One day Achilles ran a race with a tortiose. The tortiose had a 100 meter head start, and they ran. Now the question is, did they ever catch up? This is like a question of religion. You can argue and argue and argue about it, and all you will get is anger and not a lot more.

I think depriving someone of religion is like deleting all the fun and/or hope from their life. Alan, please don't stir up the bee-hive... It will just come back to sting you. Or maybe you are being hacked... otherwise you wouldn't make such a belligerant statement. I hope the latter is the case...

If you think that God doesn't have any power, then it's easy to say that stories like Noah's disprove the stories of the Bible. However, if you want to pursue the question of how Noah took animals from all over the world on the ark, this question assumes that the world before the flood was like the world is today with animals specialized for certain areas. Today the world is 70% water and the oceans separate the continents. Also, some animals only live in a few selected locations. The Bible teaches that before the flood the water was gathered into one place (Genesis 1:9). There was probably one ocean and much more landmass. Also, if the climate was more temperate animals could live in all types of places which means Noah did not have to go gather animals from all over the world. In fact, the Bible says that the animals came to Noah (Genesis 6:20).

Much, maybe even most of the old testament defies natural explanation, from Noah and the ark to Moses and the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. That is not to mention, of course, the story of creation itself. The God I believe in, however, is omnipotent and can do such things, and the debate over the possibilities of such miraculous events is really a non-issue.

And yes, Alan, I think that belief in a god who is dead and has no power to do anything is quite piddly.

I won't continue to repeat myself about why God's existence cannot be proven, scientifically. I myself have witnessed miracles, healings, and really nothing compared to what has happened. I'm not talking about the old testament or in Jesus' day, but go to Central and South America where bars and police stations are decaying from disuse, because of what God is doing there, and someone being raised from the dead is a commonplace sight. God most certainly does have an impact on our world, and your 'theory' does not fit very well at all. Even if you don't believe in documented natural and medical miracles, the biggest impact God has is simply in peoples' lives, daily. If you care to dismiss such miracles without any explanation except that you don't believe that God can do anything in the world, well, I'm not sure I can help you there.

Now, to evolution. Obviously, it cannot be proven, certainly as evolution or speciation has never been observed, nor have we even seen the emergence of a favorable trait that did not already exist as part of the gene pool for a species (think of Darwin's sparrows, Mendel's beans, or those moths in Alaska). Evolution has not been proven to any degree. There have been times when people thought it was, and then the evidence has been discredited, and people still believe what is now regarded as invalid. Textbooks still print it, as with Menkel's malproportioned drawings that are supposed to show the similiarities between embryos of humans and different species. He was forced in his own lifetime to publicly admit that his drawings were contrived and intentionally misdrawn to support embryologists, yet current textbooks still print his drawings as evidence of common ancestral evolution, in lieu of actual representations of the various embryos.

Popular misconceptions such as this have led people to belive that evolution has been proven and there is proof to back it up, when really none exists. Other very popular misbeliefs regard the supposed evolution of humans from apes and 'homonid' skeletons that have been found. All but three of the twelve specimens claimed to be links between man and apes have been shown to be either entirely apes, or entirely ancient human beings. The 'three' were Nebraska Man, an entire species formed from a single tooth (only to be found later that it was a pig's tooth), Orce Man, based on the skullcap of a donkey, and Piltdown Man, a complete hoax that fooled the scientific community for years, which was an ape's jawbone placed with a human skull. Of the others, most were entire models formed only from partial teeth and jawbone fragments, and were actually nothing more than apes. Other more complete fossils, were also apes, such as the [in]famous Lucy and the four supposed members of the Australopithecus genus, were three feet tall and were examined with the conclusion that the skull had no human features at all. Homo erectus was thought to be less than human simply because early speculations were made that his brain appeared markedly smaller than that of a modern man. Now, it is admitted that "there are men of marked intelligence walking about today whose brains are as small or smaller" than that of Homo erectus. Cro-magnon Man were "indistiguishable in body and brain" from modern humans, and the skeleton used to create Neanderthal Man is identical to that of a modern elderly man with arthritis.

Also, since such a vast fossil record exists for dinosaurs and other ancient beings, as well as fossils of animals that are still alive today, how do you explain that there has never been found any species that is a link between two other species? Not only have no actual 'homonids' been found, no transitional species of any supposed evolutionary step. An animal that is often cited as a link between dinosaurs and reptiles and birds is achaeopteryx, an ancient bird that had rows of tiny teeth. It was once believed to have solid bones, unlike the hollow bones of modern birds, and to have much more simple feathers. A complete skeleton found in 1977 showed that its bones were indeed hollow and it's feathers were barbed and identical in structure and composition to those of modern birds of flight.

Darwin himself admitted that the biggest obstacle to 'proving' evolution lay in the lack of fossil evidence. He stated in The Origin of Species that "the geological record is extremely important and this fact will explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, whill rightly reject my whole theory." He had complete faith that future evidence would eventually prove his theory. That has not happened; to the contrary, the geological record is more complete than ever (obviously, it's not becoming less complete) and the lines between different species are becoming more and more distinct.

I never said that C-14 dating showed that humans and dinosaurs had lived together; rather, I said that the C14 dating methods used to say that dinosaurs lived so many millions of years ago (and before humans or other mammals) are erroneous and obsolete, although scientists commonly use selected examples to back up a particular point and disregard anything else.

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breathe CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radioactive version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating. Also, the lower level of C-14 in the past would mean that a test performed today would seem to show that the specimen is much older than it really is.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on.

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating primarily rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

How about these examples:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61)
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637)
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211)
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000."
"One part of Dima" [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000.
(Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (US Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.)
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.
(In the Beginning, Walt Brown, p. 124)

Also interesting to note is radioactive dating of rocks. Of course, rocks do not take in CO2, nor do they die and stop taking it in. The use of potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating is used instead. The new lava dome of Mt. St. Helens was formed when it erupted in 1986. In 1997, five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock. We know when this dome formed. When we date rock of known age we test the claims and we see obvious failures. But, when we date rock of unknown age, we are assured that the results are accurate.

What I did say was that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. There have been trails of dinosaur and human tracks on top of each other that fossilized. People have tried to speculate that the human tracks were made millions of years later. Now, suppose you saw several footprints in a sidewalk and someone said, "This print was made ten years after the one beside it." Would you buy that? No way! We understand that tracks in mud do not last long. To be preserved, they must be solidified rapidly, within days. Once the material hardens, the tracks are preserved and footprints will no longer leave an impression. Furthermore, exposed tracks weather rapidly. Therefore, we know the next layer was deposited immediately and rapidly. More than one such series of tracks have been found in different parts of Texas and Mexico. Also, ceramic sculptures, wall paintings, and tapestries from ancient peoples in Mexico and from Native American tribes show perfect representations of dinosaurs as we know today that they would have looked like. Most markedly, perhaps, are the models of Iguanadon, whose skeleton baffled scientists for nearly fifty years as to how to put it together correctly. Of course, ceramic figurines (ca. 800 BC-200 AD) from Acambro Mexico, have iguanadon and other dinosaurs perfectly represented. Finally, there are many instances of both human and dinosaur fossils that appear out of place in the geological record, either with respect to the supposed dates of the rocks they are found in or to other fossils in the same series of strata; such cases are usually overlooked.

As to your garble, Alan, about the new testament, that is more of a theological debate than a logical one as you have tried to make it. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are still three distinct persons or entities, but one God. I don't understand it, nor do I expect to be able to, ever, so of course I will not try to explain it. Jesus cried out, "why have You forsaken me?" because God had. Jesus, though having lived a perfect life, was bearing the weight of all sin for all mankind. That means that the wrath and anger God would have directed at us was directed at Jesus instead. The rest of your banter is confusing Jesus and God the Father with the entire Godhood; Jesus' death as a man did not mean God was dead (maybe Hank's assumptions were accurate after all).

.. Gamer, I have no idea what you're saying or what you're trying to say, if anything at all, so I am not going to respond to it other than this sentence.

I look forward to further debate, but these are still nothing more than empty words. I cannot prove that God exists, and even if I could, it wouldn't mean anything unless you let it. Again I implore, ask God to make Himself real to you. I promise, that's all the proof you'll ever need.

A:Does god exist?

B:I think so.

A:If God exists,then does the devil exist?

B:If that is true,then God exists.
Does God exist?

First of all (since this was a little unclear) this debate originated in the problem can or cannot.

Secondly i have not made this debate to be malicious. It just came and I knew it would be a good topic to talk about.

Thirdly, well despite my vain attempt in the first paragraph about me talking about not calling other's belief's insulting names e.g piddly, I was ignored. I tried to make sure that people opinion's would be respected, but i guess that was a little to much for some. Dj, I have not called or insulted your beliefs in anyway, please don't insult mine. I hope that this is not to hard to handle. You can believe my beliefs are stupid, just please don't say it. Since you have a strong belief in the bible you should know what goes around comes around.

Fourthly, well evolution seems to be a big debate now so I shall explain two simple concepts that give evolution a degree of accuracy proving that it may have happened.
1. Simpler organisms came before more complex ones (This also means invertabraes came before vertabraes, therefore fossils would only start showing up when animals evolved into inveratabraes)
2.All animals come from parent animals. If you know gr.9 science you should know this. And don't try arguing where did the very first unicellular organism come from, because the theory behind that is that a chemical reaction took place creating it.

Another concept that supports evolution is wisdom teeth. A lot of people have to get them removed. Why? because there is no room for them. Over the years wisdom teeth removal rate has gone up. But god has created man in his own image, and god is perfect. Why would there be a flaw in the creation of man? To sum up evolution you say there is no more proof. Well tell what has MORE proof. God just did it? or: All the reasoning behind evolution(which has explanation behind it) happened?

And as to your point about the tracks, as you have said yourself almost every dating technique is inaccurate so how can you say both footprints were made near the same time. On top of that, prints CAN be remade. By comparing cement to mud you were comparing an apple to an orange. Mud allows to be remolded when re-wet, cement doesn't. So how do you know the mud in which the fossil was contained was not changed in order to allow footprints once again.

as fpr the debate I made about miracles, that was in response to your argument (or possibly someone else's)asking "how do you explain bones magically healed, and diseases gone leaving doctor's baffled" and i did a very good job of explaining that in my first paragraph.

I honestly never meant to imply insults in my comment. and yes that truly is a perfect point. a debate canot go on without some anger, but without name-calling. If you ignore "implied insults" whose existence is dependent on the intentions of the user who typed the comments then there can be nothing. The only implied insult which i made (and i do apologize for being a hypocrite) would be in the second paragraph of my second post. I was angry at the fact that in his first post in this discussion he still called my belief piddly. Despite the fact i made it very clear in my first post that i didn't want this type of thing to go on.

Don't worry famer, i'll be more than happy to explain. Well for going to non-sentient to non-sentient involves the growth of our brain. Technically there is never a point in time when we are non sentient or not alive. As we both know in reproduction a single sperm cell wil join with a single egg cell, both of which are living. when they join they are still living. Technically we are sentient as long as we are living, even oif as one cell. But its only when our brains develop we start to think and remember. As for the creation of the universe, no-one is for sure but i have my own theory which I will explain. At first in the universe there was nothing. Now this "nothing" cannot be looked at as a thing, so it has no size no dimension etc. Now all this nothing was "trying" to find something. All this nothing acted on eachother as a vacuum and this turned the nothing into energy. But the nothing is infinetely small, hence causing the big bang to be an infinetely small point of energy, because the "nothing" was infinetely small and this nothing is also infinite. (Infinite to the point where matter is as dense as possibl in an infiniteley small spot.

One important key to the success of the human race is to try to figure everything out, and as one principle everything in the universe obeys the laws of existence(as i call it). Now the laws of existence, are the boundaries of what thibngs can and cannot do. Humans do not have a perfect grasp on the laws of existence but yet we are at a start. physics, relativity, electricity. We MUST keep on trying to understand everything. I'm sorry but sitting back and saying "God just did it" isn't good enough for me. Look at the amish for example. Would you like to be an amish person? Would you like to be bound by your beliefs. My beliefs are set up in such a way that the ability to uncover the laws of existence are not bound by my beliefs.

Oh yes by the way dj. I NEVER said god was dead. My point about jesus killing himself was merely me finding a contradiction within the bible, and me saying that god is a "phase" in our existence, that does not mean he is dead.

I to would like to see a Utopian world (of course to this you would have to eliminate emotion so i guess i would want a world that is extremeley close to a utopia. But Gamer let me ask you this. Would just saying "god did it" and not figuring out the keys to science allow us to achieve this utopian world. Definetely not. In order for a utopian world to exist the following must happen. We must reach all knowledge and every person must fully understand all the laws of existence, which is possible (not in the next couple thousand years)by things like genetic engineering, stem-cell research etc.

So-called 'rational' thought will only take you so far. Quantum mechanics places limits on what we can measure in a lab. Goedel's Theorem places limits on what we can mathematically prove. The Halting Problem places limits on what computers as we know them can compute. The laws of science are still constructed on faith: faith in what you've read, faith in your own senses, faith that the laws still held true while nobody was watching, and faith that they will continue to work in the future.

Science has no good definition of sentience, even though it's something everybody (well, I'm making an assumption about people whose minds I can't read) experiences. Science has not provided any kind of halfway-decent explanation for humor. I don't think any Judeo-Christian religion has really addressed whether God has a sense of humor, even though it could profoundly reflect on how people relate to him.

There are internal contradictions within the Bible. To me, that is sufficient evidence that it should not be taken as a perfect text - an approximation at best and an anthology of fiction at worst. This, however, does not disprove the existence of God, only a particular view of Him.

I think it is arrogant for any being as puny as ourselves to claim to understand the infinite. There's a lot that we don't know. There's a lot that we can never know if we continue to cling to tried-and-true assumptions. That means there are a lot of places for God, if he exists, to hide: in the spontaneous creation and destruction of particle-antiparticle pairs, in good jokes told at a party, or in your own (for lack of a better word) soul. Who are we to say he's not there?

Yes fl you've made a very good point. Is this debate wrapped up now? Anyways about sentience. (Since it seems to come up a lot) i think i'll give a bit of input on that. I consider sentience to be the fuctioning of a cell nucleus. Why? Well as we all know thoughts are created by patterns of neurons fired off inside of cells. What controls these explosions. commands from the nucleus of the cell. There really is no difference between the working of one nucleus as opposed to another. The only reason people think we're in a state of non-sentience is because our body's develop the memory portion later in our life. According to the cell theory, all cells come from pre-existing cells. So technically we are never in a state of non-sentience (until after we die if we have not reproduced) The only thing that can be debated about is the first cell, which was believed to have been created by chemical reactions.

Anyways fl made a very good point about how we have "faith" in science to. The real question is what faith will benefit mankind the most? I choose science. There may be limits to it(as i believe quantum mechanics is only a theory, correct me if i'm wrong) but then again there is still so much more we could learn between science and quantum mechanics. I guess if humans ever reach all the limits stated above, we will know all the laws of existence.

well its rather quite funny, as this debate started by those very comments

The paradox that started this whole discussion is an interesting one that tells a lot about paradoxes but noting about the existance of God.

The answer is surprisingly simple can God create as stone that he (she, it) can not lift? Of course, He (she,it) would do so by chosing to give up that portion of their omnipotence. He (she, it) would no longer be omnipotent but that does not mean he (she it) would no longer be god. Omnipottence is a characteristic of God not the definition of God.

It is not really a paradox unless you say can God (or other omnipotent entity) create as stone that he can not lift while remaining omnipotent? This boils down to Can an entity cease to be omnipotent and remain omnipotent? which is inherantly a contradiction which is the nature of paradox.

If God is omnipotent and all-good, why let Earth be governed by Satan and his crew. If God can preserve his holy literature, it could be the Vedas, the Quran, the Gospel according to Peanuts, ....

I really think this post is an eye sore for the flooble crew... We usually are open to all sorts of different problems, but here we are arguing about religion... Religion and science are like oil and water. If they mixed, one of them couldn't happen-- Religion is based on things you can't observe and science is based on things you can observe.

In any event, I feel debating about religion is like debating a paradox... People will think they are right, likely because they see something a different way.

No, actually Religion isn't a puzzle, and can't be. In my opinion, puzzles would need some sort of "logical" work or at least an answer... (like riddles have different components you need to fulfill), so puzzles are more logic based. And I think that you can believe in religion because there is a 1/infinity chance of it not existing, but once you are sure it exists it becomes science and not religion. And when you have an answer, you are sure it works (if you test it thoroughly enough; not the "I think this is the answer!")

Maybe this stems from my disbelief in debates that don't accomplish anything... If someone read something in here, it may alter somebody's beliefs or make them mad; not at whoever said it, but the idea itself. Even if the idea was said only in a debate, if it's true it will still carry the same weight.

I am unsure if this debate would fall under that catergory, but it's something to think about. If someone shouts something at you, they might not mean it, but it still will hurt just the same.

This is my first post ever, at these forums.

I read DJ's first argument, and living in South America, "where bars and police stations are decaying from disuse, because of what God is doing there, and someone being raised from the dead is a commonplace sight" and I'm afraid that bars are doing good business, police stations are far busier than anybody would like, and no people have been raised from the dead... and if someone had, it would sure have made the news!

As to the fallacies and erroneous concepts regarding evolution, I cannot do better myself than point to an article in "Scientific American": see
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

I might as well plug my website http://members.aol.com/chasklu/religion. It contains too much to put in a comment here, much as Fermat couldn't fit the proof of his theorem into the margin of a book.

and so is Fred good riddance

In the beginning there was nothing and it is the nature of nothing to behave this way. -CeeAnne-

I cannot accept spooky action at a distance. -Einstein-

We need to search for those particles which, when combined, yield zero mass and energy. -CeeAnne-

I have been reading the posts on this topic. I find most of them very interesting. I reached the conclusions several years ago in my life that I don't know exactly which way is right and will never know. I find myself not understanding how either a non-God universe or a God universe could exist. I simply don't know. When I am consumed with self-sustaining activities I don't think I need much help from God. However, when things really matter to me in life, I find myself praying to God. I guess that's a paradox in itself when you are not sure if there really is or isn't one. Sometimes I thank God when things are going pretty good.

I firmly disagree with Gamer's view point. I feel not all puzzles will have a solveable answer. Maybe in perplexus world, but not the real world. We are not guaranteed that we will find all the right answers in life. Even in many perplexus puzzles, there are many legitamate sololutions to most of them. There is no one definite answer and sometimes no one right answer.

Gamer also had said that the site was tired of hearing this, and this is not the place to post comments on such things, because this is the place to post comments upon puzzles and such. This forum by definition is the place to post any and everything if I'm not mistaken. He could possibly be correct when he says people are tired of hearing about it. Maybe most people are and didn't want to hear this either, but I did enjoy reading over the debates. No one really angered me or persuaded me, but I found the comments entertaining. My thoughts on the subject anyway...

I wonder if God is turning over in his grave.

... and if it's Goodenough for you, it's Goodenough for me.

(sorry--I couldn't resist) :p

My reputation precedes me. I assure you, I'm not as bad as I'm made out to be.

Charlie - I think Capt.P was agreeing with e.g. I could be misunderstanding you, but I think you thought Capt.P misunderstood or was countering e.g. That was my initial reaction too. I was thinking "Um, Capt.P, e.g. didn't say that faith can be vindicated by evidence, he made a different kind of point. Capt. P, you misunderstood e.g."

Instead, I think Capt.P meant "you are right e.g. Someone else might think that faith is vindicated by evidence, but if that were the case it would not be faith. I agree with your definition of Faith, e.g.."

Everyone - correct me if I am wrong =)

By the way, I love your cynicism, Charlie =) There's another touchy topic that I want to add to your list, but I'm not sure if I'm up for opening a can of worms =)

When used transitively, "believe" implies confidence (or faith), not lack of evidence. That is, the confidence may be derived from either evidence or faith.
be·lieve
–v.i.
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–v.t.
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

However "faith", in its particular meaning as used in religion, implies lack of evidence. e.g.'s point was that not only does a matter of faith lack evidence in its favor, but also it is resistant to evidence that would tend to disprove the belief involved.

"Must" also has several meanings. It is odd to say one "must believe the Earth was created a few thousand years ago." Actually I can't believe that.

And this is a forum for everything and anythine (except posting puzzles).

To nikki: the can is open. All we need to do is extract some more worms.

To Erik O.: when you say "Faith is what a person holds on [...] not what you hold on to when there is evidence", do you remember how many creationists are in the USA?

You yourself speak about the difficulty of believing the (judeo-christian) creation story, but there are many millions who believe it to the letter.

Do you remember that in some states there are groups fighting against evolution being taught? Or asking for "equal time" for the Bible version of creation, the church-state separation notwithstanding?

Logical people know and doubt; fundamentalists just believe.

I once had a theology teacher who perpetually interjected "infinite conspiracy of evidence!" in his lectures. What he meant was that nothing can be proven absolutely (How do we know this isn't a mass hallucination and that the ancient pyramids aren't really in Egypt?), but if all evidence seems to conspire towards a certain point, then that point is most definitely the objective truth. He was, of course, using this as an argument for Christianity ("It's not the leap of faith people say it is").

I disagree with a few of the points he made. Among my disagreements was that for this to be a valid argument towards Christianity, you first have to show an "infinite conspiracy of evidence" that points towards it, and no where else.

But my point here is that not every person of religion lacks evidence backing their beliefs. While "faith" has come to imply lack of evidence, that is not the type of faith religious people always have.

"Place your bets" reminds me of Pascal's wager -- that believing in God is better, because the expected value of the outcome is greater than if you don't believe.

There are a couple of serious objections to this...

First, this isn't an argument for the existence of God; only for believing in God.

And second, in which god do you believe? Believing in a wrong god might cause a worse result than believing in no god at all.

in reply to e.g.
"this isn't an arguement for the existence of God"

I suppose you think I believe the end justifies the means. :) No, that's not what I was saying. And for the record, I don't believe in that in most cases. My last line was an attempt, most likely a failed one it seems, at some poor humor. I don't think you should believe in a God out of the fear factor. In fact, I believe if that's the only reason you are doing so, then that actually makes you a less of a person, in the public eye, and any just God's eye.

One comment I have upon your last statement. "Believing in a wrong God might cause a worse result than believing in no God at all." I don't think this is true. If God is surely all knowing and all powerful and all good and you truly believe in the "wrong God" (whatever that means), then the true God should know your reasons for doing so and pardon you as such. With as many religions in the world as there are and as many people that truly believe in them, I don't believe an all good God would punish the masses for illeteracy. If there is only one God, and he isn't all good, then God help us all. Now I ask you, why would a God that is all good, punish you for being illiterate? Now to me, that doesn't make sense, and will never make sense.

FK - yeah, but then he changed, right? I don't remember lots of details, but I thought I remembered something around the Noah's Ark time, and God put a rainbow in the sky, symbolizing how he would be kinder and not just smite us from now on.

I could be way off though.

My point was that (assuming I am remembering correctly) Michael was probably talking about the post Ark God.

By the way, Michael: "If there is only one God, and he isn't all good, then God help us all."

LOL! Awesome!

Nikki, you are mistaken about the time frame.

The entire old testament shows God as a vengeful god. It's not until the new philosophies taught in the new testament that god is portrayed as a loving god. There are few exceptions.


Michael, just because I WANT to believe something is true doesn't make it true. There is plenty of evidence that creatures like elves and dragons once existed--human literature is full of examples of them. However, I cannot take the claims that such things once existed (or still exist) seriously because there just isn't any real evidence to support the claims.

I'll freely admit that the Bible is full of wondrous stories that should be read and passed on to the next generation, but just because there are some truths in the stories doesn't mean that all the stories are true.

Michael, you are forgetting the burden of proof. "Just because you don't want to believe in something doesn't make it false." Right, but the logical way is assuming everything to be false unless shown otherwise... and if YOU say something wildly unlikely, then YOU should give proof; I don't have to furnish proof to the contrary.

For example, if you say "There are violet unicorns", I don't have to prove there are not; it's up to you to show a violet unicorn. The Bible is a lot of mythical tales, without any proof, as all arguments here show; if there was some proof, then there wouldn't be any more disagreements!

(Of course, that only works for scientific minded people. Creationists still argue against evolution, because they reject everything except their fundamentalist point of view... but then again, nobody ever thought fundamentalists were rational, scientific guys!)

Federico,
Do we really assume everything false until proven? What if there are two contradicting opinions that are unproven. Do we assume both false? No, I think what you meant is that we assume that which is more likely, or that which already has the most proof. As for which side has these qualities, that's up for debate... which I suppose is what we're doing now.

Michael Cottle,
First of all, you're taking "wildly" out of context. While you may have understood Federico's comment, taking quotes out of context certainly does not make it look so.

Evolution has overwhelming evidence. It is as certain as... say, the existence of gravity. Big Bang theory has perhaps not so much evidence, but enough to convince many people. There are proofs of God's existence too, but generally, scientific proofs seem to work better. Perhaps this is because scientific proofs seek the truth (If overwhelming evidence against the Big Bang theory appears, there is no reason to stay with the theory), while religious proofs seek a proof to what they already know/think/believe to be true (If evolution, overwhelmingly supported, contradicts the Bible, evolution must be false, or our interpretation of the Bible is false). The burden of proof seems indeed to be on you... if you don't believe in the conclusions of science. A lack of proof doesn't stop you from believing, but many are of the opinion that it should.

I do not doubt that you are not open to any possible objective truth. However, you have indeed made several claims.

Sorry, Michael, you are misusing the word "theory". When scientists say "Evolution is a Theory", they mean "It's a collection of facts, true as far as we have seen, and without contradictions". Gravitation is also "a theory". Cellular reproduction is also a "theory". Relativity and quanta are also "theories". And, NO, neither evolution nor the Big Bang have been "left standing" in the several years; on the contrary, there's more evidence all the time.

And for myself, the idea of an all powerful, all knowing, ubiquitous, invisible, creature, is far wilder than imagining an universe WITHOUT such a creature!

All respect to every body who made his/her remarks here, also every respect to everybodies convictions, even if they are bnot shared by me.

Now here my ideas:
Avin, at last something sensible is said in this forum.
Quote: "it is silly to argue with someone who holds a completely different set of axioms than you on the basis of logic starting with your own axioms"
I personally do not believe there is a god, but since I can't prove there is no god, I can live with the idea that there is science and there may be a god, both together.
I think that Avins remark is a good point to stop this discussion, if for nothing else, then consider the following:
Not counting my own, the above answers count 13150 words. You have to do some thinking while typing, so lets say 10 words/ minute, thats 1315 minutes or 18900 seconds. Add to that the time spend by reading everything by +/- 25 people at say 2200 seconds, the total comes to 73900 seconds. Rough average of people dying from starvation: 1 every two seconds. So that comes to 73900/2 or 36950 (A nice little village/town).
In the mean time, neither god nor science did a lot about it.
I'm off now (trying) to behave as a convinced humanist.
Sure hope I did(n't) shock you guys and girls.

The "axioms" I was referring to in my post are at a more basic, fundamental level than the "premises" of science or religion and are more akin to the axioms of a logical system which once set, do not change - they are merely abandoned for another set, and whatever theorems were proven from the previous set are no less valid now that the system is abandoned. So you say the premises of science comes from observation, well then one of the "axioms" of a scientific worldview is that observation is a tool that can be used to determine the mechanics of reality. However the actual observations that are made or the theorems that are postulated based on the observations are not part of the axioms, they are derived results from those theorems. Similarly, you say for the religious, premises are derived from scripture. Well these premises then do not form the axioms, but one axiom is that "scripture conveys premises."

Federico, when you say I am misusing the word theory, I would like to say a word from a previous thread. You are nit picking. The general gist is that evolution has not been prooved 100% certain, and I think that point probably got across. I am not trying to proove or disproove evolution. I hope I stress that enough to come across right. I did get a kick out as your noun/adjective whatever, with the use of creature. :) Just remember to keep in mind that others may not share your views upon "wildly" ideas about "wild creatures". :)

Avin, thanks for your post. It was a well thought. It is very similar to what I have been trying to say. If everyone has their own axioms, then who's to say who is right. My conclusion on that (everyone has a little bit different theory) is that we don't know nothing with 100% certainty.

Charlie, why do you think that math is alone in the fields of study which have proofs? Here is what I think. Math is the only field where you can narrow the universe down to a few diemensions, definitions and axioms and put it on a piece of paper. This makes proofs possible. In other fields, it is just not possible. That's why mathematics is my favorite of the general fields.

Hugo, I copied a few websites down from Yahoo! God and science may not be doing nothing about starvation, but we sure can...
www.thehungersite.com
www.projectbread.org
www.heifer.org
www.againsthunger.org

The Big Bang is a legimate theory of the creation of the universe. However, when it is used to say that God did not create the universe, the following problem insues.

No matter moves itself. It is first moved by something else. Every action pertaining to matter is also a reaction. For example: the ball moves through the air because something threw it - a hand, perhaps.

Scientists have recorded the alleged "Big Bang" back to two atoms moving. But they have no idea how these started moving. There must have been some force superior to start these two atoms. Hence God.

Now, some will argue that God must have been created. Two problems there. One, god is not matter (except Jesus, who is human and divine) so he is not subject to laws of matter. Two, if something created God, then that creature would be superior to God, and as God is the ultimate supreme being, there can be nothing superior to god. God did not come into being. He always was.

Solution: If the Big Bang is true, then God still created the universe . . . but he did it with the Big Bang.

I'm willing to answer any questions on my theorizing. Please mention this post so I can know to respond.

Why does everything has to have a cause? And, if so, why shouldn't a god have a cause? And, then, what impedes an infinite regress of God-creating Gods? Note that YOUR saying that God is the ultimate supreme being, doesn't make it so!

Why not simply say that the Universe always existed? It is a simpler solution, doesn't call for impossible creatures, and avoids the logical problems.

Captain Paradox,

Just a quick off-topic note. The big bang did not start with two atoms. The big bang started with a statistical anomaly (that doesn't ~require~ design or intention)that while very unlikely in any finite period of time, eventually happened out of the nothing that was before. Saying that scientists don't know what happened before this time is meaningless, because under the big bang theory, there WAS no before (i.e., anything that did happen before, was absolutely independant of anything that happened after, and vice versa). But this is a much different topic, of course.

Michael, it could very well be that our current definition of the universe is incorrect. It won't be the first time we humans have come up with an theory to explain our environment that later had to be revised or completely scrapped for a new theory.

Suppose gods (and God) are a human construction devised by early humans to try to explain things in their world they could not otherwise explain.

Erik O., I see what you are saying. However, just because the early humans might have gotten some things or most things wrong, doesn't necessarily imply that they got everything wrong.

I believe that this leads to a couple or 3 different philosophies of life, that possibly may never be prooved or disprooved without there being more time and knowledge available or nothing short of divine intervention whichever way you may believe. But to say that one philosophy is superior to another one, I would have to say would be jumping to conclusions on on the jumper's part. As Avin has spoken, we all have our own set of axioms. To judge someone else's belief system that are not your own would be nothing short of silly.

Michael, I'm so sorry. I just got back from some trip, and I didn't notice my mistake! What I really meant was "I do not doubt that you are open to any possible objective truth." Yeah, I really messed up on the number of negatives, and said the opposite of what I meant! Now my comment is quite a ways up there. I'm extremely sorry that I couldn't correct it earlier.

... and please, folks, "prove" has only one letter O.

Tristan, thank you for clearing that up! You just never know how you are going to come across when you post to these forums.

Charlie, sorry about my mis-spelled words! I'm sure "prove" wasn't the only one. I am a rotten speller, and I usually have a Microsoft application to do my spelling for me!

Frederico, I'm not sure that's true. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all claim to believe in the same singular god and even within those three very distinct religions there are multitudes of variations on the respective religions.

Cory,

With respect: though the North Pole analogy is not perfect, it does extend in the manner that SK suggests. There *is* no "before the big bang". The very notion of "before" invokes the notion of time. And time is inextricably related to space. Simply asking the question is in a sense "wrong". (It is analogous to asking what is north of the North Pole.) The asking of the question reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of the universe (at least as far as current theory takes us).

ThoughtProvoker

RE: Big Bang... A book I read long ago by Asimov, I think it was called _Black Holes_, proposed a theory about the big bang and the expansion of the universe.

In this theory, the 'big bang' was just one in a long progression of 'big bangs'. Our known universe is currently expanding, but the common belief is that it will stop expanding at some point then start to collapse. If all the matter of the universe were to collapse into itself, the total energy released by the implosion would be enough to cause another cosmic explosion known as 'the big bang'. Sort of a hyperdimensional yo-yo that takes trillions of years to complete a single cycle.

Maybe the song is right... ...maybe we have all been here before?

If the yo-yo analogy is correct, and if it is also true that unity or over unity engines are impossible, then each subsequent explosion would be smaller than the previous explosion, and ultimately the universe will cease to exist.

re: Black box.

How would we ever decipher the message in the box? The rosetta stone was helpful because there was some knowledge about some of the languages on it. Even if the same message were written in multiple ways in the black box, who's to say that beings in one universe would have a similar construct of language, writing, etc. as beings from a previous universe? Maybe that black box has alerady been found by a bunch of pirates in the andromeda galaxy...

On the voyager spacecraft there is a line drawing of two humans and a symbolic message describing our solar system. What's the chance that 10 million years from now som other civilization will find it and be able to determine where it came from?

Well, first of all, I said the box would have to have more than just a note =) What about a "photo album" of our history? I hope they can see and aren't just like bats or something. Maybe some of our inventions too (probably not ones that need electricity), but then I'm getting closer to a cheesy time capsule (which isn't all bad). I agree that languages and numbers (unless in the form of dots or something countable) should be left out.

I started getting sillier and thought "what if we made a big black box, with room in it for a person (or two) and lots of food?" =) Then when the collapsing seemed to be reaching it's end, the person(s) could hop in the box, and camp out until either they died or were lucky enough to open the door on an inhabitable environment =) Hey, maybe that's where Adam and Eve came from!

How freaky would it feel to be around during the end of the collapse? I know we can't "feel" anything now because it's not that fast. But when things start to get closer, and gravitational forces become greater, and we start accelerating faster, how crazy would that be???

If I'm understanding what you're saying about the "other civilization", another question is do those beings even look anything like us... would a human stick figure mean anything to them? By the way, I saw the Golden Record, but I didn't see any line drawings of humans. The images didn't make sense to me either =)

Erik O's postulate is exactly what I am leaving on the table. There is nothing against the possibility of previous incarnations of the universe (either as we know it, or not), however, its tough to say previous without implying before. Our universe has no meaning "before" the big bang, but that doesnt eliminate before as a possibility. (The laws of physics came into effect at the moment of the big bang. In effect, the "inextricable relation" between space and time was created at this "time", and until this relation was created, there is nothing requiring it to be so).

To link this back to the actual topic, I wonder if there are any bible/theological stories of "the god's" previous attempts at the world (like in the Matrix, when it was discovered that it was actually the 7th matrix...)

However, really, all is moot, right? As far as our physical laws go, there is no before.

LOL, that's true, I forgot. And everyone is basically shaped like earthlings, just with little cranial adjustments.

Just to be clear, I understand that in the Big Crunch everything would turn into a black hole and nothing could actually survive. That's why I said "wouldn't it be cool IF we could make a crazy Big Bang-proof black box?" I know that such a thing could not be made =)

I still think it makes for a neat Adam and Eve theory =)

Capt. Paradox: I assume you're referring to the Islamic belief, to which I referred, that Jesus was not God, but a prophet. I am certainly no expert on Islam, but there are various possibilities. Moslems could deny that Jesus said this--that it was made up to justify Christian baptism. They could say that your statement is false, that in fact Jesus intended to institute baptism in the name of (1)God, the father,(2) himself as the father's emissary and the(3) holy spirit, an emanation from the father, rather than solely in the name of the eternal father. As Christians like to say with regard to their own religion: many eminent, intelligent Moslems believe in Jesus as a prophet, not as God.

First: Charlie, take a look at your Bible (if you don't have one, check one out from a library). Look at the passages referring to Jesus. Note that whenever a pronoun means Jesus or Jesus's, it is capitalized (His, He, Him). The only other person with capitalized pronouns is God. Does that say something?

Second: e.g., please answer this question. Does Antarctica exist?

Well, it seems Antarctica still exists... checked the news, found something about a big ice mass and starving penguins, but anyway, Antarctica still seems to be there...

Michael, do you really believe that the sky is blue because God specifically wanted it to be? And that when I throw a die, whatever shows up, is because God just wanted it so? And EVERYTHING that happens, happens just the way God wants, and because of his will?

Federico, I feel that you have missed what I was saying.

If there is a God, perhaps he is the designer, much like one would design a web page or maybe an automotive, or an oak cabinet. I doubt he gives a flip over the outcome of a die and such. So not everything, just the basic design. I don't feel you can argue that the view, "things are that way just becasue that's the way they are" is a better arguement than, "things are that way just because that's they way God designed them". Of course, that's just my opinion. :)

e.g.: Can you prove to me that Antarctica exists? What if the ice and penguins is some sort of elaborate hoax put on by all the governments of the world to keep us away from a military base or something? Have you ever personally seen Antarctica?

Also, in answer to your question (I'm not sure which one, but I'll try to do all of them): God was not created by XXX. He was not created period. He just is. He did not come out of anything; if He came out of something, that something would be the first creater, or God.

How can the universe have always existed? The universe is moving. Something must have moved it. Once you get to the original mover, that is God.

Thanks to all of you who are discussing. This is fun.

Why add unnecessary hypothesis? Just because we can. :)

Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Chemistry? Astronomy? Biology? As soon as you answer these questions, just ask why again. And when those are answered, just ask why again.

But why ask why, try Bud Dry! Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

Captain Paradox, you are echoing my theology teacher I mentioned a ways up. He provided an exercise where we had to prove absolutely that Istanbul is in Turkey. How can we know this isn't all a mass hallucination? We can't! This may not be your point, but his point was that nothing can be proven, but convergent evidence is very close to a proof. Therefore, we are allowed to believe some things even without proof.

I mentioned that I disagreed with some parts of his argument. First of all, there are some things you CAN prove, like in mathematics. Second of all, evidence is NOT convergent on Jesus=God (nor on other beliefs), in my view. I'm sure Charlie can find plenty of contradictions in the Bible for you, if you want to see disagreeing evidence.

First off: let me rephrase that "everything must have a creator" statement. Everything that is entirely matter must have a creator. God does not fall into this qualification, ergo he wasn't created. He was there, period.

Next: I note that e.g. talked about how the evidence that says Antarctica exists is close enough to a proof. The problem is that all that evidence could be forged, much like the Apollo moon landings are believed to have been. Why do we believe Antarctica exists?

We take it on faith.

And that's what I, and every Catholic out there is doing. Taking it on faith. For what that's worth.

Charlie: I can't quote exactly, but somewhere in the Bible Jesus says that "Anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father". We do not see something unless we see it. If by seeing Jesus we see the Father, Jesus must be one with the Father. So, yes, he did say he was God.

Charlie (again): The Bibles used traditionally by Catholics do not contain the many revisions that others, like the King James Version, do. For example, we still have the books of Wisdom and Sirach, which have been deleted in KJ. Personally, I don't really trust the KJ bible as much as a Catholic one, because the KJ Version came about due to the English reformation, which was a movement that purposely drifted away from the Catholic Church (which has existed since Jesus anointed Peter first pope) and thus was compelled to change many of the Catholic Church's teachings - including it's scripture. The KJ Bible was translated in the 16th century; the Catholic Bible has remained since the convention that assembled it (I believe before the 1000's).

< -- Capt P.

You are taking more on faith than you admit. (BTW, That quotation is from John 14:9 (it's handy to have QuickVerse installed on one's computer, for looking up things like this)). Not only are you taking on faith that Jesus is God, but also that Jesus actually said this. John, the latest of the Gospels (capitalized to indicate I'm talking about the four that have been canonized), is full of references that indicate Jesus claimed to be God, while the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke, in choronological rather than canonical order) contain references that exalt Jesus, but not necessarily make him divine. This shows a progression of belief (apotheosis) in historical time. John even quotes Jesus: John 8:58 : "Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.'" (NRSV, but I'm sure Catholic versions are much the same).

< -- Capt. P.

The King James version is not the only Protestant version, and the Douay-Rheims is not the only Catholic Version. On my computer I have the New Revised Standard Version, which is a much more modern and scholarly Protestant version. On my bookshelves, I have the Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible, both modern Catholic translations.

You bring up the Canon of the Bible, saying that the Catholic versions contain books such as Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), that are not contained in the Protestant Canon. If completeness is a virtue, then even the Catholics are blameworthy here, for leaving out the Gospels of Mary and of Thomas as well as other non-canonical gospels. You can Google that phrase and get the contents of those gospels. The infancy narrative of Thomas is really cute, with the child Jesus using his powers to play tricks on his playmates and neighbors. It's not a question of being able to believe everything you read. The church fathers decided what ancient writings to include. In doing so, they put their own ideas forward, which did not necessarily reflect the ideas of any Jesus, just as John's ideas (using "John" to represent the author of the Gospel of John, though the works were really unsigned, and assigned to authors by the church fathers) were not necessarily Jesus's either.

Federico: Believing others without seeing proof yourself is taking it on faith. Just because somebody else says it doesn't mean it's true. To quote Charlie, you are taking more on faith than you admit.

Charlie: Note that in John's Gospel(or the Gospel attributed to John) always refers to John as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". I see no reason why someone else who wrote it would not include John's name in there - the only plausible explanation I can see is that John wrote it, not using his name out of modesty.

And also, on the books of the Bible, yes, there were a lot of items not included in the original version - the writings of Clement, for example. But everything put into the first Bible was put there for a reason, which we may or may not have on record. And, as I believe happened with the Gospels as well, they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Is "divine diction" the word? Many other editions after the original omitted certain writings (Sirach and Wisdom, i.e.) that the early Church thought was worthy to include.

I don't know who cares about this next section, but this is my vindication of the Catholic Church over the other denominations: In 1st Timothy 3:15, Peter says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth". He would be referring to the Church of that time . . . the Catholic one.

I just happen to be reading George Carlin's book When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?, and came across a "bit or piece" saying "When it comes to God's existence, I'm not an atheist and I'm not an agnostic. I'm an acrostic. The whole thing puzzles me." (page 261) I guess that brings us back to the topic of perplexus.

"Note that in John's Gospel(or the Gospel attributed to John) always refers to John as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". I see no reason why someone else who wrote it would not include John's name in there - the only plausible explanation I can see is that John wrote it, not using his name out of modesty."

... or the writer wanted to make it look as if it were John writing.

"But everything put into the first Bible was put there for a reason, which we may or may not have on record. "

... the reasons being what beliefs the Canon makers were trying to advance. Some of the influences were Constantine's wish for a cohesiveness to bind the Roman Empire. "The Church" was not so unified before that time--Paul had a limited view, without today's communication facilities.

Euclidean geometry is taught in high school as other geometries are considered too advanced. Most H.S. students would have a fit if non-Euclidean were also included, plus you wouldn't have time for other things in the H.S. curriculum. However, in the real world, it is observation which determines what geometry is best. For most practical mundane tasks Euclidean geometry is just fine. But large-scale structures of space and time require, for consistency with observation, deviations from Euclidean geometry, and this is no problem.

In the religious field, however, certain texts are deemed sacred, and not subject to change. So Christians and Jews still hold sacred a book that says that homosexuals should be stoned to death (and in fact disobedient children, if they are incorrigible). Most Christians are not so ultra-fundamentalist as to insiste that these be carried out to the letter. But the books that say these things are still considered divinely inspired, and the "truth" in some way.

The commentaries about which you speak may say the words on the page do not mean what they plainly say, and this cognitive dissonance is accepted even in liberal churches. I don't see the point in that.

We have a serious difference... You say "we can't prove any of those sciences, unless the entire community tests them." But the key point is that the community HAS tested those sciences!

As to your point about accepting ONE or MANY books... what difference does it make? As long as you must ACCEPT them, with no questions allowed, it makes no difference whatsoever. As a matter of fact, you could see the Bible as many books together under one cover.

Moreover, you yourself say that doing your own interpretation of the sacred books is wrong -- that is, THINKING FOR YOURSELF IS NOT ALLOWED!? So, it comes down to "You MUST accept the Church's vision, and shut up!"

I don't see any problems with Euclidian geometry being taught in High School... the same reason why arithmethic is taught before algebra, or integers before imaginary numbers. However, NOBODY ever said that non-euclidian geometries are TABOO or BAD or something like that; it's just the old "Learn to walk before running" idea!

As to Sunday school, you say "wWe are only taught from one book, but just because we are doesn't make all others unacceptable." Have you EVER tried suggesting that the Koran be taught at Sunday School?

And, if it wasn't clear enough, I'll say I'm a total atheist -- one of those who thinks agnostics are just timid atheists! ;-)

LOL @ Charlie's restatement!

Nobody had ever called me dogmatic, or even dogmatic-wannabe! A first!! :-)

Old Original Oskar!, would a Theist call an Agnostic a timid Theist? I was wondering if it worked both ways? An Agnostic may call a Theist or an Atheist to be believing in something that they just can't be 100% certain. From my view point, the agnostic is the only one who can say for certain that he is correct.

e.g., I don't think you can interchange "Pink Invisible Unicorns" with God. The idea of a God has been around much, much longer than the thought of "Invisible Unicorns". I'm not arguing that the time frame makes the idea any more real, but I am arguing against interchanging these 2 ideas. It's almost an attack on the Theist view point hinting that they are somehow nieve or gullible enough to believe in things that do not exist.

I still disagree with the burden of proof idea as well. If you believe that God exists, I don't think you should have to prove your idea anymore than someone who believes that God does not exist.

In mathematics, there are countless proofs that require a proof of a number that does not exist. If you believed that there was no such number, does that mean you don't have to prove it. Of course not. Until the proof is written, there is no way of knowing if the number is real or not. I see this burden of proof idea as an easy way out for atheists to support their own ideas. Again, these are my opinions as stated and are subject to change. :)

Is the Universe a perpetual motion machine?
Did the Big Bang violate the law of conservation of mass-energy?
Why does the law of conservation of mass-energy exist?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
How can physical matter create a consciousness like myself?

These are the big questions, and unfortunately science can't answer them. Unfortunately also, religion cannot answer them either, but it pretends to.

I cannot know for sure what Einstein was talking about when he mentioned God. But the questions above are certainly cause to ponder. Someone said that if God did not exist, we'd have to invent him. An alternative is that we'd collectively be him. So the problem with God is that the term can have so many different meanings for different people.

Michael, to me your analogy is the flawed one. The scientific people show they do not know, and don't impose a solution without proof... there's nothing wrong about saying "I don't know." The theist doesn't know either, but just says "It's God's will" and lets it go at that.

If everybody had always been satisfied with that, we'd still be at the caveman level...

Capt. Paradox, what proof, other than the Bible, do we have of Jesus' miracles? If I had a cult following and my followers wrote books about the marvelous things I've done would that be proof enough that I really did them?

I don't know if Jesus really helped blind people see, but I was watching a show on Discovery several months ago where a team of Doctors (one a surgeon, his brother a computer/electronics expert) implanted a chip in a blind man's eye that allowed him to see. When the surgery was done the blind man drove a car around in the parking lot. I don't think either of the doctors claimed to be Jesus, but they did claim to be scientists.

- - -

If you study different religions, you'll find that Christianity is not the only religion which has a god that sacrificed itself for its creations. In Greek mythology, the gods used to inhabit earth just like humans and were even known to interact with humans. As you may know, Heracles, the earlier Greek version of the Roman demi-god Hercules, was the offspring of Zeus, a god, and Alcmene, a mortal Earth woman. That's not too far a stretch from the story about God (or the Holy Spirit) impregnating Mary with Jesus. I suspect that there were many such imaculate conceptions of single women in those days when a high ranking official (probably a priest) took too many visits to her cookie jar.

While we're opn the subject of proving or disproving the existence of gods, can anyone prove to me that Thor, Odin, and Freya don't exist?

Erik O.: You say that other gods sacrificed themselves - yet you give no example of a sacrifice of such magnitude as giving up one's life as Jesus did, the ultimate gift.

And, by the way, the Immaculate Conception was different because the Holy Spirit didn't go around having children with woman after woman like Zeus did. I believe Zeus had children with Alcmene, Antiope, Themis, Metis, Carme, Callisto, Europa, Io, Demeter, Leda, Electra, Maia, and Taygete, not to mention his (rather foolishly) faithful wife, Hera. I'm not sure how many others there were, but the point is, Jesus was much more precious a gift because he was the only son of God, whereas Heracles, or any other of Zeus's kids, was one of many and never died for the salvation of the world.

On the point of the blind man driving around, note that you only saw him on TV. I watched Boobah the other morning (a mistake I won't repeat). That doesn't make it real. Again, you believe this show because you perceive it as trustworthy. That's exactly what I do with the Bible. Oh dear, now we're going to slip into that whole argument on faith again. Back to square one . . .

This probably has already been posted, but it's worth repeating:

Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac? He lies awake in bed all night, wondering if there really is a dog.

Charlie, I first would like to say that I have never doubted the existence of Anartica. I believe that all theists do not take the church's views and teachings literaly. A theist can be a theist without taking the traditional views to such an extreme degree. They are after all taught by man, as imperfect as we are. I believe a theist such as this would have no need for the cognitive dissonance that you are talking about. A theist can posess free will and good judgement, and the curiosity to ask the scientific question, "why".

Charlie: Original sin signaled the condemnation, the fall from grace, of mankind. Eve gave Adam the apple (we don't know that it was an apple, only whatever fruit grew on the Tree of Knowledge) and he ate from it. After that everybody was sinning (Cain killed Abel, Lot's wife ran back to the city of Sodom, etc.) and God foresaw a need for redemption. He sent Mary and kept her from sin (because, how can a being that sins give birth to the son of God?) because she would be the new Eve. She gave food to the world, much like Eve gave to Adam, except this food was Jesus, the bread of life, and redeemed all of us. Of course, we still sin, but now we have the ability to make it to heaven, the new Eden.

The stoning to death of homosexuals - that was part of the old covenant or old testament. The new covenant was Jesus giving up his life - he says himself that " . . .this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant . . ." - which used different, more compassionate laws. Perhaps you have heard the story where the Pharisees(or Sadducees, I forget which) bring a women convicted of adultery and tell Jesus that the old law requires them to stone her to death. Jesus, after doodling on the ground with a stick, tells them "let the one among you with no sin be the first to throw a stone." They leave, and Jesus forgives the adultress. Jesus made a few modifications to the law, as he was the beginning of the new covenant, or new testament (the two sections of the Bible take their names from the covenant/testament that is made in them - the Old one with Moses, and the New one with Jesus.)

I'm not saying that homosexuality is right - there are various references in the bible on how it displeases the Lord) but stoning, or any other type of capital punishment, is wrong UNLESS there is no other way to stop the victim of repeating the offense.

You say that the writers of the Bible could have made mistakes? Wrong. Alike to when God made Mary in the womb without sin (although different in many ways) God inspired the writers of the books of the Bible to do it right - divine diction, as I have mentioned before. Of course, their style of writing still comes through, because they're still the authors - but also sort of like biographers, in that it isn't their story, but God's.

This is loads of fun. Did I miss anything in this post?

Did anyone read my earlier post? Or is it that you all read it yet none of you responded? Anyways seeing as how i want some sort of response I'm just going to make a few statements that should be bound to ruffle a few feathers and then argue from there. Most of the evidence I give to support this is in my post before this one.(Not the first one)

You cannot prove science is correct.
You cannot prove god exists.

You cannot prove ANYTHING except your own existence to yourself.

I would also point out that a scientist's quickest road to fame is finding and fixing a hole in a well accepted theory... OTH all churches are real quick in squelching any criticism.

Of course, F.K., if Alan is a figment of your imagination, then you must exist to have an imagination. OTOH if Alan is a piece of software in the Matrix, that's still existence. The point is, Alan can't prove himself to exist to us, only to himself, just as you can prove you exist only to yourself. Proving oneself to exist does not entail in what form that is. I may or may not be typing these words with real fingers, the way it seems to me, but surely I'm thinking these thoughts (whatever thoughts may be, and whatever I may be). But of course I can't prove that to you.

I know I think I exist. (Nice sentence structure!)

Do I really exist? Do I really think? Do I really know? (Not so nice...)

We are now around the 75000 'dying of starvation' mark, wonder wether this thread wins of the recent tsunami.

Phil, if you believed in God, you would believe that life here on earth is not the end of things. So there would be no death, only a transition for everyone involved in the tragedy. If God had a design problem in the earth, then he also designed us, and obviously we are not without flaws. There should be no reasoning to expect the earth to be any different. People get struck by lightning all the time. What's the difference? All of this reasoning is of course, if you believed in God. Why would the tsunami, in that light, change your faith if you had any before hand?

BTW, what does "Thank god I'm an atheist" mean? :)

Charlie: Jesus did not reduce the number of commandments to two. He only said that they were the most important among the ten.

"It represents their opinions, as are the opinions of those who claim it to be the word of God." - If they were divinely inspired, then it is not their opinions but God's opinions and simply their style of writing.

Phil Curry: God is responsible for evil. That's our fault. When Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of knowledge they were expelled from heaven and thus subject to all the evils of the devil. God did not plan for Adam and Eve to sin. He gave them the ability to choose between right and wrong. They chose wrong - he didn't make them choose wrong.

Because we failed to keep God's commandments, we brought on all of these tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, fire storms, volcanic eruptions, stampedes, etc. If we hadn't sinned, we would not be subject to such disasters. But we did, and we are.

Oskar: How can you say that God is inspiring your denial of God? that sounds kind of stupid to me.

Not everything is divinely inspired. The Da Vinci Code is not divinely inspired because it not only contradicts the Bible but also other historical books. Playboy is definitely not inspired by God. If it were, wouldn't he have commanded that we all go to strip clubs or something? Not everything is inspired by God. And I doubt that a denial of God is inspired by God.

I see no problem with O.O.O.'s denial being God inspired, IF you accept that God's will determines everything that was, is, or will be...

Federico: Did you miss my post? God has given us the free will to choose right or wrong. He doesn't make us choose right or wrong. Likewise he didn't make Oskar say that. Oskar said it out of his own free will. If God made everybody do what he wanted, there would be no need for a Bible or prophets or even a human race. We'd all be hypnotized zombies.

If we were not given free will, we would be no better than the common animal (who does not distinguish between right and wrong). Again, I suppose I'm citing the bible, but God created man and woman in His own image, so wouldn't we also retain the ability to differentiate between good and evil?

I would ask... how do you know animals do not distinguish between right and wrong?

As a matter of fact: what is right, and what is wrong? Is polygamy wrong? Eating pig? Debating God's existence? Taking the Bible for granted and literally true?

nikki: If we were omniscient (all-knowing) we would be equal to God and thus God (being defined as a supreme being) would not be a god, because He would be equal to something else. And we wouldn't be gods either, because we would not be supreme beings if there is something equal or greater than us.

Federico: Ever made fun of or hurt somebody? Unless you are somehow indoctrinated in a sadistic cult, you probably felt bad about doing it, or at least wondered whether it was right or not. That's called a conscious - or, as we Catholics also call it, the Holy Spirit.
Some things (such as polygamy, eating pork, or discussing the existance of God) are less black and white as others, and usually require some prior teaching to distinguish between. Obviously your indoctrination was vastly different than mine. But I feel bad after doing something wrong. Why? Because I believe it's wrong.
Animals are ruled by instinct, or the will to survive. Animals fight over food, fight over mates, or even do a number on Grandma's Persian rug because they don't know any better; they don't have a conscious telling them that something was bad. And don't say that they distinguish between right and wrong after being punished. That's just baloney. What they do do is remember what happened last time and want to avoid that consequence.
And, on you question of what is wrong: If you're an atheist (which, by the way you talk about God, I believe you are) then is anything wrong? I mean, if we're all going to cease to exist anyway, will our actions have effects deep enough to really matter?

Charlie, that's exactly right! When we create, say, a self portrait, we give it the same (or a similar) face, body shape, color, etc. When God created us, He didn't give us His nose or skin color as we would do when painting. In fact, He gave us no physical resemblance to Him. In fact, God (except for Jesus) is not physical in any way, but spiritual. (Notice that He "created man and woman in His own image" so if physical He would have to be both male and female. To be really truthful we should substitute "If" for "He" but we give Him masculine pronouns for his fatherlike qualities). What He did was give us various abilities to problem solve or distinguish between right and wrong.

Just a question: if you happened to learn that your God didn't exist... would you go out on a killing, raping, burning, stealing, rampage? Or would you still go on behaving in an appropriate ("moral") way, even though your God wouldn't be there?

I behave morally because I think it right -- and not just because any God told me to. In fact, I even think it's more moral to behave in a "right" way JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK AND FEEL SO, than doing it because your God mandated it, and you're afraid of eternal punishment... truly, the latter just seems selfish to me!

Please, first read Replacing Christian Morality with Something Better -- I agree with this 100%.

Charlie: Let's assume there is no God. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to seek instant gratification? Why even follow the mores of society? I mean, if everybody is going to die anyway, what's it worth making it nice for them? Why worry about them when there's no eternal consequence of our actions? To prolong the existence of mankind? For what? To get destroyed in the Big Squeeze, frozen in the expiration of the sun, or (perhaps even more imminent) the aftermath of nuclear war?

Federico: That's like asking, "What would you do if pigs could fly?" I shudder to speculate how such a Godless universe would be run. If there were no God, there would be no Holy Spirit, and thus there would be no conscience, and thus I, you, and everybodywould go "out on a killing, raping, burning, stealing, rampage".

There must be some reason that you "THINK AND FEEL SO". If you say you were taught it, who taught them? And who taught their teacher? It all comes down to the first person, who had to have learned it from someone. The true "thinking and feeling so" is from your conscience, otherwise the Holy Spirit, otherwise God.

Charlie: No, religion doesn't provide moral hints and rules. God does - directly, or through the conscience. I never said any of those *s. Just because you're not Catholic (or Christian, for that matter) doesn't mean you can't be a good person. And about inmates? That's just because the majority of the world is religious! It's like saying most inmates in Tennessee are from Tennessee! It's reduntant.

Okay, here goes . . .

Hugo: Saying that humans and animals don't differ very much is utterly ridiculous. Have you ever read a book written by a baboon? Have you ever seen an iguana waiting for a green light to cross the street? Have you ever met a pidgeon who wears glasses? Have you ever seen a frog going to school? We, as humans, are vastly different from other animals. We invent, we write, we teach each other, we find better ways of choosing mates than locking horns in mortal combat . . . I can go on and on.

Charlie, I took a look at that Replacing Christianity thing and I'm afraid the author is stereotypical. No, not all Christians believe that atheists will cause the downfall of this country, no, not all Christians believe that you must go to church to have morals, and no, how can embracing a new set of morals stop earthquakes? Unfortunately the writer has been in contact with a very un-Christian group of Christians. In fact, in the Catholic Church (I can't speak for others, as I haven't experienced them) teaches that it is the Christian thing to do when we embrace people of all other faiths, regardless if their faith is in God or not. He also talks about how lying is undefined as good or bad in religion. Read <A HREF=\"http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=6&art_id=26918>this. I think it should explain that point.

I would agree on Capn' P's point about the prision inmates. Whichever religion has the majority outside the walls, then that is the religion that is the majority behind bars and walls. I don't doubt that there are some very "immoral" theists, and some very "moral" atheists. In fact, this has been my experience witnessed firsthand. That is not to say that all theists are immoral by no means. Most thiests that I know are fairly moral. One corrupt preist doesn't mean that every preist is corrupt, etc., etc...

Hugo, I would also agree with your point on the diversion being more interesting than sitting in a cold familiar cell. I'm sure after a short period of time, the inmates are looking for any escape that they can get.

Hugo, I disagree with you on another point however. While it is good, to read up on the thoughts of others such as Descartes and Kant, it is 10 times the better to develop ideas on your own or as a group on its own, yada, yada. One significant advantage is the ability to ask questions. For instance, I can say, "Hugo what did you mean when you said that?" Or, "Capn' P, why do you think that way?" But I'd be mad to ask Descartes from the grave, "Descartes, what in hades are talking about?" I don't think he would pay me any attention... But that's just my thoughts. :)

CP:
Regarding "No, religion doesn't provide moral hints and rules. God does - directly, or through the conscience. I never said any of those *s. Just because you're not Catholic (or Christian, for that matter) doesn't mean you can't be a good person. "

I obviously agree you can be a good person without being Christian. However religion does promulgate moral hints and rules, such as Jews and Muslims abstaining from pork, Muslims and certain Christians abstaining from alcohol. Muslims forbid the portrayal of humans or animals, and in the ten commandments is the statement "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", yet many churches have images of saints, crucifixes and doves that represent the holy spirit and winged beings that represent angels (not to leave out the sea and under earth: depictions of fish miracles and the "underworld" of the damned). Different religions have different rules. If rules were provided solely by God, they'd agree.

Regarding "Charlie, I took a look at that Replacing Christianity thing and I'm afraid the author is stereotypical. No, not all Christians believe that atheists will cause the downfall of this country, no, not all Christians believe that you must go to church to have morals, and no, how can embracing a new set of morals stop earthquakes? Unfortunately the writer has been in contact with a very un-Christian group of Christians. In fact, in the Catholic Church (I can't speak for others, as I haven't experienced them) teaches that it is the Christian thing to do when we embrace people of all other faiths, regardless if their faith is in God or not. He also talks about how lying is undefined as good or bad in religion. "

I haven't read or recommended that book; someone else did. But Giordano Bruno, to name just one, was burnt at the stake for heresy. The modern feel-good Catholicism claims a direct link to Jesus, but that link has to pass through the middle ages, and to Church reaction in Renaissance times to the Enlightenment. I was just reading yesterday (NY Times) about how Jewish children rescued by the Church (the good part) by being baptised, had been refused return to their parents, or other relatives in cases where their parents died in the Holocaust, by the Catholic church on the basis that their baptism made them irrevocable Catholics that shouldn't be returned to Jewish households.

CP said: You can't just single out religion.
Hey I didn't do that, please read my posting again and you will see that I spoke of killing for fun, torture, killing for Lebensraum.
By the way, I am not interested by proving that religion is better/worse or superior/inferior to science. I just said that humans are also influenced by their instinct or by the will to survive (amongst other things). And thanks, the part in your posting above that comment does prove the point I wanted to make: we are more killer minded then animals.
Now the rest of your posting: If I understand it correctly, we are so violent because we have eaten of the tree of knowledge? So this means that the thing that makes us superior (in your opinion) to animals (= knowledge) is in fact the reason why we are violent and morally inferior? I must have misunderstood something.

In an effort to clear the air a bit, I wanted to make a few observations of these discussions. While it's not what I'm trying to do, I will probably just end up heating up the water more, but here goes:

First, there are times when Person A makes a statement or gives an example to illustrate an idea. Then Person B twists it around and uses the same example to illustrate the opposite of Person A’s idea. Personally, when I read Person B’s argument, my first reaction read it as “Person A, your idea is wrong because here is how I can use that example to support my views which are opposite from yours.” But then I think about it a little more and realize maybe I should have read it as “Person A, you think that is an example that shows some weakness or contradiction in my views, but actually my beliefs have an explanation for that example. I can’t say your idea is wrong, but I can show how my opposing views also allow for your example.” I wonder if anyone else finds themselves having the first reaction I had, and then I wonder if thinking about things the second way would help make the discussions more constructive.

Second, it seems like a couple people who think God does not exist use an argument like “if God existed then everything would be perfect and consistent” or “if God existed then how do I know if I am controlling my own life?” to support their belief. Both could be explained by the belief of freewill even with a God around (“things aren’t perfect because we muck it up with our own freewill” or “you still have the freewill to control your life”), so I’m not sure if that argument will really get us anywhere. I personally haven’t decided if I believe that God exists, but I don’t think the imperfection of our world is proof against that possibility. That’s just us mucking everything up.

Third, about the percentage of criminals that are Christian. Yes, it’s true that if most people are Christian, then most criminals will be too. However, I think the point the person who brought up this topic was trying to make was that the percentage of criminals that are Christian is higher than the percentage of the general population that is Christian. I’m not saying if that is true or not, it just seemed like some people weren’t picking up on that point and I wanted to point it out =) I don’t know how factual that “99.9% of criminals are Christian” information is. But according to a couple websites about general populations, 84% of Americans identify with a Christian religion (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14446) and 33% of the World identifies with Christianity (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html). So if that 99.9% fact is real, then maybe that person’s point has some truth to it.

Fourth, about animals and people. I think this is a matter of opinion and definition. I think for every example there will be a counter example. True, we don’t butt heads to death to fight over mates, though people have fought, both physically (bar brawls) and verbally (“he’s mine!”), over “mates.” True, we don’t use primitive methods, like the colors of our feathers, to attract our mates, but we do wear make up, dress nicely, and buy cool cars to attract the attention of our love interests. True, we invent things and have abstract thought, but some people might consider an otter using a rock or a monkey using a stick to get food as inventive or at least not instinctual, and who knows what animals think so I don’t know if I could definitely say they don’t have abstract thought. True, animals are driven by instinct, but so are we – if we weren’t we wouldn’t have survived our infancy and there are adult examples of instinct as well. So I personally think there are plenty of similarities and differences between humans and animals. Do the differences make us better? I’m not so sure. We do a lot of pretty rotten stuff that animals don’t do. Are we less primitive? I think mostly yes, but sometimes no. So I think it’s cool to discuss this topic, but I don’t think there is much point in trying to convince someone of one idea or another on this topic.

Well, I hope this helps lead to contructive discussions. Probably no one else thought they were being UNconstructive, but I just sensed animosity sometimes and my hippy flower-child side felt like stepping in =) Later!

I'd object to "We, as God's creation, are expected to use our knowledge to do good, not bad." Didn't Adam & Eve get expelled from Eden because of eating the fruit from the knowledge tree? If so, then we certainly ARE NOT expected to use/have knowledge!

(By the way, that sits rather well with the "This is so because I say so" mentality of all religions...)

Federico: Yes and no. Yes, it would have been better for us if we had never eaten from the tree of knowledge, disobeying God and casting us out of the garden. But no, we ARE expected to use the knowledge because now that we have it, we cannot return to the unknowledgeable state we were in before the apple. God's command didn't change just because Adam and Eve disobeyed. We were created to do 3 things: know God, love God, and serve God. Now that we have knowledge, we are expected to use it (as we are expected to use everything in our possession) to glorify God by knowing him, loving him, and serving him. It's kind of like that saying, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade."

Oskar: I don't know why people keep ignoring my previous posts on human superiority. I keep getting told that humans are inferior to animals because we do violence. That is not inferiority. That is just proof of knowledge. The only reason sin is sin is we know it is sin. It's like when you're misinformed about, say, a baseball game and say "We won 5 to 4." If we won 5 to 3, you aren't lying because you don't know that you are saying something incorrect and you aren't trying to mislead someone else. We as humans can act morally or unmorally. Animals cannot, and are exempt from sin because they don't know it's wrong. I'll point to the Bible again in saying that God made us caretakers of the Earth. We must care for the animals who are intellectually inferior to us.

Is it just me, or is Captain Paradox's comment on "it would have been better for us if we had never eaten from the tree of knowledge" really to be pitied? Would he really feel better NOT knowing anything, being the equivalent to a beast, so just he could stay (without free will, without knowing anything, just obeying as a mule or horse would) in Eden?

Please note I'm not making fun of anybody's beliefs, but accepting that man was an animal until he ate a magical apple and thus got a brain... well, that's really hard! And, furthermore, suggesting that man was actually better before, sounds to me like saying a lobotomy is a way to make you happy.

Isn't it much easier to accept that the human brain evolved during millions of years, got bigger/better than other animals brains, and we didn't just happen to get intelligence because of a fruit someone ate? And, that it's better to have intelligence than to be a beast?

CP, Although I don't share your beliefs and convictions, I have much respect for the way you stand by it.
I do not want to get involved in the discussion about religion vs science and I don't want to convince anybody about the right or wrong in his/her belief.
I am not going to answer your reaction on this, but just for my own interest, could you please tell me the answer to my question:
Do you believe in a) God or do you believe in B) What humans have written about God?
Please answer with A or B.

Hugo: I apologize for not answering tersely, but there's no way to do so without lying. By answering A I would be saying that I don't believe what humans have written about God. But by answering B I would be saying that I don't believe in God and that I believe everything written about God.
The truth is, I believe in God (A) and I believe in some of what humans have written about God. Not everything written by God is correct. If it were, then God would both exist and not exist, which is a paradox. So, on the test, fill in oval A and fill in part of oval B.


Charlie: Check this link for the Catholic point of view on graven images.

I tend to be a thorough Non-Confrontationalist, but here's a question I've been meaning to ask for a while. To you firm believers in faith - If you were born in a Muslim household in say, Iraq, do you think you would still be Christian? If you were born in a Muslim household in the US? To you Athiests and Agnostics and otherwise Individualist - If you were born in a firm Christian household do you think you would be firm Christian? (If you're not Christian but a firm believer in faith just think of a relavent question to you. I apologize for not providing...)

I personally grew up in a non-religous household. Though my parents have Christian leanings, they've never gone to church since I've been alive. Instead, they encouraged me to seek my own answers to questions, and to examine the world views of as many different religions as I felt necessary. I'm pretty sure this openess and lack of strong religous guidance as a young child were instrumental to the development of my current philosophies (which I'm happy with, btw).
Seeing this, and observing friends who grew up in Christian and Jewish households, I'm sure that had I myself grown up in one of these, I to would share their beliefs (and maybe even faiths!).

There seems to be strong evidence that environment affects belief systems (how many converted Christians are there in Iran, or converted Muslims in the US?) If someone believes that their religion is the only correct one (and especially if they believe all others are damned) does this mean that they were chosen by the luck of their birth to hold the correct faith and live a life in heaven? Are others damned by the luck of their birth?

My logical conclusion from these thoughts is that no existing faith could be the correct one (unless, interestingly, it doesn't claim to be, or it is just really unfair). Now this doesn't say anything about the existance of God or not, and it also doesn't mean that religion (or belief, or faith) is useless, since it provides both community and spiritual support, but it does seem to contradict most existing ideas of one Truth. Thoughts?

I apologize for not responding immediately. I just got back from a weekend away.


Charlie: I don't quite understand what you're saying in your first post. Is it a question?

Jay: At no point in this thread did I ever say that all other religions are condemned to eternal punishment. And they aren't. If I grew up in a Jewish household, I would likely be Jewish. If I grew up in a Zulu headhunter tribe, I would likely be a Zulu headhunter. If I grew up in a KKK family, I would likely be a member of the KKK. Your parents have the most profound influence on you, and thus unless you experience some "Saul on the road to Damascus" vision, you will probably follow that faith (or lack of faith). Please refer to my "baptism by desire" post earlier.
". . . no existing faith could be the correct one . . ." that's just inductive reasoning. "If God has not been catagorically proven to exist in the past, then he cannot be catagorically proven in the future," is what it sounds like.

That is, if the bible in some spots has God requiring the Israelites to create graven images, and then elsewhere forbids the making of graven images, as part of the ten commandments, that is a contradiction, not a denial of the commandment not to make graven images.

Charlie: Not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. When the Bible calls the men of Sodom "wicked exceedingly" (Genesis 13:13) it does not necessarily mean that all of them were wicked. Or when it says " . . . when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart." (Exodus 4:14) it does not mean that there is some organ within the heart that dictates the emotions. As with any book in the English language, you have to be mindful of indefinite or figurative language. - otherwise you will get quite confused.

Jay: Right. Everybody has a conscience to guide them along the path to heaven. Some people are religious, which, in my opinion, makes doing the right thing a whole lot easier. But nobody is condemned by their birth. We are not saved by faith alone, but by faith plus works. That's why an atheist or agnostic can go to heaven, if he or she does good works (and, of course, doesn't deny God on their judgement day).

Regarding the prohibition on graven images: one person's idol is another person's icon. So, on the prohibition against adultery: one person's adultery is another person's adoration of God through sexual communion with his neighbor.

Charlie: "adoration of God through sexual communion with his neighbor"... LOL! This is a church I'd like to join!

I don't have enough faith to belive in evolution.

I was just trying to say that of all the possible origins of life, I think evolution is the most farfetched of them all.

Consider:
Suppose you are in a vast desert, and nobody is nearby. Suppose you are walking along, and come across a stop sign. "Where did this come from?" you ask yourself. What are the chances that the sand happened to blow just right, and the heat from the sun and all the other variables were aligned perfectly, and the stop sign just happened to come into existence? Isn't it more practical to realize that someone probably put it there, for whatever reason?

From what I understand of natural selection, the strongest survive and pass their traits on to another generation, while the weak die out. How does AIDS show natural selection? I'm not sure I understand, and I don't want to try to debate against it until I fully understand what it is you're saying.

Let's make something very clear. God did not create evil. Period. Often people (incorrectly) attribute the following argument to Albert Einstein.

Does dark exist? No, dark is simply the abscence of light. Does cold exist? No, cold is simply the abscence of heat. Does evil exist? No, evil is simply the absence of God.

There are three types of person. One is God. The other is angels. And the third is humans. God created the angels and the humans, giving them free will, the ability to know right from wrong and choose either. Lucifer (an archangel in the beginning) decided he wanted to be equal to God. Thankfully Michael and the good angels fought him off and he was sent to Hell. Adam sinned against God, and thus inherited death for all humankind (albeit rare exceptions, such as Elijah, Enoch, and Mary the Mother of God). Jesus, the new Adam, paid for the sins of mankind on the cross.

"The sensible choice is believing in God (A or B). "

Heavens! The church fathers always taught that believing in God the wrong way (heresy) would send you straight to Hell. That's why heretics were burnt at the stake: it was like quarantine--to prevent this infection from spreading to too many souls. That's why people could be convinced to sacrifice their lives by flying into the World Trade Center.

"Jesus, the new Adam, paid for the sins of mankind on the cross. "

"The golden calf (from Exodus) was bad because the people were worshiping the statue itself. But things like the golden cherubim and the bronze serpent are not bad because we are not worshipping the statues themselves, we are reminded of God by the statues and are worshipping God."

But the commandment is given in Exodus 20:4 (Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic Bible) as "You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth".


Who did he pay? The best justice is restitution, but who gained from a man/god's torture? Don't say "we gained". I'm talking about the real consequences of an action. If I damage someone's property and someone else pays my bill, yes, restitution has been made. But if I kill someone, and then someone else commits suicide, claiming it to make restitution for the killing, that is just wrong--it in no way does such. It in no way benefitted my victim or his family. Restitution requires a direct benefit, not a claim that it resulted in justice or forgiveness.

"Charlie, you misunderstand the concepts of adultrey[sic] and sexual intercourse. I will use the American Heritage dictionary and define adultrey[sic] as 'Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.' "

But this means that "adultery" is a mistranslation of the word that was used in the original, as that word meant, to paraphrase: "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman married to someone else." These were the days when women were property, as exemplified in the commandments not to covet another man's house or his wife or his servant, man or woman, or his ox or his donkey or anything that is his. (Exodus 20:17). (Wording from Jerusalem Bible: "You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his servant, man or woman, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is his.")

A: Believing in God and being wrong
B: Believing in God and being right
C: Not believing in God and being wrong
D: Not believing in God and being right

What if you believe in (the judeo-christian) God, and there actually is ANOTHER god (Zeus? Odin? Ra? Quetzacoatl? any of the hindu ones?) who will be quite jealous and angry because of your beliefs? Not opting for any god would be better than opting for a different god!

B) is quite a dangerous option... it might lead to worse punishments than C).

If there exists any god, then,

If one believes in God but not a particular church, there's no reason to assume that "And if you deny God when he does exist (C) you will be condemned." That is only the teaching common to some particular churches. It's really a moot point, as real belief (cognition or assent to a perceived truth) cannot be willed ... it just happens.

"Charlie, if you read one verse further (Exodus 20:5) you will find that God also commands against worshipping these images. Why forbid that if there aren't supposed to be made in the first place?"

The Israelites were not as isolated from their neighboring tribes as you might imagine, and those neighboring tribes had no rule against idol-making. But the fact is, the plain reading of the sentence I quoted is in no way affected by what follows. It forbids the making of any image of "anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth".

"The reason Exodus 20:4 is in the Bible at all is not that graven images are sins; they are conducive to sin. "

It doesn't say that. Besides, if they are conducive to sin, why do religions currently make them? Catholic statues of saints can be used in Santeria in a way you didn't foresee, and even many Catholics could be persuaded to this sin.

"The only way for humankind to be saved was by Jesus giving himself up on the tree, of free will. Jesus was not forced to allow himself to be crucified; he did it of his own free will. "

Sounds like suicide to me. If he had a choice, and took this route, it was suicide. Today we have a thing called "suicide by cop", where a perpetrator will set up a situation where he's confident that the police will kill him. He doen't have to pull the trigger himself in order to be a suicide. So I will not "whoa"; I'm not a horse.

"I know you don't want me to say that we gained, but that is the right answer. We did gain from the torture of a being both man and God. Adam ate the fruit of his own free will. The only way for humankind to be saved was by Jesus giving himself up on the tree, of free will. "

and

"Suicide is a selfish act. The people who commit it never stop to think about the people their final action will affect. In contrast, sacrificing one's life for the salvation of the world is a selfless act. Through it, Jesus gave us the opportunity to return to sanctifying grace."

But this confuses the abstract notion of "justice" with the concrete notions of "gain". An action becomes one of justice because of what is gained from it. The gain must precede the identification of it as justice. A gain can be in the form of recompense to a victim, or in a criminal procedure, the deterrent effect on future criminals, the rehabilitation of the current criminal, or the placing out of circulation of the current criminal. We cannot say, out of the blue, that a certain action constituted justice, and therefore there was a gain; the gain must come first and then we can recognize that justice has happened. So where's the gain in Jesus' case: the "victim" of our sins is said to be God; God did not gain as he is said to be one with Jesus, and therefore merely victimized again, on the cross. So recompense is out. The others are out because Jesus is said to be sinless. There's no deterrent effect, because people keep sinning and are forgiven by "Jesus' saving grace." There's no rehabilitation, because Jesus did not need to be rehabilitated--he was perfect to begin with. And removal from society for a while is no benefit if the one taking the punishment was not a perpetrator.

The only way you claim a gain is by first saying that justice was served, but in no way explaining how.

"Wouldn't it be better to stick with the most pleasant afterlife, just in case there really is a God? "

That's not belief--it's wishful thinking.

A better set of beliefs to promote altruistic behavior is to say that we come back reincarnated as someone else, and that time is an illusion, so we can come back as contemporaries. In fact, we eventually come back as everyone who has ever existed. So when you take an action that has consequences for other people, remember that you will eventually be half the people you affect (the other half you already were).

Now that's a way to love everyone as yourself.

I apologize if I screw up here; I had twice as much typed up but lost it all when I accidentally logged off.

About graven images: You’re taking the Bible strictly literally again, which, I believe I said in an earlier post, leads to misinterpretation. I saw a picture of the Lincoln Monument. That’s a graven image. Did it cause me to harm someone else? Did it position me further from God? Have I blackened my soul for eternity? Nyet. I just looked at it; I did not bow down before it or incense it or offer my prayers to it. God is simply continuing the first (and, in some churches, second) commandment(s) which involve not worshipping anything but God.

Why the crucifixion wasn’t suicide:

Compare suicide to the crucifixion. The reason people commit suicide is to end their pain, be it physical or emotional. They think only of themselves, not of who they leave behind on Earth. Jesus could have just as easily ordered Peter and the disciples to kill the people who came to arrest him. It was Judas who betrayed Jesus. And Jesus knew that in dying he would save humankind.

How does the death of Jesus pay for our sins? The story goes that two boys had captured some birds and were going to “have a little fun with them”, when a pastor confronted them, asked for a price, and bought the birds, promptly setting them free. Satan had captured us in sin. God came along and asked for a price. The price was the death of Jesus, the very son of God. The transaction was made, and through the cross we were set free.

Afterlife: e.g., let’s assume that the probability of the true God being Viking, Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Aztec, or Christian is equal. That’s a one in five chance of getting it right (unless you’re atheist, in which you probably offend any one of the five). This is comparable to a horserace, except the horses’ speeds are unknown. But one of the horses (not because of speed or experience) pays off more than the others. That’s the Christian afterlife; that’s the horse I’m bettin’ on.

Not quite Federico. People, for the most part, believe what they are taught.

Regarding part of my previous post, in the story "The story goes that two boys had captured some birds and were going to “have a little fun with them”, when a pastor confronted them, asked for a price, and bought the birds, promptly setting them free. Satan had captured us in sin.", the boys had no right to demand a price. If the pastor had perfect power, he would by rights just free the birds without paying any price.

"Call no man father”: I’m getting these from the New American Bible, Charlie. Acts 7:2: “And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen (St. Stephen). . .”. Acts 21:1: “My brothers and fathers, listen (this time it’s Paul) . . .”. Romans 4:16: “ . . . the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us (Paul) . . .”. 1st Corinthians 4:15: “. . . for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel (Paul, again). . .”. Philemon 10: “ . . . on behalf of my child Onesimus, whose father I have become (Philemon, I think) . . .”. 1st John 2:13: I am writing to you, fathers (John) . . .”. Once again you are taking the Bible literally when it is meant to imply something else. When Matthew 23:9 tells us to call no man father, it is referring to the first (and second, depending on your denomination) commandment(s) which tell us to worship the one true God. Matthew means that we should call no man our spiritual father, which is God and God alone."

No--rather you are pointing out differences of opinion among the contributors to the New Testament. The bible is not God's word. It is people's.

"Why didn’t God bring them back if He was all-powerful? To do so would go against His nature. "

Then that is a ridiculous nature. (You'll know that nature by its fruits, so, yes, one must judge God, if there are several "gods" competing for one's recognition as God.)

The fact that the word human is capitalized at the beginning of my fourth paragraph is a typo, of no significance. I apologize.

The book of Mormon: I do not deny that the Book of Mormon is the word of God simply because my religion says so. I deny it because the Mormons claim that both it and the Bible are the Word of God when they contradict each other on various points. Such points (i.e., there are 3 levels of heaven, and a virgin cannot enter celestial, the highest) show that either one or the other is correct, and since the Mormons believe their book is complementary to the Bible, well, I’ll let you chew on that.

On evolution: On evolution: First, I apologize. I meant that there has been no observed case of evolution from one species to another. Next, let’s talk about your other examples (not the AIDS virus, which is still the AIDS virus). Both refer to fossilized remains of animals similar to two groups of animals (phylums?). But they were not observed to evolve from one to the other. We just hypothesize that they did.

Atoms: It doesn’t matter if Democritus did not get it exactly right. The point is his idea was a big jump from the one that all things were made from earth, air, water, and fire, a popular theory of the time. He was hailed as a fool, but as a genius many years later.

Not just my religion says it, but other Christian ones too. The angel Gabriel is popular not only in Catholicism but other churches as well.

Gotta go.

Book of Mormon: Even if not everything in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be taken literally (which is true of most books) the Mormon interpretation of their enchiridion still contradicts the Bible. “That what God once was, we are now, and what God is now, we shall be” is one example of Mormon doctrine that does not match the Bible’s.

Why are you bringing up the graven images and call no man father arguments again? I have already posted on these. Perhaps if I type them up again you won’t overlook them.

Graven images: Making or looking at graven images is not a sin; worshipping them is. The Bible, when it seems to forbid graven images, is really only trying to prevent people from worshipping them. If I happen to see a post by Michael Cottle and see his picture, that does not cause me to sin.

Call no man father: Should I repeat my verses again? Acts 7:2: “And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen (St. Stephen). . .”. Acts 21:1: “My brothers and fathers, listen (this time it’s Paul) . . .”. Romans 4:16: “ . . . the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us (Paul) . . .”. 1st Corinthians 4:15: “. . . for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel (Paul, again). . .”. Philemon 10: “ . . . on behalf of my child Onesimus, whose father I have become (Philemon, I think) . . .”. 1st John 2:13: I am writing to you, fathers (John) . . .”. Matthew 23:9 is reiterating the first commandment, which forbids all gods but the one true. The word “father” in this case refers to God the father.

Now back to new topics. Assumptions: Catholics believe in purgatory because we cannot return to paradise without first being made perfect. We are an imperfect creation through our own fault (sin). Elijah, Enoch, and Mary did not die in the normal method. Why? Mary was created perfect to enable her to bear the Son of God. Elijah and Enoch were not created perfect, but they were made perfect before leaving this Earth. “By faith Enoch was taken . . .”. By perfect faith.

Give me some similarities between those other mythologies and I’ll look into them.

Forgot to close my quotes in the link; I'll try again:

Mithras link.

If you want a biblical contradiction, you don't have to go any further than the first two chapters of Genesis -- there are two different creation stories, that clearly contradict each other... I've always wondered WHICH version do the creationists support, and how they explain the OTHER one!

What's really contradictory about Mattew and Luke, regarding the circumstances of Jesus' birth, is that Matthew has Mary and Joseph originally residents of Bethlehem, who later moved to Nazareth, while Luke has them originally residents of Nazareth, temporarily staying in Bethlehem. Also Herod the Great died years before Quirinius held any census.

Wow it all screwed up. I'll try again.

Federico: Take a look at <A HREF=“http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html”>this link as a refutation of your Genesis point.

Charlie: For the Matthew and Luke contradictions, look <A HREF=“http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20020818.htm”>here for an explanation.

On the census date, <A HREF=“http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/luke_census.htm”>this website may clear it up.

<A HREF=“http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html”>Other Mithras link.

Wow . . . Pretty much this whole post is links. I’m still looking into those other theologies you mentioned, Charlie.

I'll let you copy and paste them into the Address bar. I can't get it to work.

"Charlie: For the Matthew and Luke contradictions, look here for an explanation"

The site does not explain at all. Here's one thing they say:
"Having left Nazareth (not Bethlehem), Joseph, Mary and Jesus remained in Egypt until word came from an angel of the Lord that Herod was dead (Mt 2:19-20). "

But that begs the question (i.e., claims without support) that it was Nazareth rather than Bethlehem that they left. The Matthew quote makes it clear that the book of Matthew has them take up residence in Nazareth for the first time after the return from Egypt. It is only from Luke, that the site makes the assumption of their having left Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke disagree. This is a contradiction.

BTW, you need to use "dumb quotes" (straight up and down) around your URL references, not the "smart quotes" that slant out at top and in at bottom. I assume you already put the slash A at the end to close it, though it probably got ignored by the browser.

Then:
"On the census date, this website may clear it up."

The site tries to claim that a census took place before Quirinius was in office, yet there's no historical record of this. It relies on an alternative to the standard interpretation (found in Catholic bibles) of the census as being during the tenure of Quirinius. And historical records show the latter rather than the former.

"Although such verification of similarities in the accuracy of Scriptural statements is heartening, we must realize that our convictions about the authority of the Bible do not and cannot rest solely on historical or archeological research. We must base our belief in the complete truthfulness of Scripture on its own statements and claims about itself and such evidence as the Bible supplies that it is what it claims to be. "

But that's not the only criticism of the census. Palestine would have been put in great disarray (which is not mentioned in the historical record) if there were people travelling to their various ancestral cities. And, logically speaking, how far back in ancestry would one go? Why would it make sense to send people to the homes of their great-great-...great-grandfathers?

And Josephus, not fond of Herod, would have jumped upon the chance to put the "slaughter of the innocents" into his historical record, but it's not there.

Regarding Christianity copying pagan rituals, it is to be noted that Justin Martyr and Tertullian complained that the Devil inspired pagan religions to mimic Christian ones, before the Christian ones were even instituted. That is pretty much of an admission that there were similarities, strong enough for these early church leaders to recognize it as copy-cat, but ignoring the temporal relation between the practices.

We're also losing track of the fact that even if no contradictions are found (but they are found) the burden of proof is on the claimant, for something so spectacular as a human who is claimed to be in fact the creator of the universe. ... especially one who is considered omniscient, but growing in wisdom from childhood.

" It does say that they returned to Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

What verse in Matthew says they returned to Galilee?

"Remember, they started in Nazareth, then went to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus."

What verse in Matthew says they started in Nazareth?

"Ancestry: In Biblical times it was not as common as today for a family to move from town to town often. Finding the town of one’s ancestor, consequently, would not be as hard as you make it out to be."

But still there must have been some people whose different ancestors lived in different places. And you still haven't said what purpose this would serve.

"Jesus: Finally, we are moving on to a totally different point! Okay, let’s start out with who Jesus was. He was fully human, as you say, but he was also fully divine. And humans grow in wisdom from childhood. It’s a fact of life. If Jesus was a child prodigy who could evangelize the world while still two feet tall, he would not be fully human."

But if he was not omniscient, he would not be fully divine. Just goes to show--full divinity and full humanity are mutually exclusive.

"And just because it isn’t in the Bible does not mean it didn’t happen. "

And just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it did happen.

"But I want to remind you again that not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. "

But then we get back to allowing all sorts of strange things from the book of Mormon or the Qu'ran to be not taken literally along with parts of the bible not being taken literally, and therefore not contradictory.

And in regard to Federico's comment: even if the time frames are taken with a fudge factor in the billions, the sequence of creation of plants and of man are different in the two versions, just to take one example Federico pointed out. No time squeezing will change A before B into B before A.

This is fascinating. Captain Paradox, could you give us your thoughts (beliefs?) on prayer.

But remember, as Galileo was forced to admit, that if it says the earth does not move, the earth does not move.

And if it says that witches are to be killed, then witches are to be killed.

But even though it says that homosexuals are to be killed, actually they should just not be allowed to marry.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. My "In box" here is overflowing!

Return to Galilee: When I said "it" I meant "the Bible", not "Matthew". Luke 2:39 states ". . . they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth."

Jesus: Try <A HREF-\"http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Chirst.asp\">this link. (Hopefully I didn't screw up the HTML!)

Bible: "And just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it did happen." You're regressing to barbaric denial again.

Cheryl: Could you be more specific? There are many types of prayer - prayer of thanksgiving, prayer of petition, standard prayers (Hail Mary, Our Father, etc.). I'm not very good at answering subjective questions.

e.g.: Give me one example of actual observed evolution from one species to another. We've been over this. And you say that "Creator" stands for "Big Bang". So did the Big Bang cause the world to flood? Did the Big Bang pour out its rage on Sodom and Gomorrah? Did the Big Bang throw nine great plagues at Egypt? Did the Big Bang so love the world that it gave its only begotten son? It's just absurd.
Who decides the truth? I think we went over this before as well.

Charlie: Where does it say that homosexuals are to be killed? I've never comem across that.

Federico: Again, you're taking the Bible literally on a point when it is not meant to be taken literally on. The Bible only means that darkness is vastly different than light. On the water: You've got to admit that, not knowing scientific teachings, the night sky looks a lot like a sea. We must take into account "the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narating then current" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 110). The Bible is not a science book. It is a guide on how to live our lives.

I recently read this month's skeptic article in Scientific American about the fossil fallacy, and I thought it might be relevant.

I particularly like the point Shermer makes about gaps in paleontological evidence. If we find a fossil that closes the gap between two species, one can argue that we now have two gaps instead of one.

It just so happens that in this same issue, there's an article about the misconceptions of the big bang. I found out that I actually knew nothing about big bang theory.

I feel as if everyone is trying to contradict C.P. at every point.

"So... who gets to decide what's true, and what's not?"

e.g., we each decide for ourselves, biased from our own backgrounds of course. As has been illustrated in this forum, there is no practical way to prove anyone's beliefs wrong.

Cheryl, if life is a test, then it is not an easy one. So if a prayer is directed towards an easier test, then your prayer will not be answered satisfactory. You might receive help understanding the question from a "prayer", but the burden to bear will always be there. My "belief" is that the purpose of life is to be challenged in every form and fashion, and yes tragedy and heartache are in the equations. If there is or isn't a God in heaven, no matter the challenge, when your life is complete then the challenge is over. BTW, I don't think it is possible to cheat on this test. :)

CP, there are plenty of observed occurances of evolution. The most likely you've heard of is resistance to medications. (not a biologist, so bear with me if I use the term Virus/bacteria incorrectly) Sometimes when you get a cold, antibiodics work, sometimes they don't. Sure - there are millions of variations of the cold virus, so maybe thats the issue. But. But. But what if its the same - passed from me directly to you. Your cold was not affected by the medicine because the virus evolved to be unaffected by it. This is happening around the world and is predicted to casue immeasurable problems with the health care systems, as we will soon be left with no method of prevention or cure for many of todays common problems. Surely you're aware of this developing problem.

I have another example, less well known to most, as (to my knowledge) there no real practical use for this. You can create your own species of animal, it just takes a significant number of generations and the proper environmental factors. To my knowledge, a species is defined as a group which can interbreed. There was an experiment done (actually, this experiment is done frequently) on fruit flies where a "colony" was segregated and separately mated into two groups. It takes surprisingly few generations before the two groups cannot be reintroduced, though supposedly they can still mate - at this point it is a "choice" of the flies that prevents their mixing, not biology. (something like 6 generations). However, as more and more generation pass, biology becomes an increasing factor and within ths scope of a controlled environment, run by a human, a new SPECIES of fruit flies can be, and has been, created. Is this not the very definition of evolution? (evolution does not require the new species be ~superior~ to its predecessors, simply different. However, the mechanisms of natural selection make it overwhelmingly likely that, in the long run, the species becomes more complex through its evolution as it has adapted to its evirnomental conditions/restrictions).

There is *no* full argument against evolution. (i.e., we may not have it 100% right, but we know, with certainty, that we are not 100% wrong - or as an analogy - we are as sure it ~applies~ as we are with newtonian physics.)

Hugo,
My experience in school was that evolution was semi-taught in biology class (required class). Whenever the teacher began teaching it, however, he made sure to say that some people don't believe it, and that's OK. Creation was never taught, except in a religion class (elective class, not required). However, the class was not to teach religion, it was to teach about religion. It was a very objective class, so there was a Christian unit, an Islam unit, etc. for most of the major religions of the world.

Some people say the schools got in too many lawsuits, so the teachers are required to be very objective and unbiased.

CP, could I have the references in the Book of Mormon where it says "that we shall become gods if we make it to heaven"?

Try http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BooMorm.html
I don't know any fancy HTML, so you'll have to copy the address and paste it.

Captain Paradox, after reading e.g.'s message, I think you are missing a (quite vulgar, slang) meaning for "bang"...

And I like your '"Alright, Bob, since you have an elephant, why don’t you bring it to us tomorrow?” It’s used to expose lies' but why don't you apply it to your own faith?

CP,
retunrning to your comment to me, the virus/bacteria whatever it is that is a "common cold", has in fact evolved, and is now no longer the same thing, BIOLOGICALLY - it has changed. This is the key. The fact that we still "call" it the common cold is irrelevant to its change, this is more because we dont have the capacity, as a whole, to keep up with the naming of several hundred thousand, if not several million variations of each existing malady. But either way on this one - if you don't see this as evolution, it is because, and only because, it would be terminal to your anti-evolution belief.

Isn't the common cold caused by millions of different and individually rare species, both bacterial and viral? That's why it's so common, and impossible to cure.

Evolution:

Can evolution occur? The logic behind evolution is very sound. Variation, natural selection, etc. We can show it can occur with even the simplest simulations. I have a screensaver program that simulates the evolution of "biots," little colorful shapes produced randomly from an algorithm.

Does evolution occur? We can observe evolution happening in real organisms. Not only variation, but speciation too has been observed, as Cory says.

Did evolution occur? This is the weakest point of evolution. We have circumstancial evidence, fossil evidence, biological evidence, but how do we know that evolution was the cause of all this diversity. Surely, it's possible, but that doesn't mean it happened. It's just like greenhouse gases. We can experiment and know that carbon dioxide can raise atmospheric temperatures, but we don't know for sure if it is *the* cause of global warming. The defense is "Why not?" Because a book says otherwise. Because there's a lack of evidence. Because we haven't yet time-traveled back and observed it first-hand.

Hugo:
When I took biology, the teacher did not avoid teaching evolution. He did, however, teach us a little about the evolution controversy, trying to be as objective as possible. His conclusion was that it doesn't have to conflict with religion. I hear that most of the controversy exists in central US, where parents try to put disclaimor stickers on biology books. The courts tend to favor evolution. Where I live, the controversy is pretty much non-existent, even though my school is Catholic. Catholics don't believe in creationism, I don't think. I wonder how you could possibly skip evolution in a biology class.

Some answers...

1. There have been experiments showing that aminoacids and other molecules get produced on their own, given energy and basic elements. The principle of evolution applies equally well to these molecules, and when one molecule managed, no matter how badly, to reproduce, the race was on!

2. By evolution... natural selection plus random variation plus an enormous time period.

3. If you want to find "meaning" in life, then you can resort to philosophy or teology... Personally, I think all living beings are just biological machines, able to reproduce, and intermediate steps to further evolution -- no meaning attached!

Your "feeling cold" means your brain has computed a function of many nerve messages, and reached the conclusion that you are cold.

The way you speak about feeling is common in dualistic viewpoints, when a "soul" is proposed to answer why/how you think/remember/create/feel.

On the other hand, are you proposing that a robot couldn't have feelings? memories? suspicions? (original, creative) ideas? How could you tell?

Dustin: I apologize. The phrase I referred to was in the Doctrine and Covenants, which I had assumed to be in the Book of Mormon. It allegedly came from one of Joseph Smith's divine revelations.

Federico: You missed the point. The psalm is not stating that we are gods. It is challenging us to prove our divinity. This particular chapter is constructed differently from the rest of the Bible. Instead of "this is true", it's saying "prove to me this is true". There is a major disparity.

Nazareth: I was born in Montgomery, Alabama. I have not returned there since I turned one year old. If my parents had lived in, say, Washington their entire life until they came to Alabama to have me, that would not make me Washingtonian. But if they returned to Washington and raised me there, then I would be.

Homosexuals: After the Revolutionary War, the Constitution was written up and ratified. While it was a great starting point for all our subsequent laws, it was not meant to survive over two centuries without change. In fact the Constitution has been amended 27 times in its lifetime. Laws change.

Gentiles: I will compare this situation to the bread and the fishes. God did not form up the entire crowd (about 5,000 strong) into a single file line like school lunch. He distributed the bread and fish amongst his disciples, and they in turn fed the hungry. In Matthew 10, Jesus was distributing the "bread" (good news) to only God's chosen people. But, 18 chapters later, he commanded them to "feed" (preach to) the "hungry" (people who hadn't been preached to yet). N.B. the quotes in the above section are not biblical, but rather an analogy.

Promises: Does Matthew 16:27 say that everyone shall die?

Paul: Thessalonians 4:17 is not Paul guessing the time of the rapture. It is a warning to the Thessalonians. The Lord will come like a thief in the night, so we must obey God's commandments just in case today's Judgement Day. It got people thinking. "Oh, what if he comes right when I'm sinning? I'd better be careful."
Cory: What is the difference between a virus and bacteria? I'm only asking for refutation purposes.

Hugo: Could you clarify? I don't know what you're trying to say.

Tristan: That's exactly my point. Evolution does not have to conflict with religion. The Catholic Church recognizes that organisms evolve. What they do not believe is the evolution from, say, ape to man, which would be one species evolving into another.

Is there a single theist on this website other than me?

Federico, thanks for your answers.

Given the light of some of the answers, I have one more question. Once again, I am not trying to disproove your beliefs (or create anger) by proposing this question. It is merely that I have serious conflicts and misunderstandings with the interpretation of them.

Since we are all biological machines, what is the value system that you have that would that places human life any more important than bacteria, an ant or a cocker spaniel? After all they are just biological machines as well. Whose to say that we are higher in the evolution sequence? Perhaps in enough time, ants will surpass humanity? If we are all simply machines, what's the difference in running over an ant and running over a human pedestrian? Am I missing something?

"Every living species is at the top of its particular branch."

That sounds ridiculous to me. If we are from apes, why aren't apes at the top of their branch? Why are there still apes around? They must be a few branches below humans. Their branch must have been stunted. If we are decended from apes, and we have evolved whereas apes have not, then it's purely logical to conclude that the branch of apes have not evolved to the same level of evolution as humans.

Federico, if you were to suddenly find out that you were in fact a robot, I know this is a far-fetched hypothetical scenario, but just bare with me. But if you were to suddenly found out, that you were not human, would you then not care about any human that you have ever known -- ever? After all, you said, each one only tries to protect its own.

Caring about something or someone is different from giving them, or claiming they have, rights. What Michael is trying to get at is, Why is it wrong to kill a human being, or hurt a human being? It would presumably not be wrong, in that sense, to dismantle a computer or robot. Is it realistic, per 2001:Space Odyssey, for HAL to beg for its (his?) life (?). Also, at what stage does life have rights: amoeba, shrimp, bird, chimpanzee?

I can see rights only appertaining to a sentience which is not a physical concept, and for want of a better word, a spiritual one.

As far as physical evolution goes, it is only human pride that prevents us from being classified as a type of ape. Clearly I feel there's more than the physical presence in humans, but as far as physical classification of the species, conceptually, present-day apes, including humans, evolved from other, extinct, apes. (Last time I was in the Bronx zoo, the Great Apes house had a mirror, with a notation that you were seeing the most dangerous great ape.)

"if you were to suddenly found out, that you were not human, would you then not care about any human that you have ever known -- ever? After all, you said, each one only tries to protect its own."

I don't think a robot would have to go on a murdering spree, or even stop caring about people it knew, but I do believe it would probably want to meet other robots.

"Is there a single theist on this website other than me?"

CP, I think so. I don't know exactly what form or fashion or the role that is being played, but I think so. It seems to make much more sense to me when I look at things that way.

"You say you don't care for all human beings? Again, I don't want to assume anything too quickly, but if you mean that you don't love all human beings, there's a big mistake. After all, even Osama bin Laden (who is not highly thought of in most of the western world) is one of God's children. We tend to forget that once in a while. If you don't mean that you don't love all human beings, disregard the entire previous paragraph."

I most certainly mean that I DON'T CARE FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS -- and positively I DON'T LOVE ALL!!

What do you mean about caring for everybody, or worse, loving everybody? What do you do for all the hungry people in the world? The dying? The homeless? The cripples? Do you spend all time awake thinking --if not doing-- anything for them? Or is it just a "sound bite"?

Do you really care for Osama Bin Laden, and hope he won't be caught and made to answer for his crimes? You care more for him than for his victims? Do you particularly want to meet and take to your heart killers, torturers, sadists, child molesters, rapists?

Sorry if this is "too heavy", but I really cannot stand these sugary "Love everybody" feelings with just a few millions exceptions.

Being happy for round figures is totally lame, so I'll recommend Frank Miller's "300" graphic novel and then nobody will be able to say this posting has no content... And to make it fit with the theme of the forum, I hope Osama Bin Laden is killed soon, and I don't care for ALL living creatures, and if I did, I couldn't eat anything.

Science shows men and apes are related.
Religion says they are not, because God made one in his image, and not the other.

Science gives reasons and evidence for this relationship.
What does religion offer? Dogma: it's so because the Bible says so.

According to religion, then science is wrong, and the experimental results are false... how is this possible then?

Oskar: What do you mean by related? Similar or blood related?

Also, what experimental results do you refer to?

Fwaff: You say, "When will you supposedly intelligent people give it a rest and realise that this discussion is pointless." Luke 23:47 - "The centurion who witnessed what had happened glorified God and said, 'This man was innocent beyond doubt.'" I am hoping to replicate this occurance - namely, conversion. There is no explanation of God's existance that will satisfy everyone. If there were, there would be no need of faith.

Crusades: Perhaps this article may give some pertinent information.

fwaff's posting has brought another perplexus hasbeen back to comment.

Even more ironic than the fact that we (westerners in gerneral) continue to laud those who fought in the crusades (holy wars to rid holy lands of infidels) while scorning those who are fighting in the JIhad (a holy war to rid a holy land of infidels) is the fact that one of the most popular terms used by Jihadists to vilify western foreces is to call them "crusaders".

It seems that western Christians are not alone in their ironic hypocrisy

"e.g." said: "I'd say disproving Evolution might prove hard... there is too much evidence to hide away or discredit."

Don't count on it -- there still are people who believe the Earth is flat! (To say nothing about people who think the Earth is 6000 years old, and that fossils were MADE to look old by God?)

... and of course an opposable thumb.