All Comments (109)

Overnight shipping free pills prescription pharmacy, http://myrxpill.com

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

hsybcjqk rqxjgpl svchuax fzngc wefkvi liqk mxrgslajf http://www.ciruehlt.hzvbsjeq.com

uovafj eqdtiprv pvdsbzj lqvfty gmju zjrx lbjpunywf

Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green

Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green

So I am curious if anyone, particularly Bob but anyone can take a shot, could prove God doesn't exist?

People often have this pompous attitude that Christians have thrown everything into something they can't really prove...

So how about the other half...let's hear it...prove to the world God doesn't exist!

As an individual who came to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ in my forties, I too have struggled with the thoughts stated in just about every previous post. By God's grace, He placed me in a church where His Word (the Bible) was taught by men such as Doctor Mohler who loved God deeply and were committed to faithful exposition of His Word.

God used His Word to convict me of my sin and He gave me the faith to believe that Jesus Christ is God-who willingly came to earth as a man and lived a perfect, sinless life, and bore my sin on His body on the cross at Calvary so that I could be forgiven. There is no greater gift that could ever be given or received! Hence the joy in the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

The Book of Ephesians Chapter 2:8-9 states that:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Paul states in the book of Romans the blessings of faith and the consequences of unbelief.
I am eternally grateful that I now come under the former and not the latter...To Jesus Christ be the glory now and forever, AMEN!

Romans 1:16-32

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Unbelief and Its Consequences

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Ashley,

I could care less about creation at this point. Here's my point: All science is inductive (scientists admit this) and therefore all science is false. Induction cannot produce certainty, it cannot even produce probability.

Science, if consistently follows out, leads to skepticism and skepticism is impossible - it is self contradictory.

Forget creation, forget crystals...blah, blah, blah...who cares...my argument is that your worldview cannot account for the preconditions needed for Pam and I to even have a conversation.

Not only that, but atheists realizing this then twist logic and make it mean whatever the heck they want to make it mean...now induction is ok.

whatever...this is the reason Scripture calls you folks morons.

Jason,

Neither you or Pam know the answer to the big question, "how did we come to exist?". The difference between you is that she knows that she doesn't have the answer, but you don't. Pam stated correctly that we have some reasonable hypotheses concerning the origin of our universe, but we have no evidence to decide among them. You foolishly insist because their is no evidence, then your gods are the answer.

That's plain old "god of the gaps" rationalizing. You're trying to stuff your god in a gap in current scientific knowledge. Watch where you put him! Scientific gaps get narrower every day, and he might get pinched.

Debbie,

I utterly reject the "Left Behind" nonsense. Jesus could not have been any clearer as to when His coming would occur:

Matthew 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Revelation 22:6-7 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place." 7 "And behold, I am coming soon.

Your question, of course, assumes that the whole "Left Behind" theology is correct; however, it has not and can not be exegetically demonstrated from anywhere in the Bible.

Dr Mohler,

I pray that you are recovering from your illness.

Maybe a college course in literary analysis would do you some good. Your handling of the Bible is just as bad, if not worse, then the “Left Behind” nuts who have people disappearing into thin air, Jesus floating down on a cloud, and “locusts” as apache helicopters. That is really pathetic Pam. Again, I doubt you’ve spent much time reading the Bible so please don’t pretend you know what’s going on in it.

Jason, What will you do when you are left behind?
It's coming and it could be in your lifetime.

Pam: “Jason, I suspect that we're the only ones left on this thread, so this will be my last rejoinder. I can see that there's no getting through to you.”

When you violate logic, or for that matter, cannot account for logic; then no, you’re not going to get through to me.

Pam: “All I said was that the Bible says the world is flat. Do you dispute this?

The Bible says that the “land” has four corners. However, if you were a theologian and understood Biblical typology, symbolism, etc., you would understand that saying the land has four corners was not meant to be a scientific commentary on the shape of planet earth but is one of the many creative ways in which Scripture wants to convey that creation is patterned after the temple in heaven.

This is why, for example, in Matthew 24 Jesus refers to the destruction of the Temple as a “passing away of heaven and earth”. It’s Biblical typology/symbolism. And it is typology/symbolism that becomes apparent when one searches the Scriptures in depth.

For you and the “Left Behind” wackos to walk in and claim that the Bible teaches the earth is physically flat and has four corners and that Jesus taught that the physical earth is going to burn up at some point in the future, simply reveals your elementary understanding of Scripture.

Again, leave the theology to the theologians.

Pam: “Who ever said that I was basing anything on the "last ten" things I looked at. Ten is your number, not mine. If that were all there were, I would not be convinced. But, in fact, EVERYTHING that has ever been explained has a natural explanation - and that covers items too numerous to count. I have never seen ANY scientific evidence of anything supernatural. If you have proof - trot it out!”

Of course you are never going to see scientific evidence for anything supernatural. I have never made the claim that you could. In fact, I have made it very clear that I do not accept any attempts made by ‘christians’ (like the intelligent design nonsense) who try to empirically verify the existence of an immaterial God.

But here’s the thing Pam – I don’t LIMIT myself to empirical data…YOU HOWEVER DO! So much for being a “free-thinker”.

One very simple reason (and just this one would suffice) why I do not limit myself to empirical data is because empirical data cannot account for something as essential as logic.

How do you, Pam, account for the laws of logic without simply asserting, “It just is”?
Pam: “Scripture isn't proof, nor is "creation."”

Again Pam, I don’t try to “prove” that God exists. That’s not my job. God reveals Himself to whoever He pleases. What I am trying to do is to get you to be more logically consistent with your own presuppositions, yet you refuse to accept the implications for whatever reasons… ignorance, cowardice.

Pam: “I have an *idea* how matter came to be, but I have no proof, therefore I don't *know*. I can't prove that your idea is wrong ”

Uhhhh…so stop saying then that there MUST be a natural explanation. By your own admission you CAN NOT KNOW THAT. Again, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Pam: “if I had to categorize myself, it would be as a naturalist - the belief that all phenomena are covered by the [natural] laws of science”

Then, “The definiton of free thought is "thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, esp. in matters of religion."”

Then later, “Let's get one thing straight right off the bat - atheists don't have a dogma, or a creed, or even a set of beliefs. They only way in which they are alike is in a lack of belief in a supernatural power. Don't try to lump us together. There is no "Book of Atheism" to whose tenets we all must swear to ascribe.”

Pam, what appears to be happening is that you have embrace irrationalism. You believe that you are “unrestrained by deference to…established belief” yet you just got done saying that you believe “that all phenomena are covered by the [natural] laws of science.”

As I hinted to above, by your own admission you ARE RESTRAINED and therefore not a “free-thinker”. You are restrained to empirical evidence and the so called “laws of science.”

I, however, do not restrain myself to such, because again, there is no empirical evidence to account for something as fundamental as the laws of logic.

Not only are you NOT a free-thinker, but you have restrained yourself to a bankrupt worldview that cannot even provide the preconditions for any intelligible discourse.

Pam: “Both occur naturally”

Hmmm…so you’re telling me that it is NATURAL for a man to stick his penis in another man’s butt?

My atheist father-in-law would beg to differ. But see, that is exactly the problem. One atheist says it’s not natural (well, actually a great number of them do) and yet some don’t – who’s right here Pam? You have no basis for moral absolutes. It’s just whatever you feel like it should be; however, not everyone feels the same way you do.

Pam: “atheists don't have a dogma, or a creed”

Do you know what “creed” means? “Creed” comes from the latin “credo” – it means I “believe”.

And here’s your ‘creed’ – a direct quote from you:

“ if I had to categorize myself, it would be as a naturalist - the belief that all phenomena are covered by the [natural] laws of science.”

The what? The BELIEF.

You’re not a ‘free-thinker’ Pam.

And lastly…when I asked if the law of contradiction is open to dispute and doubt, you answered:

“Sure, *anything* is open to dispute and doubt”

Wow. And how exactly would one dispute (contradict) the law of contradiction? Pam, you are the one that has gone “crazy” to think that the law of contradiction is open to dispute and doubt.

I’ll leave you with these wise words from one of the greatest Christian minds in the past century, Gordon Clark – words for which you have no answer:

Every statement, even if particular, depends on the law of contradiction. Truth and error are incompatible. If all marhoucals are rhinosaps, there cannot be a single marhoucal that is not a rhinosap. We do not have to inspect the infinite number of the latter in order to assure ourselves that none can be found. Given the premise, we do not need to examine even one. That O ab cannot be deduced from A ab is a necessity of logic. And if our minds are not so constructed, we can never distinguish truth from error. But empiricism furnishes no necessity, no universality, no all, no none.

Indeed, it furnishes no some either. Whether the logical form be universal or particular, the proposition must have a subject term. All dogs are vertebrates; some dogs are black. Suppose now that the subject term, dogs, had five meanings. This is not unusual for English words. Consult Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Look up the words fast, curb, domestic, race, land-not to mention love, emotion, grace, religion, and virtue. Each one will have possibly four, five and sometimes six different meanings. This frequently introduces considerable ambiguity, with the result that an argument, apparently logical, is actually fallacious. The fallacy can be avoided, sometimes with a bit of trouble, by specifying meaning one, meaning two, and meaning three. But there is a deeper problem. Suppose a given word has an infinite number of meanings. The word fast would then mean every word in the dictionary from the article “a” to “zyzzogetan,” plus an unimaginable greater number. “Fast fast fast fast” would mean, “Today is last Tuesday” and “Washington discovered America in 1066.” That is to say, a word that means everything means nothing. But this which is so obvious could not be deduced from any finite number of observations. It is a principle which must be accepted even before the term “observation” could be given any meaning at all. Therefore the use of any single word in an intelligible sentence depends on an a priori principle. No blank mind could ever discover this principle. One could phrase the principle as “a word, to mean something, must also not mean something”; or, “if a word means everything, it means nothing.” Like the law of contradiction, it is a way of maintaining the distinction between truth and falsehood. And this distinction is the basic element in the image of God.

Jason, I suspect that we're the only ones left on this thread, so this will be my last rejoinder. I can see that there's no getting through to you.

You wrote:
"1. Again, leave the theology to the theologians. No theologian in their right mind would attempt to use the Bible to solve all scientific riddles. That is not the purpose of Scripture. The Bible never made the claim to serve that purpose."

I didn't say that anyone was using the Bible to solve riddles of any kind - but you either believe it's the true revealed word of God, or you don't.

Jason: "Maybe a college course in literary analysis would do you some good. Your handling of the Bible is just as bad, if not worse, then the “Left Behind” nuts who have people disappearing into thin air, Jesus floating down on a cloud, and “locusts” as apache helicopters. That is really pathetic Pam."

What have they got to do with me?? You won't find me disagreeing that they're serious whack jobs. My "handling" of the Bible?? What the hell are you talking about? All I said was that the Bible says the world is flat. Do you dispute this?

Jason: "Again, I doubt you’ve spent much time reading the Bible so please don’t pretend you know what’s going on in it."

You know nothing whatsoever about me. I *have* read it - all of it - and refer to it fairly frequently. I just don't believe that it's the word of God, or that there even is a God. I've also read Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology.

Jason: "2. I don’t see anything on that webpage that explains how crystals grow. All I see is classifications."

Try clicking on the links, Jason. It's a big Web site.

Jason: "3. You said, “A sample of 10 birds would never lead me to make any sort of prediction as to the eleventh.” Ok, then stop making your dogmatic statement that everything must have a natural answer because the last ten things you looked into had one. (that still remains to be proven)"

Who ever said that I was basing anything on the "last ten" things I looked at. Ten is your number, not mine. If that were all there were, I would not be convinced. But, in fact, EVERYTHING that has ever been explained has a natural explanation - and that covers items too numerous to count. I have never seen ANY scientific evidence of anything supernatural. If you have proof - trot it out!

4. You said, “If someone asked me to prove that 2+3 is NOT 8, I could only do so by proving that 2+3 IS 5.” Well, you’re still proving what 2+3 is NOT….now you’re just playing word games. In fact, your own wording admits it…” If someone asked me to prove… I could only do so…”

The semantics are yours, as I see it; but have it your way. Math problems aren't what we were originally talking about. I can't prove that anything (including your God) *doesn't* exist. No one can. The burden of proof lies with those who say he *does* exist. Scripture isn't proof, nor is "creation." If you have real proof, again, trot it out.

Jason: "5. Once again, you have “ideas” – no proof. So again, you don’t know. And if you don’t know then you can’t tell me my “idea” is wrong."

That's what I said. I have an *idea* how matter came to be, but I have no proof, therefore I don't *know*. I can't prove that your idea is wrong. But you religious people claim to *know*, although you offer no proof. At least I'm honest. You said that I said I had "no idea." That is not correct.

Jason: "6. No, you’re not a free-thinker. You prove so here: “My beliefs are entirely evidence based.” You are an empiricist. Furthermore, empiricism, as a first principle, contradicts itself."

Sigh. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? If so, it's not discernible. I dislike the pigeonholes of philosophy, but if I had to categorize myself, it would be as a naturalist - the belief that all phenomena are covered by the [natural] laws of science, making teleological explanations valueless. I am most definitely NOT an empiricist (one who believes that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience) any more than I am a rationalist (one who believes that all knowledge is derived from reason alone, independent of experience). Both are intellectually bankrupt. The definiton of free thought is "thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, esp. in matters of religion." This descibes me perfectly.

Jason: "7. Logic? I’m talking about Aristotelian logic. Take the universal, immaterial, “law of contradiction”, for example - how do you account for the existence of this law from a naturalistic worldview? Furthermore, is this a law you believe is open for dispute or doubt, being the ‘free thinker’ that you claim to be?"

Sure, *anything* is open to dispute and doubt, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an ultimate truth. This one seems to me to be so *naturally* self-evident that I can't imagine why anyone *would* dispute it, but, hey, the world is full of crazies.

Jason: "8. You said, “The natural explanation for why it's wrong for someone to break into my house, steal things, and murder me is that social animals have to have rules to live by”. Who says social animals have to have rules?

It comes with the territory. Without rules, there is no society - it breaks down. Don't take my word for it - study animal societies. It might be good for you to expose yourself to the natural world for a change. Did you know that in a wolf pack only the alpha male is "allowed" to sire a litter? It's a RULE. He who attempts to break it is either killed, or driven from the pack. In ant colonies the rules are so intense and ingrained that they actually function more like organisms than societies.

Jason: "Furthermore, define a ‘smoothly’ operating society and what makes your definition better than anyone else’s? I’ve met atheists who have a major problem with homosexuals…some ‘free-thinkers’ don’t…who’s right? Pam, should homosexuality be tolerated?"

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat - atheists don't have a dogma, or a creed, or even a set of beliefs. They only way in which they are alike is in a lack of belief in a supernatural power. Don't try to lump us together. There is no "Book of Atheism" to whose tenets we all must swear to ascribe.

My definition of a smoothly functioning society is one in which there is as much order and as little conflict and chaos as possible - one that works better for its members than would life outside the society. This is the *natural* definition. I haven't heard any others, so can't speak to how mine might be better or worse.

Personally, I think that homosexuality should be as accepted as heterosexuality. Both occur naturally, and are not "lifestyles" or choices. They are caused by the hormonal environment at a critical juncture in the prenatal development of the brain. Politically, I think it's as wrong to deprive homosexuals of their constitutional rights and the privileges that accrue to other Americans as it is to deny them to paraplegics, or people of Asian descent, or any other group you care to characterize. Don't jump to any conclusions here - I'm neither homosexual, Asian, nor paraplegic. Not sure what all this has to do with the existence of God, either.

Pam,

1. Again, leave the theology to the theologians. No theologian in their right mind would attempt to use the Bible to solve all scientific riddles. That is not the purpose of Scripture. The Bible never made the claim to serve that purpose.

Maybe a college course in literary analysis would do you some good. Your handling of the Bible is just as bad, if not worse, then the “Left Behind” nuts who have people disappearing into thin air, Jesus floating down on a cloud, and “locusts” as apache helicopters. That is really pathetic Pam. Again, I doubt you’ve spent much time reading the Bible so please don’t pretend you know what’s going on in it.

2. I don’t see anything on that webpage that explains how crystals grow. All I see is classifications.

3. You said, “A sample of 10 birds would never lead me to make any sort of prediction as to the eleventh.” Ok, then stop making your dogmatic statement that everything must have a natural answer because the last ten things you looked into had one. (that still remains to be proven)

4. You said, “If someone asked me to prove that 2+3 is NOT 8, I could only do so by proving that 2+3 IS 5.” Well, you’re still proving what 2+3 is NOT….now you’re just playing word games. In fact, your own wording admits it…” If someone asked me to prove… I could only do so…”

5. Once again, you have “ideas” – no proof. So again, you don’t know. And if you don’t know then you can’t tell me my “idea” is wrong. If you don’t know what 2+3 is, then you can not criticize me for saying 3, or 4, or 5. You either know or you don’t. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

6. No, you’re not a free-thinker. You prove so here: “My beliefs are entirely evidence based.” You are an empiricist. Furthermore, empiricism, as a first principle, contradicts itself.

7. Logic? I’m talking about Aristotelian logic. Take the universal, immaterial, “law of contradiction”, for example - how do you account for the existence of this law from a naturalistic worldview? Furthermore, is this a law you believe is open for dispute or doubt, being the ‘free thinker’ that you claim to be?

8. You said, “The natural explanation for why it's wrong for someone to break into my house, steal things, and murder me is that social animals have to have rules to live by”. Who says social animals have to have rules? Furthermore, define a ‘smoothly’ operating society and what makes your definition better than anyone else’s? I’ve met atheists who have a major problem with homosexuals…some ‘free-thinkers’ don’t…who’s right? Pam, should homosexuality be tolerated?

Jason, you are really getting tiresome.
Of course the Bible means the world is flat when it says that. It also says a few things about the Sun. You can't use the Bible as a source of truth and then explain away all its factual errors by saying it's metaphorical.

So I can't discover how crystals form? I did, and you can too:
http://webmineral.com/crystall.shtml

A sample of 10 birds would never lead me to make any sort of prediction as to the eleventh.

If someone asked me to prove that 2+3 is NOT 8, I could only do so by proving that 2+3 IS 5. I can only prove the positive. Your Poodle/bird example is a case in point. Thank you.

By my own admission I have no idea how we came to exist?? Where did you get that from? I actually have a pretty good idea how we came to exist. There are some very good working hypotheses out there, just no proof at this juncture. I said that I don't *know* where the first matter in the universe came from. I have ideas, though. :)

You offer this definiton of dogma:
“Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.”

This does not apply to my thinking. Nothing I have said comes from religion, ideology, or any organization. None is "established doctrine." None is authoritative or not be disputed or doubted. That's anathema to science, which *thrives* on doubt and dispute. I'm a free thinker, and that's light years away from dogma. My beliefs are entirely evidence based. Show me better evidence, I'll change my thinking.

By the "laws of logic", do you mean propositional logic and boolean algebra? These are ways of thinking about and understanding things, and as such, are products of the human brain. Nothing is much more natural than that.

The natural explanation for why it's wrong for someone to break into my house, steal things, and murder me is that social animals have to have rules to live by, else the society ceases to function. All animal societies have rules. The definition of "wrong" is that which causes societal breakdown or chaos. The definiton of "right", in the same context, is that which makes the society function smoothly. No more, no less.

5. Lastly, you said, "I see not one whit of evidence for anything supernatural, and a boatload for natural explanations"

Really? Pam, please give me some "natural explanations" for how you account for the laws of logic. Also, please give me some "natural explanations" why it would be wrong for someone to break into your house tonight, steal your most valuable possessions, and murder you. What "natural" reason do you have for insisting that murder is wrong? Furthermore, what "natural explanations" do you have to insist that there is even such a thing as "wrong" and "right"?

Pam,

A couple of things…your error is so obvious.

1. The Bible doesn’t say the world is flat in the sense that you understand it. The Bible is not a science book. It is interested in particular themes/motifs and often employs figures of speech, metaphor, symbolism, literary devices, structures, and the like, to convey specific points for specific issues. You should leave theology to the theologians.
2. You said, “Of course I can. I don't know exactly how crystals form, but there IS a natural answer, and I can discover it if I want to.” Uh, no you can’t.

Pam, simple illustration here: You’re sitting in the park and a blue bird flies by. The next bird that flies by is blue…then the next…then the next…this happens 10 times. Ten blue birds in row. Now, what color will the eleventh bird be? Blue? Well, maybe, maybe not...may be red, or brown, or black. You might not even have a bird fly by again before you leave the park.

This is a simple illustration of the problem of trying to arrive at absolutes inductively. And this is exactly the problem with all scientific laws.

Pam, it is simply bad logic to argue that there MUST be a natural explanation for our existence because there has been for other things. (assuming that these other so-called “natural” explanations are even valid, for much of that can be challenged)

What you are doing, in effect, is arguing that the 11th bird WILL and MUST be blue. This of course, would raise some eyebrows from a few people sitting there with you in the park. “Is she omniscient? Did she rig this? Something must be up for her to be so sure of herself that that the next bird MUST and WILL be blue.”

Pam, I have had very lengthy conversations with at least two agnostics - one who has taken logic and one who teaches logic at USF - who understand this simple problem and that is why they refuse to claim absolutes on anything, including a denial or an acceptance of ‘a god’. If only you would be as consistent.

3. You said, “I don't claim to know what something is NOT. I don't ever try to prove negatives.”

Nice dodge Pam. You mean to tell me that if someone walked up to you and asked you to prove that 2 + 3 is NOT 8, you couldn’t answer them? Wow.

Again Pam, simple stuff here. If someone points at a poodle and asks me, “is that a bird?” and I said, “No”, then that implies that I know what a poodle is and I know what a bird is. I know what something is not because I know what something is. If I did not know what the word “bird” means, I would not be able to answer whether that poodle could be considered a “bird” or not.
And again, to tweak the illustration to demonstrate your type of reasoning, you are in effect saying, “Well, I have no idea what ‘bird’ means, but I know that poodle ain’t one of them.”

Pam, by your own admission, you have no idea how we came to exist; therefore, you should zip the lip. You are in position to say then that “it must be this” or “it must be that.” Again, YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT and YOU ADMIT THIS, so why are you even yacking about it?

4. Concerning “dogma”, most of the dictionaries I have ran across define it as Wiki has:

“Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.”

Dogma, therefore, it not limited to “religion” and we see it at work with you. For example, you seem to acknowledge limitations with your knowledge, yet you fill in your gaps with the same automatic answer every time - “there must be a natural explanation”. Naturalism has become your “god of the gaps”. Again, the more logically consistent scientists, like the professor at USF, would say, “crystals may or may not have a natural explanation.” But not you; you absolutely insist that everything MUST have a natural explanation, even things you know nothing about.

Uhhh, Pam, I believe that’s called “dogma”. ( ;

I was an unbeliever in High School and dated a girl who was a Baptist. They were a loving and intelligent family. They always thought I would "find my way" and always treated me with respect.

While I never went the way they would have wanted and I don't know where they are now, it contributed to my thought that ridicule during conversation is not helpful to anyone. We are going to miss out on a great opportunity to learn and teach.

I wish we could talk to each other as if we were face to face with someone who we respect.

Kenneth:
You wrote:
"You are still at one of two points: 1) Something came from nothing; or 2) Eternal existence is possible."

Maybe. Or maybe there's a third possibility that our current knowledge doesn't allow us to see. Seems to me there's a saying about darkness and dawn that might cover this. :)

"The first point is totally irrational - and your post says you will only accept the rational."

The first point seems less likely to me, but maybe it's not. Maybe we'll find that our definition of matter is lacking a facet. I've always heard that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, which sounds pretty much like eternal existence. But physics is not my area of expertise.

"So that leaves us with number 2. The problem you have here is that you don't mind matter and energy in external existence, you just don't want God to be able to occupy that space instead."

Right. I don't. Maybe if you could could explain to me exactly what you mean by "God", I'd have less of a problem with it, but when you start talking about something that has a "son", and that sits in judgement of our "sins", then you lose me - that's way too anthropomorphic. Is he an old man with long white beard, dressed in a gown? No? You've outgrown that one? What then? A "spirit"? What would that be, exactly? Define your always-existing God, and then we'll talk.

"Too bad. Your desire to rule out God while ruling in matter and energy is a very irrational choice. It makes infinitely more sense to allow an intelligent Creator than it does to allow inanimate particles. The Creator option is rational, while believing in the eternal existence of the inanimate is totally irrational."

Sorry, but I don't see it that way at all - quite the opposite, in fact. I see not one whit of evidence for anything supernatural, and a boatload for natural explanations. If I were on a jury, I'd have to go with natural.

Jason:
You wrote:
"You can NOT say in the same breathe that you 'don't know' how things came into existence and then turn right around and say 'but there IS a natural answer'."

Of course I can. I don't know exactly how crystals form, but there IS a natural answer, and I can discover it if I want to. Do you disagree with this? It's not different from the question about the beginning of the universe. There was a time when NO human knew how crystals formed, but at that time there still WAS a natural answer - it just wasn't yet discovered.

"My gosh people, do you not see how ridiculous this is? I don't care if you're an atheist, christian, buddhists or whatever - your statement, Pam, is nonsense...any way you want to look at it."

Nothing ridiculous or nonsensical about it.

"Either you know or you don't."

You're right, either I know, or I don't.
I don't.
But that doesn't mean that I still won't know tomorrow, or next year, or thirty years from now.
Until discoveries are made, no one knows.

"In order to know what something is NOT, you have to know a little something about what it IS."

I don't claim to know what something is NOT. I don't ever try to prove negatives.

"Your dogma that there MUST be a natural explanation of creation right after telling me that you don't know how creation got here is pure NONSENSE."

Not so. And I don't have a dogma - that is the stuff of religion. I also have trouble with the word "creation." Here's the thing, Jason - everything that I've ever seen, experienced, or known of is entirely natural. I know of nothing that isn't. Yes, there are gaps in my knowledge, and in human knowledge in general, but there's a great danger for those who fill those gaps with God, because knowledge has a way of coming along to bump him out. It's been happening throughout human history, and the established religion (whether church or witch doctor) has been fighting it tooth and nail every step of the way.
There are still people who believe that the world is flat because the Bible says it is, for Pete's sake! What will happen when there are no more gaps for God to hide in?

I simply see no need of God or anything else supernatural to explain the universe or my existence. I fully realize that there are some questions that human knowledge can't answer - YET. It may not be answered in my lifetime, and it's possible that we won't ever have the answer, but that doesn't mean that there ISN'T an answer.

Things that we don't know are, by definiton, mysterious. To a Neanderthal, a crystal would have been very mysterious - would have strongly appeared to have been designed. Could only have been by God, right? Wrong. The reason and the mechanism are now known. If you can't solve a math problem, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a solution.

Assuming that God does indeed exist, then Jesus (Yeshua) is a Son of God just like all other men, and Mary is a daughter of God just like all other women.

Christians want there to be only one son of God just as they want there to be only one way to God, both of which they conveniently “know“. The likelihood that God feels the same way is inconceivable as that would make Him both simplistic and sectarian. That doesn’t sound much like a God worthy of praise and allegiance, nor should it. The Christian God is too small a God for the universe we are only a small part of.

The Greek Gods came down to create human beings with virgins and hence the story of Jesus‘ conception. The God of our age did them one better, He created all of humanity, all the sons and daughters included.

Jason:

"Prove to me that knowledge is derived through the senses."

I can't -- I can only indicate that it is possible to create an internally consistent model of the universe in which observations form the primary mechanism of verification and validation.

It is certainly possible to develop an alterative model -- but it becomes a challenge to retain its internal consistency.

Rumors that Lucifer lost the big fight in the sky with Michael the arc angel are unfounded. Lucifer is God. He won and it's God that lives in the fire that burns but does not consume.

Interpretation 1501, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul if you're still in the market. Got your soul listed or did you alredy find a buyer? Hurry, the price is falling.

When two or more of you are gathered in my name you will put words in my mouth I never spoke. But I would have spoken them had I known. So go on an do it. You will use those words to make your points. No two of you will put the same words in my mout. You will all have the absolute truths that I have spoken and prove your points, absolutely. You will kill each other because your correct conclusions are at odds with each other.

I am Lucifer the prince of war. Now have a go at each other. You are both correct for I speak all the words you want me to speak. Welcome to my kingdom. My kingdom is your kingdom. Your kingdome is heaven. Your reward awaits you.

I love you and will welcome you with open arms, should your enemy get in a lucky punch. You are my chosen people. I will be with you all the days of your lives. I will reward you with the treasure you take from your enemies. Your enemies are my enemies. They did not earn what they have so take it.

I forgive sins so lie, cheat, rob and kill each other. Your sins are forgiven. So shout it out. I believe! Louder! I believe!! Come now you can do better than that.

I beleive Christians don't believe in God.

I believe Christians lie when they say they believe in God.

You cannot prove I don't believe what I say I believe.

You cannot stop me from believing what I believe.

My faith is what I believe.

My faith says all other faits are lying and don't faith at all but just lie and say they are faith.

My faith is the correct faith because I believe what I believe and I believe all other believers are just lying and don't believe what they say they believe.

Believe me.

The Qur'an is a lie and Muhammad is a false prophet.

Candice,

Calling people names proves nothing.

Candice,

Would you like to prove your assertions or are do you think calling Christians "Bible thumpers" is sufficient?

anony said,

"Let's step back to the scientific method" and then later, "Based on my observations"

no, no...you're jumping the gun my friend. Let's take even one more step back.

Prove to me that knowledge is derived through the senses.

Pam,

You say, "The real question is why there's something rather than nothing. I don't know. No one does. But that doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation, and that it isn't knowable or discoverable - just means we aren't there yet. Maybe the human race isn't smart enough to ever figure it out, maybe we won't last long enough to get there, but there IS a natural answer."

Pam, you fall into the same trap as the person posting the hoax website.

You can NOT say in the same breathe that you "don't know" how things came into existence and then turn right around and say "but there IS a natural answer".

My gosh people, do you not see how ridiculous this is? I don't care if you're an atheist, christian, buddhists or whatever - your statement, Pam, is nonsense...any way you want to look at it.

Either you know or you don't.

That's like a scientist asking me if i know what a gobotronalotron is and i say, "No, but i know it's not a ______"

In order to know what something is NOT, you have to know a little something about what it IS.

Your dogma that there MUST be a natural explanation of creation right after telling me that you don't know how creation got here is pure NONSENSE.

Chinese believe the ruler-leader is the son of Heaven--the past,the present and the future--including Chairman Mao and the encumbent.
I praise Mao and their commy group for preserving Chinese culture and dignity, that includes religion.
Their religion policy is perfectly correct in reigning in the wildfire and venomous poison of the neocons of the overzealous religious leaders of the west. Akin to their economic policy vis-a-vis the advanced economy with Chinese characteristic.
People already had the religious freedom on Christianity and others(Islam,Taoist...).What they could not have are the denigradation and deniel of their ancestorial heritage and cultures by blindly and bluntly accepting a foreign idol as their spirital leader. They'd seperated religion from the Western Politics vis-a-vis not to allow Politiking of the neocons spoil the faith in Heaven or God.
They'd distanted from the Roman Catholic Empire bvy appointing their own peoples' bishops, just as Henry 8 discarded Pope for their own appointed Christian leader.
Me ain't pinky. The current China leader'd done a tremendous job in separating the Churches and the Politics--the slogan U.S.endeared but never practiced.

Sudden in a shaft of unlight
Even while the dust moves
There rises the hidden laughter
Of children in the foliage
Quick now, here, now, always--
Ridiculous the waste sad time
Stretching before and after.

TS Eliot, "Burnt Norton", V.

(Sorry--lopped off the last line).

Dear all--strident, secular scientists and logical believers alike,

I've enjoyed the above discussion. It is good to see the Christians fighting back--challenging scientific atheism on its very attribute of being 'scientific'.

There is no logic that science should be so virulently antireligious, but since about 1988, the science personified by Hawking, Weinberg, Dennett and Wolpert certainly is. Writes Bryan Appleyard in the Sunday Times: "The image created of science was that of an impregnable and rather cantakerous fortress of certainty...Such crude certainties are, of course, absurd, since good science is predicated on uncertainty, but it was essential to the marketing of these books. Uncertainty...doesn't sell."

But the discussion on the universe is telling for the universe is not rational. The universe is not even very knowable. And what we do know will probably be revised in, say, ten years hence.

The universe can only exist in time and as early as 500 AD St Augustine of Hippo wrote that time and the universe were brought forth together, that God--who is timeless--created time itself along with the universe. (Before the Creation thus there was no time.) Did He then enter time--the timeless entering time--through the person of Jesus? These mysterious words are understandable to us, although maybe not completely knowable, what the Buddhists call a koan.

Religion is simpler and its form more beautiful than mathematics, if only because the very advanced math necessary to understand even basic cosmological pricipals is not amenable to most, while the beauty of music and art and poetry--and is not religion celebrated with music and art and poetry?--is available to all.

We can talk ourselves into circles on the matter of, well, matter, time and the universe.

Do the poets have more understanding?

Let's see. Here is a gift to all for Christmas: some Eliot on time.

Words move, music moves
Only in time; but that which is only living
Can only die. Words, after speech, reach
Into the silence. Only by the form, the pattern,
Can words or music reach
The stillness, as a Chinese jar still
Moves perpetually in its stillness.
Not the stillness of the violin, while the note lasts,
Not that only, but the co-existence,
Or say that the end precedes the beginning,
And the end and the beginning were always there
Before the beginning and after the end.
And all is always now. Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension.....
Decay with imprecision will not stay in place,
Will not stay still. Shrieking voices
Scolding,mocking, or merely charrering,
Always assail them. The Word in the desert
Is most attacked by voices of temptation...
...............................................
Love is itself unmoving,
Only the cause and end of movement,
Timeless, and undesiry
Except in the aspect of time
.................................
Sudden in a shaft of unlight
Even while the dust moves
There rises the hidden laughter
Of children in the foliage
Quick now, here, now, always--
Ridiculous the waste sad

Why are Baptists so dumb? Is it genetic? Or just that they are in an environment which destroys brain cells? I think the latter. Living here in the Deep South I can see the destructive effect of evangelical Christianity every day. With five churches on virtually every corner, most of them Baptist, a rational mind would have to fight like hell to survive.

"The Creator option is rational, while believing in the eternal existence of the inanimate is totally irrational"

Kenneth:
Both allow for the creation of a consistent universal model. No observable evidence exists against either process. Thus, building a model based on either formulation is by definition rational.

"So that leaves us with number 2. The problem you have here is that you don't mind matter and energy in external existence, you just don't want God to be able to occupy that space instead.

I can understand why people feel the way you do; they don't want to accept that there is a Higher Power which will hold them to a judgment at some point in the future based upon a standard of conduct which the person did not create."

Kenneth,

It is certainly reasonable to believe 'God' or 'Gods' occupy that space instead.

BUT -- this does not imply your follow-up statement regarding that power holding people in judgement.

As an agnostic, I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that other forms of existence may be valid -- and that these forms may include powers which we would reasonably define as 'god-like'. I simply don't know -- and a consistent universal model can be constructed with or without their existence.

The problem is jumping from the possibility of divine existence to any dogmatic belief in the nature of that existence. The Christian mythos is no more consistent or plausible than the Greek or Norse mythos systems. To the extent that you are willing to say the Greeks and Romans were irrational in their belief of Jupiter [Zeus], I feel the same toward your apparent belief in Christianity.

I can say that I don't know if gods existed and still assert that the Greek mythos is inconsistent and thus wrong, just like I can say I don't know if a single God exists and still assert that the Christian mythos is inconsistent and wrong.

Personally I like the use of the word 'inconsistent' since I believe it more accurately conveys my disagreement -- but I will readily admit that at times unfortunately I sloppily interchange the two.

Kenneth:

Multiple anonymous posters -- some of us just don't like associating a name with our postings -- the insulting ones were not mine -- was actually trying to respond politely.

"How do you know if my theory is wrong if you don't know anything?!?"

Let's step back to the scientific method.

Come up with a model based on existing observations.

Develop a theory.

Test whether that theory is consistent with your model.

If consistent, the model has been expanded.

If inconsistent, either the model or the theory needs to be refined.

I don't know if one or more gods exist.

I do know that my current model for the observation of the universe does not explain water turning into wine or people being turned into pillars of salt.

Based on my observations, I choose to discard the possibility of those events -- in layman's terms [granted loose language] I believe any model that incorporates those theories is inconsistent or wrong.

Dear Pam: Essentially the same thing to your post that I told Anny, sans the part about his particular insanity.

You are still at one of two points: 1) Something came from nothing; or 2) Eternal existence is possible.

The first point is totally irrational - and your post says you will only accept the rational.

So that leaves us with number 2. The problem you have here is that you don't mind matter and energy in external existence, you just don't want God to be able to occupy that space instead.

I can understand why people feel the way you do; they don't want to accept that there is a Higher Power which will hold them to a judgment at some point in the future based upon a standard of conduct which the person did not create. People much prefer to be gods unto themselves, than submit to a god outside themselves.

Too bad. Your desire to rule out God while ruling in matter and energy is a very irrational choice. It makes infinitely more sense to allow an intelligent Creator than it does to allow inanimate particles. The Creator option is rational, while believing in the eternal existence of the inanimate is totally irrational.

Dear Anny: Thank you for your condescending comments and sociopathic insults in reply to my "how did the universe get here?" question.

Your first paragraph is a lie - I can explain using theology how the universe came to exist. Since it is impossible for it to exist using natural laws, it could only come to exist through a supernatural event.

That is the reality you don't want to face: Your existence is of supernatural origin. There is no natural explanation for it. You can't start with no energy, no mass, and in the natural world, suddenly come up with a universe. Spontaneous Generation has long been tossed into the trash heap of irrationality. But it is in that irrationality you dwell to explain the naturally inexplicable creation of the universe. From your irrational starting point comes your irrational conclusions - GIGO.

But actually, your desire to believe the unbelievable - that somehow nothing spontaneously turned itself into something - is an even wilder irrationality -- by a host of magnitudes - than is believing in God. You believe that spontaneous generation occurred. But you also believe it only occurred once. That, dear Anny, is truly insane.

And your wandering ramblings about your own existence is pure sophistry. Too bad you have to throw in the insults with the insanity you write - but since you don't even know if you even exist, I guess it's a very short step to not knowing anything at all - which you amply prove in nearly every paragraph you write.

Anny, if you really think that your existence is a figment of the imagination, why not stand out in the middle of the nearest interstate in the middle of the night wearing dark clothing in an unlit section of highway? In fact, make sure it is a stormy night with significantly reduced visibility just to make sure you turn into just another piece of roadkill, rotting in the gutters.

Let's find out just how strongly you actually believe the tripe you write. Go ahead - you won't die - because you don't know if you even exist. Right? And if you did die, it wouldn't matter because in death you won't have any communication with the imaginary world where you imagined you lived before you died. So get ahead, put your mortal body where your typing fingers say that your are - life is all just a figment of the imagination - True, Anny?

But of course you won't do that - because despite your lunatic prose, you know that you do exist - and that to die is to cease existing in this world - the world you know is real. In short, your cowardice to live your lies proves you really know you do exist -- and that cowardice further keeps you from turning your lunacy into deadly reality.

Perhaps now that we can see your disconnect from the real world, and your sociopathic reasoning, we can understand the rest of your posts' disconnect.

Please -- you have a rest. You will need it to face the reality that you have no explanation for the universe, while Believers have a perfectly reasonable explanation for Creation. It was a supernatural event - and that supernatural power is what we call God. Your supernatural existence proves His supernatural existstence.-30-

Kenneth Lamb wrote:
"Could the anti-godder Denialists on this board please expain the universe's creation? I'm interested in learning how an existence with neither mass nor energy came into being - through natural laws. Since e=mc2 only works if you possess both mass and energy -- if either is zero, the enire equation goes to zero -- I want explained how mass and energy came into existence - in a natural, and not a supernatural, explanation."

No can do, sorry. I suspect what you really want to know is where matter comes from. Space is just nothing - no mystery there. The real question is why there's something rather than nothing. I don't know. No one does. But that doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation, and that it isn't knowable or discoverable - just means we aren't there yet. Maybe the human race isn't smart enough to ever figure it out, maybe we won't last long enough to get there, but there IS a natural answer.

Fifty years ago, we didn't know about DNA and there were no personal computers. Twenty years before that, we had no antibiotics. A hundred years before that, we thought disease came from a "miasma" that rose from swamps - we were still a long way from electric lights, internal combustion engines and airplanes. You're in too big a hurry.

The point is - God is NOT an explanation, because then you have to ask where God came from. Saying that he "always was" is just a cop out. If I can't say that matter just always was, then you don't get to do it with God, either. At least not without explaining the exact nature of God. When you throw around words like "spirit", you'd better be prepared to define them in rational terms - I'm not buying mystical. Not today, not ever.

anony,

I don't care what you are. It's very simple - you can't say in the same breathe that it is impossible to know how creation began and then turn right around say my "theory" of creation is wrong.

How do you know if my theory is wrong if you don't know anything?!?

It's like a person emphatically claiming, "there is no such thing as truth".

uhhh...is that a true statement? See the problem here?

It's complete nonsense.