooooo sssllllllllooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww), even with boolean. And I hate typing!!!

And deep down, aren't we all friends anyway?? Yah, we are all talking & wanting to be heard, but by our large circle of friends, right? And no, we don't have to agree. Even though I'm right.

If what God says doesn't reflect "reality" then your understanding of "reality" may be what's lacking.

That sounds as stupid now as it ever has. Why is it that this is the only answer Christians have regarding the fact that the Bible doens't describe reality that well? Of course, I'm not sure how to take it when a person in the throes of religious hallucinations tries to criticize my understanding of reality.

Expecting mechanical evidences of non-mechanical processes is futile.

Like I said. Who the hell are you to criticize my perception of reality?

If a miracle occurs, and affects nothing in the physical universe, then no miracle has occurred. If a miracle occurs in the Universe, it must necessarily have a physical effect. What is happening to the matter and energy that is the person being healed? What happens to the matter and energy that is the healer?

If you see an angel, that light must be reaching your eyes from an outside source, or else you're just hallucinating, and the mechanical process is somewhere inside your brain. But if light or energy is traveling from the miracle to your perception, it is observable in some method. I can, with enough time and textbooks, describe to you what happens when you squeeze the trigger and shoot someone. I can tell you about the spring and the hammer, about the impact and I can quantify the heat it produces when the powder expands. I can measure the velocity and mass of the bullet, and tell you how that will affect the three-ounce bone it will strike first. I can quantify that. Now, a healer puts his hands on the wounded and makes him whole and healthy again. Can you describe the process by which that healing takes place?

The answer is that no, you cannot.

The mechanical processes of speech and hearing are relatively easy to describe, but understanding what you hear is a non-mechanical process.

Are you sure that understanding has nothing to do with electrical exchanges in your brain?

You presumably claim to understand. Show the mechanical effect of that in the universe.

Sure. It should only require about six to ten-million dollars. But I'm quite sure Boris would enjoy the project, too. It involves determining the physical properties of the electrical charge that is a thought impulse. So as soon as you write the check, I'll get right on it. :rolleyes:

Do you actually have anything useful to argue, Tony? Or do you just run around saying, "Uh-uh! Prove it! No, you prove it!"

You're very smug for someone who has little to say.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
...tries to criticize my understanding of reality.
Well, if you wish to understand what is real, but you wish to do it by means of observation only, then your understanding of reality will be limited to what you observe.

That isn't criticism.

If a miracle occurs, and affects nothing in the physical universe, then no miracle has occurred. If a miracle occurs in the Universe, it must necessarily have a physical effect.
OK, I see that for you, "universe" is defined as that part of it which you can observe.

Can you describe the process by which that healing takes place?

... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(Mark 16:18, KJV).

I'm guessing you want to hear that there are little particles called healons which travel from one person to the other, but you aren't going to hear that from me.


Do you actually have anything useful to argue, Tony?
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

Well, if you wish to understand what is real, but you wish to do it by means of observation only, then your understanding of reality will be limited to what you observe.
Observation, sir, is better than deriving reality from a book. While you're looking through the pages to see what God thinks about what you think is happening, I will be watching the situation to figure out whether I need to continue watching, involve myself, or clear out. When I find myself ethicallly compromised, I only have myself to reconcile. For instance, the issue to sleep with a married woman or not requires no Biblical citation for me to figure out. One can make their own decision based on their experiences if they weigh them for themselves, and not for the Bible. I would be more merciful to your handbook for reality if it didn't threaten people who choose to not believe it as infallible truth. But since that's really the only explanation for what the book has inspired through history, then I simply cannot subscribe to such a dangerous, hateful philosophy.

Nor is that criticism. It's a restatement of the obvious.

OK, I see that for you, "universe" is defined as that part of it which you can observe.
Just because we cannot see it does not mean it is not there. It simply means that human beings have not learned to see it. Disease was caused by "demons" and other nasty things until the microscope was invented, and we could see bacteria.

When a miracle occurs in this Universe, then it occurs in this Universe. So one lays on the hands and the tumor is gone. Now, what has happened to it? Has electrical current from the hands destroyed it? Has it simply disappeared into nonexistence? Has the immune system of the sick healed itself via some jumpstart? Simply saying "the Holy Spirit" won't work; there must, if someone is healed, be a change in the Universe that can be observed. What is it?

... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(Mark 16:18, KJV).
For instance, this just won't do.

I'm guessing you want to hear that there are little particles called healons which travel from one person to the other, but you aren't going to hear that from me.
All I want from you is some rational explanation. Marijuana does not get me high by miracle. I understand enough of the physics about heat, and enough about the evaporation of secreted THC and the way my body works to have a general idea of what is taking place inside of me. I feel it is my responsibility to understand at least this about the things I put in my body; it prevents me from putting things like heroin or methamphetamine into it.

Likewise, I always expect my doctor to tell me what he is going to do in the sense that I like to know why this particular prescription drug and not this one. And I greatly appreciate the informative speeches before I'm injected with something radioactive.

So what happens when one lays on the hands?

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Like I said .... Do you?

--Tiassa :cool:

Don't be sad or jealous just because you can't keep up with what's going on. If God wanted you to understand these ideas, he would have created you so that you can. Therefore, the ideas being discussed at Exosci will either make sense to you someday, or they won't.

--Tiassa :cool:

"In the meantime, as long as "God" says things that don't reflect reality, and demands that we believe what He says instead of what We observe, it is most incumbent upon the faithful of God to demonstrate the reality of God else they're just blowing snobby smoke. "

Tony1's response sums up my response pretty well. He said, "If what God says doesn't reflect "reality" then your understanding of "reality" may be what's lacking."

To that ye said, "That sounds as stupid now as it ever has. Why is it that this is the only answer Christians have regarding the fact that the Bible doens't describe reality that well? Of course, I'm not sure how to take it when a person in the throes of religious hallucinations tries to criticize my understanding of reality."

You seem to have been assuming from the onset that the Bible doesn't describe reality very well. I disagree with that. Add this in with your later comments concerning miracles and its pretty noticeable that your taking a nonheuristic approach to skepticism or scientism.

If I posit God exists the burden of proof should lie on me.

If you posit God does not exist the burden of proof should lie on you.

If we discuss "Does God exist?" in a debate forum then the burden of proof lies on both of us.

Though, in adherence to 1 Peter 3:15 I'll accept the burden of proof even if it lies on you in what I feel are ordinary "debate rules."


"Reality is definitive."

First, do you take a purely naturalistic approach when viewing the universe? I would ask, have you ever observed a nuetron? Can anyone view an electron? No, but you can see their effects and prove they exist through experiments. "Seeing" isn't always believing. If miracles really occur and in fact occured in the past we should see the effects of miracles. Exempli gratia, if a man had a supernatural ability to heal people, raise the dead, calm the weather, feed a lot of people with a little bit of food we should see evidence of this. Futher, if this person claimed to be God, said some extremely inspiring things, was killed for claiming to be God but then came back to life 3 days (idiom) later and appeared to a bunch of people at different times we would expect to see even more evidence of that in history. Just as I expect to see evidence of a neutrino in a particel accelerator I aexpect to see evidence of supernatural accounts, if they occured, in history.

on a slightly different topic...

Dr. Tony Rothman in 'Instant Physics, From Aristotle to Einstein and Beyond.'

[A few Humorous cocktail party conversations were dispersed throughout the book. This is the last one that ends the book found on pages 236-237]

A physicist is wearing a "Physics Is All There Is" T-shirt. You, wearing a "Cosmology Takes GUTS" T-shirt, approach.

YOU: Do you really believe your T-shirt?
PHYSICIST: Of course. Everything is based on physics. Everything stems from the interactions of the fundamental particles through the four known forces.
YOU And once you have a Theory of Everything you will explain everything?
PHYSICIST: That's the idea.
YOU: Like the four forces?
PHYSICIST: Absolutely.
YOU: Like why you like bagels?
PHYSICIST: Well--
YOU: Or why people fall in love?
PHYSICIST: Well, in principle it's all got to be a result of physics.
YOU: Isn't it going to be a little tough for a Theory of Everything to calculate why people fall in love?
PHYSICIST: That's just a practical difficulty.
YOU: Is it? Don't things like chaos and the heisenberg uncertainty principle put a theoretical limit on what you can calculate?
PHYSICIST: That is true--
YOU: So how can you even consider calculating why you like a bagel? Isn't this in principle impossible?
PHYSICIST: Well, um, I'm not sure. Probably.
YOU: So your Theory of Everything can't explain why I prefer cream cheese, no lox--
PHYSICIST: But--
YOU: --or why Central Europe has fragmented, or why Andy Warhol got even 15 minutes, or why the NRA always misquotes the Second Amendment, or the sound of mountain streams, or--
PHYSICIST: Okay, okay, maybe it's a Theory of Almost Everything--
Physicist: A Theory of a Few Things--
YOU: --or why junk sells, or--
PHYSICIST (moving off): A Theory of a Couple of Things?
YOU: --or why terrorist activities--
PHYSICIST (continuing to move away): A Theory of More Than Nothing? A Semi-Grand Unified Theory? An Impressive Attempt to Unify Physics? A Failed Attempt at Advertising Physics? The Theory That Will End Funding. . . .
YOU: A bagel and cream cheese, please.

Here is another one I found interesting on page 10 preceding by an explanation from page 9:

"The Tetractys Doctrine: The fact that mathematics describes the real world so well cannot be coincindental. Mathematics is the correct language of physics.

Quantification: You don't know anything unless you've measured it and assigned a number to it.

Whether these doctrines are entirely is questionable. At your next cocktail party you may wish to confront a physicist with a few choice lines given in the box."

From the box:

A physicist wearing a "Tetractys of the Decad" T-shirt, is surrounded by admirers. You, wearing an "Alchemist Anonymous" T-shirt, approach.

YOU: Do you really believe mathematics describes the real world?
PHYSICIST: Better than poetry.
YOU: Then why do science profs always say things like "assume the cow is spherical"?
PHYSICIST: Well, one must . . . um . . . simplify!
YOU: A spherical cow? Isn't math describing something that doesn't exist?
PHYSICIST: Hmm, by the tetractys, this cannot be denied.
You: On the other hand, I've heard that most equations describing real systems cannot be solved exactly.
PHYSICIST: Well yes, e usually approximate.
YOU: So how can mathematics be such a great description of the real world? On the one hand you can describe things that don't exist; on the other hand you can't describe things that do exist. Sounds a lot like poetry to me.
PHYSICIST: But we can make our approximations as close as we want.
YOU: Didn't Einstein say, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"?
PHYSICIST: Did he say that? Excuse me--it's time for some nectar and ambrosia.
(Physicist disappears into the crows)

"The God you describe is a psychosis."

It kind of is except its not a mental disorder. You have to give up everything to follow Jesus. You have to become born again. Your a new creation. No longer part of the world, just in it.

I could argue anything but theism is a psychosis assuming the existence of God as a fact from the onset. Read Ecclesiastes for more information.

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." (Ecc. 1)

"You want me to believe that Jesus healed someone with his hands, demonstrate the mechanical effect within the Universe."

I must say, I really liked Tony1's response. "Healons" are now an official part of my vocabulary. Its the fifth force of nature. Though my view may be slightly different.

My own personal view is that God utilizes extra dimensions in a lot of things. I think Jesus walked through a wall in scripture when He appeared the the disciples in a locked room. A appeal to flatlanders might explain a few things. Also, hasn't it been shown (mathematically) that a basketball can go through a solid wall without either the ball or the wall being harmed if you add on a dimension or two? I would also say God is a transcendent creator. I find it a little presumptuous and prima facie to imply God cannot do something counter to our descriptions of reality found in the lab. God may have healed people through medical processes that we describe in our text books. This is fictional but think of a 2- D flatlander. Operations for us 3-D beings on a flatlander would be easy as their "organs" would be accessible. They have no depth and therefore, if a flatlander had a heart you would be able to operate on it without going inside the body. Some like me believe God has extra degrees of freedom and can do things of this nature. Some like me also believe in spiritual warfare. Demons can cause sickness somehow in the spiritual world. We believe there is a lot going on behind the show. Thats why we deny what you can put in a test tube is all there is. Though, the contents of that test tube will ultimately point to God. Paul says to test everything. Hold on to that which is good.

Some like me believe the resurrection is a demonstrated miracle and that gives us no reason to deny miracles. IOW, I believe the resurrection has historicity to it. Of course, some will deny it, not on "historical grounds" but because of "philosophical presuppositions."

When God parted the red sea it says He used an east wind to do so. God somehow has to interfere with nature in this 4-d world we live in to perform miracles. Some would say He transcends Nature but does not violate it.

I just finished a book called "Does God Exist" and I am now moving on to C.S. Lewis' 'Miracles.' I am also on page 340 of a 'Sytematic Theology' book which is now addressing miracles. I'll keep you updated ;)

"In the meantime, consider that the scientists you challenge will hand you the technology to demonstrate God before the religionists will figure out it's worth doing."

Does that make them more objective? But I would like to see more Christians embrace new scientific discoveries.

Peace,
Vinnie

The icon was supposed to be a smiley face ;)

Originally posted by tiassa
I would be more merciful to your handbook for reality if it didn't threaten people who choose to not believe it as infallible truth. But since that's really the only explanation for what the book has inspired through history, then I simply cannot subscribe to such a dangerous, hateful philosophy.
How can a book threaten people?
If it has that kind of power, you must be underestimating it.
OTOH, if it is just a book, where does this power come from?

Just because we cannot see it does not mean it is not there. It simply means that human beings have not learned to see it. Disease was caused by "demons" and other nasty things until the microscope was invented, and we could see bacteria.
Do I take this to mean that you now believe that unobserved things may exist?

When a miracle occurs in this Universe, then it occurs in this Universe. So one lays on the hands and the tumor is gone. Now, what has happened to it? Has electrical current from the hands destroyed it? Has it simply disappeared into nonexistence? Has the immune system of the sick healed itself via some jumpstart? Simply saying "the Holy Spirit" won't work; there must, if someone is healed, be a change in the Universe that can be observed. What is it?
In the case of the tumors, they disappear into non-existence.
In the case of such things as broken bones, the breaks "disappear." IOW, the bone becomes as new.
In the case of deaf people, they simply begin to hear and I don't know what happens other than that.

Like I said .... Do you?

I choose life.

You seem to have been assuming from the onset that the Bible doesn't describe reality very well.
I need not assume, Vinnie. It's evident in history and in my living present.

If I posit God exists the burden of proof should lie on me.

If you posit God does not exist the burden of proof should lie on you.

If we discuss "Does God exist?" in a debate forum then the burden of proof lies on both of us.
On the other hand, if I posit that God cannot be observed, what would you respond? What, then, if I declare that this idea is relevant because God is the center of a religionist's moral structure. That is, an unobservable, assumed factor is the basis for one's moral perspective. And that is where we find the abstract theology become a practical reality.

It kind of is except its not a mental disorder. You have to give up everything to follow Jesus. You have to become born again. Your a new creation. No longer part of the world, just in it.
Except that one chooses to submit themselves to a certain behavioral pattern based on an assumption that is, at least in part, rooted in threat of punishment.

Oh, and my response to the cocktail party is that the Grand Unified Theory will never at any point in the future, nor has it at any point in the past, been used as justification for murder. The moral implications of God are what make the validity of the God idea so important. Astrophysics is a constant adventure of discovery. It is unlike religion in two ways I can think of off the top of my head: 1) It does not claim a stake in a person's moral decisions; 2) It does not declare itself infallible; it merely corrects itself when it discovers it is wrong. Neither of those things apply to the God idea as expressed through the Bible.

I find it a little presumptuous and prima facie to imply God cannot do something counter to our descriptions of reality found in the lab.
If God does not operate through the reality of his created Universe, then he is, essentially, "correcting" creation. I guess God made a mistake?

Which brings to mind another point: Hello? Con artists in the American south doing faith healings is the best miracle the Big G can pull off? I mean we've got people gathering around road signs in Yakima looking for the Virgin Mary from time to time. If it's so important, God's going to have to realize what it means that humans aren't running to spec, and meet us halfway.

Some like me believe God has extra degrees of freedom and can do things of this nature.
And this is well and fine, but it hardly provides an adequate explanation for what is alleged to take place, does it? I know for a fact that I have succeeded in "missing the ground" when I fall, but I'm not going to claim I can fly until I can prove it. In the meantime, I'll write it up to a brain-glitch. That fat cell that burned had some LSD in it or something. When reality changes, it must be documentable. It's kind of like the question: Why does the magician always hide the trick behind the sheet?

Paul says to test everything. Hold on to that which is good.
That's good advice. Now, what qualifies as good, according to Paul?

Some like me believe the resurrection is a demonstrated miracle and that gives us no reason to deny miracles.
Demonstrate away.

I can believe the historicity of the parting of the Red Sea; there are enough natural conditions which I have observed in my life to convince me that this event could possibly have occurred.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

How can a book threaten people?
If it has that kind of power, you must be underestimating it.
OTOH, if it is just a book, where does this power come from?
1) Read it. There's some demands for faith and adherence. And that bit about the Lake of Fire that you had a hard time with the other day.
2) I have, actually, overestimated humanity in the fact that I never would have thought us so damn gullible.
3) Its power comes from superstition. Its power comes from fear. I believe that I might once again rest on history on that one.

Do I take this to mean that you now believe that unobserved things may exist?
No, you should take it to mean that I believe that what miracles are, actually real, will someday be perfectly explicable in commonplace language. We simply haven't learned to observe these things properly yet. But, for instance, if there really is an angel in the air above a crowd, it must be impressing itself upon their perceptions somehow. Someday in the future, we will be able to explain what is taking place. Just as the microscope killed some demons, so will our future technology slay some angels. True concepts, however, have little to fear from such revelation and discovery.

In the case of the tumors, they disappear into non-existence.
And what is the event taking place in the Universe?

In the case of such things as broken bones, the breaks "disappear." IOW, the bone becomes as new.
And what is the event taking place in the Universe?

In the case of deaf people, they simply begin to hear and I don't know what happens other than that.
And what is the event taking place in the Universe?

Like I said .... Do you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I choose life.
I'll take this as a "No".

--Tiassa :cool:

tony1:
"One group just plain does not understand."

Finally you admit it.

I would just like to point out that scientists were not looking for a way around god when they formulated the big bang theory. It came from strictly observation that all things are expanding and therefore were together earlier. It makes sense, even with its unanswered questions.

"If what God says doesn't reflect "reality" then your understanding of "reality" may be what's lacking."

Proof that you completely ignore reality itself. Reality is the basis for what we believe. You make reality fit what you believe. Almost like my quote.

"Well, if you wish to understand what is real, but you wish to do it by means of observation only, then your understanding of reality will be limited to what you observe.

That isn't criticism."

This is just plain sad. Reality IS what we observe. you create your own reality, a false reality, by leaving its basis up to the imaginations of a single book's writers. I could just as easily base my reality on the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe and go on a holy crusade to find the restaurant at the end of the universe. According to you this would be perfectly sane and I would be correct. None of my beliefs would contradict with reality. I <i>could</i> throw myself at the ground and miss to fly and because I have faith in a book that said so.

Your definition of reality is limited to a single book. Mine is limitless so long as I continue to search for the truth with observation.

This is just plain sad. Reality IS what we observe. you create your own reality, a false reality, by leaving its basis up to the imaginations of a single book's writers. I could just as easily base my reality on the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe and go on a holy crusade to find the restaurant at the end of the universe. According to you this would be perfectly sane and I would be correct. None of my beliefs would contradict with reality. I could throw myself at the ground and miss to fly and because I have faith in a book that said so that is real.

FA_Q2 ...

I believe you have said a very important mouthful. A Rory Award to you, sir. ;)

And you also left out that your religion would invite you to the biggest party in the Universe. An important fringe benefit for any worried about salvation; this party never ends.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I need to read that book again. It seems that there are a lot of hidden meanings in it that I never picked up. Considering I read it at 10 I don’t think I did that bad. ;)

Originally posted by tiassa
Don't be sad or jealous just because you can't keep up with what's going on. If God wanted you to understand these ideas, he would have created you so that you can. Therefore, the ideas being discussed at Exosci will either make sense to you someday, or they won't.

--Tiassa :cool:

okokokokokok......Time out Tiassa.

a) Marijuana is a recreational method for those who think it's just fun. Seldom has this been the case for me.

b) Been there brother. Done that. Absolutely no disagreements as to the profound understandings, which can be acheived.

c) In fact great realizations. But the inevitable DEA (drug enjoyment agency), has scared me out of it several years past.

d) Ironic it is, that Marijuana kept alcoholism at bay for over 15 years from me.

Yes it is amazing. PISS ON RELIGIOUS WRITINGS TIASSA!

Pick up some books on Natural Selection! Surprised you haven't already. In fact I think you may have. BUT FOR SOME gOD-PUkING REASON, you seem to be unable to embrace pure science for some emotional craw that prevents your obvious genious from going beyond your continuing attack upon religion.........

You seem to be most comfortable with what aggravates you most! NO. Not agggravates. Perhaps ......excites. Freudisms?????curious it is????? Perhaps you should delve more deeply into your emotional drives.

Can Tiassa ask: Why do I find myself arguing (and living to argue in fact) religious points???????

Hell I dunno Tia. Maybe one of your parents was religious. Father a preacher????????hhhhhmmmmmm???

HISTORY: What were the events which lead Tiassa to study religion for so long & so thoroughly???????

Whatever!!!!!! Give it up thoissa!!!! Lest it has made a comfortable life for you, then it will probably destroy you.

Do you believe that you can be an arrogant know-it-all and expect to find a real balance?

What is your ultimate satisfaction, if you finally convince all others of your correct observations? Where will you be then? What then?


<p>

It's almost as though you seek to find answers in religion, yet will never accept any of them. But since there is no other path for Tiassa, he searches to and fro, unsatisfied until A God truly speaks unto him.

Amazing vocabularies, that I have read from so many of you all! Even more amazing to me that so little truth is written for all those fancy words (excuse me: complex intellectual communication).>>>bs<<<<

Yes I know. I have already begun to imagine your insulting responses. That's the difference between he who is willing & able to understand the thoughts of others vs he who is either unable to understand or perhaps refuses to understand the thoughts of others.

Pity upon me from you? No. I pity you, who cannot understand simple language even with a highly developed, complex vocabulary.

Find fault with the above reasionings by me? I really don't care. From my pov, all of you are simple curiosities to me. I am curious as to why any of you are even on a Science forum. You don't seem to have any interest in science at all! It's almost as though you are using science as a shield to expound upon your real desire for atheism. Like a fetish, of some sorts???????

<b>Where's the science Tiassa? </b>Surely you understand this question.

Where- is- the- science ? I don't know how to breach the gap of my un-educated words so that all you maestros of communication can understand! <i>This being the case, perhaps the communication gap is not my fault at all.</i>

<i>"Originally posted by tiassa
Don't be sad or jealous just because you can't keep up with what's going on. If God wanted you to understand these ideas, he would have created you so that you can. Therefore, the ideas being discussed at Exosci will either make sense to you someday, or they won't." </i>

<b><i>Honestly! If being enlightened means that I should be on the level of all you twisted, backward, and absolutely pitiful excuses of the supposed intellectual few, then I shall forward live in my blissful ignorance of your higher idealisms. Yeah I know, your too smaart to make sense of my ignorance. Such is life.</B></I>


or not//////////////FOOD FOR THOUGHT TO THE THOUGHTLESS, AS I CARE LESS OF YOUR RESPONSES & WILL NOT REPLY ANY MORE.

Tiassa: what did you do to get him sooooooooo MAD!!!?? You're ssoooooooo mean!!!

I may be wrong, but isn't this a multi-subject chat site? Religion, science, fantasy, para-this & -that?

Sometimes, people only answer & chat with a select few, maybe only insiders know what's going on, some others jump right in when no one want's them, but this is cyberspace, an open forum for people around the world, discussing, argueing, learning?

I read something really cool on this subject today, let me quote,
"If I learned anything else in watching Star Trek, I learned to give as much attention and respect to my own view as I do to anyone else's. And more important, I've learned that the best way to expand my point of view is to listen to others." That's from 'The Brillant Door' by Joyce Tullock in 'The Best of the Best of Start Trek II' , edited by Walter Irwin & G. B. Love, ROC, Penquin Group 1992. Just thought I'd share.

Live long and prosper.

well howerard. it seems that you have been smoking way to much crack these past few days. Oh well, good to see ya go. ;)

I mean, it was hardly a subtle jab. But I really haven't a clue what the problem is; he's not making any sense to me.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I belive that a lot of those questions have been answered in a thread titled WHAT FOR IS THIS DEBAIT. look it up, it was posted to quite reacently and ask any questions there. We are always pleased to accomidate questions here :)

Originally posted by tiassa
And what is the event taking place in the Universe?
The tumor is disappearing.

And what is the event taking place in the Universe?
The bone is healing.

And what is the event taking place in the Universe?
The deaf hear.

Originally posted by FA_Q2
Finally you admit it.
Hey, if I'd known that was the only thing holding you back, I'd have admitted that atheists just plain don't understand a long time ago.

I would just like to point out that scientists were not looking for a way around god when they formulated the big bang theory. It came from strictly observation that all things are expanding and therefore were together earlier. It makes sense, even with its unanswered questions.
I think you'd better check your sources on that one.

Proof that you completely ignore reality itself.
Hey, if I'd known that was holding you back, I'd have told you that I ignore reality a long time ago.

Reality means being hungry. I ignore that reality and eat to change it.
Reality means being tired. I ignore that reality and sleep to change it.

Reality is the basis for what we believe. You make reality fit what you believe.
Right on!
I think you are getting the picture, altho I have a nagging doubt that you don't see what I see.
Mice have little choice but to believe what they see as real.
Men, on the other hand, can change reality anytime they wish.

For example, if I see snow on my sidewalk and I don't like that reality, I can change it at will by shoveling the snow.

This isn't rocket science.
Are you at the mercy of "reality" so much that you can't change any of it at all?

This is just plain sad. Reality IS what we observe. you create your own reality, a false reality, by leaving its basis up to the imaginations of a single book's writers.

Reality IS what I make it.
Ask any person who makes things, if they make reality suit them or if they sit there helplessly at the mercy of the reality they "observe."

Ask a sculptor if he observes the "reality" of a stone and leaves it as is, or if he changes reality to suit his own purposes.

Your definition of reality is limited to a single book. Mine is limitless so long as I continue to search for the truth with observation.

Well, I've noticed one HUGE limitation you have. You cannot "observe" that reality is ours to change.

Tony, if I say, The rock falls, then I have told you nothing about how the rock has come to fall. I have described nothing of the force of gravity upon its position atop the cliff, or the abstraction of potential energy, which is how much force it will bear when it reaches the bottom, nor of the displacement of inertia that must occur first in order to cause the rock to fall.

I can go to med school and learn exactly what happens when a bone heals according to nature. Can you describe, or where can one learn, exactly what happens when God miraculously heals the bone?

I can go to med school and learn exactly what happens when a tumor recedes and heals. Can you describe, or where can one learn, exactly what happens when God miraculously heals the tumor?

I can go to med school and learn how exactly what happens when one who does not hear is made to hear. Can you describe, or where can one learn, exactly what happens when God miraculously restores the hearing?

For instance: Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not has, among its archives, the tale of a young boy, deaf-mute, who was struck in the head during a bare-knuckle prizefight, and instantly collapsed to the weight of perception as his hearing clicked on. Were I so privileged as to be a med student (or so prepared to want to be), I could learn how these things happen, how some of these processes take place. So much so that I can watch time-lapse footage of a tumor receding over sixty days in sixty seconds. If I could watch the effect of God's miracle the way I can watch the effect of chemotherapy, what would that show me? How would nature operate and react?

Reality means being hungry. I ignore that reality and eat to change it.
Reality means being tired. I ignore that reality and sleep to change it.
You are not ignoring that reality, you are responding to it directly.

For example, if I see snow on my sidewalk and I don't like that reality, I can change it at will by shoveling the snow.
And when mice are hungry, they eat; by your explanation, mice can change reality just like humans.

The changing of reality that I think is at issue is the shift from an observable, mysterious reality toward one in which no explorations are necessary because all answers end in "God", a mysterious idea which cannot be demonstrated objectively, but which demands the very liberty that separates humankind from the mice. And all at the stake of something else which is difficult to demonstrate: eternal life.

Your perceptions of reality do not reflect those of one who is aware of their scale in the Universe. But that, I admit, is subject to perception.

Reality IS what I make it.
Well, then you're God. Because I did not make the earthquake a couple of weeks ago, but it was certainly a reality necessitating my immediate attention.

Ask a sculptor if he observes the "reality" of a stone and leaves it as is, or if he changes reality to suit his own purposes.
So religion is art? That settles a lot of things.

You cannot "observe" that reality is ours to change.
Do me a favor, Tony ... change the tides.

Reality is ours to live among. It is not a burden unless we make it so. It is no a challenge unless we choose to see it as such. Reality simply is.

Hey ... I'd like a better view of the mountains. Can you raise me one?

--Tiassa :cool:

"Hey, if I'd known that was the only thing holding you back, I'd have admitted that atheists just plain don't understand a long time ago."

Once again you have no idea what you are even saying.

"I think you'd better check your sources on that one."

I think you better stop assuming that science is fighting god and you will find out that scientists don't really care either way. They make conclusions based on observation, not to get around god but to learn.

"Hey, if I'd known that was holding you back, I'd have told you that I ignore reality a long time ago.

Reality means being hungry. I ignore that reality and eat to change it.
Reality means being tired. I ignore that reality and sleep to change it."

Lay off the stupid pill. I IGNORE THE REALITY THAT I AM HUNGY AND THERFORE STARVE TO DEATH. That is ignoring reality. However I will observe that I am hungry and therefore react to that reality and feed myself.

"Right on!
I think you are getting the picture, altho I have a nagging doubt that you don't see what I see.
Mice have little choice but to believe what they see as real.
Men, on the other hand, can change reality anytime they wish.

For example, if I see snow on my sidewalk and I don't like that reality, I can change it at will by shoveling the snow.

This isn't rocket science.
Are you at the mercy of "reality" so much that you can't change any of it at all?"

What is your IQ? 2, maybe 3? I see snow on my sidewalk and that IS the reality. I shovel snow off my sidewalk and now the reality is that there is no snow on my sidewalk. I affected my surroundings THROUGH observation and reaction. You on the other hand would not even see the snow on the sidewalk and break your neck as you ignorantly walked over it.

"Reality IS what I make it.
Ask any person who makes things, if they make reality suit them or if they sit there helplessly at the mercy of the reality they "observe."

Ask a sculptor if he observes the "reality" of a stone and leaves it as is, or if he changes reality to suit his own purposes."

You must observe reality to react to it. You completely missed that. Also, you are not violating reality by reacting to it. Your philosophy would state that you could change reality by shutting you eyes and believing it is not there. Like a child who closes their eyes and tries to believe really hard that no one can see them when we all can. You do that very same thing. You don't change reality, you simply ignore it until it kills you.

"Well, I've noticed one HUGE limitation you have. You cannot "observe" that reality is ours to change."

I have observed that we can shape reality. You don't seem to understand that it takes action, not hoping it will change to what you want all by itself, for us to shape reality.

I've noticed a HUGE limitation you have, you are unable to change reality because you cannot even accept it is there.

[
Also if you had a kid and your kid killed someone. WOuld you send them to a lake of fire forever? that is a really long time don't you think. Well if we humans are evil by nature which the bible does say, and god is all loving, and forging, then how can do such a thing? to himself no less. I know I would never send myself or anyone to hell forever, for anything.

Please don't say that our logic isn't gods logic, 'cause that would mean that since the bible is written in human terms and logic that it is all wrong anyway.

Any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated.

/* You must be the change you wish to see in the world --- Ghandi */ [/B][/QUOTE]

Christianity - no matter who really founded it - was originally a religion of love. When it attained power it was taken over by those who seek power, and they bent the rules as they fit their interests ("agree that we must love each other and be kind and gentle or I will torture you to death")
They put the idea of hell, which as far as I know, was a Greek invention, to good use to frighten people and make them more dependent. I cannot remember anywhere in the Old Testament that hell is described as it is in the New Testament. And even there it is only for real bad people, not as later was preached for everyone, just for being born(except saints).
In the Old testament we meet Lucifer the angel who was thrown from heaven for bad behaviour. But - I may be mistaken - there is no mention of eternal punishment for mankind. On the contrary there are very materialistic bonuses for good behaviour. You shall live a long life and get rich! If you have seen something else about hell, tell me please!

I am not a historian of ancient religious writings. I couldn't tell any of you here what John 13:23 wrote(wild numbers, I have no idea). What seems to be more interesting scientifically would be the discussion of the mindset of John when he wrote these. Such questions would include, and be not limited to:

a) Where was John born, and

b) what were the circumstances which led a young man, of millenia past, to be so moved as to follow religion so intently, and

c) how did this two thousand year old goat herder manage to learn and write, at the time, and

d) how did the obiously rantings of an ancient Jewish man manage to get into a text (bible), which would still be read today, and

ect, ect...........and then some!
Therein lie some of the issues at the heart of my recent criticisms of the context of the Bible. In terms of the Gospels, I generally recommend Pagels' The Origin of Satan, which explores almost exactly the ideas you've enumerated.

One of the difficulties, however, in exploring these issues (and certain others) often comes from the theistic camp. Where we might look to the history, literature, and eschatology of the Bible's religions for some clarification, it is the habit of some of our fellow posters to dismiss those works; recently Tony1 referred to the writings of the founding Christians as a disbeliever's handbook. There is a long-standing pattern of dismissing the works of the Apostolic fathers, or of Augustine or Nicholas of Cusa or any other Christian thinker whose work advanced the Word of God on the grounds that these words are "not in the Bible". Hence, as you seem to have noticed, many of the threads break down into simplistic rhetoric, twists of phrases, and the diminishing of idealistic themes.
A curious cat, I am. Perhaps for my late coming to this arena as well as ignorance, I patronize you to indulge my curiosity as to why! Or perhaps what! In other words what I am asking is :

a) What is the fulfilling intention of this discussion and,

b) What is the ultimate and hopeful theory of this discussion and,

c) What conclusions do the participants here expect to reach and,

d) What conclusions, (regarding religion) have the participants reached so far.
Long, long answers, mostly rambling. The abriged version of the answers are best transcribed as the following:

a) Various. Some of it's for fun, some of it's to convey information, some of it's to actually learn, and some of it is to preach.

b) Depends, according to A. Sometimes Cris and I are happy when we hit a common laugh; sometimes I'm legitimately curious about how something came to be a certain way, or how someone learned to believe a certain idea; sometimes I feel the need to engage an existing argument to clear what I think is a dumb idea off the board. I can still tell anyone who asks why I've been a little hard on one or two of our posters recently.

c) None. It would be unfair of me to assert what my most common argumentative opponents hope to achieve, and aside from the abstract pleasure of getting someone to look at an idea from a perspective they had never conceived, there is little reward to be taken from imagined rhetorical victories.

d) None. At Exosci, we cannot agree on the definitions of terms fundamental to our arguments, such as Christian, atheist, or God.

Realizing that the types people here are various, I would ask that all participating members (anonymously) say a couple things (or more) about his (her) background. Such as:

a) The type of occupation each is involved in, and

b) the initial reason why each participant here felt the reason to read and respond here first, and

c) the expectations and conclusions expected, by the reader (and participant) of this particular part of the religious debate , and

d) a short description, (anonymous again) as one might relate his (her) (anti) religious background(s), and why (s)he 'feels' the need to recall and quote ancient biblical (or otherwise) texts as an argument for or against the very subjects discusseed in the religious forum! Expo-Sci, and

e) a much more deep, personal point of view regarding religion or anti-religion. A short discussion by everyone here regarding his (her) reasons as to why the need to involve oneself in a subject which has long become inferior to the obviously superior natural selection theories.
a) I'm a Gemini male, born under the Nixon administration, who bounces from boring job to boring job while perpetually writing my "masterpiece" novel.

b) I came here because DaveW invited me. As to the posts, it seemed like a good idea to see if I was up to communicating with any audience whatsoever, much less an audience of novel-readers. See also later notes on motive.

c) I have been very disappointed in the apparent human incapacity to evolve its thought without direct cause. For instance, I should not have to resort to domestic violence to make it clear to my ex-girlfriend that she is a disruptive force in my life, yet it seems my friends are simply waiting for me to crack. At Exosci, I would say the number of times we've had to repeat arguments over the definition of "God" or "atheist", or squares and circles, or the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, and so forth, often reaches that point. My recent salvos with Tony1, for instance, have yet to demonstrate any progress toward actual communication. I have my opinion, which goes something like, "If he would just ... then ...." And I'm sure he's got a similar opinion among his thoughts; we're both after simple points, and simply not getting there. It's hard to say, I expected people to be smarter, because nobody's necessarily stupid; I just haven't ever figured out what's so hard about communicating with other people yet.

d) I'm born and raised by Sunday Lutherans, and schooled by Jesuits and Sunday Catholics. To sum up the remainder of that question: Never in my life has the Bible made practical sense when comparing its terms with the actions of its believers; its believers seem to think that, no matter what they are doing, they are behaving properly. While this issue comes up with other philosophies, the actions of those confused by other philosophies so rarely interfere in my life in the same way that misguided Christians do. No more censorship on behalf of Christian "propriety"; no more talk of making children pray in public schools--in fact, Christianity seems to be bad for the schools in general; no more assumption that God lets people meddle in other people's lives for His glory ... if the Bible is what it claims to be, what's the problem God's having with communication? And the paradox of the Devil helps Christian validity none. The rest of the world knows our Christian neighbors are just as imperfect as us; we just wish the Christians would realize it. No more children crying in the night because Daddy hurt them and you can't say anything bad about Daddy because God says so. (This one is a must; I need two hands to count the number of child rapes I know have been excused on these grounds; I need a second hand to count the number of suicides I've counseled as relates to this stupid interpretation of a commandment.) That kind of thing. If the Bible meets its boasts, great. In the meantime, as long as it doesn't, it better get off its high and mighty exclusionism. (I'm stopping this paragraph here due to interruption and the inability to relight this particular pilot light.)

e) I have to stand on the above paragraph, for brevity's sake, as well as the volume of my posts here at Exosci (including the 1460 or so before the changeover reset my thread count). Despite the occasional apoplexia, one can still derive from my posts any various number of words wasted to expand on paragraph (d) above.

But, as I am being paid to do other things at the moment, I must digress to those things.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
I can go to med school and learn exactly what happens when a bone heals according to nature. Can you describe, or where can one learn, exactly what happens when God miraculously heals the bone?

I can go to med school and learn exactly what happens when a tumor recedes and heals. Can you describe, or where can one learn, exactly what happens when God miraculously heals the tumor?

I can go to med school and learn how exactly what happens when one who does not hear is made to hear. Can you describe, or where can one learn, exactly what happens when God miraculously restores the hearing?
I did go to med school and you don't learn those things there.
What you learn there is what someone else thinks happens.
And as time goes on, what you also learn is that they didn't get it right last decade or the century before.

So much so that I can watch time-lapse footage of a tumor receding over sixty days in sixty seconds. If I could watch the effect of God's miracle the way I can watch the effect of chemotherapy, what would that show me? How would nature operate and react?
From what I've seen, the time-lapse version and the slo-mo replay would take the same amount of time.
It's pretty well instantaneous in most case, altho not all.

And all at the stake of som