I'm Here To Provide Answers To Your Questions ... Please Try Me

[micksherlock]

I'm new here, and I can promise you that many of your questions/comments

are the direct result of lousy teaching in the churches today.

 

God has seen to it that a lot of critical information has been provided in His Scriptures,

but obviously it has to be believed to be of any benefit to you.

 

A lot of basic information is explained in Genesis, for example, but of course, if you don't believe it,

you're just SOL.

 

For starters ...

 

God created both angels and humans to have free will.

He DESIRED these free-will creations (not robots) to praise Him and worship Him.

And He DESIRED to have humans on earth freely praise and worship Him.

Angels in heaven and humans on earth ... all praising and worshipping Him.

 

Okay, is this reasonable, or do we need to discuss this before continuing?

 

P.S. I used to be an evangelist, so no amount of persecution, etc. will faze me in the least.

 

I thought that your post deserved a more lengthy reply so I have taken a few moments to reply to a few issues raised by it.

 

1. Free will
   

The issue of free will has throughout the history of Christianity, been a contentious one. Some sects have promoted it (most of the Proto-Orthodox Church Fathers, i.e, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria etc.), whilst others have denied it to varying degrees (Manicheeists, Early works of St. Augustine, Calvinists, traditional Lutherans, and a few others). From the fourth century onwards, this theological schism, along with many others, which are all rooted in the ambiguity of the scriptures, scriptures written by anonymous authors no less, have brought forth real suffering in the form of wars, persecutions and general chaos, with every sect pretending or more accurately, believing, they know the mind of god! In actuality, these beliefs are merely the projections of selfish and egocentric wants and desires, resulting in the manifestation on OUR (Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Communist, Capitalist, Rich, Poor, etc.) earth, of true evil.

 

In the words of Will Durant:

 

“Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous.”

 

When we look into the matter of free will, I think there is a strong case to made, that the god of the Christians, if he in fact exists, and his will is in fact, reflected in the canonical writings, did not intend for his “Servents” or “slaves” as the word (Greek word for servant**) was originally and correctly interpreted, to have free will.

 

Let’s look at it logically! According to the doctrines of Christianity, God is all-knowing (omniscient), he knows the past, present and future. If this is the case, then logically, he would know everything we do, before we do it. Thus, our whole life must be predetermined and our actions, a result of our predetermined natures. If we are predetermined to be “good” we will be “good” and if we are predetermined to be “bad” we will be “bad.” Therefore, we will act, not according to our free unencumbered will, but rather, in accordance with the foresight of God.

 

Quoting from the great Buddhist thinker, A.L. De Silva:

 

“The Bible also makes it clear that everything people do, good or evil, is all due to the will of God (e.g. 2 Thess. 2:11-12; Rom. 9:19-21; Rom 9:18). If people are evil it is because God has chosen to make them evil (Rom 1:24-28) and caused them to disobey him (Rom 11:32). If they do not understand God’s message it is because he has made their minds dull (Rom 11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom 9:18). God prevents the Gospel from being preached in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) and he fixes long before it will happen when a person will be born and when he or she will die (Act 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God before the beginning of time (II Tim 1:9). If a person has faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from God, not from any effort or decision on their part (Eph. 2:9-10). Now one may ask “If we can only do what God predetermines us to do, how can he hold us responsible for their actions?”(1)

 

I think that is enough on free will for now.

1. God wants to be Freely worshipped
   

 

Firstly, and I mean no offense, how do you know what god wants, or even if he/she, or they even exist? The truthful answer here is you don’t! This is a simple fact, one which is often overlooked by the faithful, who erroneously assert that faith may be produced as evidence of fact. It cannot. Faith is evidence of faith alone. If the contrary were true, then we must assume that Heaven would be overcrowded with the gods of all the religions of both past and present.

 

Your religion, Christianity, is a ‘religion of the book,’ meaning, that you derive your entire understanding of who and what your god is from the Christian Scriptures, scriptures whose authors are unknown, and to which, false names have been dishonestly attributed and the contents of which, contain errors of fact and philosophy, forgeries, interpolations and upon which, much evil has been established (see Inquisition, Goa, Tahiti, Dark Ages, Hypatia, ………………etc.).

This evil brings up another issue, if I might digress for a moment. If god/Jesus is omniscient, then he must have foreseen that his “holy scriptures” would cause immeasurable suffering here on earth, and so we must ask, why didn’t he do anything, or say anything, to ensure this would not happen. Was he unable to produce teachings that were unambiguous and clear? Couldn’t he have ensured, with his infinite intelligence, that neither violence, nor persecution would arise from “his own words?”

 

The renowned philosopher, Robert G. Ingersoll once remarked on this issue, saying:

 

“If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him, like a panorama, moved the history yet to be. He knew exactly how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies, would be committed in his name. He knew that the fires of persecution would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that brave men would languish in dungeons, in darkness, filled with pain; that the Church would use instruments of torture, that his followers would appeal to whip and chain. He must have seen the horizon of the future red with the flames of the auto da fe (public executions). He knew all the creeds that would spring like poison fungi from every text. He saw the sects waging war against each other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests, building dungeons for their fellow-men. He saw them using instruments of pain. He heard the groans, saw the faces white with agony, the tears, the blood—heard the shrieks and sobs of the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light of fagots (kindling). He knew that the Inquisition would be born of teachings attributed to him. He saw all the interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these burnings, for a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross. He knew that in his name his followers would trade in human flesh, that cradles would be robbed, and women's breasts unbabed for gold, and yet he died with voiceless lips. Why did he fail to speak?”(2)

 

Now, if these ancient documents represent the source of your faith, and that source is corrupt, as has been well established by some of the greatest free-thinkers this earth has had the fortune of hosting, then it is not “faith in god” that you have fruitlessly spent your time and energy on, but faith in the anonymous authors of manuscripts, and their propagators (i.e, council of Nicea and Carthage), that have been proven over time, to be both error filled and error producing.

 

In the words of the brilliant ex-theologian turned freethinker, M.M Mangasarian:

 

“There is no reliable record of God ever being seen by man. His voice has never been heard. His form and expression or whereabouts remain a mystery to this day. We have nothing but guesses as to the kind of worship he prefers, or why he should be praised. And yet, entire countries have been plundered, pillaged, and laid waste for no other reason than that they held different views from ours on the form or nature of a God whom no man has ever seen, heard or comprehended. Such is the extraordinary folly of man! All religions are absolutely human in origin. There is not, and there has never been, and in the nature of things there never can be a divine or superhuman religion—that is to say, a religion invented by a god.” (3)

 

 

Another issue which seems to be implied from your statement is that, God wants to be worshipped. Why? What is it about his psychology that produces this desire to be worshiped? Is he a tyrant? Is he insecure? Did he create and do good merely to attain the rewards of praise and worship from his creation? If so, then he would surely lack both altruism and integrity. Perhaps this male god is a former public servant, or DMV clerk, disgruntled with his lot in life, wishing to be worshiped and praised for his power, in order to fill a void in his heart, which we may only assume, has been caused by a prolonged period of loneliness!? Speaking subjectively as a father of two, I would never expect my children to grow up worshiping me. And I certainly would not punish them for an eternity, or even a minute, for not doing so. All I want is for them to be happy when they grow up, and to form their own identities, develop their own understanding and love their fellow human being, no matter what their belief. I couldn’t imagine a benevolent and forgiving god, punishing someone for an eternity without parole, for the crime of thinking! Especially, since I gave them the brain with which to do so. To me, if such was the case, I would assume that we are being toyed with by a tyrannical and pathological god.

 

Karen Armstrong, the author of such books as, ‘A Case for God,’ ‘The Battle for God,’ ‘A History of God,’ and many other theological and historical works, once quipped:

 

“An omnipotent, all-knowing tyrant is not so different from earthly dictators who made everything and everybody mere cogs in the machine which they controlled. An atheism that rejects such a God is amply justified.”(4)

 

I think there is some value in Karen’s statement, for if we do not learn to throw off the oppressive yoke of tyrants and oppressors, be they natural or supernatural, then we will all be doomed to a rather gloomy fate, with the words of both Colossians and Ephesians, dictating our every waking moment:

 

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:5

 

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.

Colossians 3:22

 

The final issue I would like to address from the statement at hand relates to your assertion that god wants us to “freely” worship him. I think this statement, based on your own scriptures and doctrines, is in error. If we do not worship him, what happens? Here is an analogy, I think reflects the level of freedom we have with regards to worshiping the Hebrew god, Yahweh and his son/alter-ego, Christ.

 

A slave is called into his master’s kitchen and given the choice between two pieces of candy. One is red and the other, blue. Now the master says to his slave; “you are free to choose which piece of candy you would like, but if you choose the red piece, I’m going to chop your head off!” This is not freedom, but coercion, which again, reflects badly on the character of your god, who has much worse in mind for those who choose the “wrong” piece of candy! This, needless to say, is not freedom, and goes to further support the argument against freewill, as it relates to the doctrines of many sects of Christianity.

 

My final query relates to the following statement you made; " I can promise you that many of your questions/comments

are the direct result of lousy teaching in the churches today."

 

Again, how do you know which church, if any, is teaching the correct “word of God?” Is it by chance the one you belong to? Do you belong to a church? If not, how do you distinguish between, “right teachings” and “wrong teachings?”

 

I would be fascinated to hear your answer to this question and await your reply.

 

Having said all of this, I do admire you for entering a forum in which most members are bound to view you negatively, and despite the fact that I think you are here on a sincere, yet misguided and self-deluded mission, you do show character in entering the “lion’s den” so to speak.

 

Anyway, I await your reply.

 

Kind regards

 

Michael

 

 

 

Refs:

 

1. A L De Silva. Beyond Belief. Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. Three Gem Publications. (1994). pp. 18-19.
   

1. Robert. G. Ingersol. The Christian Religion. North American Review. (1882). p. 17.
   

1. M.M. Mangasarian. The Story of My Mind: How I Became a Rationalist. Independent Religious Society of Chicago. (1902). p. 97.
   

1. Joan Konner. The Atheist’s Bible. Harper Collins. (2009).p. 120
   

[micksherlock]

I honestly don't see a distinction between OT and NT. Probably because of my religious upbringing...I was taught in church that the whole bible is god's literal truth. I used to believe that, and people like Dougie most definitely believe that, that's why I consider OT material to be fair game to use as ammunition against him.

 

At a different time in my life, I briefly subscribed to the more liberal notion that the OT was a bunch of legends and the NT was the only relevant bit. But upon further examination I don't think that's a valid line of thinking. NT authors clearly believed in the OT, as did the character of Jesus.

 

Excellent point. Unless you happen to be a Marcionite, and I dare say there are none of Marcion's follows alive today, then the OT is an essential part of your scripture as a Christian. Jesus, according to "John" is Yahweh, and so, when Yahweh ordered that his chosen, rip open pregnant women's bellys and smash the fetus' against the rocks, it was Jesus, when he tried to kill Moses, for some unknown outburst, it was Jesus, when he orded family to slay family at the foot of Mt. Sinai, it was Jesus and finally, when he declared that it was lawful to rape young virgins and then force those virgins to live with their rapist for a lifetime, being constantly raped over and over by their raping husband, that too was Jesus! I think Marcion foresaw some of these issues, and although he was no less credulous than the Orthodox Catholic Church, at least he knew about damage control!

[raoul]

Well hopefully you'll engage in some actual dialogue on here. I hardly ever get to talk to theists who aren't rabid fundys like our pal doug. Tell me, what exactly do you believe, and why?

 

I believe the bible is true because it says it's true!!! LOL

How's that for circular reasoning?

 

Seriously though - I haven't posted much here because of my profound respect for the many people over here who have been harmed, especially psychologically, by religion and/or religious persons. What they've been taught or have heard from the so called bible experts simply boggles my mind and, at the same time, enrages me because I see the underlying manipulative tactics used in order to get people to fall in line so to speak.

 

I'll respond as to the why of my theism in a moment but want to address what you wrote about the ot, nt, and Jesus' acceptance of ot authority because they are excellent as well as valid/truthful facts.

 

1. Yes, I too was taught that the ot and nt was God's inspired or even literal truth. As many of them have said, it is even 'God breathed' as in God pretty much dictating to the writers exactly what to write. I call this a crock of shit (pardon my vulgarity but it's very applicable in my view when addressing the religionists). To me, the bible may be inspired BUT, and this is a big 'but', but it is NO more inspired than any other great work such as Shakespeare's plays, Plato's or Aristotle's work. I think a great illustration which I've used before is to compare Steven King's excellent class 'The Stand' with the last book in the bible - Revelation. I've argued that King's work is MORE realistic and applicable in describing a world wide catastrophe compared to what Revelation does with the same subject. In fact, many scholars have argued that Revelation should've never been placed in the bible because of the danger of its misuse which, of course, has happened. King's work, on the other hand, describes good and evil in very realistic terms. IE - the 'good' people aren't really super pure or good and the 'bad' people for the most part aren't pure evil in the sense that the writer in Revelation portrays them.

2. Yes, NT writers did use OT as canon since the NT wasn't even collected yet. Nor, do I think, they believed their actual writings would be part of any bible - this was done centuries later by the organized religionists who were responsible for what Prof. Bart Ehrmann calls the 'corruption' of the texts.

3. Jesus accepted OT canon only to point to the better way (new wine vs old wine, new law of love vs. Levitical law of punishement, etc.). But I'm skeptical about his embracing it as depicted in the more legalistic gospels such as Matthew where the ot law was sort of justified. I mean, when you look at John's gospel you don't see much about him embracing it. And, in my opinion, if he did defend it this was only because of the heat he was catching from the Pharisees and scribes who accused him of being a law breaker, drunk, et. al.

 

Now, to your question - why do I believe what I do? Quite simple really. If you're referring to the xtian god described by the fundies today - nope, not at all. If you're referring to an Intelligence behind the universe, or First Cause as Aquinas has argued, then definitely yes - that's what I believe. To think otherwise such as the universe just popped into being without any intelligent designer behind the scenes, to me, takes incredible faith - more than what I may be accused of having.

 

When I first began this journey, as I call it, I'd accepted all the bs the church pushed at me - the bible totally true without error, Jesus being the ONLY way, etc. But as the years have gone by and that cursed thing called 'reality' caused quite a few shakeups in my world, I've come to realize that it's much more complicated than the bs the church pushes at us regarding good vs evil, the insipid 'God has a plan for every one of us', etc.

 

Hope this has answered your question and thanks for talking about your own experience regarding the false teaching they threw at you.

 

raoul

[raoul]

I honestly don't see a distinction between OT and NT. Probably because of my religious upbringing...I was taught in church that the whole bible is god's literal truth. I used to believe that, and people like Dougie most definitely believe that, that's why I consider OT material to be fair game to use as ammunition against him.

 

At a different time in my life, I briefly subscribed to the more liberal notion that the OT was a bunch of legends and the NT was the only relevant bit. But upon further examination I don't think that's a valid line of thinking. NT authors clearly believed in the OT, as did the character of Jesus.

 

Excellent point. Unless you happen to be a Marcionite, and I dare say there are none of Marcion's follows alive today, then the OT is an essential part of your scripture as a Christian. Jesus, according to "John" is Yahweh, and so, when Yahweh ordered that his chosen, rip open pregnant women's bellys and smash the fetus' against the rocks, it was Jesus, when he tried to kill Moses, for some unknown outburst, it was Jesus, when he orded family to slay family at the foot of Mt. Sinai, it was Jesus and finally, when he declared that it was lawful to rape young virgins and then force those virgins to live with their rapist for a lifetime, being constantly raped over and over by their raping husband, that too was Jesus! I think Marcion foresaw some of these issues, and although he was no less credulous than the Orthodox Catholic Church, at least he knew about damage control!

 

I love Marcion because of the uproar he'd created with his teaching. And I've defended him in a YouTube video I'd made regarding Bart Ehrman's works. Marcion had every right to believe what he did based on what he'd studied - no different than anyone else takings certain bible verses and running with them.

[Akheia]

I really hope Doug read that big essay you posted, Michael. I did, and it was really good. Well done, sir.

 

I've always wondered too why God "wanted" to be worshiped, but nothing really complimentary comes of such musings. Either God was incomplete, thus flawed, or else he is a narcissistic megalomaniac, which actually fits pretty well with the whole genocidal storm-god thing he's got going on. The extreme ferocity and barbarity of his punishments fits pretty well with an abusive father whose kids just ain't doing right. Normal, healthy, well-adjusted fathers don't want their children to be infantilized for life or to depend on them forever. Nor do they cruelly punish their kids for crimes they didn't even know they'd committed.

 

And it's hilar how Christians think worshiping or not worshiping God is a "choice." It's hardly a choice if there's either "self-effacing terror, rampant sexism, and crushing mediocrity for your entire life" or "eternity being punished in fire." I can't roleplay in the Star Wars universe for that very reason--I don't like either the Jedi OR Sith options. They both suck sweaty balls for everybody but the folks at the very top of the pyramid scheme.

 

If I had to design a fake faith that'd actually make me money and get me power, I'm not sure I could ever come up with as good an example as modern Christianity. It's had 2000 years to hone its scams and con games, and it's polished to a blinding shine by now. Every one of its followers in its nearly 40,000 denominations thinks he/she is in the ONE CHURCH that gets the WHOLE BIBLE correct. It's laughable.

[micksherlock]

I honestly don't see a distinction between OT and NT. Probably because of my religious upbringing...I was taught in church that the whole bible is god's literal truth. I used to believe that, and people like Dougie most definitely believe that, that's why I consider OT material to be fair game to use as ammunition against him.

 

At a different time in my life, I briefly subscribed to the more liberal notion that the OT was a bunch of legends and the NT was the only relevant bit. But upon further examination I don't think that's a valid line of thinking. NT authors clearly believed in the OT, as did the character of Jesus.

 

Excellent point. Unless you happen to be a Marcionite, and I dare say there are none of Marcion's follows alive today, then the OT is an essential part of your scripture as a Christian. Jesus, according to "John" is Yahweh, and so, when Yahweh ordered that his chosen, rip open pregnant women's bellys and smash the fetus' against the rocks, it was Jesus, when he tried to kill Moses, for some unknown outburst, it was Jesus, when he orded family to slay family at the foot of Mt. Sinai, it was Jesus and finally, when he declared that it was lawful to rape young virgins and then force those virgins to live with their rapist for a lifetime, being constantly raped over and over by their raping husband, that too was Jesus! I think Marcion foresaw some of these issues, and although he was no less credulous than the Orthodox Catholic Church, at least he knew about damage control!

 

I love Marcion because of the uproar he'd created with his teaching. And I've defended him in a YouTube video I'd made regarding Bart Ehrman's works. Marcion had every right to believe what he did based on what he'd studied - no different than anyone else takings certain bible verses and running with them.

 

I think he was clever, not wise, but clever!

[micksherlock]

I really hope Doug read that big essay you posted, Michael. I did, and it was really good. Well done, sir.

 

I've always wondered too why God "wanted" to be worshiped, but nothing really complimentary comes of such musings. Either God was incomplete, thus flawed, or else he is a narcissistic megalomaniac, which actually fits pretty well with the whole genocidal storm-god thing he's got going on. The extreme ferocity and barbarity of his punishments fits pretty well with an abusive father whose kids just ain't doing right. Normal, healthy, well-adjusted fathers don't want their children to be infantilized for life or to depend on them forever. Nor do they cruelly punish their kids for crimes they didn't even know they'd committed.

 

And it's hilar how Christians think worshiping or not worshiping God is a "choice." It's hardly a choice if there's either "self-effacing terror, rampant sexism, and crushing mediocrity for your entire life" or "eternity being punished in fire." I can't roleplay in the Star Wars universe for that very reason--I don't like either the Jedi OR Sith options. They both suck sweaty balls for everybody but the folks at the very top of the pyramid scheme.

 

If I had to design a fake faith that'd actually make me money and get me power, I'm not sure I could ever come up with as good an example as modern Christianity. It's had 2000 years to hone its scams and con games, and it's polished to a blinding shine by now. Every one of its followers in its nearly 40,000 denominations thinks he/she is in the ONE CHURCH that gets the WHOLE BIBLE correct. It's laughable.

 

It is so funny you call it a pyramid scheme, because in the 2nd volume of my 'I am Christ series, I compare Christianity to Amway!

[FeelHappy]

Now, to your question - why do I believe what I do? Quite simple really. If you're referring to the xtian god described by the fundies today - nope, not at all. If you're referring to an Intelligence behind the universe, or First Cause as Aquinas has argued, then definitely yes - that's what I believe. To think otherwise such as the universe just popped into being without any intelligent designer behind the scenes, to me, takes incredible faith - more than what I may be accused of having.

 

If I ever get to a place where I believe anything again it will probably be like this. In fact when I first lost my faith in the fundi Christian god for many many months I believed like this and I really do respect this belief viewpoint (at least far far more than the fundi christian one). I'm pretty sure had I been brought up this way, I'd still believe in something.

 

So what happened? Well the more I thought and thought about the Aristotle's un-caused cause (I think Aristotle said this before Aquinas), the more I thought so what? You see if you want to call that first event god, then that's fine, there are many ways you can define god. I liked this idea for a while then one day it hit me, so what? I mean there's a world of difference between this first cause and a loving interventionist deity. Do I believe that a loving interventionist deity which cares about me exists...absolutely not and with this, I don't care to praise or worship the event leading to the big bang.

 

(Also for the first cause, I think on the sub-atomic level there are events taking place all the time without any apparent cause so the argument that everything has a cause is likely false, its better stated that most events appears to have a cause).

 

In any case welcome. You seem much more level header than Doug

[Legion]

If you're referring to an Intelligence behind the universe, or First Cause as Aquinas has argued, then definitely yes - that's what I believe. To think otherwise such as the universe just popped into being without any intelligent designer behind the scenes, to me, takes incredible faith - more than what I may be accused of having.

 

But why is causality itself insufficient? Why does the universe require a designer?

 

By the way, I place very little credence in contemporary cosmology. The Big Bang is very suspect to me.

[3DollarBill]

 

Now, to your question - why do I believe what I do? Quite simple really. If you're referring to the xtian god described by the fundies today - nope, not at all. If you're referring to an Intelligence behind the universe, or First Cause as Aquinas has argued, then definitely yes - that's what I believe. To think otherwise such as the universe just popped into being without any intelligent designer behind the scenes, to me, takes incredible faith - more than what I may be accused of having.

 

raoul

 

Ok, I understand where you are coming from, thanks for that.

 

The problem, as I see it, with the god-as-first-cause idea, is that you still haven't accounted for the origin of said god. And you are arguing for a complex kind of god, an intelligent one. If said intelligent god existed at the beginning of time, how did it come to exist?

 

I don't think we're actually that different in our beliefs, only I adopt the label of atheist. Being an atheist does not mean that I absolutely declare that gods are impossible. It simply means I reject claims of knowledge of gods. I fully acknowledge the possibility we may eventually discover something that could be classified as a god as we delve into the origins of the universe.

 

However, with my feeble understanding of current research, I think it is also quite possible we conclude it really all did come from nothing. Those on the forefront of physics have already developed theories about how this could have occurred. Same with abiogenesis...we won't know exactly what happened, but there are some new experiments out there that show ways it could have happened, and that's good enough for now. Because even a small amount of evidence sure beats some ancient book of nonsense, and on that I think we definitely agree.

 

BTW, doug if youre still out there trollin this particular page... THIS is what a good atheist/theist discussion looks like. Notice how nobody is preaching? Take a hint buddy.

[raoul]

But why is causality itself insufficient?

 

By itself I suppose it isn't insufficient however you have to factor in the effects of it along with the most important factor - timing. IE - why did the universe pop into existence EXACTLY at the specific moment it did? This might not seem important but it is because, according to most if not scientific findings, had the universe exploded into existence something like (and I forget the exact equation) 1 1/billionth of a nano second before or prior to its happening, we wouldn't be having this conversation because we wouldn't be here - no life sustaining mechanism at all.

 

Why does the universe require a designer?

 

Because, once more according to most scientific findings, the incredible fine tuning required to have the cosmos in the way we do necessitates an intelligence of some kind - cause and effect. Effect being the universe, cause being, as Aquinas put it 'first cause'. In his argument of the 5 Ways he described cause and effect going on almost forever until you come to a first cause of some kind. Infinite regression beyond this is a mathematical impossibility as argued by others regarding the 'impossibility of an actual infinite' I believe even Hawkings, a non-thest, accepts this reality regarding the actual infinite.

 

 

By the way, I place very little credence in contempory cosmology.

 

Does that mean you reject everything Carl Sagan has posited?

 

The Big Bang is very suspect to me.

 

You might wanna take that up with a guy by the name of Smoot who, in his classic 'Ripples in Time' pretty much confirmed the BB. In fact, Fred Hoyle, an adamant critic of the bb and a firm supporter of the steady state (I think that's what he called it) theory which condoned an ever present universe, no beginning or end, pretty much conceded the point to Smoot once the bb findings were published.

 

Now, for sake of time - I don't want this to turn out to become a full blown philosophical debate - god knows I had enough of them years ago with academic type atheists and now that my time is incredibly limited, I can't go into great detail with volumes of words like I used to do, okay?

[raoul]

The problem, as I see it, with the god-as-first-cause idea, is that you still haven't accounted for the origin of said god.

 

One of the classic definitions of first cause is self sustaining or eternal. It can't be something that was caused by something else otherwise we're back in the dilemma of infinite regression which is mathematical impossibility.

 

And you are arguing for a complex kind of god, an intelligent one. If said intelligent god existed at the beginning of time, how did it come to exist?

 

I believe I just answered that in my first statement - self sufficient, always existing.

 

I don't think we're actually that different in our beliefs, only I adopt the label of atheist. Being an atheist does not mean that I absolutely declare that gods are impossible. It simply means I reject claims of knowledge of gods. I fully acknowledge the possibility we may eventually discover something that could be classified as a god as we delve into the origins of the universe.

 

Well my friend then you are definitely not an atheist - you are an agnostic which is what I used to be myself. In fact, I think I might be heading back to that persona since everything I've learned regarding Christianity, especially in this sick land we live in, is pure bs.

 

However, with my feeble understanding of current research, I think it is also quite possible we conclude it really all did come from nothing. Those on the forefront of physics have already developed theories about how this could have occurred.

 

1. It's not 'feeble' understanding you have. It's 'humble' which is incredibly admirable. Hence, why I believe you're an agnostic like me.

 

2. Yes, something did in fact come from nothing - the universe. But I guess we can project that further onto us since we're a product of it I guess.

 

 

BTW, doug if youre still out there trollin this particular page... THIS is what a good atheist/theist discussion looks like. Notice how nobody is preaching? Take a hint buddy.

 

Why on earth would you want to summon him back here? It's like summoning the devil or something like that. ROFL

Actually, he's probably back at his church right now claiming he battled the devil's spawn - that's what I've been called by right wing religionists in the past. LOL

 

Good talking with you and you have that quest for knowledge I admire in honest objectivity.

[Akheia]

If you stand in front of a mirror and chant "fundie whackjob, fundie whackjob, fundie whackjob" three times, Doug will jump out of it and grab you. Seriously. Try it. It's awesome.

 

Raoul, you sound like a good egg. I think your premises are kind of off, but then so are mine if critically examined. (Really, only an atheist outlook survives any sort of rational examination, so we're both fucked.) You're at least good-hearted and not shoving your cock religion down anybody's throats. If you want to believe that stuff on your own time, and are happy to let me believe whatever I want to believe on my own time, then you're welcome at the table to drink with me.

[raoul]

If I ever get to a place where I believe anything again it will probably be like this. In fact when I first lost my faith in the fundi Christian god for many many months I believed like this and I really do respect this belief viewpoint (at least far far more than the fundi christian one). I'm pretty sure had I been brought up this way, I'd still believe in something.

 

The fundi xtian god is a far cry from an intelligent designer behind the universe. Unfortunately they're very crafty and have taken this argument I offer and incorporated it right back into the fundi god. At least the more intelligent of their species (PHDs) have done so. People like Craig for example.

 

So what happened? Well the more I thought and thought about the Aristotle's un-caused cause (I think Aristotle said this before Aquinas), the more I thought so what? You see if you want to call that first event god, then that's fine, there are many ways you can define god. I liked this idea for a while then one day it hit me, so what? I mean there's a world of difference between this first cause and a loving interventionist deity. Do I believe that a loving interventionist deity which cares about me exists...absolutely not and with this, I don't care to praise or worship the event leading to the big bang.

 

I'm kinda in the same boat as you with this. While I try very hard to not let peoples' behavior or events influence my theism, it's becoming increasingly harder as I grow older. Especially with the past about him or it caring about me. I was born into a literal hell of abuse which I finally escaped by joining the Army. My wife and I have had to climb up the ladder broken finger nail by broken nail.Nothing has been given to us nor have there been any miracles that occured as far as we could tell. It's kinda crazy or more apropo, irratational for me in a way. I mean I should be the most hardcore atheist in the world if I based it on experiences or circumstances but I'm not.

 

(Also for the first cause, I think on the sub-atomic level there are events taking place all the time without any apparent cause so the argument that everything has a cause is likely false, its better stated that most events appears to have a cause).

 

Well I guess that's why they're called 'sub-atomic' as in almost invisible. LOL But I agree with your comment about 'appearing' to have a cause. That seems more reasonable to me.

 

In any case welcome. You seem much more level header than Doug

 

I'm tempted to say "Actually a turd is more reasonable than he' but I won't because it's a bit gross. LOL

 

Later, and thanks for your insights.

[Legion]

But why is causality itself insufficient?

 

By itself I suppose it isn't insufficient however you have to factor in the effects of it along with the most important factor - timing. IE - why did the universe pop into existence EXACTLY at the specific moment it did? This might not seem important but it is because, according to most if not scientific findings, had the universe exploded into existence something like (and I forget the exact equation) 1 1/billionth of a nano second before or prior to its happening, we wouldn't be having this conversation because we wouldn't be here - no life sustaining mechanism at all.

 

But what is time? Isn't time an aspect of the universe? What sense does it make to speak of the time when time began?

 

]Why does the universe require a designer?[/b]

 

Because, once more according to most scientific findings, the incredible fine tuning required to have the cosmos in the way we do necessitates an intelligence of some kind - cause and effect. Effect being the universe, cause being, as Aquinas put it 'first cause'. In his argument of the 5 Ways he described cause and effect going on almost forever until you come to a first cause of some kind. Infinite regression beyond this is a mathematical impossibility as argued by others regarding the 'impossibility of an actual infinite' I believe even Hawkings, a non-thest, accepts this reality regarding the actual infinite.

 

I just don't see that myself. But then, I don't believe the reductionism which characterizes much of physics these days is a valid alternative either.

 

 

]By the way, I place very little credence in contempory cosmology[/b].

 

Does that mean you reject everything Carl Sagan has posited?

 

Um no, but I've come to suspect that the reductionism which has chacracterized much of 20th century science is inadequate to explain the complexity of nature.

 

]The Big Bang is very suspect to me.[/b]

 

You might wanna take that up with a guy by the name of Smoot who, in his classic 'Ripples in Time' pretty much confirmed the BB. In fact, Fred Hoyle, an adamant critic of the bb and a firm supporter of the steady state (I think that's what he called it) theory which condoned an ever present universe, no beginning or end, pretty much conceded the point to Smoot once the bb findings were published.

 

okay.

 

Now, for sake of time - I don't want this to turn out to become a full blown philosophical debate - god knows I had enough of them years ago with academic type atheists and now that my time is incredibly limited, I can't go into great detail with volumes of words like I used to do, okay?

 

Alright. As for myself, I see exquisite order in the universe, but I don't see that this implies a designer.

[MrsRoper]

You guys really turned this forum around. All of that was so interesting, thanks for posting.

[Thought2Much]

Why does the universe require a designer?

 

Because, once more according to most scientific findings, the incredible fine tuning required to have the cosmos in the way we do necessitates an intelligence of some kind - cause and effect.

 

Unless we happen to live in a multiverse. The laws of physics could be different in each universe in the multiverse. This would mean that we just happen to live in a universe that has the right physical properties that allow for life as we know it to exist; there could be millions or billions of other universes in which life like us is not possible. The only reason the universe seems "fine tuned" for our existence is because we happen to be able to exist in it. Here is a relevant quote from Douglas Adams:

 

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

 

 

By the way, the universe isn't terribly friendly toward life. Everywhere we turn, there are things that make it difficult for life on Earth to exist.

[Kaiser01]

The problem, as I see it, with the god-as-first-cause idea, is that you still haven't accounted for the origin of said god.

 

One of the classic definitions of first cause is self sustaining or eternal. It can't be something that was caused by something else otherwise we're back in the dilemma of infinite regression which is mathematical impossibility.

 

And you are arguing for a complex kind of god, an intelligent one. If said intelligent god existed at the beginning of time, how did it come to exist?

 

I believe I just answered that in my first statement - self sufficient, always existing.

 

I don't think we're actually that different in our beliefs, only I adopt the label of atheist. Being an atheist does not mean that I absolutely declare that gods are impossible. It simply means I reject claims of knowledge of gods. I fully acknowledge the possibility we may eventually discover something that could be classified as a god as we delve into the origins of the universe.

 

Well my friend then you are definitely not an atheist - you are an agnostic which is what I used to be myself. In fact, I think I might be heading back to that persona since everything I've learned regarding Christianity, especially in this sick land we live in, is pure bs.

 

However, with my feeble understanding of current research, I think it is also quite possible we conclude it really all did come from nothing. Those on the forefront of physics have already developed theories about how this could have occurred.

 

1. It's not 'feeble' understanding you have. It's 'humble' which is incredibly admirable. Hence, why I believe you're an agnostic like me.

 

2. Yes, something did in fact come from nothing - the universe. But I guess we can project that further onto us since we're a product of it I guess.

 

 

BTW, doug if youre still out there trollin this particular page... THIS is what a good atheist/theist discussion looks like. Notice how nobody is preaching? Take a hint buddy.

 

Why on earth would you want to summon him back here? It's like summoning the devil or something like that. ROFL

Actually, he's probably back at his church right now claiming he battled the devil's spawn - that's what I've been called by right wing religionists in the past. LOL

 

Good talking with you and you have that quest for knowledge I admire in honest objectivity.

 

Before I respond, you are speaking of Thomas Aquanius right? Just curious.

 

Any who, you really shouldn’t consider a “time” before the Big bang, if we are the only universe because logically a infinite amount of time “before” the universe is irrational because the universe would of happened a infinite amount of time ago. We must look at it as simply a event, not one on a time scale, but something that is simply “is.”

 

Logic states what ever creates the universe must be self sufficient just as you have stated and it cant be on a time scale because the universe would of already happened, this is what God would be but it is also what the quantum field is and any other self sustaining thing that would of created the universe. I have a problem when it comes to theism, though it is not with God existing, it is the type of God that exist in the world of the theist. The God of theism is a personal God, with a personality which means he is unbalanced. The way cause and effect happens is because the universe is unbalanced and the original unbalance was of course the big bang, we are not In a state of equilibrium and as the Gnostics put it, “chaos.” God in my opinion to be personal and have a unbalanced personality must have had a cause to be a kind of personal being that can “choose” to create the universe.

 

When it comes to the fine tuning of the universe, it is amazing but it might also be a matter of statistics if there are more than one universe or infinite universes. For example if there where only one solar system when it came to the random chance of life, it would be irrational to assume that life came by random chance. But with two solar systems the chances get better but the theist still wins. Now give 70 sextillion solar systems and chance is no longer a problem. I think it is even possible that we will find the fine tuning of the universe to no arrange in any other way if they where some how interconnected. With our current knowledge the fine tuning argument still stands as one of the best for theism, though I think we have already made the mistake thinking we where the only solar system at one point. Of course if your talking about things seem to complex in our universe to come about through physical processes then that is another matter entirely.

 

I am glad you are here it is nice to have a intilectual theist to debate with, unlike doug lol!

[raoul]

If you stand in front of a mirror and chant "fundie whackjob, fundie whackjob, fundie whackjob" three times, Doug will jump out of it and grab you. Seriously. Try it. It's awesome.

 

I think you're mixing him up with Dead Mary.. LOL Actually, they're probably the same persona.

 

Raoul, you sound like a good egg. I think your premises are kind of off, but then so are mine if critically examined.

 

Wait a minute! My premises are divinely inspired so they're right on! LOL

 

 

(Really, only an atheist outlook survives any sort of rational examination, so we're both fucked.)

 

I laughed when I read that. I'm tempted to say, like the vampire in 'Fright Night' said to the guy who just called him a spawn of hell "OH REALLY?"

No, I beg to differ - I've seen most, if not all atheistic arguments escoriated by academic type people in the past. Not the rabid fundies - the academic people with doctorates in Philosophy. Perhaps you're thinking of the late Hitchens (whom I admire tremendously) in debates with the typical moronic fundies. But I'm referring to my own experiences, years ago, watching and participating in actual debates with atheists of every stripe.

 

 

You're at least good-hearted and not shoving your cock religion down anybody's throats. If you want to believe that stuff on your own time, and are happy to let me believe whatever I want to believe on my own time, then you're welcome at the table to drink with me.

 

You do have a way with words especially the ones you cross out. LOL But ditto about our beliefs and getting some booze. I really could use some right now - waiting for a freaking tow truck for one of our cars.. Later..

[raoul]

Before I respond, you are speaking of Thomas Aquanius right? Just curious.

 

Aquinas. I actually googled your spelling to see if there was someone else with that name. LOL

 

 

Any who, you really shouldn’t consider a “time” before the Big bang, if we are the only universe because logically a infinite amount of time “before” the universe is irrational because the universe would of happened a infinite amount of time ago. We must look at it as simply a event, not one on a time scale, but something that is simply “is.”

 

Yes, I know. I believe it's referred to as Plank time as in before the actual creation. I was merely using the concept of time to explain in a better or simpler way.

 

The God of theism is a personal God, with a personality which means he is unbalanced. The way cause and effect happens is because the universe is unbalanced and the original unbalance was of course the big bang, we are not In a state of equilibrium and as the Gnostics put it, “chaos.” God in my opinion to be personal and have a unbalanced personality must have had a cause to be a kind of personal being that can “choose” to create the universe.

 

I agree with what you said before what I cut and pasted in the above paragraph but pertaining to the God of theism being a personal God. I respectfully disagree. Yes, the God of Christianity is a personal one according to them but theism is too general and wide open to accept even numerous gods or other beings.

 

When it comes to the fine tuning of the universe, it is amazing but it might also be a matter of statistics if there are more than one universe or infinite universes. For example if there where only one solar system when it came to the random chance of life, it would be irrational to assume that life came by random chance. But with two solar systems the chances get better but the theist still wins. Now give 70 sextillion solar systems and chance is no longer a problem. I think it is even possible that we will find the fine tuning of the universe to no arrange in any other way if they where some how interconnected. With our current knowledge the fine tuning argument still stands as one of the best for theism, though I think we have already made the mistake thinking we where the only solar system at one point. Of course if your talking about things seem to complex in our universe to come about through physical processes then that is another matter entirely.

 

I don't think anything posited by you there contradicts the possibility of an intelligent designer behind our universe. And I don't want to confuse things with comments regarding complexity or even simplicity of a particular universe. My thing is solely to defend the possibility of an intelligence.

 

I am glad you are here it is nice to have a intilectual theist to debate with, unlike doug lol!

 

 

Dunno if you were the one who wrote that or I mistakenly pasted it from another member's comments but I want to make this very clear to everyone - I am not out to debate anything. Been there, done it, complete waste of time. Discussing matters rationally is all I'm after. I leave the debates for those who love fighting and wasting an incredible amount of time. Agreed? I hope so. Now I gotta go and do someting very spiritual - gotta go swimming in our little, above ground pool. LOL

[stryper]

 

 

It is so funny you call it a pyramid scheme, because in the 2nd volume of my 'I am Christ series, I compare Christianity to Amway!

 

Having been in amway, there is little difference. In fact on Sunday's at their major confrences they do a whorship service, altar call and all. With the usual preaching pattern.

[stryper]

Now I gotta go and do someting very spiritual - gotta go swimming in our little, above ground pool. LOL

 

Its amazing how spiritual that can be.

[Kaiser01]

 

When it comes to the fine tuning of the universe, it is amazing but it might also be a matter of statistics if there are more than one universe or infinite universes. For example if there where only one solar system when it came to the random chance of life, it would be irrational to assume that life came by random chance. But with two solar systems the chances get better but the theist still wins. Now give 70 sextillion solar systems and chance is no longer a problem. I think it is even possible that we will find the fine tuning of the universe to no arrange in any other way if they where some how interconnected. With our current knowledge the fine tuning argument still stands as one of the best for theism, though I think we have already made the mistake thinking we where the only solar system at one point. Of course if your talking about things seem to complex in our universe to come about through physical processes then that is another matter entirely.

 

I don't think anything posited by you there contradicts the possibility of an intelligent designer behind our universe. And I don't want to confuse things with comments regarding complexity or even simplicity of a particular universe. My thing is solely to defend the possibility of an intelligence.

 

I am glad you are here it is nice to have a intilectual theist to debate with, unlike doug lol!

 

 

Dunno if you were the one who wrote that or I mistakenly pasted it from another member's comments but I want to make this very clear to everyone - I am not out to debate anything. Been there, done it, complete waste of time. Discussing matters rationally is all I'm after. I leave the debates for those who love fighting and wasting an incredible amount of time. Agreed? I hope so. Now I gotta go and do someting very spiritual - gotta go swimming in our little, above ground pool. LOL

 

It dosent contradict a God but i was stating he may not be nessesary at all.

 

And i meant rational discussions lol, not nessesarily debating.

[mcdaddy]

I honestly don't see a distinction between OT and NT. Probably because of my religious upbringing...I was taught in church that the whole bible is god's literal truth. I used to believe that, and people like Dougie most definitely believe that, that's why I consider OT material to be fair game to use as ammunition against him.

 

At a different time in my life, I briefly subscribed to the more liberal notion that the OT was a bunch of legends and the NT was the only relevant bit. But upon further examination I don't think that's a valid line of thinking. NT authors clearly believed in the OT, as did the character of Jesus.

 

Excellent point. Unless you happen to be a Marcionite, and I dare say there are none of Marcion's follows alive today, then the OT is an essential part of your scripture as a Christian. Jesus, according to "John" is Yahweh, and so, when Yahweh ordered that his chosen, rip open pregnant women's bellys and smash the fetus' against the rocks, it was Jesus, when he tried to kill Moses, for some unknown outburst, it was Jesus, when he orded family to slay family at the foot of Mt. Sinai, it was Jesus and finally, when he declared that it was lawful to rape young virgins and then force those virgins to live with their rapist for a lifetime, being constantly raped over and over by their raping husband, that too was Jesus! I think Marcion foresaw some of these issues, and although he was no less credulous than the Orthodox Catholic Church, at least he knew about damage control!

 

Funny. When I read John I read it that Jesus isn't Yahweh. All in how you look at it.

[Akheia]

Dunno if you were the one who wrote that or I mistakenly pasted it from another member's comments but I want to make this very clear to everyone - I am not out to debate anything. Been there, done it, complete waste of time. Discussing matters rationally is all I'm after. I leave the debates for those who love fighting and wasting an incredible amount of time.

 

Well, we're the ones who asked *you* what *you* think.

 

But pleeeeeeeeeeze man, learn to quote instead of this confusing bold stuff. It'll be so much easier to follow what you're saying. What IS it with Christians and their avoidance of the "Quote" button? Thumby has trouble with that too. Do they just not get the button or something with their membership privileges? Or is there some popular Christian forum where they all learn to use different colors/fonts to differentiate people?