I have a theory about the proof of Gods existence. Could you look it over and poke some holes in it for me?

But what makes other religions incorrect? What makes their scriptures not valid?

“The Word itself is proof of Gods existence”

“The Word itself is proof of Mans ingenuity”

I believe many people have believed this but I believe religion was and is mans’ way of trying to cope with the world and his fear of death. I don’t believe in the God of the Bible.

@ Draconess not incorrect, just less correct
@ RareDenver Im talking about Gods Word and its chronological evolutionary design
@faye its Gods way of dealing with death

I know its pretty undecided until the kingdom does come, but that is happening rapidly. Ride the wave and dont fight against it.

“The Word itself is proof of God’s existence.”

That is like saying 1984 is proof of Big Brother’s existence, or that The Epic of Gilgamesh is proof of the existence of Enkidu and therefore humans can be hybridised with bulls. The Bible is simply proof that humans were both literate and imaginative at least 4000 years ago.

“No new sin was done in this time period because God had not yet given any new law to transgress and thereby sin.”

This is not Biblical. If the world was so evil that it had to be destroyed by the Flood, how could no new sin have been committed between Adam and Moses?

@FireMadeFlesh The fact that the Law set up the conditions for Jesus’ arrival without any foreknowledge of the solutions to the problems with the Law makes the Bible unique among books.
And the knowlege of good and evil was in the world at the time of the flood so evil might have increased, but evil and sin are not the same thing.

@KeithWilson Fine. Then what makes them less correct?

Hey, you asked for this!

The Word says it is the word of God, and God is perfect.

The Word also says the sky is a solid dome and the world is flat.

Thus:
1. The word is not from God.
and/or
2. God lied in the word, is not perfect, and you cannot trust anything in the Bible.

@Draconess Namely thier pertinence
@Seek the word is divinely inspired by God. The only words that God wrote with his own hand is the Ten Commandments. The rest is subject to the fallibility of the the inspired person who wrote it. The substance is true, but some of the details are not. You have to take it at face value, but where it contridicts with what we know to be true, you have to chalk it up to human error. Dont throw out the dishes with the wastewater.

@KeithWilson

Incorrect.

Assuming the events in the books of Moses are correct (unlikely, and I can get into why) then the Ten Commandments as we know them were written by Moses, as the ones written by God were destroyed by Moses upon his decending from the Mount and seeing the Isrealites in sin. So, you really have nothing that isn’t subject to the fallibility of the writer.

Thus, you have no divine text.

Have a nice day.

@KeithWilson, this isn’t a theory.

It’s a bunch of assertions. Assertions that you’ve given absolutely no reason whatsoever for believing. Why on earth do you think this is a proof for anything?

@KeithWilson But every other religion’s writing is supposedly inspired by their respective deities. So, what makes the Bible different? Its pertinenence? What makes the other religions impertinent?

I asked for this. I feel like Im going through the wringer. Anyway…
@seek Im only saying that the original ten commandments were written by God. This gives the transcription more validity than any other part of the Bible. But you make a good point. This is the reason I wanted somone to poke holes in my arguement. Its the only way I will know how to go about it better the next time. Thank you for your input.
@Draconess I wont argue that other religious writings may be divinely inspired. Im just saying that the Bible in particular answers addresses the problems of sin and death and gives a convincing solution to those problems and is therefore more pertinent to the questioning mind.

@KeithWilson How are other religions not convincing? I’m sure they’re convincing to the followers of those religions.

@Qingu Its true that everything I wrote up until the end were assertions. Its just backround information leading up to the introduction of the theory that The Word is proof of Gods existence. Its a theory in my mind because I cant prove that its actually true without putting it to the test.

The Bible is also the only religious text to command genocide.

So there’s that for uniqueness.

However, @KeithWilson, you are incorrect about the Bible being unique re: Sin. Islam is obsessed with sin too. And the religion in the video game “Final Fantasy 10” deals heavily with sin. In fact, sin is personified in this religion as a giant floating whale. Can the Bible claim something like this? No.

@KeithWilson And how exactly are you planning to put it to the test?

Re-stating dogma does not constitute proof. It’s like quoting bible verses to “prove” the bible’s validity. It all still comes down to faith.

@Qingu That’s a good game!

@KeithWilson, why would a text that clearly appears to have been written by ancient Mesopotamians be proof of its deity’s existence?

Also: do you believe slavery should be legal? The Ten Commandments tacitly allow slavery (don’t covet your neighbor’s property, house, wives, or slaves). To say nothing of Leviticus 25:45 and 1 Timothy 6:1, which explicitly allow slavery.

I mean, it’s cool if you think slavery should be legal; that would be consistent with your beliefs that the Word is True, I just think it might be worth putting your views on slavery on the table in case anyone else is interested. (For my part, I wouldn’t want to worship a deity that thought owning another human being was morally acceptable, but what would I know, I’m a dirty atheist)

@Draconess Most other religions assert that there is the forgiveness of sin and that there is such a thing as eternal life, but they dont really tell you how this is possible.
@Qingu The command of genocide was relavent at the time, but things change. And the Bible is not unique in that it talks about sin, its unique in the way that it solves the problem of sin. And youll have to elaborate on the Mesopotamian comment. Im sure sure I understand what youre asking. Also as I was writing this your next comment came up. Slavery is also an outdated idea in the bible that might not be relavent in our time, but was certainly relevant when it was written.
@stranger “restating dogma” thats an axiological position. Im just saying that the proof is in the pudding.

@KeithWilson How can genocide ever be relevant?

@Draconess It has to do with the greater good. Is one life more important than the lives of a thousand others? And to your earlier question “how am I going to put it to the test?” This thread seems to be a good place to start.

@KeithWilson, so you’re a moral relativist about genocide and slavery? It worked for the ancient Israelites but might not be the best solution for us?

See, this is why people don’t like religion.

About Mesopotamian mythology: the Bible is derivative of earlier Babylonian and Sumerian myths. There are texts older than the Bible that, for example, talk about gods created humans from clay. The Atrahasis epic describes a man building an ark and putting all the animals in it while the gods flood the earth, then sacrificing them afterward, and has many identical details to the Bible’s flood myth. The Bible describes Yahweh battling the sea and creating the “dome” of the sky—just like in Babylonian creation myths. The cult of the Babylonian moon god, Sin, practiced “shabatu” days where you weren’t supposed to work or perform rituals. The Code of Hamurabi contains many of the exact same laws found in the Torah.

The Hebrews, like the Babylonians they lived next to, thought the earth was flat, the sky was a solid dome (Hebrew word in Gen 1 is “raqia,” meaning “that which is hammered out”) that holds up an above-sky ocean. They thought the sun, moon, and stars were attached to the dome of the sky like ceiling lamps. Not surprisingly, the exact same descriptions of nature are found in the Bible.

So why would a god inspire a text to a tribe of people that resembles in almost every important way the outdated mythology of the culture these people close to? The Bible is Mesopotamian mythology. It is the same genre of ancient literature.

@Qingu If you really want to know my answers to these questions go to youtube.com and watch the sun worshiping video. Just type in sun worship and its the first link titled “religion comes from ancient astrology and sun worship.” Then come back and ask me what I think.

@KeithWilson One life is not more important. But you said genocide was relevant back then.

@KeithWilson So what you’re really saying is “I believe because I believe”. Circular logic.

@Qingu Good summation. Also the Christ mythology is a retelling of the Egyptian legend of Horus.

If I had to believe in some mythology, I’d pick the ancient Norse. The characters are more exciting. But that’s no more or less valid than the Abrahamic mythology. Physical proof is the standard, all religions come up short of that.

@Draconess Let me ask you this then: Which tribe would you preserve? The tribe that is violent, instigates wars, murders and canniblizes its own people or the tribe that is peace-loving, kind, nurturing, compassionate and moral?
@stranger basically it comes down to just that. Given the option to believe whatever I choose to believe, I choose to believe what I believe. Circular logic. Is there a problem with circular logic?

Proof? Just how are you defining the word? The existence of a god, let alone God, can never be proved by our current empirical methods. Religion is about faith, no?

@tinyfaery Theoretical Sciece requires just as much faith as religion does.

@KeithWilson It wouldn’t be necessary to choose. By cannibalizing their own people, that tribe would eliminate itself. Rethink your examples.

That has nothing to do with your question. And it isn’t called theoretical for nothing. It isn’t masquerading as fact.

@Draconess OK. If there were a group of individuals that were trying to eliminate the rest of the world and become a serious threat to the rest of society so that if even a single one of them is not either thrown into jail or killed then they would succeed, and assuming that this group is too large to be jailed, it would be better to eliminate that group than to let them continue on and possibly succeed in eliminitaing the rest of mankind. Right?

@KeithWilson But that wouldn’t be considered genocide. Genocide is the widespread murder of a race or ethnicity. And one person would not be able to succeed in eliminating the rest of the world, anyways.

@KeithWilson “The fact that the Law set up the conditions for Jesus’ arrival without any foreknowledge of the solutions to the problems with the Law makes the Bible unique among books.”

It is still circular reasoning to say that it proves itself. “I am always right, because I said so and I cannot be wrong.” is a completely nonsensical statement no matter who the speaker is. Jesus would have been well aware of the Law, and whatever actions he put in place to set himself up as the fulfilment of the Law would have been in reaction to his schooling.

@tinyfaery good one. Ill have to think about that. This whole thread is incredibly interesting and incredibly exhausting all at the same time. Ill have to try a different tact next time.
@Draconess Just take the words “group of individuals” and replace it with “a certain race of individuals” and with nuclear technology the way it is today, one person may very well be able to eliminate the rest of the world. And even if not, the idea is purely hypothetical.
@FireMadeFlesh The statement about “i am always right because I said so and I cannot be wrong” could be spoken by God and make perfect sense. Your other arguement sounds quite valid. I would just have to say that He could not have fulfilled so many of the Prophets predictions in the same way that He fulfilled the Law, simply by having knowledge of what the prophets said. Like that He would be born in a certain place and the like.

@KeithWilson A race would also include their women & children, who are innocent. For it to be genocide, they would have to be killed as well.

@KeithWilson I have no problem with you believing whatever you like. But your arguments don’t constitute proof, such as you claim in the body of the question.

@KeithWilson “The statement about ‘I am always right because I said so and I cannot be wrong’ could be spoken by God and make perfect sense.”

Absolutely not. If I claim to be a god, I must prove my status as a deity before I am to be believed. It is foolish to make an a priori assumption that God is infallible before there is evidence to indicate this idea.

In the same way, we cannot make a priori assumptions that God exists, and use words he has supposedly spoken by proxy to show that he exists. This is blatant circular reasoning. While circular reasoning does not necessarily reflect a false argument, it adds nothing to an idea and cannot be considered an argument in and of itself. Your reasoning is a well established logical fallacy called Begging the Question.

@KeithWilson “Theoretical Sciece requires just as much faith as religion does.” Im going to say no, definitely not. See, things in science are built off of other things we have either tested or observed, even in the theoretical sense, there is generally a lot of math involved there to explain how such a thing would actually work. Ya know, not like theres this dude in teh sky that created everything 6k years ago and it must be believed because THE BIBLE SAYS SO.

also, you neglected noahs ark in your little proof. Yea god flooded the whole earth and whiped out humanity all on the basis of adams original sin…

@Draconess Supposing that this races determination to kill off the rest of society is an inherent trait of the race and that their kids would try to do the same thing when they grew up or that if the women went off and concieved with any other man that the offspring would also be predisposed to this kind of behavior, I could see how one might want to eliminate the whole group just to avoid the problem in the future.

@FireMadeFlesh Ive been researching these very ideas about circular reasoning, fallacies, and a priori and a posteriori as well as many other pertinent topics on The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at (iep.utm.edu). I still have a lot to learn. This thread is a premature attempt to use some of that knowlege to my advantage. The better I get with these sorts of ideas the better I will get at being able to properly debate my viewpoints. Thanks for the comment. Im eating this stuff up.

@KeithWilson If that were logical, that means that all Jews are greedy, or that all African-Americans like fried chicken.

@KeithWilson Or all Muslims are terrorists. Or all Asians have centimeter peters.

@Draconess Its just a hypothetical and doesnt really explain why God would ever command that sort of thing, but the idea is that there are possibly good reasons for this. Even if we dont understand them.

@KeithWilson So, once again it’s okay because “God said so”? You would think he’d actually try proving that he exists!

@KeithWilson So I am assuming you have read all other scriptures such as the Koran for example, to back up your statements towards other religions and their impertinence?

@Draconess I cant remember the verses exactly but its somewhere along the lines that “the heavens declare the glory of God” or like, nature itself is proof of Gods existence. Or “God is evident in nature” Sorry so vague. Im drawing a blank.
@Trance24 Actually, I think the Koran is a diriviation of the same Abrahamic-orgin religion. It fits nicely into my view of God.

@KeithWilson Yes but I only used Koran as one example, so I am sill assuming you have read all other religion’s scriptures?

@Trance24 I might be wrong, but I think that besides the three main religions, Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, there arent very many other religions that have extensive scriptures. Like I said, I might be wrong, and if I am, would you kindly tell me what other religious scriptures I should be reading, so that Im not left in ignorance and can maybe determine my opinion on their pertinence?

@KeithWilson And exactly how does nature prove it?

@Draconess “and exactly how does nature prove it?” thats a loaded question that I probably wont be able to answer to your satisfaction, but people see it in all kinds of things. Science, Biology, Mathmatics. As well as simple things like babys, oceans and the wind. But I think its probably a combination of any and all of these things. Sometimes it just takes an open mind.

@KeithWilson yeaa, there are a couple more than those 3 you mentioned

@KeithWilson But science can explain those things. And there can still be a higher power that isn’t an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful God.

@uberbatman OK! Thanks for the link. Ill be busy reading up for the next few days…or weeks….but just looking through the list I have an idea about what I will find. However, Im looking forward to adding to my knowlege and am anticipating at least a few surprises and novel ideas.

ill save ya some time. Its all shit made up by humans to explain that in which they do not understand.

Hinduism and buddism.

@Draconess Science can explain how, but not why. I know thats a general answer. How bout, science can analyze these things, but not understand them. I think these answers are probably just so much rhetoric.
@uberbatman just because they came from the mind of man, doesnt make them any less interesting.
@faye thanks. this sort of thing is precisely why I started this thread. To expand my horizons. Ive been studying philosophy intensely for about a week. I thought Id try to use this new knowledge in the debate over The Word. I obviously forget to research other religions before I started this thread. Overconfidence. Ugh!

@KeithWilson For just a week? That’s….honestly….kinda sad.

@Draconess Its amazing how the web condeses so much information into one place. What it used to take a lifetime to learn can be looked up and learned in minutes. Fortunately for me other people have spent lifetimes learning these things and I can just read over what theyve already established without having to do much work myself. Plus, essentially, once you get the basics of philosophy, you have a good backround for inferring the different variations and subsets of philosophy. Also, I had a pretty good understanding of these concepts before I started so it was a natural learning process for me. One week and Ive read over many generations of progressive ideas.

@KeithWilson Yes, but you should still take your time!

@Draconess I know. But once I started it became very addicting. I couldnt get enough. Ive retained most of what I read, but I still want to go back and read them over again. But I have many other things to explore. Im jumping from one subject to the next instantly and voraciously. I dont want to go back and reread what Ive already read until I soak up enough new information to be satiated. This could be a long process. Then Ill be able to filter out what I dont neccessarily need to reread and what I will want to go over and over. Plus, as Im searching, I come across many of the same ideas ive already visited, so the information gets drilled into my head no matter what medium I explore. Its all very fun stuff.

@KeithWilson That’s how I am with reading in general.

@Draconess Ahh…common ground. lol. Nice to know that we can seriously debate and still come to a common understanding. Thanks for making my thread that much more enjoyable.

@KeithWilson I love debates like this!

@KeithWilson

Bear in mind in your studies that when you are debating with atheists and members of another religion, you cannot begin the argument with the assumption that God exists, the god that exists is your god, and that your god inspired the book from which you’re going to spend the remainder of the argument attempting to pull relevant quotes.

You first need to prove your own god. Nature is not proof of god – it’s proof of nature. One could just as easily connect a tree to the Greek Nymphs, the Celtic Dryads, or the Egyptian tree goddess cult as to your god’s creation.

Basic logic error:
If god exists, the world will exist.
The world exists.
Therefore god exists.

NO NO NO.

I can come up with hundreds of other explanations for the world existing.

Also, I don’t see how the background you gave ties in to the last part. Can you elaborate?

@KeithWilson ohhh, i never said they werent interesting. I find greek and egyptian myth highly interesting. kind of like a find harry potter interesting I just said they were nothing more than stories and carry no real weight as far as an actual explanation for anything.

@Seek I think I began the arguement presupposing that The Word exists. The Word presupposes that God exists. The idea is to try to examine The Word to see if it can prove the existence of the God that it presupposes. The fact that I do believe that God exists and that I haven chosen to believe in the Abrahmic God as my God is irrelevent to the question. And in my arguemnet I never directly quoted the bible. I just gave an overview of its contents. The only place in this thread where I attempted to quote the bible was where I said “the heavens declare the glory of God” and that quote wasnt exactly word for word.
As to the existence of other Gods, I am of the mind to believe that their just different aspects a single God. Like in Posieden the God of the Sea, or Athena the Goddess of Wisdom, or Aphrodite the Goddess of Love. The sea, wisdom and love are all different parts of a single Gods creation. Same with nymph dryads and the Egyptian tree goddess. I would only have to say that it seems better to me to believe in the God who created all these things rather than in a bunch of different Gods who each created a different part. Only because to me it seems easier to say that I believe in trees rather than say that I believe in elms, spruces, pines, maples firs, etc. By doing this you might come to the conclusion that some trees are better than others, thereby diminishing the full force of all the the other, less desirable trees.

@KeithWilson

You’re making no sense whatsoever.

Are you trying to prove the existence of your god to yourself, or to other people?

I mean, feel free to delude yourself in whatever way makes you tingly in your boots, but again, when you’re dealing with the minds of other people, you cannot presuppose that your god exists, and that the Bible is his word. Every single self-respecting atheist knows full well the fallacy of the circular argument

@roundsquare I wasnt using that quote with any real intention of trying to prove that God exists. In fact, Im not sure exactly how nature proves to an athiest that God exists, exept to say that there are some things in nature that make you ponder the case. Like the watchmaker arguement, the arguement from irreducible biochemical complexity, the arguement from biological information, and the fine-tuning arguements.

@Seek Two things: First I dont really see why the burden of proof is on the theologist to prove that God exists, when the atheist has the same burden to prove that He doesnt exist. Second, are you not presupposing that God doesnt exist?

Logical fallacy. It is impossible to prove a negative.

When one makes an assertion, it must be backed up with empirical evidence. I wouldn’t go to my doctor demanding medicine, unless I could offer some evidence of an illness. I wouldn’t go, then whine when he refused to supply me – as he couldn’t prove I’m not sick.

@Seek Also though I already believe that God exists and dont need to prove it to myself, it is fun to have the debate and see the places where I might have holes in my logic. Maybe its some kind of reaffirmation, but just for the fun of it.
You cant prove the number -1 exists?
And if a doctor cant prove that your not sick, he should try a different field.

what logic? You’ve yet to put forth any logical argument…

@KeithWilson

Of course he cannot prove I’m not sick. He could prove I have a normal body temperature. He could prove I have a normal heart rate, and a normal skin tone, and a normal blood pressure.

Even with a complete battery of every test known to man, he still could not prove I don’t have something he cannot test for. We test to find a “yes”, not a “no”. A “no” offers no information whatsoever.

@uberbatman The idea that a being can be concieved that is greater than any other being that could possibly be concieved is not logical?
@Seek This is assuming that you dont have have any symptoms either?

Is it up to me (the one asserting the illness) or the doctor (the one demanding proof) to find that out?

@Seek If you say that you have symptoms, but the doctor cant observe them or find in any of his tests a biological reason for those symptoms, hed probably say its phychosomatic and refer you to a thearipist who then would be in the position to find out if youre sick or not.

@KeithWilson

So the burden of proof (informing the doctor of possible symptoms) rests on the believer (me). The doctor can then review the evidence (test the symptoms) and decide whether to agree.

So, supply the symptoms of your god’s existence, and I’ll run the MRI.

@Seek First: youre a poet and you dont know it. Second: The burden of proof then shifts to the doctor to prove that your not sick, or else he isnt much help. If he can prove that your not sick, that might be enough to stop the illness. Or at least take away the basis for believing that there may be one. Thirdly: the symptoms for Gods existence are the fruits of creation. So test creation and see if there are indeed any fruits.

1. Actually, I do know it.

2. First, the evidence must be presented for testing.

3. A tree is evidence of a tree. Nothing more. We’ve been through this already.

@KeithWilson That just sounds so perverted! Don’t ask why….

@Seek_Kolinahr Actually, a tree is evidence of ample sunlight & carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

@Draconess25

Very true!

And sunlight and carbon dioxide are evidence of a functioning star system. Which is evidence of our galaxy. Which is evidence of our universe. All links have very natural causes and consequences. Where’s the need for God?

@Draconess LOL I think I get it.
@Seek Ive never had this kind of debate with an atheist. It does kinda seem somewhat circular at times. And the universe is evidence of creation?

How is the universe evidence of creation? At what point do you see God’s signature at the bottom of the painting?

The Big Bang is when God said “Let there be light”
More seriously the beginning of the universe begs questions similar to the existance of God. Where did the Big Bang come from? What happened before that? Eternity? These questions are oddly familiar from a theological standpoint.

@KeithWilson Then where did God come from?
@Seek_Kolinahr God’s signature at the bottom of the painting.

I do not claim to be an expert on the Big Bang, so my knowledge is limited at best. I can reference you to some people I know who are way into that subject. However, I will say:

There was no “before the big bang”. Considering space/time began at that very point, it doesn’t even make sense to say “Before the big bang”.

@draconess – I love that!

I will also say that, simply not knowing what went “bang” or where it came from does not provide evidence that a magical sky-daddy got bored one day and said “I think I’ll make a universe today”.

@Seek_Kolinahr Thanks! I just made that.

@Draconess Thats the point the two questions are almost exactly identical and equally unknowable. You just have to theorize.
@Seek Ive done some studying on the topic and the question is “if there was no before the big bang, how did that super-dense super-hot ball of matter condese or blink into exisitence? Where did it come from? Though it may not prove that God exists, it certainly cant be ruled out. It does bring the theological question to the forefront of science.

@KeithWilson See, I’m not atheist. I believe there’s a higher power, but not an all-powerful God. Don’t expect too much logic from me; I’m a bit tipsy right now!

If I’m not mistaken, the BBT is not concerned with where “what went bang” came from. It only brings us to a point in our research that our current knowledge and instrumentation cannot see beyond.

The thing with science, is that it doesn’t have a problem saying “Y’know, I don’t know. I’ll get back to you on that”.

And no, at no point do we bring magical sky-daddies into the picture. To do so would be to reduce us to the Stone Age, when we blamed the yearly monsoon on the angry gods of the clouds. You cannot begin with a conclusion “God did it!” and work back toward gathering data to support it. It’s the scientific method backward.

There is no “before the big bang”, because our notion of time depends on the placement of the observable objects in the universe. If those objects are not present, there is no time.

There are definitely points in theology where I go “I just dont know.” Ive been reading about the philosophy of time and you have just stated one theory that we need objects to relate to in order to define time, but thats just one theory. Id have to read the article again, but there are reasons to believe that time is objective rather than subjective and requires no observable objects to exist. This idea makes time a very curious topic. Ill brush up on it a little more and get back to you in some future thread.

@All This is fun, eh? A Christian, an Atheist, & a….a….a Whatever-The-Hell-I-Am!

In all things in life, you should always feel free to ask yourself the question “Why should I believe this?”

This goes for everything from which god to worship to whether you should have chunky or creamy peanut butter. You wouldn’t keep buying an acne cream that didn’t get rid of pimples, just because the label says it works. You can plainly see on your own face that it doesn’t. Once in my life, I was a fundamental Christian. At one point I stepped back and said “Really, why am I devoting my life to a religion that demands complete fealty with no positive kickbacks?” and I came up nothing.

If you stand back and take in all the available information, and you still can’t come up with a good reason to support your current beliefs, maybe you should reconsider your beliefs.

@Draconess Maybe a Deist?
@Seek I have other reasons to believe what I believe. Completely apart from intellect or rationality. Ive had certain experiences that dont give me the luxury of changing my beliefs. I may be able to tweak them a little, but to deny them completely would be equivilent to losing comlete trust in my senses. I wouldnt be able to say whats real and whats not. Which would eventually drive me mad. Ive been to the edges of maddness trying to rationalize or deny what Ive been through, but Id rather believe in myself than lose touch with reality completely. Madness is a very frightening thing.

@KeithWilson

Been there. Trust me, it’s not pretty. However, it’s not reality you’re losing touch with, and that is a very comforting thought.

@Seek I define reality by what I can see, touch, feel, experience etc. If I lose faith in those things then I lose my sense of reality completely.

@KeithWilson Nah. I believ in nymphs & elementals, too. And reincarnation. I could PM you a full overview of my spiriytual beliefs, bujt it wouldn’
t be very coherent right now.

@Seek If I deny God, then Id have to deny my senses, and if I deny my senses, then Id have to deny reality, and if I deny reality, then I go mad.
@Draconess These beliefs are your reality. Youve gained these beliefs through experiences. And if you havent experienced the reality of what you believe in, then you have no basis for those beliefs other than fancy.

@KeithWilson And I beleive in ghosts & aliens & DRAGONS!!!! And vamps.

@Draconess Its nice to be able to believe because you want to believe. I believe because I have to believe. This is just about God. But if I want to believe in ghosts, aliens, dragons and vampires, then I could rationalize good reasons to do so. Actually, I believe in aliens (or they could have been some kind of demon) because Ive actually encountered them twice….very closely and very real.

@KeithWilson What did they look like? “Aliens” (that sounds so racist) probably have their own demons.

@Draconess The first one I saw was ugly. It was abnormally tall, like seven feet, and very skinny. Its flesh hung off its body in great flaps. It was like a brownish-grey and it had no facial features besides thes great big black eyes.
The second one I saw looked entirely human in size and proportion. It was skin colored and was fully dressed in human clothes. The only reason I knew it was an alien is because it had no face. No face at all. Just uniform smooth skin. The second one was way creepier because I was so close to it. I actually passed by it less than three feet. Very scary. I hope I never see one again.

@ I posted a question about aliens and was told I was a whack job. Maybe I should have just kept my mouth shut. I dont want to come off as a loony toon.

@KeithWilson “I dont really see why the burden of proof is on the theologist to prove that God exists, when the atheist has the same burden to prove that He doesnt exist.”
Atheism is not an assertion. Sure, if you can provide evidence that seems to make the existence of God likely, we would need to refute it, but there is no requirement for us to prove that he cannot exist. We make negative assumptions every day, for example your friends haven’t been talking behind your back, your car won’t have a flat tyre in the morning, aliens haven’t yet invaded Earth etc.
Okay, I just saw your aliens comment, so I’ll leave that one for another thread.

“Where did the Big Bang come from? What happened before that?”
@Seek_Kolinahr is right, there was no before the Big Bang. Time is a dimension, mathematically indistinguishable from the three (or four) spatial dimensions. When the Big Bang occurred, and our spatial dimensions came into being and expanded rapidly, time also came into being. Therefore it is nonsense to say ‘before’ the Big Bang, because ‘before’ is a temporal term that makes no sense when there was no time.

@FireMadeFlesh Athiests assert that there is no God.
@FireMadeFlesh Good point about time.

@FireMadeFlesh How about “Where did the big bang come from”

@KeithWilson 1st one: Alien. 2nd: Demon.

@KeithWilson Stating that there is no God is not a positive assertion, it is a counter-statement. It would not be required if the idea of God was not postulated in the first place. The typical example is that you don’t need to prove that there is no teapot orbiting Neptune, because no one has postulated such a thing (except in jest).

“Where did the Big Bang come from?”
‘Came from’ still implies a degree of temporal causation, but I will ignore that for now. We don’t know exactly what happened in the first stages of the Big Bang, but we have very successful models that show us what happened from about 10^-45 seconds onwards. As with every infintesimal, it becomes more and more difficult to model as you approach that singularity. My personal view is that it was a form of Hawking Radiation.
At the moment of the Big Bang, space and time suddenly existed for some unknown reason. All the universe’s mass was condensed into a spatially infintesimal, infinitely dense black hole. Since space and time existed, it was not much of a jump for the probability waves of particles to place their concentration outside of the event horizon. A huge amount of matter did this near-instantaneously, since we know that smaller black holes decay faster, which produced a massive gravitational field all around the black hole. This field then ripped it apart, which provided the subsequent energy to drive inflation theory. The heat from the hyperdense matter kept it as a plasma, and the rest is history.
These are just my reflections though, and I have no tertiary education in particle physics so my theory is not mathematical.

@Draconess You think so?
@FireMadeFlesh Thanks for clearing up the assertion thing for me. As to the big bang and causation, Im trying to study these things right now and your input has been valuable. Once again, I see that you are very knowlegeable and probably wise. I humbly bow to your genius. lol

@KeithWilson Pretty sure. What were the circumstances?

@Draconess The first one I was in jail and I was looking out the window at night and I saw it walk by about ten yard from where I was standing. No one else was with me. The second one, I was out walking at night in my neighborhood and it was walking toward me and I was walking toward it on the side of the road. We passed withing three feet of each other.

@KeithWilson How’d you get in jail? And how much is 10 yards? Yeah, it sounds pretty accurate to me. I’ve never met an alien, but I have encountered demons. And I’ve heard a few creepy things as well.

@Draconess I was a troubled youth. I had no regard for the law and I got myself into trouble. I grew out of that kind of behavior as an adult and have been on the right side of the law for several years now. Ten yards is about thirty feet. Ive encounted demons a couple of times too. But the aliens scare me more.

@KeithWilson That’s because the demons have a way to get rid of them. Aliens are less known. And, though this is probably highly contrary to your beliefs, not all demons are evil. They’re just….of a different vibration. They can be good or evil. I’ve met a few good ones. They were still creepy, though.

@Draconess Youre right about the unknown of aliens. Thats essentially what freaks me out about em. And no, its not contrary to my beliefs that some demons are not evil. Maybe theyre just misunderstood.

@KeithWilson Which brings up a question that you might be able to answer: A semi-physical manifestation of my brother’s evil energy, sealed inside a granite star with blood on the corners. When my girlfriend & I lifted the star, the entity was released. We were also filled with this creepy energy. What was this? A demon, or somethjing else?

@Draconess A couple things come to mind. First, whats a granite star? Second, you seem to answer your own question. It was your brothers evil energy. Third, this might be a demon or a misunderstood spirit of some kind. My initial intuition is to say that since its evil its probably a demon. But weve already said that some demons can be good, so my assumption might be wrong. Also Lucifer is an angel, but hes essentially on the side of evil. So it could have even been an angel of some kind.

@Draconess Or a mixture of some kind. Or something completely unclassified. There are a lot of different answers.

@KeithWilson A star made of granite. It looked like it was ripped out of Hollywood. It weakened considerably when he moved out for good, but there is still some traces of its energy in his room.

@Draconess Hmm. Interesting. Sounds like some kind of negative phsycic energy of some kind. Maybe cult magic or witchcraft. Maybe your brother infused it with his own evil energy. Or called on some kind of demon or evil spirit. Maybe it was used in Satanic rituals of one kind or another. I dont know. Could be anything. Youre probably in a better position to find out than me though.

@KeithWilson I doubt it was any ritual. His only ritual was wake up in the afternoon, go out & get wasted, & come back at dawn.

@Draconess LOL

@KeithWilson Its true! And every now & then he’d throw beating me up into his schedule….

@Draconess Sounds like a real jerk. Where did he go?

@KeithWilson Living with his prostitute girlfriend. I know she’s his girlfriend ‘cause he doesn’t pay her.

@Draconess Sounds like a real charmer.

@KeithWilson Yeah. I shudder thinking about him!

Woah, this conversation just got a little too X-Files for me. You’re right – there’s no point explaining how little sense it makes to believe in Christianity when you’re living in a John Carpenter movie.

@Seek_Kolinahr Hi!

@Seek Yeah. This conversation went completely sideways after I mentioned my close encounters.

@KeithWilson, I have to say. I don’t believe you are, as they say, “for realz.”

@Qingu Whatever do you mean?

What it used to take a lifetime to learn can be looked up and learned in minutes. Fortunately for me other people have spent lifetimes learning these things and I can just read over what theyve already established without having to do much work myself.
I understand the aid of the internet in condensing material but don’t use this as an excuse for less than thorough research. Do yourself a favor read over the thousands of various religious texts and allow yourself the time to honestly consider them. This should take a lifetime. The similarities are staggering and you may well form conclusions different from others but at the least you will have afforded yourself the opportunities to consider the parallels and the convergent thought among various traditions. Joseph Campbell is one who did just that and was able to gather an immense appreciation for the breadth of comparative religion. Unlike most here I am not wont to disregard the importance and contribution of countless cultures nor to dismiss their traditions as useless for a current age. These are archetypal experiences of humans that will always be with us.

@KeithWilson, I don’t think you actually believe the positions you are putting forth in your questions.

@Qingu Im still not sure I understand exactly what youre saying. I post questions that I have a genuine interest in discussing. While I am predisposed to believe certain things, I am at the same time very impressionable and open to different ideas. Im willing to concede certain preconcieved notions in the face of more elegant or informed arguements. And the only reason I ask questions on here is because Im unsure of the answers. Also I dont want to be a jerk and only ask questions that I already know the answers to so that I can come off looking smart or wise or what have you.
And, Im interested, what led you to the conclusion that I dont believe what Im talking about? Is it because Im willing to back down from an argument instead of doggedly holding on to possibly flawed ideas?

@SeventhSense Thanks for the advice.

@KeithWilson
Don’t worry about being a jerk. After all you don’t want to stand out from the crowd.~

@SeventhSense Maybe Ill post some questions on topics that Im an expert in so I can annihilate my opposition and just be a real jerk. lol

Someone said god exists therefore god exist is not a proof. It is a silly child’s game along the lines of “I know you are but what am I”. This is “special pleading”. Let me explain. lets entertain the idea that if someone saying god exists were proof of god then we have the problem of everything else that might exist by simply saying so. For example- Santa Claus and the Eater Bunny. If you assert that saying so, makes it so then why does the Easter Bunny not exist? Why do all the Greek and Roman gods not exist. They have equally strong assertions. You need an explanation of why your assertion is more true than any other assertion made with no facts. I think you will find it difficult to ‘prove god exists’ while not proving that the Easter Bunny also exists.

Oh and just to toss a flaming ball over the wall – I hardly think the ten commandments is a good or even comprehensive set of sins. Thou shalt not kill – except unless the US needs oil, or to spread christianity or to wipe out heathens and witches or to…blah blah blah. How about a real basic, thou shalt not force your ideology onto another culture or even better thou shalt not take advantage of the uneducated masses by convincing them to believe a bunch of unprovable malarkey in order to mentally enslave them and take their money! I’d die to see that . LOL.

@ru5150 It might also be a case of intersubjective reality. Which means that two or more people agreeing on one thing tends to make the reality of that thing more plausible. I guess, in that case, you would have to take a poll and see if more people believe in God than not. The general concensus would give you a good idea of what to believe. I bet there are a lot more people who believe in God than there are people who believe in the easter bunny.
And the ten commandments didnt have to be overly elaborate to serve their purpose.

@KeithWilson Just because more people believe in something that doesn’t make it true, for instance, everyone believed the world was flat until proven wrong.

@Trance24 And at that time, given the consensus and lack of evidence to the contrary it would have been a rational belief to have. Likewise, today, given the consensus and the lack of evidence to the contrary, believing in God can be considered a rational belief to have. At least until it is ultimately proven wrong, as the flatness of the earth was ultimately proven wrong. Until that time the general consensus is a good indicator of what ideas to put your faith in. So to speak.

@KeithWilson Rational? A being we can’t see, nor actually hear, who supposedly created the Earth and made a women out of a man’s rib is rational? Science has already proven pretty much that nothing is creating another person from a rib. Or how about one man who at the time would have been about 4 feet tall (also proven by science, given the time period this took place) built a giant Ark that could fit all of the animals on the Earth (except those pesky dinosaurs, fuck them)? Oh wait science can prove that impossible as well. Considering it would be impossible now, and we only have a small percentage of the animals that used to exist prior to major extinctions that have occurred. Where is the rationality? Sorry science just seems much more logical to me. Spiritually I rather believe in my inner self and that even after I am gone the particles and atoms that make me up now will never be destroyed. Even though my conscious mind or physical body will not continue to exist the energy used to create it will, and will go on to become part of something new. Really we should be giving credit to atoms and the particles that make them up. Or perhaps to the great explosion of energy used to create the ever expanding universe. Or maybe the big man in the sky is still creating the vast corners of the universe, but really I don’t see the rationality in that. I am not going to knock you for your beliefs, you can believe in what ever you want that is your choice, but to call it rational I think not. Rationality is the demonstration of reason, good sense, and sensibility. All these things are usually backed by reference and proven fact.

@Trance24 I generally dont believe in the flood story as its told. I actually believe that story was incorporated into the bible from the earlier Mesopotamian legend that may have been based on an actual non-global flood. I can even believe that a person may have been tipped off to the coming disaster, but the whole ark full of the worlds animals, that I have a problem with. Im not so staunch in my views that I have to take every word of the bible literally. Though Im inclined to believe most of it. I dont have a hard time believing that Adam was made from the dust of the earth, or that Eve was created from one of his ribs. An omnipotent God could possibly do that. I do have a problem with the exact method of the earths creation as its told in Genesis. It has to many inconsistencies for me to swallow wholly, literally and unthinkingly. Just because I believe in theology and the general thrust of the bible, doesnt mean that I cant apply rationality where necessary. Also, the majority of the Old Testament doesnt appeal to me or interest me at all. In fact the only important parts of the Old Testament are the idea of Original Sin and the giving of the Law. The rest is so much garbage. A history lesson I could do without. The New Testament, however, is a lot more interesting. It gives the solution to the problems of sin and death and addresses the impossibility of living by the Law. I could go on about this, but I have the feeling it would be lost on you.
If youre not over-critical and you really look into it, you can see the validity of The Word. It really takes some discernment to see through the dogma and find the real Truth embedded in bible.

so you just cherry pick things from the bible to fit your beliefs? Convenient.

EDIT: Wait wait wait…. you can cant believe most of the old testament because its pretty much garbage, but you believe in original sin, which would lead me to think you believe the whole adam and eve thing, so you’re saying you believe god created just 2 people, that went on to populate the entire earth. You do realize how much inbreeding that would be right? Why is it we arent all fucking retarded?

@KeithWilson Science is the word to me. Sorry I refuse to see the “validity” in your story book. I used to believe in the existence of “Thee God”, but even then I thought that book was garbage a story created by man in order to scare the people into behaving themselves. God to me existed within myself purely because I had a feeling. Later I discovered that inner feeling was my own inner self. My inner self is what guides me, my “heart” will tell me where to go and what is right and wrong, and then it is up to me to make those choices. If I choose wrong I will pay for it in life, not in death. There is no heaven or hell in my opinion. Do I believe in the existence of other worlds or realms yes, but I believe they exists on the far outter reaches of the Universe that we have only yet to begone to understand. Different realms are based on different rips in time and space. Hell to me will never come in my life time, to me hell is the thing we all fear most, “The End”, and that end will come billions of years from now when we are most likely gone and the Universe’s dark matter consumes the existence of everything, or pushes everything so far apart the universe just becomes dark and cold. We are living in the time of heaven now, the Universe is young, beautiful, and still developing. This is a time of bliss and a time to appreciate life. Everything gives birth to something, yet I am supposed to believe that nothing gave birth to God. God is just people’s way of coping and answering life’s greatest mystery, “Why are we here?”. Those answers are out there and we can find them, and we are finding them everyday through the power of science. Science has moved us so far, and has given us the gift of knowledge. It is ok to want to believe in a being that is looking out for you, who brought you here, and will listen to you when you need them, but remember you have yourself as well. You and your inner self will take you places if you only listen.

To all future participants of this thread:

The OP @KeithWilson, claims to be a Christian, believes the Bible is God’s word, but was written by fallible humans, some of it is gospel, some of it is garbage. He thinks God is real until it’s proven he’s not. Also, he believes he’s been visited by seven foot tall space-aliens and had personal encounters with demons.

Just wanted you all to know what you’re getting into.

@uberbatman Humanity is retarded. Some are just worse than others.

@Seek_Kolinahr
Elucidated by a girl who wears Vulcan ears…how apropos

@uberbatman Yeah, I cherry pick. Who says I cant? And yeah, I believe in the Adam and Eve story. Why not? And also, I kinda have an idea that maybe the real truth is a mixture of evolution and creation. Maybe God initiated the evolution cycle and created the people of the earth and then at some later time created Adam and Eve to begin the cycle of His of chosen people. Lettting the people of the earth evolve outside the Garden and then created an isolated line of chosen people through Adam and Eve. Which might explain who the people outside the Garden were. Which also might negate the idea of inbreeding. Just a random idea. Maybe try to think outside the box.
@Seek Thanks for summing that up for us.
@SeventhSense Nice!

@KeithWilson Theistic evolution and old earth creationism are crap. The Bible explicitly states that death is the result of sin, and sin did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. However death of organisms that are not well adapted is a pivotal part of evolution. I see the issue to be very black and white – you can accept the mountains of scientific evidence on evolution, or you can believe the Bible.

@FireMadeFlesh Wow! Good point! I looked it up, and evolution and Genesis seem to be completely incompatable for exactly the reason you pointed out. Ill have to give this some thought. Makes for more interesting study. Ill look for your posts in each new thread as you seem to be the most insightful and knowlegable person on Fluther. Youve clearly done your research.

^LOL.
@FireMadeFlesh
You have to admit he is pretty funny.

@ThreadReaders Love this thread! Its done exactly what I asked of it. That is, to poke some holes in my theories and give me new things to think about. Love the challenge! This thread is like a game of chess, which I also love. And chess is more fun with somebody who you know is going to be hard to beat. I also like being the underdog for some reason. The game wouldnt be rewarding if I didnt have to work at it. Thanks posters.

@KeithWilson
Are you really this naive?

@SeventhSense Naive? What do you mean? Is that a bad thing?

You answered. No it’s neither bad or good. It is what it is.

@SeventhSense Oh. Well, I certainly am what I am. Maybe you said that because I exposed my left flank? Im not afraid to express vulnerablility. Even if some people may use the opportunity to cut me down. How else am I supposed to learn?

Naive: 1: Having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absense of artificiality
2: Having or showing a lack of experience, judgement or information
3: Having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique
That certainly describes me at the moment. But thats what Im here for. To gain experience, judgement and information. Also, this is sorta like a training excercise, where, by observing, I can improve my style and technique.

@KeithWilson Thanks. I have done plenty of research on religion, mythology and logic, but I am far from the most knowledgeable person on here (I won’t name names). I strongly believe that if you are not learning then you stagnate, and I am always willing to help people learn.

@FireMadeFlesh Well, that was my impression anyway. But then again, Im a new to Fluther.

@SeventhSense

Ha ha ha… I think there’s a world of difference between being a Trekkie, and “fully believing the Bible” without actually reading it for content.

@Seek_Kolinahr What is the connection between the two?

@SeventhSense was pointing out how funny it was for someone dressed as a Vulcan in their avatar to point out the UberChristian that talks to aliens.

@KeithWilson Well, i would say cherry picking is a bad idea when you want to sit here and say its the word of god. If it is, why is only some of it his word but other is just garbage. Furthermore who are you to differentiate what is real and what is garbage?

@uberbatman
Who is anyone? It’s a prerogative.

@SeventhSense sure, but isnt gods word infallible?

@uberbatman
From a biblical perspective there is a distinct question as to what the Word itself is. It’s really not the written language word alone that we currently assign as word. In John’s gospel he says, ”

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
~New International Version
and later,

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
~John 1:14

it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for the principle of order and knowledge in the Universe.
...The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),[4] and further identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos.
~Wiki

And of course it’s current incarnation in slang I believe was created by the nattily dressed trio of Cameo in 1986
I still remember when that song came out. (don’t mind the 2 seconds of Van Halen in the intro) Funky fresh mama. And yes some people actually did dress that way. minus the red vinyl jock protector
It was a fun time.

Sorry, it’s not a proof. At least not in a scientific sense. There is no proof. There is only faith or no faith.

I don’t think you should believe everything you read. I also don’t think @Seek_Kolinahr‘s sarcastic summary of your post was necessary or appropriate. I don’t believe in God and I don’t believe in trying to poison a well to garner the popular vote if I can’t keep up in a debate.

Thanks for the Thread Necromancy. I had almost repressed this inane discussion. Almost.

Thanks for the thread review, your critical analysis was magic, good taste just disappeared. <poof>