So why is it so hard to believe God is.....

[Landlord]

So responding to you with the same amount of respect that you have shown toward me is un-Christian? Hmmm.... It must be impossible to live up to your standard of "what a Christian should act like."

 

Oh well I guess... Thankfully, I have a savior who gave His own life so that I don't have to be eternally punished for such an outrageous outburst.

 

According to Scripture, and our savior, love is meant to be unconditional - taking into account the respect someone shows you is a "condition" you are placing upon the relationship. Not okay.

 

 

The tangent this thread is taking is this: Science cannot fully explain at this moment exactly how everything came to be - therefore, God.

 

But of course this isn't remotely true. We're on the path, not at the destination. We're finding this stuff out as we go. The Scientific Method as we know it today didn't even exist until the 17th century. We didn't know what electricity was until the 18th century. We couldn't harness it until the 19th century. But because we didn't know the uses and theory behind electricity in the 16th century does not mean that it was unobtainable knowledge. It meant that we had a way to go. And when we discovered the nature of electricity, that didn't mean we couldn't harness it, it meant we had a way to go.

 

And today, because we don't know every answer to how/why the universe exists, that doesn't mean the theories and physics we've developed aren't viable - it means we have a way to go.

 

Lack of intricate knowledge of the foundation of the universe is not evidence of God. It is evidence of our lack of knowledge. But we'll get there. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the knowledge is out there.

 

No disagreement with you knapp, but even we get to the point of full and complete intricate knowledge of the foundations of the universe, we still won't be any closer or further away from determining whether or not a supernatural Creating agent was behind it. Science won't ever be able to answer the question "does this have purpose or meaning?" simply because that's not science's job.

[knapplc]

No disagreement with you knapp, but even we get to the point of full and complete intricate knowledge of the foundations of the universe, we still won't be any closer or further away from determining whether or not a supernatural Creating agent was behind it. Science won't ever be able to answer the question "does this have purpose or meaning?" simply because that's not science's job.

 

Correct. The continuing absence of God is the greatest indicator that there is no god, just as the continuing absence of Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster and other mythological creatures indicates that they are not real.

[sd'sker]

That's not a flaw at all. If a Creator exists, that means they created the boundaries of space and time, and thus, are not subject to them. A Creator would be eternal, or at least would have some other time-based attribute that we are incapable of understanding, much in the same way that if cartoon characters were sentient, they wouldn't be able to understand how their drawers were not animated or limited to 24.9 frames per second.

does the creator ever wonder who created him?

 

 

no....

but we, creators of the cartoons, question who created us.

[ZRod]

So responding to you with the same amount of respect that you have shown toward me is un-Christian? Hmmm.... It must be impossible to live up to your standard of "what a Christian should act like."

 

Oh well I guess... Thankfully, I have a savior who gave His own life so that I don't have to be eternally punished for such an outrageous outburst.

 

 

 

 

Cute theory by the way.

 

Read the first sentence please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

There is a MASSIVE difference between "faith" and scientific theory. Namely theory is demonstrable through either mathematics, physical observations, experimentations or all three.

[Landlord]

That's not a flaw at all. If a Creator exists, that means they created the boundaries of space and time, and thus, are not subject to them. A Creator would be eternal, or at least would have some other time-based attribute that we are incapable of understanding, much in the same way that if cartoon characters were sentient, they wouldn't be able to understand how their drawers were not animated or limited to 24.9 frames per second.

does the creator ever wonder who created him?

 

 

no....

but we, creators of the cartoons, question who created us.

 

 

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Obviously the analogy is imperfect, because it's an analogy. The point of it is to look at the relationship between creator and created, not to point out that "oh wait the creator still wonders about it's creator so it's actually created to does that mean it's Creator wonders about who or what created it?"

[sd'sker]

That's not a flaw at all. If a Creator exists, that means they created the boundaries of space and time, and thus, are not subject to them. A Creator would be eternal, or at least would have some other time-based attribute that we are incapable of understanding, much in the same way that if cartoon characters were sentient, they wouldn't be able to understand how their drawers were not animated or limited to 24.9 frames per second.

does the creator ever wonder who created him?

 

 

no....

but we, creators of the cartoons, question who created us.

 

 

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Obviously the analogy is imperfect, because it's an analogy. The point of it is to look at the relationship between creator and created, not to point out that "oh wait the creator still wonders about it's creator so it's actually created to does that mean it's Creator wonders about who or what created it?"

why would a creator not wonder what created it? it knows that it can create, so it could surmise that it was created? i liked your analogy. cartoons can not understand how they were created, we do not understand how we were created, would it not stand to reason that the creator does not understand how it is created.

you just get into a loop of eternal return.

[JJ Husker]

Sorry, it took awhile to reply. Had to quit laughing and all. It seemed as if you might be attempting to pass off a THEORY as fact. But then I thought "wait, this guy doesn't believe in theories, only demonstrable facts", then I got confused. Isn't the existence of God an unproven theory? Funny how some people pick and choose which unproven theories are worthy while they treat others like there are hard facts disproving them. Did I miss it somewhere? Where are those facts proving God doesn't exist? I know, I know- you don't like that question so now it is time to demand proof that the unprovable exists. I got the drill.

 

I'm glad you found that so funny. Have you read about String Theory? Have you studied how the universe was formed? Have you read any other religious texts than the Bible?

 

Also, since you're so interested in facts and all, can you show me where I said these theories were facts? Where did I use the word fact? Where did I say they were anything other than theories?

 

Did I miss that somewhere, or were you too busy laughing to notice?

I think where this discussion usually gets off track is when some people express a belief in God and other people mistake that belief and faith as if it is a claim of absolute fact. There is a rather large difference between me saying I believe in God and I think it is true and you taking that as me telling you exactly how things are. I'm not doing that even though that is what you think you are hearing. I admit I cannot provide the proof that you want. I cannot help that the proof you want cannot be provided. But, a little consistency would be nice. Fine, you do not believe there is a God or a creator or any reason why we are here and no cause for the big bang. You don't see that logically there has to be cause for every reaction and if you chase that back far enough, that there has to be an uncaused cause. I simply believe that uncaused is God but I will concede that it could be an eternal spaghetti monster. But, what I don't believe is that all of this happened by pure chance. I see signs of design in the natural world. Just because 99% percent of those things can also be explained by science doesn't prove squat. It simply means we have discovered scientific methods to quantify and explain these events. That is a far cry from any sort of proof that God or a creator didn't cause them to happen. I understand that you don't agree with my belief. I've got no problem with that. I know it takes faith in unprovable things. I understand that men have done bad things in the name of religion for as long as men have been around. I guess where you start to lose me is when you express disbelief in God but then turn around and claim to know how a good supreme being should do things; be seen, save people, prevent evil, remove our free will, we should simply be born right into heaven and never have to suffer this earthly existence, etc. You lose me when you claim our lives have no purpose and that there is no bigger reason for us to ever exist. Sorry, I just feel that is insufficient. We have feelings and emotions. You want to break those things down into mere chemical reactions. I simply thinkand want to believe there is more to this life than that. I want to know why, not just how. I'm holding out for something much much better than just a highly unlikely random chance encounter. If you're happy with having no purpose, no reason for being, and only mathematical and scientific explanations for our existence, then have a ball with that.

 

But tell me, why is string theory so superior to God theory? You accept one and reject the other. Are the books, writings, and teachings of some men just that much more believable than others? Or, is it the plethora of inconsistencies in religion or is that you cannot get beyond the similarities in the storyline between ancient and current day religions? I can agree that those similarities lend credence to the thought that maybe man has been fed the same line with a different name for the big kahuna for eons. But, in my mind, that can only be used to discount the correctness of individual religions. I don't see how coming to the conclusion that Christianity or even multiple other religions are not the completely correct way leads to there is no God. You have gone on ad nauseum about all the research you have done and then use that to belittle others who may have done less in that regard. I am sure I have done relatively little alternate research compared to you but don't mistake that for none. I know a fair amount about science and other religions. I read through your linked article on Gilgamesh and the similarities to the bible stories. I have yet to run into any empirical evidence that refutes my beliefs. I don't think evolution is a crock. I don't think much of anything that has been scientifically proven is wrong. They've got it pretty well figured out back to about 10 to the minus 43rd seconds (I think that is the time frame they are stuck at) after the big bang. How does that dispell or prove what/who caused the big bang? It doesn't. You've got scientific theories and God theory. Either one takes a leap of faith to believe in at this point. You act as if one is correct and one is false. I simply state that I believe in one, that hasn't been proven wrong, and that sets you off.

[JJ Husker]

The tangent this thread is taking is this: Science cannot fully explain at this moment exactly how everything came to be - therefore, God. But of course this isn't remotely true. We're on the path, not at the destination. We're finding this stuff out as we go. The Scientific Method as we know it today didn't even exist until the 17th century. We didn't know what electricity was until the 18th century. We couldn't harness it until the 19th century. But because we didn't know the uses and theory behind electricity in the 16th century does not mean that it was unobtainable knowledge. It meant that we had a way to go. And when we discovered the nature of electricity, that didn't mean we couldn't harness it, it meant we had a way to go. And today, because we don't know every answer to how/why the universe exists, that doesn't mean the theories and physics we've developed aren't viable - it means we have a way to go. Lack of intricate knowledge of the foundation of the universe is not evidence of God. It is evidence of our lack of knowledge. But we'll get there. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the knowledge is out there.

 

Two wholly unsupported claims;

"But of course this isn't remotely true"...........because you said so? Sources?

"But we'll get there"...............because you have faith we will? Or, can you see into the future?

 

And if/when science is able to explain exactly what happened millions of years ago, this will prove there was not a God that caused it to happen? An intelligent design? Somebody in particle physics needs to get right on this.

 

It is not as simple as science can't explain it so it must therefore be God. Science does not even delve into the why. Problem is atheists don't delve into the "why" either. It is inconvenient so it gets dismissed or answered with "how". Funny how when I or others merely claim to have a "belief" in God, we are roundly scourged by the atheists. I "think" it is a fact that God exists. Not once have I claimed it is a fact for you or others. That's your deal to figure out. I can't prove it but I believe it. Call me crazy. Oh by the way, call yourself crazy too based on the 2 statements above.

[HuskerShark]

So responding to you with the same amount of respect that you have shown toward me is un-Christian? Hmmm.... It must be impossible to live up to your standard of "what a Christian should act like."

 

Oh well I guess... Thankfully, I have a savior who gave His own life so that I don't have to be eternally punished for such an outrageous outburst.

 

According to Scripture, and our savior, love is meant to be unconditional - taking into account the respect someone shows you is a "condition" you are placing upon the relationship. Not okay.

 

Scripture also endorses "eye-for-an-eye." I guess I don't see how putting someone else in their place is such a horrible, unchristian act. That's why most Christians get walked on in these types of threads, because whenever we get assertive, some douchenozzle makes the comment about that type of thing not being Christian behavior. It's BS honestly.

[sd'sker]

So responding to you with the same amount of respect that you have shown toward me is un-Christian? Hmmm.... It must be impossible to live up to your standard of "what a Christian should act like."

 

Oh well I guess... Thankfully, I have a savior who gave His own life so that I don't have to be eternally punished for such an outrageous outburst.

 

According to Scripture, and our savior, love is meant to be unconditional - taking into account the respect someone shows you is a "condition" you are placing upon the relationship. Not okay.

 

Scripture also endorses "eye-for-an-eye." I guess I don't see how putting someone else in their place is such a horrible, unchristian act. That's why most Christians get walked on in these types of threads, because whenever we get assertive, some douchenozzle makes the comment about that type of thing not being Christian behavior. It's BS honestly.

the old testament says that, which is noticeably missing christ. hence, it is 'unchristian'.

[JJ Husker]

Read the first sentence please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory There is a MASSIVE difference between "faith" and scientific theory. Namely theory is demonstrable through either mathematics, physical observations, experimentations or all three.

 

I will agree there is a difference between faith and scientific fact. But, there is also a rather large difference between scientific theory and fact. Words matter. If it is just a theory, it is not yet absolute fact no matter how demonstrable or measurable it is. Let's have a little experiment of our own. Do you love your (pick one) wife/girlfiend/parent/child/any specific person? Prove it? I'll save you some time, you can't prove it beyond a theory. But I bet you still believe and have faith that you love this person.

[knapplc]

JJ, I give more credence to verifiable facts than wholly unsupported beliefs - and I will every time. There comes a time in a rational mind when you have to decide whether the stories you were told as a child should remain unchallenged, dogmatically believed, or whether they might be wrong, and seek greater truths. String Theory is a greater truth, or to put it differently, it's further along the path toward truth than bronze age myths. There is a clear progression in our understanding of the world around us through history. All I'm doing is following that path.

 

String Theory and its compatriots among physicists are testable, mathematically understandable and verifiable. No, not everything in that knowledge set is completely understood, nor is it 100% verified. But it's more verifiable than Christian mythology.

 

You say I lose you when I claim that our lives have no purpose. But a desire for a purpose in life is not a valid reason to believe in a god. Nor is it a valid reason to believe in THIS god, as opposed to the 1,000 other gods out there. At some point you have to realize that your belief in THIS god is simply an accident of geography and time. You agree, I'm sure, that if you were born in Mecca your god of choice would be Allah. If you were born in Tibet you would adhere to the tenets of the Dalai Lama. You'd be Jewish if you were born in Israel, likely atheist if you were born in Russia, etc, etc. You would worship Jupiter Optimus Maximus if you were born in first-century Rome, Zeus if you were born in 3rd Century BC Greece, Odin if you were born in 5th Century Norway, and on and on. The God you worship is that very accident you claim you don't want to believe in.

 

I get what you're saying about the leap of faith science requires. But that leap is constrained to a set of laws, facts and verifiable data. It's not based on bronze-age myths, or accidents of geography or time. It has much firmer foundations than Christian mythology, and far, FAR fewer competing theories than Christian mythology in the science field.

[Landlord]

Scripture also endorses "eye-for-an-eye." I guess I don't see how putting someone else in their place is such a horrible, unchristian act. That's why most Christians get walked on in these types of threads, because whenever we get assertive, some douchenozzle makes the comment about that type of thing not being Christian behavior. It's BS honestly.

 

Old Testament Jewish law Scripture endorses an "eye-for-an-eye", as sdskers said. It's not the action that makes it sin; it's your intention and your heart's desire. I can't say definitively what that is, because I'm not you, but I can say with confidence that you aren't being snide and prideful out of love and concern for knapp or anyone else. And if we, as Christians, get walked on, then great. Jesus said to turn the other cheek when the first gets striked, and to give our coat also when someone asks for our shirt, and He also told us that we would spend our life on this planet being walked on.

 

You can be assertive and still be gracious. It's not a dichotomy. You're just being an ass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why would a creator not wonder what created it? it knows that it can create, so it could surmise that it was created? i liked your analogy. cartoons can not understand how they were created, we do not understand how we were created, would it not stand to reason that the creator does not understand how it is created.

you just get into a loop of eternal return.

[knapplc]

The tangent this thread is taking is this: Science cannot fully explain at this moment exactly how everything came to be - therefore, God. But of course this isn't remotely true. We're on the path, not at the destination. We're finding this stuff out as we go. The Scientific Method as we know it today didn't even exist until the 17th century. We didn't know what electricity was until the 18th century. We couldn't harness it until the 19th century. But because we didn't know the uses and theory behind electricity in the 16th century does not mean that it was unobtainable knowledge. It meant that we had a way to go. And when we discovered the nature of electricity, that didn't mean we couldn't harness it, it meant we had a way to go. And today, because we don't know every answer to how/why the universe exists, that doesn't mean the theories and physics we've developed aren't viable - it means we have a way to go. Lack of intricate knowledge of the foundation of the universe is not evidence of God. It is evidence of our lack of knowledge. But we'll get there. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the knowledge is out there.

 

Two wholly unsupported claims;

"But of course this isn't remotely true"...........because you said so? Sources?

"But we'll get there"...............because you have faith we will? Or, can you see into the future?

 

And if/when science is able to explain exactly what happened millions of years ago, this will prove there was not a God that caused it to happen? An intelligent design? Somebody in particle physics needs to get right on this.

 

It is not as simple as science can't explain it so it must therefore be God. Science does not even delve into the why. Problem is atheists don't delve into the "why" either. It is inconvenient so it gets dismissed or answered with "how". Funny how when I or others merely claim to have a "belief" in God, we are roundly scourged by the atheists. I "think" it is a fact that God exists. Not once have I claimed it is a fact for you or others. That's your deal to figure out. I can't prove it but I believe it. Call me crazy. Oh by the way, call yourself crazy too based on the 2 statements above.

 

Science is all about "why." Why do we exist? Why did the universe form? Why is this here? It's all about why. I'm not sure where you're coming up with this claim.

 

Regarding the "unsupported claims"

 

Science cannot fully explain at this moment exactly how everything came to be - therefore, God is an unsupported claim. Are you telling me that, because science doesn't have all the answers today, that the god myth you believe in is real? I don't think this is even remotely true or in any way supportable. Science's lack of all answers no more supports Christianity than it does Islam, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, or any other faith. That is not remotely true.

 

We'll get there - I cannot support this. All I can do is see the foundation of knowledge we've gained in the past three hundred years of scientific method, and look forward to the eons and eons stretching before us and guess that we'll get there. I'll agree that is not a supportable truth. But it's a safer bet that we'll find out the intricacies of the universe through science in the next 2,000 years rather than finding verifiable proof of a god's existence. We've already had 2,000 years to show that, and there's still none. Further, that's a cherry-picked line out of a whole paragraph of thought, which again does nothing to support the idea that God or any god is real.

[HuskerShark]

Scripture also endorses "eye-for-an-eye." I guess I don't see how putting someone else in their place is such a horrible, unchristian act. That's why most Christians get walked on in these types of threads, because whenever we get assertive, some douchenozzle makes the comment about that type of thing not being Christian behavior. It's BS honestly.

 

Old Testament Jewish law Scripture endorses an "eye-for-an-eye", as sdskers said. It's not the action that makes it sin; it's your intention and your heart's desire. I can't say definitively what that is, because I'm not you, but I can say with confidence that you aren't being snide and prideful out of love and concern for knapp or anyone else. And if we, as Christians, get walked on, then great. Jesus said to turn the other cheek when the first gets striked, and to give our coat also when someone asks for our shirt, and He also told us that we would spend our life on this planet being walked on.

 

You can be assertive and still be gracious. It's not a dichotomy. You're just being an ass.

 

I've always said, better to be an ass than a pushover.

 

Edit: Just to be clear, I wasn't directing the pushover thing at you or anybody else. Just saying.