I know a lot of people here don't believe in God

[CatWoman]

I'm not one of them. Now that I've cleared that up: How do you explain the creation of heaven and earth. And mankind? And miracles?

[swag]

1. Just one huge unfortunate accident, I reckon.

[Melodybe]

6. I believe in god, I don't believe in organized religion but I am very

spiritual. I think that once you organize religion it gets ruined. Even in the Bible Jesus says that prayer is between you and the lord, he frowned on going to church just for appearences.

[jedicord]

52. So you're a Deist like me?

Do you have any scripture you could point me to about Jesus not liking people going to church for appearances? I have a Church of Christ friend who is on a mission to get me to attend church, if not for my soul, for my son's. He's forever quoting the Bible to me, and I'd like to quote back.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[porphyrian]

90. I think you might find something in the Gospel of Thomas...

...or maybe Philip (I think it's Philip). Those two were closer to the gnostic thinking and they said you didn't need a church to connect with God, which the church decided was heresy.

[Kipepeo]

276. Gospel of Thomas

yes. One of the apocrypha or missing books of the Bible:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha/

The gospel of Thomas:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/gthomas.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/thomas.html

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) imperial rule is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) imperial rule is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

[Melodybe]

97. Matthew 6:5

"But when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have recieved their reward in full. When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

I am not Christian, but I think that Jesus was a gift to the world, much like Ghandi, Lao Tzu, and Buddha. The Bible is full of really great passages, too bad that Christains have to pervert Christainity's message of acceptance and love in favor of passing judgement and hatred.

Both Matthew and Luke are full of truly beautiful ideas.

My favorite:

Luke 17:20

"The Kingdom of God does not come visibly, nor will people say, 'here it is,' or 'there it is', because the Kingdom of God is within you."

[jedicord]

163. Thanks!

You do think like me re: religion. My friend gets truly angry when I say that Jesus was a truly great philosopher, but not the "Son of God" in the sense that he's part of the Trinity, which I don't think exists. God is God, all by himself.

In my view, Jesus in a way taught God that love, not revenge, was the way to go. Too bad * doesn't think like that.

[merh]

248. Jesus taught that God was Love and to know God you have

to love. God is love - Love thy God (love) with thy whole self (or heart and mind) and love they brother as theyself. That is the trilogy. It is so simple and it has been so screwed up for so many years by so many.

[funkybutt]

242. well done

and well said. I never read the bible completely but i knew there was some passages in there like that. I think I'm agnostic...was raised Episcopalian in an Epscopalian/Atheist household.

[Swamp Rat]

279. Me too!

[Shredr]

178. Nicely put

that's pretty much how I feel.

[funkybutt]

237. LOL (n/t)

[David Zephyr]

2. Miracles?

What miracles?

[Endangered Specie]

228. Miracles are either...

a) a self-illusion

or

b) a result of chance that happens to really favor you (extreme version of luck)

[mzmolly]

246. Or

c) Miracles. ;) :P

[West Coast Democrat]

3. How do you explain the creation of God?

[Dookus]

5. eggzatically...

Why is it that the natural world NEEDS a creator, but something capable of CREATING the natural world can just "be"?

[West Coast Democrat]

36. It's sort of like the chicken or the egg argument....

Which came first?

[CatWoman]

10. I can't explain the creation of God

I just know that I believe there is a God.

[Terran]

162. Nor should you have to, Midori

God's true nature is well beyond the understanding of basically all of humanity. A few, like Jesus and Buddha, got a little closer, that's all.

[mzmolly]

245. That's right.

Explain why we have flowers, and/or flowers look beautiful, and smell glorious, why nature and mountains and sunsets are breathtaking, why babies know how to eat from the moment they are born.

There is no "explaination" for these things above.

God can't be explained in scientific terms IMHO.
;)

[West Coast Democrat]

253. God is a human invention to explain what cannot be explained....

Science is an attempt to explain what can be explained.

[mzmolly]

255. Actually I am comfortable with the *unexplained*

So the assumption in my case, is incorrect.

[merh]

252. IMHO - God's true nature is not beyond understanding...

It has been over complicated and analyzed.

Substitute the word love for God. God is love - Love loving with everything you have and are, love yourself and love your fellow man as much as you love yourself. If you do those 3 things (the trilogy) then you will be living a spiritual live and you cannot disobey the commandments of any religious text, including the bible.

Just a simple opinion about a simple concept and belief.

[mzmolly]

258. I agree.

:hi:

[Terran]

300. Yeah...but "Love" didn't create the universe

You're talking about man's relationship to "God". I was referring to what God *is*, objectively (and I'm not sure the concept of "objective" even applies to God). "Love" is a purely human concept, and God, if it exists, pretty clearly muct include much more than the tiny output of human thought and emotion. I'm not saying God isn't capable of "knowing" what love is, just that it doesn't circumscribe what God is.

[merh]

307. No, I am talking about God. The need to know what came first, the

chicken or the egg or who or what or why the universe was created and why did man evolve are not questions that I feel need to be answered. That we are is enough and I think that is called faith.

If you and others feel the need to answer questions that you will never find the "true" answers, then more power to you. I prefer to accept the fact that the earth exists, we are inhabiting it and we must protect it. Through love (God) we can protect it, if we truly know and love God (love).

[ochazuke]

25. Right on!

God only begs the question -- every time. God is the answer to nothing. (I mean the answer to 'no question' not an answer to nihilism.)

[kirkm76]

345. God Is

God wasn't created, he always was. It is a concept that our human logic really can't comprehend.

[TrustingDog]

4. we each are all a teeney bit of a 'god'....

just imagine what miracles we can do if allowed. The great spirit, is us.
but damn those dark side guys, they keep on winning.

[Connie_Corleone]

14. And remember,

Jesus said we were all gods.

;-)

[TrustingDog]

22. not sure if you're kidding...

but I kinda agree with that.
we sell ourselves short and are easily corralled by the users because of our childlike innocense.
btw, I'm not traditionally religious At All. Just believe some of it that fits my needs - like I think that Jesus dude was damned cool

[Connie_Corleone]

68. John 10:34

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

[TrustingDog]

119. cool.

as I said, I like that Jesus feller.

[OSheaman]

7. I dunno . . .

How do you explain that the Bible is the single dumbest book ever written?

Seriously, there is as much proof that God exists and created things as there is that a giant radioactive zucchini gave birth to the universe.

[TeacherCreature]

54. how do you explain

saying something as dumb as "the bible is the single dumbest book ever". Surely you can think of a dumber book.

[porphyrian]

100. How about "dumbest book to believe verbatim ever?" - n/t

[Jose Diablo]

287. With all the water

I would say watermelon would be more scientific. Zucchini's would be too dry.

:shrug:

[timtom]

342. So you would maybe prefer

an autographed copy of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" as an example of a book that's NOT the single dumbest book ever written? Just asking...

Or one of Ann Coulter's great contributions to the world of ideas?

[Connie_Corleone]

8. What miracles?

What heaven?

I don't know if there is a god or not. I'm just too tired to bother with religion (Christianity) anymore. And this is coming from someone who grew up in a fundamentalist christian home and used to believe all that stuff.

[CatWoman]

19. I had a very strict religious upbringing

and lost much of it along the way.

Especially when I was faced with the utter hypocrisy of the church.

However, I do remain faithful in my belief that God does exist.

[BlueEyedSon]

26. "I contend that we are both atheists.

I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

--Stephen Roberts.

[porphyrian]

103. Well, no wonder you're tired of it. - n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Answers.

1. There is no heaven (apologies to John Lennon :) ).
2. Basic cosmology.
3. Evolution.
4. There are no "miracles".

[SaveElmer]

18. Evolution explains changes

Doesn't explain how life started in the first place.

[BlueEyedSon]

20. The question was mankind. The answer is evolution.

If the question is life, the answer is chemistry.

[SaveElmer]

What process accomplished this ?

Obviously Evolution explains the rise of man, but what process explains life ?

To my knowledge there has been no successful test whereby life was produced from inanimate material. What was the catalyst ?

[info being]

177. Some questions cannot be answered

At least not by you and I. We're better off not attempting too, for if there is a creative force looking down on us it would certainly be offended at our arrogant attempts to label that which we cannot.

[TeacherCreature]

64. So how is any of that in conflict with the idea of God?

I have many friends at my church who are also scientists. They don't have a conflict.

[BlueEyedSon]

77. Actually, i didn't take a position on the God issue with my answers.

Shall I repeat the question(s)?

"How do you explain the creation of heaven and earth. And mankind? And miracles?"

1. There is no heaven (apologies to John Lennon ).
2. Basic cosmology.
3. Evolution.
4. There are no "miracles".

[TeacherCreature]

88. I'm not interested in your questions

I am saying there is no conflict between God and science IMO.

[BlueEyedSon]

111. If you are not interested in the questions go to another thread.

They are what started this whole discussion!

[SaveElmer]

121. So you are simply trying to avoid that question altogether

Course there would be no mankind without the creation of life...You can't simply say that mankind arrived due to evolution, without saying where it started. You are arbitrarily restricting the answer to eliminate something you don't want to talk about.

[Walt Starr]

136. you are again assuming the necessity of creation

for life to exist. We haven't established creation as a requirement for the existance of life.

I'm sorry, but creation assumes a creator. It's false to assume this necessity in such a discussion.

[SaveElmer]

145. Some do not believe that

Look at the answers here...many claim...and they may be right...that the universe was created without a creator (I do not subscribe to this). Quantum physics does show a mathematically viable way for the universe to be created out of nothing. Certainly no one can dispute that life on earth evolved from the first microorganisms. Since science has pretty well established a start point for our universe, life must have had a creation point.

[Walt Starr]

148. Again, you're wrong

Nobody assumes that anything was created without a creator.

Bringing the terms "created" or "creation" absolutely require a "creator".

Many on this thread argue that existance can begin without the necessity of it being created.

[SaveElmer]

152. You are playing with semantics...Physics is the creator

For some. The point of my post was that some believe life could have been created without a creator. I do not happen to believe that.

[Walt Starr]

168. Words mean things

Using the word "created" assumes the necessity of a creator.

The semantics of those who support the existence of some alleged creator utilize language in a manner that assumes that necessity.

Semantics are absolutely important here. Physics is not a creator. Physics is a tool to aid in the understanding of natural occurrences. Assuming the necessity of a creator and then using language that assumes that necessity is a fallacy of those who would argue in favor of a creator in the equation.

[SaveElmer]

170. What word would you prefer

For the appearance of something from nothing ?

[Walt Starr]

174. Rather than ask, "how was life created"

and assume the answer of a creator, ask the question, "How did life begin?" We can demonstrate that elements of the universe have existed longer than life on earth, ergo, it is safe to assume that life had a beginning at some point on our planet.

This does not apply to the universe, however, because we have not established that the universe ever began. That's a different issue which relates to the nature of matter, energy, gravity, and time. The better question when related to the universe is, "How does the universe exist?"

[SaveElmer]

185. Depends on your view of current theories

I think that it is pretty well accepted that "this" universe started when a super dense piece of matter exploded anywhere between 10 and 30 billion years ago. That is the beginning of time. Since time and space are the same, and since there was no space prior to this explosion, our universe and time began to exist with that event.

The unanswered question is...how did this happen. Some scientists have proven mathematically that is is possible for this piece of matter to have appeared from nowhere. Others think we are simply the latest in a long line of expanding and contracting universes (the Big Crunch), and others think God set it all off. Whatever you believe, it seems to me that our universe was created with that event.

[Walt Starr]

194. Ahhhh, but Big Bang

just as is the case with any scientific theory, must be constantly questioned and tested or else it cannot be considered as valid.

Big Bang is falsifiable and one of the conditions by which the Big Bang theory can be falsified is if the universe is actually infinite with no beginning and no end.

The possibility of an infinite universe exists and there is no fundamental law stating that the universe has a beginning.

I, however, see Big Bang as the best explanation given the current state of the data. As a courtesy to those who do not hold with Biug Bang, I will prefer asking, "how does the universe exist?" rather than asking, "how did the universe begin?"

Others hold that the universe was created, thus the requirement for a creator. This is not scientific theory, but people do hold with this as a means by which the universe exists.

[SaveElmer]

210. You can say that about anything

In fact that is the argument creationists use to discredit evolution. While anything is of course possible, the overwhelming evidence is for the beginning of the universe as explained by the "big bang" theory. The undisputed observation of the current expansion of the universe points overwhelmingly to a beginning. Until there is convincing evidence otherwise, I like you, hold to that theory.

My personal belief is that there is nothing about how the universe came into being that cannot eventually be explained scientifically. For me, the big question is not how, but why ? Since I believe there was a creator, I don't think this question will ever be fully answered.

[Walt Starr]

219. There is the possibility that the expansion we see

is a localized event while in other portions of the universe that we cannot yet see due to the light velocity limitation, the universe could be contracting.

You must keep in mind that the amount of the universe we are capable of seeing has been growing regularly since hubble. A new space based telescope with even better resolution could provide an even wider field of view for the universe and we could see new things in the red/blue spectrum through which we have concluded an expanding universe.

Also, Hubble has pushed back teh date of Biug Bang by several billion years. This is another example of theorectical work being altered due to teh introduction of new evidence.

[gpandas]

176. impossible! n/t

[Walt Starr]

181. Wrong, read post 174 n/t

[gpandas]

220. relax, walt...

to me, it's impossible to get something from nothing. i prefer to belive that something was always here.

[Bandit]

206. If that was the case than a creator created God and a creator created the

creator and so on and so on infinity and how did infinity become?

[SaveElmer]

212. That would be true

If one believed the creator came into being as the result of scientifically provable, physical processes. Since many believe God created the physical laws we live by, what you say would not necessarily be true.

[Walt Starr]

221. But the same conditional response would still exist

We hypothesize about the begininng of the universe. Some postulate it ha always been. Others postulate it came into being spontaneously. Still others postulate a creator as the means by which it begins.

Postulating the creator begs the question of where the creator came from.Some postulate it has always been. Others postulate it came into being spontaneously. Still others postulate a super creator to create the creator.

Ad infinitum.

[BlueJazz]

250. I've thought like this since I ...

was about 8.
The Bible and the whole creation thing just doesn't make any sense.

[dave29]

263. Panspermia!

I love saying that.

[DjTj]

30. Cosmology doesn't explain the creation...

...no model explains what happenned at the very very beginning of the universe.

[BlueEyedSon]

32. The question was Earth. Not the universe.

You'll never do well on those standardized tests if you don't learn to read the questions!

[DjTj]

158. ...oh those trick questions...

but I did just fine on my standardized tests thank you very much! ;)

...in any case, no matter what the original poster asked, the important question to ask about God is how the universe was created.

[BlueEyedSon]

180. "the important question to ask about God is how the universe was created"

You don't know how silly that sounds!

If you belive in God, the question is already answered (He/She created it).

If you don't, then the question is not about God at all, it's about the universe.

The important question to ask about God is: "can God create a stone so heavy He/She cannot lift it?"

Or maybe "who created God?"

[Walt Starr]

35. We haven't even established that there even was a beginning

Until we've established the necessity that the universe even began, we cannot really surmise how or why it would have begun.

[SaveElmer]

141. I think science has pretty well established a beginning

For our universe...as for the question of whether we are the first, or merely the latest in a long line of expansions and contractions is not yet known.

[Walt Starr]

179. Current theory is based upon a beginning point, yes

As with all things in science, theoretical work must be questioned. We cannot safely assume the universe began. We then open ourselves up to the potential for an infinite universe which is a possibility regarldess of the probability of such a universe.

Most science assumes that there was a beginning, howwever, as new evidence is observed, the nature and timing of that beginning becomes ever more distant.

There is no absolute requirement, however, that there was ever a beginning. This is an assumption of most modern physical theory.

[SaveElmer]

189. One has to weigh the evidence

While the timing of the event is of course open to question, the theory behind it has been accepted for many years. Until something compelling comes along to change that, in my opinion, this universe had a beginning, hence it was created, as was life.

[Walt Starr]

202. Oh don't get me wrong. Based upon current evidence I hold with BB

I just also recognize the possibility for an infinite universe and would thus lhrase the questions as pertaining to the present rather than the past tense.

"How does the universe exist?" is the fundamental question as opposed to "how did the universe begin?"

[Jose Diablo]

289. There is scientific evidence for a beginning

It is called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation.
<Quote>

"The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by George Gamow in 1948, and by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1950. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a pair of papers in the Physical Review: one by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their discovery.

Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° above absolute zero, thus this radiation shines primarily in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and is invisible to the naked eye. However, it fills the universe and can be detected everywhere we look. In fact, if we could see microwaves, the entire sky would glow with a brightness that was astonishingly uniform in every direction. The picture at left shows a false color depiction of the temperature (brightness) of the CMB over the full sky (projected onto an oval, similar to a map of the Earth). The temperature is uniform to better than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation but none have succeeded."

<end quote>



How can the CMB be explained without a Big Bang Theory for a beginning?

[Walt Starr]

312. Yes, there is evidence for a beginning

We have yet to establish it as an absolute.

[DjTj]

169. We can surmise about anything we want...

...Maybe we can't prove anything in this area, but I think it's perfectly acceptable for people to form beliefs based on faith.

I can't prove to you that there was a beginning, and you can't prove to me that there wasn't. Anything I choose to believe beyond that is simply a choice, but you can't tell me that I *can't* make that choice.

[DrWeird]

44. Actually, I believe it does.

I'm no cosmologist, and I haven't done the math, but I believe all that's been figured out.

[SaveElmer]

57. The Big Bang

It is generally believed our universe began with the Big Bang. Where did the dense material which produced it come from. I've heard quantum theories (Heisenberg) whereby you can prove mathematically that it is possible to produce something out of nothing. Might not that be where God did his handiwork ?

[DrWeird]

65. That's reducing God to a "God of the gaps"

Everything else is explained without the presence of God, so you stick "God did it" in the little gaps that science hasn't fully worked out yet. Which is fine, I suppose, but personally I find it a bit scientifically, and spiritually, insulting.

[SaveElmer]

99. Not trying to be insulting

It's just a theory, as valid as any other until proven otherwise...If science proves it wrong...so be it. I'd rather be someone who is willing to have their faith affected by the discoveries of science, than be one of those who simply denies that scientific discovery is valid.

To me there is still the question of why ? Why are we here ? What is the point of our existence ?

If we are simply the logical extension of millenia of physics and chemistry, why do we spend so much time trying to discover where we came from ? What is the point of astronomy, art, poetry, and the many other disciplines human beings spend so much time at ? These pursuits are not necessary to our survival.

[porphyrian]

115. Super String Theory explains those gaps... - n/t

[DrWeird]

118. That's what I thought.

In fact, I thought conventional relativity and quantum physics explained it, albeit I'm no cosmologist, so I can't explain it.

[SaveElmer]

131. I'm no cosmologist of course

But the reading I've done on quantum physics uses the Heisenberg principle (uncertainty of the nature of matter), to mathematically prove that it is possible to produce something from nothing. Thus, it would be possible for a super dense piece of material to appear out of nowhere, for there to be a big bang, and for the universe to be created. Where these laws were created is of course unknown.

[DjTj]

154. Not completely...

...and nobody is completely satisfied with superstrings right now (otherwise there wouldn't still be people working so hard on it).

This page is decent:

http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4a1.html

Stephen Hawking recently said I think in his last book that he no longer believes we will develop a unified theory. There may just simply be many different ways to describe those parts of the universe we cannot observe, and we may have no way of knowing whether we are right.

And if it's true that there are some things we can't completely explain and some things we cannot observe, I think that opens the window to what Elmer says. It does not prove God exists, but it certainly doesn't disprove it. If God can work in the gaps, who's to say that God's influence isn't in other places? If nobody can prove that God doesn't exist, I can have faith that God does in fact exist - that's what faith is after all, believing in something you can't necessarily prove.

[Endangered Specie]

229. Yet.

and that doesnt mean there isnt a scientific explination, and that even further doesnt mean that there is a supernatural aspect to the beginning of the universe.

[dave29]

264. You just tapped into something

If Scientists had models explain their theories, they might gain more traction with the public.

[porphyrian]

11. I'm agnostic, so I'm witholding judgement until I get more data...

...but, until then, I'm pretty much convinced of the scientific explanations, which I don't think are mutually exclusive of a possibly-existing God. I'm especially attracted to memetics, super string theory, and the fact that Steven Hawking recently changed his position on the nature of black holes.

[info being]

183. That's the only sane position...one in which I share

My spiritual well-being comes from the idea that my only responsibility is to understand what can be understood, while at the same time accepting that some things are not for me to know.

Making shit up, or listening to someone else's made up shit, would be an insult to my own humanity.

[Goldmund]

12. Woah

I just logged in to see what's going on while I sip my coffee and I get hit by humongous ten-thousand-year old questions.

I'm curious: what do you mean by "miracles"? What are miracles?

[LittleApple81]

13. Oh, CatWoman, I usually love to participate in your threads.... but

not this one. See you in another one. These "religious discussions" end up in humongous FLAMEBAITS.

[CatWoman]

17. But it doesn't have to be that way

However, I do understand

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

15. Your question is based upon an assumption

You are assuming the universe needed to be created. The necessity for the universe to have even been created has yet to be established.

There has never been an established case where a "miracle" ever actually occurred. We have anecdotal evidence only. There has never been any independently verifiable evuidence to suggest that there has ever been a miracle.

BTW, I believe in the Divine.

[Castro]

16. The planet earth just happened to be the right distance from the sun

for the life to evolve....there are plenty of planets in other solar systems with the same predicament.....we just can't get to them.....



Next Topic

[CatWoman]

23. Welcome to DU, Castro

:hi:

did it "just happen" that way?

If we are going to fall on fate, could it have easily have been Jupiter?

[Walt Starr]

27. Under the doctrine of Occam's Razor, no.

Adding a deity to the question further complicates it.

[TeacherCreature]

74. Occam's Razor is not the final word on anything

it's just a theory Walt. That theory explains nothing.

[Walt Starr]

81. Occam's Razor is an absolute in the case of this argument

The specific statement the Occam's Razor response was in reference to is as follows:

"If we are going to fall on fate, could it have easily have been Jupiter?

The answer is absolutely covered under Occam's Razor. Adding a deity to the equation cannot happen "just as easily".

[TeacherCreature]

91. nope....lol

Occams razor isn't even a theory. It's a party game.

[Walt Starr]

101. Occams' Razor reduces any issue to the most simple answer

Thus, adding a deity to the equation makes the equation more complicated, ergo, adding Jupiter to the equation cannot happen "just as easily".

[sangh0]

167. Your strong belief the relevacy of Occam's Razor

is the sign of a faith you claim not to have.

It's not even a theory. It's a hypotheses. (and how ironic is it for to use a faith-based argument to undermine religious belief?)

[Walt Starr]

172. I put no faith into Occam's Razor

I merely stated the irrefutable fact that Occam's Razor applies to the question asked.

The inital postive assertion was that no creator was necessary, it just began.

The question was asked if it could not have just as easily required Jupiter.

The answer is no because assuming the necessity of Jupiter creating the universe adds to the equation and begs the question, "did Jupiter just happen?" If Jupiter just happened, then the answer that the universe just happened is easier.

Ergo, Occam's Razor is an absolute in this instance.

[sangh0]

225. "the irrefutable fact that Occam's Razor applies to the question asked"

It's not irrefutable. That you think so is another sign of your faith in Occam's Raxor

[Arianrhod]

309. You guys are all arguing against Ockham's Razor

as if it were itself a deity of some sort. "The Razor is faith-based"...! How ludicrous a construct--but how revelatory of how necessary faith is to some people.

It's as bad as the Creationists calling evolution a "religion".

Ockham's Razor is neither theory nor hypothesis. It's a stance, a viewpoint, a philosophical ground upon which all hypotheses may be based. It merely states that, when considering a cause-and-effect event, it is best not to overindulge in premises. A proliferation of premises is therefore a signal that there may be something wrong with your theory, that you might want to rethink it.

Ockham's Razor is not something one applies to a situation; it is simply a way of looking at that situation.

In the case of this argument--ie, Does adding God to the equation overcomplicate it?--my view is more along the lines of that espoused by Carl Sagan: All it does is postpone the question. Now, instead of asking where the universe came from, we are asking where God came from. Since there is absolutely no irrefutable evidence for the existence of God, but there IS irrefutable evidence for the existence of the universe (you Humists just bear with me, ok?), I would have to say that, while God may not complicate the question, S/He certainly makes it unanswerable and irrelevant.

[Walt Starr]

313. Then refute it.

I noticed you didn't.

[dave29]

267. William of Oc(kh)am

must be spinning in his grave. You must be very careful when using razors.

So, by Drakthar's Hammer I declare everybody's points moot.

[gpandas]

187. undermine? n/t

[sangh0]

226. I would have used a better phrase for that

if only I could think of one

[Cogito ergo doleo]

286. Start with what is known

If you are going to use Ockham's razor idea, you have to start with what is known. What is known is we exist on a little mudball whirling around a big hot ball of gas in the middle of nowhere. Given that, God, miracles, science - anything can happen.

Were human beings planned or accidental?

Given that our hands are placed at the ends of our arms so that we can use them, rather than in the back of our heads, it is a plan, imho, rather than a lucky accident. If it was an accident, then it is a miracle it turned out right. I think William of Ockham would have to agree.

[Arianrhod]

310. "Given that our hands are placed at the ends of our arms..."

Given that our wisdom teeth don't fit in our jaws; that our retinas are miswired; and that the appendix is more a liability than a help; I would conclude that whoever wrote your "plan" was rather incompetent.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

336. The premise is Ockham's Razor.

not placement of hands or evolutionary glitches. Does that argument (O's Razor) really work when trying to determine if there is a God or if "thought" was involved in creation of the universe?

[Arianrhod]

337. Ockham's Razor *always* works

regardless of the argument at hand.

As I stated in another post on this thread, Ockham's Razor is not a tool so much as it is a standpoint: One simply looks for the most efficient (simplest) pathway through the evidence. Having hands at the ends of our arms is not evidence of design; the fact merely suggests that we are related to other creatures having hands. And since all other scientific testimony--including DNA analysis, anatomy, fossil evidence and even brain structure--points to our actually being related to such creatures, I'd say the Razor works pretty well against the poster's argument. :)

[Goldmund]

48. It didn't "just happen" that way.. and it did

If by "just happen that way" you mean "woah, we got lucky, if Earth was only a little closer or farther from the sun we wouldn't be here, so it's hell of a lucky thing", then no. Actually, with 99.99999999999999% of planets, this didn't happen. With this one it did, and we are here to observe it. It's not like somebody sat down and said "OK, I got this species called humanity, and I got this planet I want to put them on. I pray that it's the right distance", and then it just turned out that way. It's that since there is a very narrow set of conditions under which we could develop, we can only possibly observe an environment consistent with those conditions -- otherwise we wouldn't be here. Maybe there are billions of other universes as well in which planets and stars don't exist, and therefore life doesn't either -- but again, no life is there to observe that misfortune. The fact we are here automatically means that there is a finely-tuned set of conditions around us. There could be no other way.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

203. With all stars out there, SOME planet had to fall at the right distance nt

[realisticphish]

33. thats nice

but being the right distance from the sun, and creating life is a BIIIG step. We are the right distance from the sun, therefore man should be able to artificially create life, right?


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Walt Starr]

40. Again, please establish the necessity that anything

had to be created in the first place!

[realisticphish]

76. my point is

there was a point where non-organic materials became organic. show me the chemical process that could accomplish this, and create something that could evolve, rather than create a protein or amino acid. If it is simply a matter of being the right distance, than it should be a (relatively) simple process for scientists to observe. granted, it happened over a vast period of time, but even so, there shoud be an observable process that could end up with life. Of course, future scientific research may prove me wrong, in which case i will gladly recant, but until then, i see no reason to discount the idea that a god, or something even farther beyond human comprehention, is responsable for at least a certain element of life.

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Walt Starr]

83. Again, you are assuming the necessity of creation

A chemical reaction neither creates nor destroys anything.

Creation is unnecessary for a chemical reaction to occur.

[realisticphish]

116. so

life has always existed?

(i just realized that we're having two separate discussions at the same time)

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Walt Starr]

126. Yep

We are having two discussions at the same time apparently. Life does not have to be created to exist. We have yet to establish the necessity for creation tho be involved in the existance of life.

The Universe does not necessarily have a beginning nor an end. We have not established the necessity of that, let alone the necessity of creation for the universe to exist.

In both instances, we have not established the necessity of creation. Creation assumes the necessity of a creator. Until we establish that life required creation, we cannot discuss the nature of any alleged creator.

[realisticphish]

144. of course, thats a possibility

and no less one that the christian view of reality. but, once again, your statement is indeed based on non-evidence, by nature. and a perfectly viable situation. But since the truth about time and reality may never be uncovered, a discussion of the nature of a creator has to be discussed with all accepting that it is indeed required, as long as they understand that it may be otherwise

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Walt Starr]

182. Actually, no

In the absence of evidence for the necessity of a creator, it is safe to discard the notion until better evidence is provided.

[realisticphish]

247. well of course

it is indeed safe, but there is obviously a debate going on. And though your logic makes perfect sense, to involve yourself in a discussion involving it, which i obviously enjoy, you must make a series of assumptions to begin with. Simply telling people that it is irrelevant is (or could be) true, doesn't make it any fun to debate :)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Arianrhod]

311. Which, once again, postpones the question instead of answering it. n/t

[DeadHead67]

39. 'Science' is just another religion. . . .

It requires belief in certain theories(and many are THEORIES not nescessarily 'eternal' truths)and other assumed premises.:+

[Walt Starr]

55. Actually, you're wrong

Religion allows for no deviation from established doctrine whereas the scientific method requires constant testing and questioning of established theoretical doctine, which further refines the theoretical or abandons established theory for new theory that better fits the conditions established via testing.

[TeacherCreature]

80. That's ridiculous

Religion certainly does allow for deviation. And Science is mostly theory, hardly any fact....unless fact keeps changing.

[Walt Starr]

86. Sorry, please look up a scientific definition for "theory"

Religious doctrine is neither testable nore falsifiable. Scientific theory must be both.

[TeacherCreature]

94. I never said religious doctrine was theory

why are you making shit up?

I said science was mostly theory.

[Walt Starr]

105. See post 96 n/t

[RichardRay]

195. Wrong on that one, Walt

SOME religions reject testing and falsification. Buddhism has dropped many teachings from history as science has shown other things to be true.
Buddhists are taught that examination is critical and that acceptance must ultimately come from individual experience.

Of course, not everybody considers Buddhism a religion....

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[Walt Starr]

96. Deviation from established doctrine of religion means

beginning a new religion.

Basic doctrine of Christianity assumes God created the Heaven's and the Earth. Basic Christian doctrine assumes Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins upon the cross and rose on the third day.

If one deviates from that established doctrine, one is no longer a Christian.

A Physicist may hold to string theory today and yet abandon string theory when a newer model is introduced that better explains observable fact.

If the physicist abandons string theory, he is still a physicist.

[TeacherCreature]

102. nonsense

sorry, but your arguments are nonsense. You said "any deviation" not "major deiviation".

[Walt Starr]

117. Sorry, but you've deviated from the inital post in this sub-thread

Original post claimed science was another religion. I demonstrated how it was not another religion.

[Arianrhod]

316. This was not always basic Christian doctrine.

A strong argument could be made, from extant manuscripts as well as indications in the New Testament, that James' original Church in Jerusalem did not view Jesus as God, but rather as the Messiah. There were many sects that arose in the first century after Jesus' death which followed the teaching that he was but a man, although there were others that taught otherwise. (Iraenius' 180 CE screed "Against Heretics" was basically an early attempt to establish the godhood of Jesus.) But it wasn't until the Nicean Council met in 326 that the doctrine was formally established and set as the official teaching of the Church--the "Nicean Creed", which was based on the teachings of Paul, not of James--and all other sects systematically persecuted and destroyed.

[porphyrian]

139. Not true about all religion...

Judaism, especially Reform Judaism, includes debate of established doctrine as part of the religion. Thus, even the established doctrine is not universally practiced or accepted. Only Orthodox Jews are sticklers, those crazy traditionalists.

[Arianrhod]

315. I disagree with your definition of "religion".

It fits the "Big Three", and it fits certain sects of other religions such as Buddhism, but it doesn't fit mine. Nor does it fit Taoism or Hinduism. Not all religions are built on dogma. I would venture to suggest that the only ones that are, are those whose doctrines don't reflect what we find in the natural world, and therefore must be imposed. Natural religions are open to any possibility, but they don't require that some idea or concept be true a priori, against the evidence of our own senses. Instead, they attempt to connect more deeply with the laws of the universe--which requires the same open-minded willingness to admit error as science does.

[Goldmund]

56. Wrong

Science is an extrapolation of your 5 senses and your logical devices.

[porphyrian]

142. So?

Who ever said religion had to be defined by non-existentialist characteristics?

[Toronto Ron]

72. Except that...

Scientific theories encapsulate and explain observable regularities.

There is no such thing as a scientific eternal truth (let's leave mathematics aside for now); every scientifc claim is a "theory", in the sense that it is, in principle, falsifiable.

What "other assumed premises" do you mean?

[dave29]

265. The Anthropomorphic Principle

Is actually one of the great debates raging between "scientists" and "religious" types. Why did the Universe evolve in such a way that life was possible? Alter the ingredients just a bit, and life (as we know it), can not exist. Is this evidence for God? Or is this just "how it is".

Film at 11

[spanone]

21. I'm not a creationist. Evolution.

Miracles?....haven't seen any. Now is one could make bush* disappear, I might sign up. lol

[underpants]

24. Oh that was Bob from engineering

His name got misspelled on the press release and well the rest is history. IT was a typo Bobdammit!

[CatWoman]

28. You are so damn silly

You really, really should take your act on the road!!

I'd pay big bucks to see your act!!

:hi:

[Bush was AWOL]

29. I don't understand how you can honestly deny the existence

of a god? How was earth created? How did the first forms of life become created?

[Walt Starr]

31. Your questions assume the answer

Please, establish the necessity that anything be "created".

We must first establish the necessity of creation before we can begin to discuss the nature of the creater.

[Bush was AWOL]

38. Yeah, these discussions usually go over my head

[realisticphish]

59. maybe i'm interpreting it wrong

but i think the post you replyed to was inferring that denying the possibility of the existance of god is impossible; agnosticism, of course, is perfectly logical. since no one knows, and will perhaps never know, the essence of reality, whether time is infinite, circular, straight, whatever, there can be no yes or no decisions about god (at least based on factoral evidence, rather than faith). I myself am a christian, and i readily accept that there is no scientific evidence that there is a god. i also do not see that there is any evidence of the non-existance of god. ergo, i see no reason to make anything more than a mild philosophical debate out of it (which you were, don't get me wrong)

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Walt Starr]

66. I agree that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,

however, it does establish a factual basis that there is no compelling reason to put any faith into that for which there is no evidence of existance.

[realisticphish]

106. very true

and i see no problem with agnosticism. Adding your own ideas to non-evidence leaves you with your ideas alone, which is, after all, what religions are. which doesn't actually bring me back to my point, but i'm going there anyway. My point was (sorry if i kind of drifited off topic in my reply) that athiesm is no less based on non-evidence+human ideas than fundamentalist christianity.

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Walt Starr]

129. Actually, atheism is the default position

One must be introduced to the concept of a deific creator in order to accept or dismiss the notion.

At birth, all are atheists.

[realisticphish]

153. interesting point

that had never occured to me. but, as humans initially evolved, SOMEone decided on this. Someone who WASN'T introduced to the idea. there was a first guy who postulated the existance of a deity (or spirits, etc). it simply began as a way to explain phenomena of the natural world, that could not be understood. As science progressed, it began to disprove aspects of religion, and continues to do so. and it is a possibility that religion may eventually be eradicated by science. but as it stands right NOW, religion fills in the gap where we have no understanding. The only danger is when people don't allow religion to be explained away when it can be, and stick to ancient ignorance

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Walt Starr]

186. and that first guy who postulated a deific creator

introduced the notion to himself.

It is a human concept, not a universal requirement.

:evilgrin:

[realisticphish]

251. lol ok

got your point, but until we contact other intelligent creatures from our demension, or level of existance, or whatever, all we have to work with is human experience. As humans, unfortunately, all we have to work with is human concepts. Though i suppose we could ask a box turtle


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[porphyrian]

151. Oooo, you're gonna piss of the atheists... - n/t

[realisticphish]

160. well lol

they've pissed me off enough times, that i think its only fair to do it back to them...

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[TeacherCreature]

84. lol

come on, where are you getting this?

Please establish the necessity of proving that there is a necessity that anything be created.

[Walt Starr]

161. The terms "created" and "creation"

assume a creator. There has never been a requirement of creation established for anything to exist. In fact, science absolutley denies that necessity under the law of conservation of matter and energy.

Nobody has demonstrated that some person, being, thing, god, invisible pink unicorn, dragon, or engineer named Bob's intervention is a requirement for anything to begin.

[Arianrhod]

317. Virtual particles

are electrons, photons, and other varieties of non-building-block matter that surround other particles, but which are neither part of them nor part of the surrounding matrix. They are potentialities that briefly take material form as a result of statistical probability. That is, there is a tiny statistical chance that they could exist, so they do. They come out of nothing; they return to nothing. Their existence is so brief as to be almost immeasurable with our current technology. But if we don't take them into account, all of our data about deep space is rendered incorrect.

At the quantum level, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. To posit the necessity of creation is therefore contrary to all known scientific evidence.

[Beetwasher]

43. And I Personally Can't Understand How One Can Honestly

Claim the existence of such an obvious paradox as god. How did god become created? And if god doesn't "need" to be created and just is, then why does the universe or existence "need" to be created?

There can't be NOTHING. Existence IS. God is unnecessary.

[DrWeird]

53. I don't understand how you can honestly deny the existence

of Santa Claus? How did those presents get under the tree?

[Bush was AWOL]

67. Such a silly argument on your part.

I'd like you to explain how the first forms of life were created?

[Walt Starr]

71. Please, you are begging the question

You are assuming the necessity of creation in your question. That is a fallacy known as "begging the question."

Please, establish the necessity that life had to be created in the first place.

[Bush was AWOL]

75. It didn't have to be created, but that is what I believe

You can believe whatever you want and the same goes for me. I'm still curious to know how Dinosaurs and others forms of life obtained presence of life on earth. Care to explain...

[DrWeird]

85. Dinosaurs evolved from earlier reptiles.

Come on now, that's high school biology.

[Bush was AWOL]

87. Explain the existence of the reptiles

[DrWeird]

92. They evolved from earlier animals.

Now explain how God was created. And why He has a penis.

[Bush was AWOL]

95. How did the first form of life, whatever it was, become

a living organism on the planet earth?

[DrWeird]

98. I already answered that.

See below.

Now answer my question.

[Bush was AWOL]

110. Can't explain, but a God-master of the universe or whatever

you want to call it-would certainly be capable of creating earth and be responsible for all life on earth, don't you think?

[DrWeird]

123. Well, sure, if he's got lots of magic pixie dust.

But that's hardly a valid explanation.

[Bush was AWOL]

150. I'm not trying to make this into an "I'm right you're wrong"

argument. I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to put up much of a fight in this argument...but, anyway, thanks for answering my questions.

[Walt Starr]

132. But that begs the question

how was that Master of the Universe created?

And how about the creation of the creator of the Master of the Universe.

Ad Nauseum.

[porphyrian]

156. So would omnipotent microscopic pigs flying out of your ass...

...every time you farted, but we can't prove they exist, either.

[gpandas]

204. that's my line lol n/t

[wuushew]

140. DNA is a unique molecule in that it is self replicating

if you have the ability to organically describe the ability to form a protein covering it is not hard randomly generate genetic changes that control the production of enzymes, metabolism and reproduction.

The early earth rich with organic material deposited by meteorites had sufficient energy from geologic and solar sources to continue the increase in biological complexity. The development of sexual reproduction increased the rate of evolution beyond mutation by orders of magnitude. I don't know why it is so hard to see biology as an offshoot of organic chemistry.

[Walt Starr]

113. Read a book on evolution

There is neither enough space here, nor do I have time for that explanation.

[DrWeird]

82. Alright.

The early atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere, containing ammonia, carbon dioxide, and water. It's been shown under laboratory experiments, that these conditions produce amino acids, of which we're all made. Further tests, simulating the primordial earth environment, have produced nucleic acids (ribo and deoxyribo), peptides, and phospholipids. The latter of which congregate into primitive "cells" which grow and reproduce. After millions (billions?) of years this "primordial soup" kept getting more concentrated and complicated (via chemical evolution) until, presumably, the first primitive cells were produced. From these cells, all of modern day life evolved, that's a scientific fact. The only gray area that's not well understood is how exactly the large, complex self reproducing biomolecules became small, simple "living" cells.

But to say that "God did it" is intellectually vapid. See the above post "God of the gaps".

[Cornus]

62. How did...

God get created?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

133. i don't understand how you can honestly prove the existence of god

thunder used to be mysteriuos, the days the nights, the flat earth all used to be mysteries. they aren't anymore.

[porphyrian]

147. Simply. Prove there is a God.

It can't be done. It's possible life and the earth were created by a God, but it's also possible they weren't. At the same time, there's no way to prove there isn't a God, either. This is why I'm agnostic.

[info being]

188. I don't understand how you can make that leap.

Because I don't know how life and the earth was created, there *must* be a god.

Why can't you just admit that nobody *knows* how life and earth was created. Pretending to is disrespectful to any creator that may exists...for that force created me not to be able to understand it fully.

That's why churches get into the whole idea of "faith"...just like * askes Americans to have faith in him without any sound evidence. People who preach faith are preaching a doctrine that is dead-set against nature.

[Beetwasher]

34. I Know What You're Doing!!!

You're bored aren't you and you're TRYING to start a flame war!!!

I'm on to you! You troublemaker! ;-)

[vetwife]

46. I believe Catwoman and I think she just felt like saying she believed

That is not a flamewar..That is her right. She is a vet and she has every right to say she believes. I stand behind her right to believe and proclaim what she belives. She earned it. This is America (whats left) It wouldn't matter if she said she believed in olives as her God..She has that right ! Just as some choose not to believe. Why get so defensive over a statement of belief? Its up to each one of us to choose to believe or not....Only our dying will tell !

[Beetwasher]

51. Of Course

I'm just teasing her...Yeesh, lighten up!

[CatWoman]

78. Thanks, Amanda!!

As for Beetwasher -- I'll meet your ass in the lounge!!! :D

:hi:

[Beetwasher]

104. Uh Oh!

I'm in for it now! :P

[vetwife]

114. Your welcome Sweetie !

LOL Beetwasher..you should see me on a bad day .....I was light, just acknowledging Catwoman...no reflection on you. I'd fight for anybody on this board . Ya know..whether it be God, Gays or Guns, we had better wake up to this bunch of hypocrites and clearly proclaim that they don't own the Flag, the Country or God. They think that you know. We need to Take it Back or Give it Up !

http://cafeshops.com/focusgroupnow.9200633

[Beetwasher]

127. No Worries!

:hug:

[porphyrian]

166. ...mmm...olive god...kalamatas... - n/t

[codegreen]

37. more like LACK of miracles. God's either in a coma or a deadbeat dad.

i've had this little 'prayer' i do for a while now... that one day, every sad life that is crippled, mangled, mutilated, and diseased should become healed and whole again. not just me, but everyone.

barring that, i can't possibly see how anything relating to God would be worth our attention. we clearly aren't worth it.

but that's just my bitter opinion; everyone else go along pretending there are still miracles and things like that. whatever works (or rather, clearly doesn't) for you

[DrWeird]

41. Creation of the heaven and earth? Phony argument.

Mankind? evolution.

Miracles? You mean like paintings crying and Virgin Mary sightings? Frauds.

[russian33]

42. I've read about the 'Big Bang' theory...

..and it kind of made sense...just don't ask me to explain it, it made sense at the time I read it, maybe someone else is familiar with it...as for people, I do believe in evolution...I just can't make myself take that leap of faith to believe adam, eve, god, jesus, etc...

but I respect your beliefs, and sometime jealous of people who believe in God...in times of tragedy, they find comfort in God and religion, and that's when I'm usually jealous, because I don't have that.

[iconoclastic cat]

45. Where did that one come from?

We are all entitled to believe whatever we believe. As long as a person does not hurt, harass, or oppress others who do not share his or her beliefs, whose business is it?

[Arianrhod]

320. It's just a discussion.

But it has relevance to the political situation. There is a cabal of Fundamentalists attempting to impose their religious bigotry on the rest of the country (a dream they've had for nearly a century now). They are mollifying and deceiving the moderate Christians by appealing to those aspects of the religion/science argument that are at once most emotionally based and least investigated. The problem is that these besiegers don't believe in freedom of religion or of thought.

IMO, the only way to counteract this aspect of their attack is to engage in honest, open, nonaggressive discussion of how religious doctrine and scientific/philosophic investigation differ. If believers can be shown that science does not negate religious faith, then this prong of the Fundamentalist threat can be nullified.

That, btw, is one of the primary reasons Duane Gish consistently refused to hold one of his "debates" with Carl Sagan. :)

[Bush was AWOL]

47. I prefer not to take chances and will continue to believe in

God.

[info being]

191. Ah, but what if you are punished for doing that

Can't you just see it...meeting the life force one day...being scolded:

"How dare you mock me by listening to that garbage. How arrogant and insulting I am that you failed to understand your own limitations. If I wanted you to label me I would have created you to be able to see me."

That's why *I* don't want to take chances. What are the odds that I'd get it right? Why not just admit that I can't know?

[many a good man]

49. Its a mystery that will never be solved

And its not supposed to be.

"May the Great Mystery make sunrise in your heart."
- Lakota saying

[Mari333]

50. I asked my beagle what god's name was and he said it was

RALPH.

[mumon]

58. Why explain "creation?"

How do you know who you are? It's a bit prideful, IMO, to have to "know" why you are here. You are. Deal with it.

And "miracles?" Lemme tell ya: 2 Zen masters are walking across the country and they come to a river. One of them says, "Let's cross it," and proceeds to walk on the water. The other replies, "If I had known you were going to do that I would have broken your legs."

Get it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Hi, Catwoman

I'm religious as well, but I accept science.

There's no contradiction in my mind, because science tells you what happened, and religion is an attempt to explain why and what it all means.

I've also found that it's useless to try to convince an atheist of the existence of God intellectually or to convince a religious person of the non-existence of God intellectually, because religion is based on experience, not logic.

I know some people who were brought up as atheists or who went through an atheist period who ended up religious after age 30. In all cases, it wasn't logical argument that converted--it was an intuition that there's something beyond the material world.

I participate in religion threads to dispel people's stereotypes of religious people as all being brain-dead Republicans, but I think that trying to argue someone out of atheism is a waste of time.

[wicket]

I'm with you.

[faithnotgreed]

60. catwoman - im a member of the green party and i believe just as you do

im so thankful for God i literally do not know what i would do without Him. esp with * and his crew, and all that is known about in this world, talked about and investigated and revealed here on DU....

i want to make sure to say that everyone has so many different experiences, so i dont expect anyone else to have my beliefs or my experiences. and my words here are in response to catwoman only. im not here to engage anyone in debate unless they would like to talk. i just know the feeling of believing in all these things that progressives believe in, and also knowing that God is the real answer (for me). and with that, i know that i dont "combine" right for much of the world.

its important to me to love. love everyone and still fight the good fight as i can. but its such peace that after reading and knowing about all the despicable things that go on within (and without) our own government, i can release it all and no longer put it inside where it only hurts me. i did that for a long time and i couldnt do it anymore....

now (when i keep my ego out) theres peace and love left where there once was too much anger and confusion.
what a gift. and one that i am especially thankful for while we are in the midst of this (temporary) nightmare....

[info being]

193. You are a beautiful person

[Walt Starr]

61. Like Bill Maher said on Larry King last night

"There are two kinds of people, those who use a compass, and those who read the entrails of chickens. I'm one of those who use a compass."

[TeacherCreature]

109. Well if Bill Maher said it then it must be true

:7

[Walt Starr]

143. I just thought it was relevant to the discussion

:shrug:

[gpandas]

211. stupid post, imho. n/t

[Arianrhod]

323. Hm.

In my apartment, due to the variance of magnetic equipment I have and where it is placed (television, radio, computer), my Army-issued compass gives a different reading for North in every room. The only way I was able to discern the compass points was by carefully observing sun"rise", sun"set" and the season.

The ancient Celts used this same method to orient their sacred sites precisely 23-1/2 degrees, so that the eastern wall of the structure faces dawn on the Summer Solstice. In this manner, they were able to place the corners directly on the cardinal points.

"Do not be overconfident in this technological terror you have created. The ability to destroy a planet is as nothing when compared to the power of the Force." -- Darth Vader :)

[Algomas]

63. Embrace the mystery grasshopper...

It is what makes life so interesting. If you can accept unknowing and live for today you won't be manipulated by other peoples magic. All organized belief systems are manipulative in one way or another. Religion is notable for the lack of participation from God. Therefore, make up your own cosmology to live long and prosper.

[Hamlette]

69. the same way you explain the creation of God

(I don't believe in miracles)

[mandyky]

70. Believing in God and that the Bible should be taken literally

are 2 different things. Out of your 3 examples, miracles are the only things I think have anything to do with God.

I think organized religion causes almost as many dilemnas as it solves.

[ulysses]

73. in so far as I *do* try to explain them,

chance. And I don't really believe in miracles. :)

[sadiesworld]

79. Hi Cat!

I consider myself a Deist, Agnostic or Christian...depending on the day. I just hope if there is a heaven and hell, I die on one of my Christian days! :D

:hug:

[vetwife]

120. ROFL..That was great Sadiesworld !

[CatWoman]

93. Some of you are really taking me to task, here

and it doesn't have to be that way.

I don't disparage those of you who don't believe in God and miracles.

So why do you want to make me feel like an idiot because I do believe in them?

Some call childbirth a miracle.

Others says its nature following its course.

But how do you explain a child who survives against all the odds?

Is that nature following its course?

or is that a miracle?

[ulysses]

124. religion on DU is like guns, McKinney & Nader

Lots to talk about, but we'll never get there for the flames. :shrug:

[Susang]

149. Catwoman

Please don't take this in the wrong way, but the reason I have not participated in this thread thus far is because I felt that the way your post was worded, it seemed as if you were taking those who did not believe in god, heaven and miracles to task.

As this is such a delicate subject, causing much hurt and anger among those who discuss it, I wouldn't be surprised if others had interpreted it (mistakenly or not) this way as well.

[Snow]

157. Agree. The original post very much has

a "gotcha" tone to it.

[info being]

200. No, I just interpreted it as astonishing.

How could such an intelligent person take those questions seriously?

[Susang]

205. Please don't mistake me

I am not in any way trying to criticize Catwoman's feelings or beliefs! She is a long time poster here and I consider her my friend. I was merely explaining how I most likely misinterpreted the language of her post, that is all.

Intelligent people take those questions seriously all the time. Unless you don't consider Einstein, Carl Sagan, Steven Hawkings among others, intelligent people.

[info being]

208. I don't think Einstein simply accepted that there are miracles

[Susang]

214. Reading comprehension is invaluable when posting on DU

Did I say that Einstein simply accepted that there are miracles? No, I believe I was discussing your statement regarding "How could such an intelligent person take those questions seriously", if I'm not mistaken.

As I recall, Einstein took questions of god quite seriously. I certainly know that Carl Sagan did, as I have read many of his works dealing with religious and spiritual issues. Hawkings has also mentioned the question of god once or twice. All intelligent people, all taking the "question" of god quite seriously.

[info being]

216. What were Catwoman's questions?

You might want to read the original post.

[Susang]

224. I did

"How do you explain the creation of heaven and earth. And mankind? And miracles?"

I refuse to be drawn into whatever flame war you are trying to ignite here. Enough already.

[CatWoman]

239. Susang -- point well taken

I could have worded it differently -- however, it's too late (I'm past the hour self-editing window).

I just got home, and pulled up this thread.

I can't believe some of the nastiness in some of these posts. Ok, ok, I lied.

However, I was hoping we could, for once, have a civil discussion about our beliefs.

I think some people just go around hunting for threads to piss in.

[Susang]

254. That's the thing

I think some people are just incapable of discussing this issue without getting defensive or having their feelings hurt. Don't blame yourself for trying. :loveya:

[Arianrhod]

325. I hope you're not including me in that "nasty" category.

I think an honest discussion of religion is immensely important. Regardless of what one may think of any particular religion, I think the drive to understand the world and our place in it is an innately human characteristic, and as such must be considered in any philosophy of psychology, sociology, and politics. Certainly religious beliefs and emotions are being manipulated by the current administration; if any of that can be counteracted by a sincere discussion, I'm all for it.

[porphyrian]

171. Oh, sure, you want discussion without abuse...

...there's just no pleasing some people...

[info being]

196. You may feel like an idiot, but don't blame us

You're making claims you can't back up. Anyway, your question, "But how do you explain a child who survives against all the odds?" The answer: it *wasn't* against "all odds"...there was obviously *some* chance that the child could survive...and that chance came true. Like you suggested, its about odds.

[CatWoman]

236. you went well out of your way to be obnoxious

and to provoke an equally obnoxious response from me.

Not gonna take the bait.

You'll have to get your kicks elsewhere.

I simply posed a couple questions.

And you want to call me names for asking these questions.

Where would the human race be without people asking questions?

If "I" had the answer, would "I" be asking these questions?

Your social interaction skills are questionable........

[polmaven]

275. Catwoman, you are right on the money with that.

Apparently, the non-religious are of the opinion that only they have the capability of thought and reason, and those of us who believe in God are not very bright.

I don't remember who it was, but someone here asked who gave God a penis. Others talk about fantasy and magic. Why do you suppose the non believers can't just let the believers have a discussion without being ridiculed and mocked.

I can't explain who/what God is. That's why they call it faith. God is God. God is not a male or female. That is just ridiculous.Children form an image of an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud. Most intelligent adults realize otherwise (maybe with the exception of some very, very fundamentalist zealots).

I find no other explanation for some things other than God.

My niece was engaged to a man who was, after several really bad relationships, truly her soul mate. Every time he gave her a gift, he found a way to incorporate a dragonfly somehow, either a piece of jewelry, or on the card, or paper, etc. I don't know the significance of the dragonfly to him, but it was obviously special.

In July, 2003, he was killed in a motorcycle accident.

The day after his funeral, she was in their bedroom and heard a noise in the kitchen. She went out there to see a dragonfly banging against the window trying to get out.

On the day of the first anniversary of his death, she and his 14 year old daughter went to the cemetery. When they got out of the car,...you guessed it...a dragonfly landed on his daughter's shoulder. As they worked around the headstone, the dragonfly stayed. They went up the hill behind the grave and sat on a stone bench to talk and cry. The dragonfly lingered on his daughter's shoulder. The only time it fluttered away was when they hugged...then it came back.

It finally left...more than an hour later...when they got back in the car.

There can be, for me, only one explanation.

It is NOT "fantasy", or "magic". I believe strongly. We have that right. It is truly odd that those who are so proudly liberal are so closed minded when it comes to this subject as to not even allow that we are intelligent enough to decide this question for ourselves.
*******
Edit to add the word "some" before the references ot the non-religious being rather intolerant of the religious. Of course not all are intolerant. Most of those here are very good debaters on the subject and enjoyable to read. Sorry to sound otherwise.

[NashVegas]

332. And Deservedly So

After all, you threw down the guantlet, didn't you?

Most "miracles" end up having an explanation for the phenomena. That the believer of a god accepts these miracles as the work of the god shows they demand an explanation just as much as any scientist or skeptic. The difference, to me, is the believer takes the intellectually lazy way out.

"Oh. God did it. Case closed, then."

[theHandpuppet]

107. Well, um....

How do you explain the millions of innocents in African nations torturously dying of hunger? The hundreds of thousands slaughtered in genocidal wars? The countless numbers of children dying every day of disease, from AIDS to cancer to malaria? I suppose people have been wondering for thousands of years now exactly where was God when millions were exterminated in Hitler's ovens, were wiped out by plagues, or devastated by war? Where was God when many Native American peoples were nearly wiped out by the introduction of European pathogens, when it was common practice to kill Aboriginies as one would kill a rabbit? Where was God on the slave ships, where was He at Abu Ghraib?

The question of creation is a moot one for me. If one gives birth to a child then willfully neglects the child, then that person is considered a monster and deserving of jail time. We would punish a person for refusing to give a sick child medical treatment or refusing him food whilst supping at a feast. We would be appalled at any parent who refused to save a child in danger if it were easily within their power to save them. If we are the children of God, then I would say He is guilty of neglect on a scale that is near-nigh unimaginable.

Some would say this is God's idea of an experiment. Good or evil, which will win? Funny, we abhor animals undergoing manifest tortures for the sake of experimentation, but for God this is apparently okay.

How do I explain God? I don't. I'll leave that to the next football/baseball star/athlete who credits God for helping him or her to hit that home run or score that touchdown, when you'd think God might have a few other things on His mind and a few more important miracles to be performed. In the meanwhile I'll credit my more compassionate fellow human beings, including many atheists, for performing the "miracles" of curing disease, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and fighting to stop unjust wars. In THEM I believe.

[TeacherCreature]

112. free will

[theHandpuppet]

138. Already addressed that...

...in my previous post. Sorry, but I'm not interested in being an awe-struck supporter of "God's little experiment". If a person experimented with animals as God has with humankind, they'd be charged with animal abuse. Give that "free will " lecture to someone who I'm sure will listen -- like thousands of starving babies in the Sudan. I'm sure they'll appreciate the beauty of the master plan.

[porphyrian]

173. You humanist, you... - n/t

[gpandas]

213. and this version of god LOVES US. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

235. If this wasn't intended as sarcasm...

Then God's love doesn't mean diddly squat to a starving child suckling at the withered breast of a mother at some refugee camp, one whose family has just been slaughtered before her eyes.

God loves us? Gee, our devotion comes cheap. I'd trade eternity in heaven if this God would put just a mouthful of rice into the mouth of one starving kid. I won't hold my breath, though -- in the time in took me to write this post God watched a few hundred children die horribly of starvation and disease. He loves 'em, though! Eat that, kiddies!

Perhaps the next person who would like to address the points I made in my original post would proffer more than a few words lifted from a mantra from Vacation Bible School.

[gpandas]

241. sarcasm n/t

[Arianrhod]

327. "How do you explain the millions of innocents in African nations..."

Different question.

You are not asking whether God exists, but rather what kind of God may exist. This is the supposition that the Creationists count on when they argue against evolution--that is, that if they can show evolution to be mortally flawed, then their version of deity automatically defaults to truth. Utterly ludicrous.

Deists believe that God created the universe and then took His hand off the wheel, letting the creation run its own course without interference. Such a creator could indeed exist, and we would be incapable of ever discerning Him.

BTW, I don't believe in either a Creation or a Creator. I'm simply pointing out what I perceive to be an error in the premise of your argument. :)

[theHandpuppet]

333. Nope...

What I was saying, in my own inept way perhaps, is that whether or not God exists is a moot point for me. "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference" and if "God" isn't making a difference in earthly affairs then who the hell cares?

The original poster asked how we could explain things like humankind and miracles if we didn't believe in God. Frankly, I don't explain them -- one exists, tangibly, while the other (miracles) can only exist if you presume there is a divine hand guiding the course of events. To argue the original point one has to start with the premise that God exists and cannot be DISproven. Well hell, I could say that giant sentient snails rule the planet of Mucus IV and dare someone to prove they don't.

Perhaps the real question should be that of why so many humans feel a compelling need to believe in a divine explanation for creation. I find the obsession to be truly bizarre.

[Arianrhod]

338. Pascal Boyer has an interesting theory on that

in his book Religion Explained. Please bear with me as I try to condense several chapters to a few sentences:

Human beings, like all creatures, are beset by dangers. Especially in the wild as we were evolving, it was imperative that we remain alert to anything that might be a threat. So our brains are adapted to home in on events that could indicate such a threat. If a bush moves, for example, that could mean that there is a predator hiding in it; or it might just be the wind. Our natural reaction is therefore to freeze, scope out the situation, and then fight, flee, or ignore it.

The system works well under most conditions. But what if the bush moves, we determine there is no wind, but there is also nothing in the bush? What made it move? Our brains, frantically trying to impose its logical order on things, might decide that the bush actually harbors an unseen spirit. In all actuality, it was probably a puff of wind we hadn't noticed; but Boyer concludes that the brain figured it was better to be safe than sorry. The upshot is that we posit entities in things because we have no better answer for the event, and since to react to something that isn't there is a better adaptation than to not react to something that is there, the impulse was preserved.

It doesn't take much imagination to see where this is going. :)

This doesn't describe his theory very well, but perhaps you get the idea, anyway.

[Trajan]

108. Answers:

1) No heaven is shown to exist ... only claimed ...

2) Earth is one of at least nine planets ... it really isnt 'unique' as a planet ... other than the presense of frozen, liquid and gaseous water: This is only due to it's relatively mild temps, which is due primarily to it's distance from the sun; hardly miraculous ...

3) Mankind really isnt any more 'special' than trout, or fruit flies, or mangos, or daisies, or cetecae, or sequioia trees, or gnats ... In some ways: humans are just like gnats: only bigger ...

4) When something good happens to a good person, then it is god's just reward ..... when something bad happens to a bad person: it is god's just reward ... when good things happen to bad people: god works in mysterious ways ... when bad things happen to good people: god works in mysterious ways ...

Funny thing is: these are the options of chance: and they operate as chance is expected to operate ... yet it is WE who call one a miracle, the other a mystery ... why ? ..

WHY praise the fact the old woman who is saved in a flood as a 'miracle' when the same flood kills a baby? .. the same predelictions of 'fate' kills the one and not the other ... and this is a miracle ?? ...

There is no evidence that a god exists .... none whatsoever ...

[Swede]

122. It's called faith.

I'm agnostic, the ultimate fencesitter.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

125. hehe, how do you? by stories others have made up?

no one has the answers you are looking for.

[info being]

201. With all this pursuit of truth...*that* is the only truth

The truth is we cannot know.

[StClone]

128. Is it a greater stretch to believe in God

Than to accept the Universe the way without a deity?

[ulysses]

134. for me, yes.

At least in terms of a traditional God by whose hand everything was created in six days. Then again, it's not really that cut and dried - the existence of a deity doesn't depend on whether or not one believes Genesis or any other creation story.

[Walt Starr]

207. Adding a deity to the equation definitely complicates it

The Universe just happened.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn just happened and the IPU created the universe.

The Magical Purple Dragon just happened and the MPD created the IPU which created the universe.

Frawd Almighty just happened and FA created the MPD which in turn created the IPU who just happened to create the universe.

Ad infinitum.

[wadestock]

130. There is only one inescapably true logic in this.....

And that is simply that there is no such thing as NOTHING.

If there was absolute NOTHING....obviously there never could be SOMETHING.

Which is why quite simply that when you die you instantly go on to the next form of whatever consciousness.

Duh...there is no way to experience "Nothingness".

So...we have a fundamental mental block in our thinking about these things which reduces to

#1 - An obsession with TIME...ie...there always had to be a sequence of things...thus creation theory and so forth.

#2 - If one dies....then that's it....no more life. Couldn't possibly be true. No matter how many infinite gyrations the heavens and matter goes through...sooner or later there will be a perterbation that will support some form of consciousness....ie life.

Conclusions:
1. Matter/Energy or the forces that composed these that we witness today have ALWAYS been in place. Hard to imagine...but it's inescapable logic.

2. Nothing was ever "perfect" in form or shape....to think so would also support the theory of "nothingness" or essentially one blob of something that never got to a point where there were forces, tides in space and so forth that could MOVE things around. Perfection implies no movement.

3. It MAY be possible to convince oneself that there is no god based on a number of observations...ie....things are intensely imperfect......however equally on the other hand....one could convince oneself of some forces (call it God) that allows the forces to go in such a way to support the life that we have....in other words....there are so many things that can go wrong...perhaps it does take some galactic consciousness to cause some "order" to things.

Either way, Jesus was extremely profound in that he wanted us to enjoy life...ie...don't fight...find a way to get along....be honest....and you will find your "way".

[Toby109]

135. I think it has something

to do with the definition of the word "is". I don't know; read that somewhere...

:evilgrin:

:hi: ML

[CatWoman]

146. hehe

:hi: Tom


as you can see, I'm getting my ass kicked on my very own thread.

oh, well...............

[maxpower]

137. This sums it up pretty well

Dear God, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in

it's you....
Dear God - XTC

[Mr_Spock]

155. Please post this sort of thing in the Lounge - I'm really not interested

in your's or anybody else's view's on God unless it relates to something.

[ulysses]

165. see, there's this nifty "ignore thread" feature...

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that it was everyone else's duty to divine and follow your wishes in DU's busiest forum.

[Mr_Spock]

259. Sorry, I don't see any reference to politics in the original post

:boring:

[ulysses]

274. I bring up education here a lot.

It isn't a purely political topic - should we relegate discussions of schools to the lounge? How about gender issues?

[Susang]

197. "Then don't read the thread"

Or post on it, for that matter. Wouldn't that be a lot easier, instead of posting inflammatory and condescending thread posting instructions to people who've been successfully posting on DU for years? :eyes:

[Mr_Spock]

260. It looks like a post you'd see in the Lounge - no politics in title

You consider what I posted inflammatory and condescending because I believe this is a Lounge topic? :eyes:

[midwayer]

159. Evolutionary Creation

The Creator

The Universal Father lives on Paradise at the geographical center of infinity, with his divine coordinates the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit, who together form the indivisible Trinity. We exist because, back in eternity, the Father elaborated a plan to create children with whom he would share existence, who could know and love him, and participate with him in building an unfathomably immense creation. The Father's plan involved two interdependent types of life: that which is created inherently perfect and that which begins at a primitive level and, through effort and struggle, attains perfection. The interrelationship of these two phases of life forms a whole which immeasurably enriches the perspective and versatility of each.

The Grand Universe

Encircling Paradise, the Father created the perfect central universe Havona, containing one billion planets whose myriad citizens, though created in perfection, experience the full range of free will. Surrounding Havona he commissioned certain perfect beings to bring into being an immense evolutionary creation containing thousands of subordinate local universes, one of which is Nebadon, our own. Each of these local universes is brought into being by a Creator Son of God and his associate, the Creative Mother Spirit. The primary administrative subdivisions of such local universes are local systems, each of which contains approximately one thousand evolutionary planets. System Sovereigns govern these local systems in the Creator Son's name.

Evolutionary Creation

The planets of our solar system were brought into being 4,500,000,000 years ago when the near-approach of our sun to an astronomic system ripped matter out of both by gravitational tides which was recaptured into orbit around our sun. 550,000,000 years ago conditions on Urantia--the universe name for the earth--had evolved to a favorable status for the initiation of life, and celestial Life Carriers arrived to implant the ancestral life plasm in three shallow marine bays. Carefully guided by the Life Carriers, the genetic potentials of these implantations evolved into vegetable and animal life, and this evolution culminated in the appearance of primitive human beings about 1,000,000 years ago.

The Planetary Rebellion

500,000 years ago, a spiritual administration was established on our planet under the direction of Caligastia, Planetary Prince of Urantia, who arrived with one hundred one-time mortals who, in the course of their ascension to Paradise, volunteered to advance civilization on our primitive world. Caligastia's administration constituted the first epochal revelation of truth to our planet.

200,000 years ago Lucifer, our System Sovereign, became dissatisfied with his superiors and rebelled against the government of Michael, proclaiming independence for his local system. Due to the adherence of Caligastia to Lucifer, Urantia experienced the misfortune of being one of thirty-seven planets drawn into this orgy of chaos and destruction. All celestial personalities in Lucifer's system were faced with the life-or-death decision of whether to maintain fealty to the brilliant Lucifer and his manifesto of personal liberty, or to remain loyal to the righteous rule of the unseen Father by his Son Michael.

Urantia had been progressing in an orderly manner until Caligastia threw in his lot with Lucifer. The ensuing rebellion deranged the spiritual administration and threw into confusion such humble advances of civilization as had been achieved. Through the self-deceiving pride of high spiritual beings, thus ended in disaster the first epochal revelation of divine truth to our planet. Because this is a universe of mercy and forbearance in which evil-doers are afforded long periods in which to change their minds, these rebels were not immediately removed from our planet but permitted to remain and even to oppose those whose duty it became to redeem the situation.

Adam and Eve

37,000 years ago, organic evolution based on the original Life Carrier implantation reached its climax and, as is customary, a pair of biological uplifters were dispatched to upstep human genetic potential. These celestial beings, Adam and Eve, incarnated in material form with instructions to reproduce until their pure-line descendants numbered one million, at which time these superior people would be released to mate with, and thus genetically upstep, the human races of the earth.

A second tragedy was to befall our world. Discouraged at the lack of apparent progress, Eve yielded to Caligastia-sponsored arguments that immediate progress would ensue from her procreation of a child by a native father, believing that this child would be well-positioned to bring the native races into a more cooperative relationship with the Adamic regime. Her violation of the divine plan brought about the collapse of the civilization Adam and Eve had begun only 105 years before. Adam chose to share Eve's lot, and their joint default brought about loss of immortality status, ensuring Adam and Eve's eventual deaths as humans of the realm. Through the mistaken choices of these celestial beings who violated the divine plan, thus ended in debacle the second epochal revelation of truth to Urantia, a collapse which has deprived all future mortals of the benefits intended to be conferred: the material advantages of enhanced genetics as well as the societal stabilization which would have resulted from their continued presence.

Melchizedek

The third epochal revelation occurred in 1980 BC, when Machiventa Melchizedek, a high spiritual being, incarnated as the Sage of Salem in Palestine, in order that the truth of God not be lost to the peoples of the earth. Melchizedek proclaimed a gospel of salvation through faith in God, and his missionaries eventually penetrated the length and breadth of the Levant, Asia, and Europe with his life-giving teachings, which became the common element in almost all subsequent world religions. Melchizedek's principal follower was Abraham, whose offspring formed the nucleus of the later Jewish people.

Jesus

The universe in which we live is ruled by Michael of Nebadon, a being of unimaginable love and power, a Creator Son of the eternal and infinite God. The fourth epochal revelation was the advent and life of this same Michael on Urantia. All Creator Sons are required to experience incarnation in the form of each of their seven major orders of universe life, that they may thereby gain the one thing which may be added to preexistent perfection--actual first-hand experience in creature life. One of these incarnations must take place in human form, in order that these local universe Fathers may become altogether understanding and sympathetic rulers of their evolutionary creations. Our Creator Son had already incarnated six times when, due to the extraordinary tribulations suffered by our planet, he chose it from among all others as the site whereon to complete the drama of his final bestowal experience.

Accordingly, on August 21, 7 BC, the Creator of our universe was born as the babe of Bethlehem. Living on earth as Jesus of Nazareth gave Michael the authentic experience in human living he required, in the course of which he portrayed to our world what, in partnership with God, man can do. The divine Michael and the human Jesus were, and are, one unified personality. More than his sermons to the multitudes, the manner in which Jesus encountered and overcame his day-to-day struggles and tribulations--his school days in Nazareth; his struggle beginning at age fourteen to care for his mother, brothers, and sisters upon his father Joseph's untimely death; his efforts to financially support his father's family; his travels through the Roman world as tutor to the son of an Indian merchant; his work as a caravan driver to the Caspian Sea area; his solitary wanderings; his relationship to the followers of John the Baptist; his organization and training of the twelve apostles; his unending efforts to save the benighted Sanhedrin leadership in Jerusalem; and the matchless manner in which he met his death on the cross--gives such a compelling picture of God-revealing and man-saving love as has never before been known.

The Urantia Book

The Urantia Book was given to the peoples of our planet, by Michael's express direction, in order that we might learn of God's relationship to man and man's relation to the universe. Unlike the previous four, the fifth epochal revelation has been given us in the form of a book, one which recapitulates the previous four revelations and ties them together with additional truth illuminating man's place in the universe of universes. We are here in accordance with the divine plan, a plan of infinite scope which involves the perfection of the grand universe, extending to near-infinity, and in which each of us is privileged to play a unique and valuable part.

The Purpose of Life

The ultimate purpose of our lives on earth is complete attunement with our Thought Adjusters, indwelling spirits of God who are the actuality of the Father's love incarnate in the mind of every individual. Divine attunement occurs through the exercise of faith in God's leading and goodness, and manifests itself in unselfish service to our fellows on earth. Sincere and persistent prayer to and worship of the Father creates a living connection with God which makes our survival certain. Whether on this world or beyond, immortality is attained by fusion with his indwelling spirit. The highest human values of truth, beauty, and goodness represent our best understanding of God's attitude, but first and foremost, he is a loving Father.

Personality is that gift of God which makes each of us unique, both here and hereafter. The human soul is created by the divine indweller with the active cooperation of our mortal minds, and grows to the extent the individual follows the leading of his inner spirit. In this pursuit we are continually aided by angels who manipulate the circumstances of our lives in order to stimulate decisions which foster our spiritual growth, as well as to bring together harmonious working groups for earthly progress.

Joy and peace in this life, and eternal life in the next, is attained by committing all that we have and are to the God in whose infinite love we live, move, and have our being. By spiritual rebirth we attain the kingdom of heaven, the state in which God's love rules the human heart.

Those who have dedicated themselves to God are resurrected after this life in order to begin the long and fascinating ascent to Paradise, where we will eventually stand in the actual presence of the Universal Father who has made all of this possible, and from which place, after a time, he will send us forth to serve in new universes of his making.

http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/intro_ub.htm

[midwayer]

222. Religion is only an exalted humanism until it is made divine by the discov

"Religion is only an exalted humanism until it is made divine by the discovery of the reality of the presence of God in personal experience."


http://urantiabook.org/newbook/ppr195_10.html

[spanone]

227. w - h - e - w !

CatWoman has opened a can of worms. The god-word fires folks up.

[midwayer]

234. LOL!...yeah ..these papers are not for the

closed minded.

gave me a whole new perspective on things.

No one really knows if they are for real but intriguing to say the least

http://www.ubfellowship.org/newbook/index.html

[midwayer]

240. The Archangels

Papers 37 & 38 are all about angels

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/ppr037_3.html

This is all I'll post..anyone who wishes knows where to go now

[midwayer]

257. It would not be fair

to not mention the skeptic side

There are a few sites and writings skeptical of the UB

The most famous Martin Gardner who has written The Great Cult Mystery

Most of the experts on the UB side say his writngs are clearly biased and there are some pretty good opinions debunking his works as well, if you dig deep enough by a simple Google search you can find

Otherwise there are some secondary essays written here
http://www.truthbook.com/1542.cfm which contain a wealth of imformation and views many which correlate with the scientific references in the UB.
Topical Studies
http://www.truthbook.com/1542.cfm

One of the most interesting things, you can find it if you dig, is the reference in the UB which many consider to be DNA and remember the book was written and published before DNA was discovered.

There is also a Concordex and a Paramony book which accompanies the UB which correlates the UB to the Bible books & verses.

Most believe in the UB as they feel it fills in the unexplained blanks of the Bible. OTOH this is one of the places of debate as well as there is to be no other book than the Bible ... outdated traditional view? or is the UB the fifth epochal revelation, a gift to mankind?

[midwayer]

266. Law, Liberty, And Sovereignty

This Paper is interesting as it discusses the Global Government issue

It states war is a symptom and national soviergnty a virus

Some will not agree with this but if you think about it, it is true to the extent that the whole world should live in harmony, as one and according to the UB is a solution to peace. I do not believe it to be promoting tyranny.

The book also talks about globalism as part of the evolution process for a world to become "settled in light and life" i.e. a requirement for progressive enlightenment

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/ppr134_6.html

[midwayer]

272. If there is God, who created God?

Infinite vs Finite


To ponder the creation of God can only lead to pondering the creation of that entity which created God. Sooner or later one has to conclude that there is a source that has always been, one without beginning or ending; a creative source that is existential. The Urantia Book calls this reality "the first great creative source and center of all things and beings."

Because all finite human beings have a beginning, it becomes nearly impossible for us to comprehend any reality that is without beginning or end. Such a reality as God is by definition then, Infinite. Just as surely as a finite reality exists, an infinite one does also. In fact, it makes perfect sense that only an infinite reality could bring finite reality into existence, the finite reality being but the shadow of the greater infinite reality.

There's a great deal of evidence supporting the existence of God for anyone honestly seeking to find God. Ironically, it's not evidence that can be offered to anyone as conclusive proof. The existence of God can only be validated by each individual's personal experience with God and such experience comes only as a result of reaching out with faith to find him and to know him.

http://www.truthbook.com/1542.cfm

[uhhuh]

281. Wow

Someone threw the Bible at a copy of Hubbard's OTIII papers, and BOOM! Urantia!

[midwayer]

296. Scientology

has not withstood the test of time as the UB has

http://www.realityize.com/webpages2003/midwayer.html

[Tsiyu]

164. In these times

it is SOOOO difficult to believe in a benevolent creator. I understand the pain and bitterness of those waiting for some god to look after the weak and to lightening rod * up the $#@$# for hijacking Jesus. The Repukes twisting a faith of "Do Unto Others" into a faith of "Screw all the Others" just gauls me. How can "god" not want to just smash them to bits?

When i worked in a childrens' hospital, I thought i had it sorted out. It is man's idiocy that causes illness - babies who can't breathe due to polluted air, babies who drowned because daddy had to go make a business call real quick, babies who were beaten to a pulp by sick parents. It was human stupidity here.

And i believed in evolution but then I looked closer and it was merely a theory supported by a hypothesis supported by a theory. What are the chances you could blow up a stack of lumber and a Chippendale chair would result from the fallout? Why hasn't spontaneous generation occured in the scientists' labs if it's just "easy science."?

I hate "god" some days and hope for it the other days. But none of us can explain how we got here. No matter how hard we try. So I'm agnostic but hoping I can see some sense behind our senseless existence on earth. Thanks for this thread, Catwoman. Not to flamy, huh?

[Arianrhod]

328. "then I looked closer ..."

Your argument in this paragraph is straight out of the Creationist handbook. I'm afraid it has nothing to do with evolution.

1. "What are the chances you could blow up a stack of lumber...?"

Probably zero. Fortunately, evolution theory doesn't require such a feat. Rather, the building up of organic life from non-life occurs by means of several well-placed scientific processes, including the ability of certain molecular structures to reproduce themselves; the presence of catalysts which either speed up a reaction or cause a reaction that would not occur without them; and the statistical reality that processes can not only occur simultaneously, but that they can also build on previous processes. Add to that the immense proliferation of organic molecules on the Earth, and there is no problem at all, intellectually, in discerning how life could have evolved.

2. "Why hasn't spontaneous generation occured in the scientists' labs if it's just 'easy science.'?"

Spontaneous generation was a hypothesis posited by Creationists--devout Christian biologists of the 18th Century. It was never a postulate of Darwinian evolution theory. In fact, Darwin didn't even address the subject of the origin of life; his concern, as the title of his book indicates, was with the origin of species. The investigation into abiogenesis is a separate field of endeavor within biology, and while it relies heavily on evolution theory, it is not a part of it.

[Tsiyu]

330. Thank you for the uplifting science lesson

Whatever it means to you...
I don't have time to read anybody's freaking handbook, but i know that I have a mind and can think up stuff all by myself, and not just regurgitate shit I read somewhere.

Please don't be so quick to judge or categorize people, it probably keeps you from having very many warm, loving relationships and friendships. And that ain't God talkin', Big'n. That's just simple ( scientific, dare I say?) human psychology.

[Arianrhod]

339. Hey, not my job to be uplifting.

For that, see your local church, synagogue, mosque or temple. :)

I don't think I judged anyone anywhere. Didn't mean to. I did mention that I've seen your argument in dozens of Creationist chat rooms, books, and Web sites. Funny that you should take a general statement and turn it into a personal allegation. Shoes fit much? :D

Btw, "thinking up stuff all by yourself" isn't really the best way to understand the world. Sometimes you have to read and consider what people who have spent their entire lives investigating things have to say about them. fwiw

But on a personal note, I would've hoped that being able to recall such technical material and to present it in a coherent manner should be a mark of admiration, not contempt--especially at my age. :)

[Tsiyu]

341. Good, You're Fired

Seriously, I don't think the initial post concerned arguing the merits of either Creationism or Evolution. It was a post about how each person - as an individual - explains matters of the universe. While you are entitled to your own opinion on any matter, it seems you might be the one with an agenda, as far as having a ready script to deliver when you hear a few key words on a subject. This is something right wing people do all the time, and it absolutely kills any chance of a meaningful debate.

It's not MY job to explain the world. Niether the religious fanatics nor the science-as-all-knowing fanatics appeal to me. I actually formed my ideas reading a college Biology textbook back when I was gonna be a doctor. Applying a scientific standard to the explanations of how we evolved - utilizing a scientific method, if you will, to judge the merits of the theory - I found it lacking.

We may have evolved. We may have been created. Since I am only 45 years old I am not an eyewitness and deny any real knowledge.

Since this topic is close to your heart why not start a thread about that? I think it's kind of sad that that is all you could respond to out of what i said, but hey, we all have our own issues that push our buttons, huh?

Cheers

[Arianrhod]

344. You're kidding, right?

> Seriously, I don't think the initial post concerned arguing the merits of either Creationism or Evolution.

The original post concerned the question of creation--even used that word. I don't see how you can get around that.

> seems you might be the one with an agenda, as far as having a ready script to deliver

I responded directly to the statements you made--about "blowing up lumber yards" and other nonsense. The fact that your argument is precisely the one used by Creationists may or may not be a coincidence, but whether you are a Creationist yourself is irrelevant to the point that your argument is absolutely wrong. It's based on a false interpretation of evolution theory that has never once been suggested by genuine scientists. I merely corrected your error.

> It's not MY job to explain the world.

You don't have to. But some of us would like to know everything we can about it, and would prefer not to have people who don't tossing around inane ideas and confusing genuine seekers.

> I actually formed my ideas reading a college Biology textbook back when I was gonna be a doctor.

"Was gonna be." Kind of a telling phrase, I think. You read an entire biology text--a single one--and decided the whole theory was bunk, eh? I'm sorry, but I just have to ask: Did you give up on the idea of becoming a doctor because the scientific theories necessary to be proficient in that art grated against what you wanted to believe? :)

> I think it's kind of sad that that is all you could respond to out of what i said

What, you're upset that I didn't respond to your denunciations of God? I think She can defend Herself without my help, thanks.

[jokerman93]

175. The only real thing about God

The only real thing about God is love. The rest is just sexy stories.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

184. what miracles do you have in mind?

i would like to see some miracles.

[RebelOne]

278. The only miracles I know about are in the bible.

And the bible is pretty much a book of myths and fiction. My father used to say the the bible was a collection of contemporary novels of that time.

[K-W]

190. I dont try to explain things that are clearly out of my league to explain.

Will we ever know for certain how the universe was created? Probably not. Its pretty much impossible to truely know the past, then again its pretty much impossible to know anything.

God and miracles are explenations of things that cant, or couldnt be explained. People wanted to know why something happened, they didnt know, so they found a nice elegant theory. God is a very elegent theory, miracles are very elegant theories. They are, unfortunately not very good theories.

Miracles are events whos very existance defies what we accept as possible. It turns out that what people thought and think are possible is only a small piece of what is actually possible. If only 1/900 billion people survive a given event, that means there is a possibility of someoone surviving it, but a very low probability. Humans tend to simplify things by putting all events of very low probability in the impossible catagory. Then when one of those things happens, it is a miracle.

It isnt surprising scientifically that a small percentage of cancer patients survive without any medical intervention. This is statistically accepted, but when it happens to someone you know, it seems so unbelievable that people feel a need to call in spiritual explenations to justify the event.

[onecent]

192. I can believe a supreme being...but the bible...that's another

story....I think it was written around the campfire while a bunch of old men were smoking something a little stronger than weed...

And as for the translation into English....There are spanish words that CANNOT even be translated into English..Someone's made alot of money off this giant tale!

[Bandit]

198. Explain the Creation of God

:shrug: God was created in Man's image.

[pmbryant]

223. That's exactly the problem with the "God hypothesis"

How was the Universe and everything in it created?

If you say, 'by God', then you then have to ask 'How did God come into existence?'

And that's essentially the same problem.

I don't think it's one we'll ever solve.

:shrug:

--Peter

[Endangered Specie]

233. Hey if God has sons, he must have parents.

I wonder what a supernatural orgasim is like?


(/sarcasim)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

199. Which one? There's quite a selection available.

"Man is the only animal to have discovered the One True God..several of them." - Mark Twain

[Right Makes Might]

209. There are several theories, but

first off, why does science have to explain (logically, that is) when creationists are allowed to get away with "Well, He just existed since, like, forever" non-answers?

Second, even if science doesn't have all the answers to everything (yet), it's proven itself over and over, in particular in the response to creationists. "You say humans evolved from apes. Prove it." Evolutionists did, as they did to most of the "smoking guns" of creationists.

As far as answers to the question of the development of life, right now there are some theories that are being tested that involve RNA as prebiotic (ie. pre-protein) "life" (defined as able to reproduce itself) leading to the eventual development of DNA, ie. protein based life. And then we evolve from there. Part of this is that it's been shown that, given the conditions of the Earth at the time life arose, amino acids naturally arise as a result of chemical and electrical (from lightning) processes.

As was the case with evolution a hundred years ago we don't have all the answers yet, but we're learning more every day and will no doubt soon discover the process.

For more info, go here: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html It's a bit technical, but has a lot of good info.

[devinsgram]

215. Just recently

we had a devastating tornado in our area. A couple of people formed a group outside my daughters home just a few hundred feet from where the tornado hit the hardest. I live directly behind my daughter's home. As we were talking I happened to mention how lucky I felt that our home and my daughters were not in the path and we only had minor damage.

A very RW fundie woman turned around and said to me that we weren't lucky,it was God watching over us. Now I am not one who is very confrontational and so I just walked away, besides that I was very shook up from what had just happened. But later on as I thought about it I just got madder and madder at myself because I should have looked her in the eye and said, "Oh, I see, evidently God likes me, but he for some unknown reason God didn't like the people whose houses were destroyed."

Now personally, after being raised in Baptist family during my younger and informative years, I have to come to realize there is no God per say that sits up in the great beyond deciding who should live and who should die. Or during football season, when a quarterback gives thanks to God for giving his team the win. Right,like God with all thats going on takes the time to pick one team over another team. (Thats the one that really gives me a chuckle, guess he didn't like the way the other team played.)

To me God is a spirit that lives inside of each one us, some call it the soul, I call it a spirit.

[Jim__]

217. The problem of existence cannot be explained by positing

"existence." The question is: How did anything come to exist? Saying god created it, doesn't resolve the problem.

[BiggJawn]

218. Random Chance.

Really. We could have been the 4th rock from the Sun as easily as the 3rd.
I don't believe in miracles.

[wyldwolf]

230. your question is only 1/2 valid

I can't explain earth's existence ... but I see no evidence heaven exists.

[Endangered Specie]

231. Let me take a swing at these:

Heaven: No evidence that it exists

Earth: After the formation of the Sun, from a gallatics cloud of dust, said dust began to lump together, making bigger dust, and its gravity attracts more and more, giving more and more gravitational pull, repeat cycle, you get big planets, small planets, and other objects of various size.

Mankind: Evolved, good old natural selection at work.

Miracles: Miracles are a result of alot or random chance that happens to all favor you or someone tremendously, and the desire to want to think that it was a "miracle".

[Endangered Specie]

232. If I were God... I would have chosen a much more noble place...

to put my creatures. I mean come on, 3rd of 9 or so rocks, a relatively small one at that; around a slightly less than medium sized yellow star, which are of relatively medium lifespan and brightness, positioned about 2/3's or so (varies) from the center of a typical, run of the mill spiral galaxy, probably a smaller than average one at that.

[toddaa]

238. The Tao

Not all religions require a god.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

243. Why does everything need to be explained?

Some things, we just don't know. When we try to explain those things, we can either use the scientific method, or our imagination.

How do you explain the creation of heaven and earth

Does heaven exist? I doubt it. Was the earth 'created'? I doubt it.

[funkybutt]

244. This is a great thread

very interesting to learn about the beliefs of others. It's really nice when people can have an educated open minded discussion about religious beliefs. THansk DU! and Catworman for the idea

[Roy Robertson]

249. religion and emotion

I'd like to emphasize the emotional side of this subject.

I feel the emotion of "awe" at times, usually when I contemplate this world and its marvelous workings, and there are places where I go, sometimes by myself, sometimes with others, to intentionally experience this feeling, or "do worship".

I've paddled the wilderness rivers of Maine, climbed Mt Katahdin in winter, watched the stars at night from mountain tops all over New England, made love on the beach, and cried listening to a simple Bach fugue. And I believe the Red Sox will win the World Series this year.

These things are enough. To invent a god to take the credit for them is to change the subject, in my opinion. It diverts attention from what really matters in life. But I have friends who disagree, and they are good people too.

Our country is overrun with thuggish right-wing "users" who corrupt everything they touch, from patriotism to love of family and friends. They hijack these emotions, and fly them into whatever political debate is current, but they don't own them, or even share them...

How do I explain the creation of heaven and earth. And mankind? And miracles? "I don't know" is a nice simple honest answer. Works for me!

[Zomby Woof]

256. who says there is a heaven?

Or miracles? If you're talking about biblical miracles, and not something like the '69 Mets.

Which god anyway? The one most Americans think of as The One and Only True God is the deity worshipped by some bare-ass Bronze Age nomads of 5000 or so years ago. Why is that god more valid than Re? Or Thor? Luck of the draw, the fickleness of history, and the zeal of true believers has kept the current god (the one on the money) going for too long.

Plus, as far as the origin of the planet or the species, well, science has made amazing progress, incomplete as the journey is, and no god or goddess (or gods/goddessess) are needed to make these things possible. You are falling for the common fallacy of presupposing based on "design" - a priori or "first cause" fallacies. Science can revise based on new learning and repeat testing of theories, free of dogma. The problem with believing in god is the inherent dogma involved.

We're a little speck on the edge of a minor galaxy which is one of billions. Even if something consciously created all of this, it's mighty egocentric to think a god cares about any of this. Clearly, it's an indifferent, inhumane god to allow the strife and suffering (which born-againers call "free will" as a cop-out to explain the indifference of this omniscient deity).

Monotheism is the greatest psychological toxin created by the species, and we will never grow up and truly evolve if we don't abandon it. Of course, I know there is zero chance of that. But knowing we have the means to free ourselves of mental slavery is a serene thought, no matter how frustrating the reality.

And, the existence of George Bush should convince you that there is either no god, or god is a big evil fuckhead with an asshole sense of humor. ;-)

[demwing]

262. God is inhumane?

You wrote:

Clearly, it's an indifferent, inhumane god to allow the strife and suffering (which born-againers call "free will" as a cop-out to explain the indifference of this omniscient deity).

I've never understood this thinking, assuming that if there is a God, then God must be indifferent, or that God in some way allows suffering.

In a sense, of course God is inhumane, because God can not be expected to act like a human, even if that were a pretty darned good human. And yes, I do understand the common meaning of humane.

The real question is "Is God Just?"

And the answer to that depends on what you qualify as good, in a religious sense. If you believe that this life is it, that there is no existense before your birth, after this life is over you meet your maker and are judged, and finally, that we are eternally separated from God, then it logic dictates that God is a random dispenser of justice. Some are born wealthy, healthy, attractive, intelligent, or any combinmation of those traits, without cause or reason.

Why?

I've never heard an acceptable answer from people who believe as previously described. Like Christians.

On the other hand, there are people who believe that we are a part of God, that God loves us and gives us what we think we want (always hoping that we wake up and realize that what we want isn't always what is best). In addition, some believe that this life is not the end all and be all of existense, but merely one step in a series of steps.

Putting these beliefs together provides a pretty good rational for the presense of suffering.

1) Joy and suffering is not random, but the direct result of previous negative activities, in this life and previous lives.

2) God did not create slaves. Forced love is no love at all. God created sentient beings to share time and eternity. Some of those entities chose to stay where they were created, in their ideal and natuiral settings. Others choose independence, and are given full license to be independent.

Unfortunately, that independence is troubled, since it is not in the nature of living things to be independent of God. It would be like sunbeams trying to be independent of the sun! Life, like the sunbeam, is the energy. God, like the sun, is the source of the energy. The two are at once different, and inextricably linked.

Trying to break that link creates the condition we call "suffering."

Anyway, thats all for this post. Too deep for such a limited environment.

[Zomby Woof]

273. I am not interested

Theological circle jerks are boring, and the only reason I dropped in here is because CatWoman is my little sister and I love her to death.

Otherwise, you are speaking only to yourself. One glance at the length of your post, and I thought, "Sweet Lucifer! Who cares?"

Didn't bother to read it - looks boring, just like all discussions about deities and ghosts and whatnot. :boring:

[demwing]

277. Thats a typical excuse

you didn't read a "long" post--but only a little longer than yours, wasn't it? ;) I tried to use small words and break it into short paragraphs, I know some people don't have much of an attention span.

Sorry that didn't help :)

Zomby, Zomby, Zomby...Too cool to care, but not too cool to criticize?

Whatever.

[Cheswick2.0]

285. LOL

You about summed it up.

[Zomby Woof]

318. it's not the quantity of words

It was the quality. Your post was borrrrrring. If it matters, and I am sure it doesn't, I find 99.9999% of ANY posts (including mine) on the subject of imaginary sky-god beings boring.

Plus, my post was aimed at CatWoman, not you. So I may be too cool and all that happy horseshit you say, but obviously I struck a nerve in your monotheistic core somewhere in order for you to take that jab.

Long time DUers know I am immune to flames and criticism. I love 'em in my own perverse way. Please feel free to make a snide slam again, with back-up from your chorus of fellow sky-godders.

[dave29]

261. On creation

I'd recommend a good cosmology class. And not everyone refers to it as "heaven" - some call it "space", that directionless thing all around us.

On "mankind" (which I like to refer to as human beings) - study archeology, anthropology, evolution, religious texts, and maybe some geology.

Miracles? Study Quantum Physics and Probability.

Ultimately of course, they don't tell us about the chicken, or the egg, but neither does religion, which just tells us we should accept the chicken/egg maker as obvious fact, when all evidence points towards more of an intergalactic diety of mystery.

I'm all for God, I just don't want to put words in his/her/it's mouth. That would seem presumptious, and has proven dangerous in the hands of those with charisma.

[dave29]

268. Anselm of Canterbury

already answered these questions too - although I tend not to listen to people that vow not to have sex.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/anselm.htm

[jejuneharpoon]

269. I'm trying to remember...let's see, there's mommy, daddy, Tarzan, Hopalong

Cassidy, Zorro, Jesus, Superman, The Lone Ranger and then God! Of course I see now that Science needs to go in there somewhere too. Maybe over Hopalong Cassidy but definitely lower than Jesus. Okay, I got it now. Mommy, daddy, Tarzan, Science, Zorro, great, great grand daddy Fannin, Jesus, Superman, Lone Ranger and God! Thanks, Catwoman. BTW miracles are just another discipline but I'm betting you know that already.

[LWolf]

270. Wow, Catwoman!

Who would have imagined that such a question would spawn 272 replies by my last count? ;-)

I have to admit that I read very few of them, not feeling the need to debate the issue or convince anyone. But here are my answers:

First, I don't believe in God. I do believe in a higher power, a source. And I don't care if different people call it energy, physics, the Great Spirit, God, Goddess, or any of the myriad interpretations. I think it is all the same source, and I think we all connect at whatever place we are able to. I don't think any of us "see" the whole picture.

I don't feel the need to explain the creation of heaven and earth, or the wonderful variety of life forms we know. If I had to, I'd go with something akin to a deist version; science and the divine together, one and the same.

As for miracles...I can't possibly explain them, except to say that they happen. I believe they happen when we are connected to whatever our interpretation of the "divine" is. I don't believe they are exclusive to any one faith, practice, ritual, etc.; if I were to bring my own interpretation into it, I would say miracles happen when I am connected to and in harmony with my source.

:hi: :hug:

[HEyHEY]

271. Heaven doesn't exsist - earth is sience

Miracles are folklore

[Cheswick2.0]

284. and that is nothing more than an opinion

peace

[aussieSK8girl]

280. Miracles?

What miracles? Where, when, how? like on Art Bell or something?

[malatesta1137]

282. very convenient and comfortable

to just believe that a god created mankind and miracles, it keeps you from having to think. I remember being very safe when I was 7 or 8 and believed in Santa Claus.

Science has proven that human life is simply the result of a freak accident, as crude as this might sound to you. This accident has everything to do with the existence of water on this planet. That's why other planets don't have life.

As for your question 'How do you explain the creation of heaven'? How do you know heaven exists?

God did not create men, men created God.

[midwayer]

292. Science has proven a freak accident?

Neither creation nor evolution has been proven nor disproved by science

"That's why other planets don't have life"

We have not even begun to explore the vast regions of space. The earth is only one planet in one of the many galaxies and local universes of the grand universe.

Here is a thought:

Because all finite human beings have a beginning, it becomes nearly impossible for us to comprehend any reality that is without beginning or end. Such a reality as God is by definition then, Infinite.Just as surely as a finite reality exists, an infinite one does also. In fact, it makes perfect sense that only an infinite reality could bring finite reality into existence, the finite reality being but the shadow of the greater infinite reality.

[malatesta1137]

302. In fact

it doesn't make any sense at all. The thought that only an infinite reality could bring finite reality into existence is absurd. Men created the numerical system, which is infinite. Some human-created machines can exist forever, clocks and computers. And aren't humans' spirits supposed to exist forever according to Christians? Please.

You're trying to cloud a very simple reality: gods, saints and bibles are creations of fiction. Evolution is science.

[Arianrhod]

329. Actually, that's incorrect.

Science has proven the existence of the process of evolution. We use it every day, to produce organisms that are more useful to us. (For example, native wheat is virtually inedible.) There is no question in any biologist's mind that evolution has taken place, and that it continues to take place.

The question they are pursuing is that of how it takes place.

Meanwhile, evolution theory has nothing to do with creation. That's the realm of abiogenesis--a separate field of study altogether.

[midwayer]

331. Yes..i agree

The process of evolution is proven

My answer was given in the context of the broader scope i.e.
Evolution vs Creation

The question that next comes to mind is:

What explains the gaps in our Evolution:

The links which Science has not not discovered yet?

Divine intervention for the purpose of uplifting?

[Arianrhod]

340. Hm. Not many of those left.

The primary difficulty we're having with human evolution at the moment is determining just when we broke off the original line to become Homo sapiens. The date keeps getting pushed back further and further with each new discovery. DNA evidence now suggests about 8 million years.

Other than that, human evolution is pretty thoroughly documented in the fossil record.

[leftofthedial]

283. There was this old Dude in a toga on a cloud

umm, I'm not sure where the cloud came from because creation hadn't happened yet, but He was sitting up there and waved His Staff and miraculously did it. All praise be unto Him and his toga.

And Toga Dude can give you eternal life too, so you will never die and you will live with Him and all your other not dead friends on His cloud forever.

It's the only explanation that makes any sense and does not rely on some wacky accident or coincidence or physics to explain it.

What miracles?

[Arianrhod]

288. You've spiked the question in two ways.

First, by referring to the existence of the Earth as an act of creation. Since such an act is not necessary for something to come into being, using the phrase biases the question.

Second, by asking about the creation of heaven, which de facto presumes that heaven exists. There may be no way of ever determining whether such a place exists, so that part of the question is both unanswerable and irrelevant.

[Jose Diablo]

290. I also believe in God

But to provide a plausible scientific answer your three questions, here goes.

"Explain the creation of Heaven and Earth"

I view this earth and all we can ever possibly see as a single finite 'verse with a infinite number of finite 'verse's within an infinite universe.

The 'verse we see and live in is finite in that it had a beginning and will have an end at some point in time far in the future when the protons eventually decay leaving a void of nothing, not even space.

As for this 'verse's beginning, the energy/matter was generated as a consequence of space/time dimension expansion. The equations 2 sides could be thought of as the energy/matter caused by false vacuum and negative gravity. In others words, all we see if it was balanced out would equal nothing.

Each finite 'verse is like a bubble in the infinite universe which had no beginning.

What caused the 'bubble', I have no idea, but it seems to me even God constrains Himself to physical allowable processes.

As for life and mankind.

The life we observe is based on the chemical properties of the atom carbon. Carbon is interesting in that its electron shells allow a huge number of different ways to attach to other atoms. There are over 2 million different compounds that carbon can be a part.

Even with carbon attaching to the same type of other atoms, say hydrogen, oxygen for example, the resulting compounds can result in many different configurations. The resulting configurations due to the very same energy level differences between the compounds makes predicting which compound will result almost random. In other words, the compound produced is very unpredictable.

Now combining the property of randomness with the stabilizing property of special 'guiding' molecules like life's DNA or RNA to help carbon to form specific compounds results in predictability of the chemical reactions.

In other words, randomness tries all different ways, then when the stabilizing force of specific molecules like DNA or RNA finally occurs, the combination of the randomness and stability produces a new action, called evolution to refine the process. Thus life. We are a result of life and evolution.

Starts with purely chemical, becomes biological then leading into social and finally resulting in intellectual, which is us pondering how it all could have happened.

And some say there are no miracles, ha.

Thats what I think anyway.

[welshTerrier2]

291. There was no beginning

humans are trapped in a certain view of time ... we see that time "passes" ... so we can readily accept the idea that if there is a "Now", that there must have been a "Before" ...

Then we try to extend this concept to the physical world ... we see that things exist "Now" ... many conclude that if things exist now, there must have been a time that things did not exist ... many go further to suggest that someone or something must have created the first things ...

and that's where I get off the bus ... we have no real basis to suggest that nothing existed at some point in time in the past ... in fact, what little I understand about Einstein's theories suggests that matter (and energy) cannot neither be created nor destroyed ... there is always a kind of balance between matter and energy ...

so by what logic must we accept the concept that someone must have created this balance before it came to be? to me it is nonsense ... many things appear miraculous to humans ... how could such a perfect system have been "created" ... we seek to make the world in our own image ... a world that must, like life, have a beginning ... but why?

i don't begrudge people their religion ... if you find comfort in such things, fine ... but it does seem to me that the religious are far too often holier than I ... it does seem that implicit in having faith in a deity and its associated codifications of conduct, that the pious are often just a wee bit too judgmental of others ... and don't even get me started on the role of religion in the democratic process ... how dare the church seek to impose is dictates on the rest of us ...

so, to conclude and directly answer your question, i explain the "creation" of heaven (what the hell is that?) and earth, mankind and miracles very simply ... science ... there are evolutionary, even revolutionary, forces that cause change in the universe ... to assume that there must be a "man behind the curtain" like a great and powerful wizard of Oz is perhaps comforting to some, but seems like pure folly to me ... and I must say that at times I worry that by placing faith in false gods, we may be absolving ourselves of taking responsibility to make a better world ...

[gpandas]

294. right,the universe is 'always here'...

a simple concept that cannot be grasped by so many.

[midwayer]

297. Right ...It's infinite

It is not so out of this world to believe that if there is a realm of finite, there would be a infinite realm as well.

[Old_Growth]

298. I recently had a an e-mail

discussion with my family who are mostly Christians on subject matter like this. I was giving my viewpoint on eternal heaven and hell concepts and how illogical I find them. So I guess my contribution to this thread will be a copy paste job from that e-mail
here goes...

I've always had a problem with these concepts of eternal heaven and hell. These just seem so illogical to me. I do like the idea of some kind of divine justice for the type of life we choose. Some kind of incentive for man to choose to be good. Call it karma or whatever. To me, if we were destined to an eternal place we'd already be there. Concepts of infinity are difficult for us mortals to grasp. I've spent much time contemplating infinity and perfection, be it perfect evil or perfect good. I've come to the conclusion that an eternity of perfect evil or goodness is completely meaningless and nothing of value. In a perfect (eternal, timeless) state there is no reason to be conscious or aware for one thing. The passing of time becomes irrellevent. These things only come into play when you enter the realm of finity such as our lives on earth. So how do I explain myself here? A difficult task indeed. I'll try to give it my best though.

Two eternal infinite forces that are opposite. Call it whatever you want, Yin and Yang, Black and White, Good and Evil. God and Satan, The marriage of Heaven and Hell (my personal fave).. etc, etc. They have no begining and no end (infinite). One is eternally creating life while the other is eternally bringing death in the realm of finity. Think of it like a game of chance per se. If one of these forces were to destroy the other (forever) then that would mean an end game point so to speak. If this were to happen only once what are the odds that it would happen at that one particular time out of all infinty. Impossible odds wouldn't you say? Think of your own life. What are the odds of it occuring only once in a particular time period out of endless infinite time? Only when you consider that life is a never ending process of creation and destruction does it make any logical sense. Finity simply cannot exist without infinity.

Lets take a look at the Christian belief on the creation of the cherubs. Lucifer in particuler. I'm no Bible expert but I think it goes something like this. Feel free to correct me on anything wrong.

God created the angels and gave them free will. One of these angels rebelled against God. In doing so he literally creates all that is evil. He drags down a third of them to his newly created evil realm.

The first flag that goes up for me here is the "free will" part. Free will implies having a choice. If nothing evil existed before Lucifer than what is there to choose from? I guess one could make the arguement that evil was created at the same time as the cherubs but that would imply a beginning point. That would be illogical concerning infinity just like an end pont. To rebel against God Lucifer would have had to choose from something that existed. If these cherubs were indeed created with free will then they are in an imperfect state, just like us. If god had created them as perfect beings then having free will would be unnecessary. Why would God create a perfect being anyway? It would be like recreating himself. The story of mans creation goes basically the same. If Adam was truely created in a perfect state he would not have free will. He wouldn't even need to be aware of his own existance. He wouldn't need to eat, breathe, sleep or anything. He wouldn't be aware of the passing of time. He'd be of the infinite realm. The only logical explanation I can agree with is Adam was created in an imperfect state. That doesn't mean he wasn't originally pure to begin with but he was aware of time and aware there was a choice to be had. How 'this' creation occurred is a whole different ball of wax. Six days? Sorry, but for me putting God on a time schedule is pointless. How creation happened isn't important to me, only the fact that we were created. Makes for good story telling I suppose. I read recently on a website that the proper English translation for genesis 1:1 is "In a beginning" and not "In the begining" True or not I haven't a clue. I found it interesting though.

So why did Adam sin? Why the fall from grace?
Here we get into the relative and comparative value system. Imagine you existed in a perfect world. The whole concept is illogical to begin with except for explanation purposes. In your perfect world you never experienced anything bad or negative. No hatred, no sorrow, no pain, no fear, no death , etc. How meaningless would be all that goodness be if you had nothing to compare it to? How could you value happiness if you never knew or understood what sorrow meant? How could you possibly value all that is good if you never knew what evil was? How could you even value your own creator if you never knew you could be destroyed? That original sin was oh so necessary for Adam if he was ever going to find any value or meaning in even existing.

This whole theater of endless life and death requires both of these infinite forces. Go ahead and aspire to achieve the perfection of eternal heaven if you want. Just don't expect to find any meaning or value in it when you get there. You won't even be aware of yourself. Eternal heaven and hell are completely meaningless to me. That doesn't mean there can't be a place of reward or punishment after a period of life on Earth here. If so, I believe it would have to be finite concerning time. If it were to have any meaning or value, one would have to at least carry their memories from their life on earth there if they couldn't experience anything of evil or good in those places . Personally I didn't come into this world with any memories nor do I expect to leave it taking any with me. I still believe I'm part of forever though. Some things are better left as mysteries. It makes life interesting.

The only thing that matters to me is this life experience in the finite realm. It's not really about achieving perfection so much as it is about finding balance. Life is already everlasting, so is death. It's just impossible to be any other way. Believing it and living it are still two different things. I still have my mortal fears and emotions. Thanks to them I have value and meaning in my life. I'm alive now and I'm aware of myself. With my life I'm going to try to be the best person I can be.

[midwayer]

301. Ahh..free will and evil

You bring up some interesting points in your letter

Here are some interesting comments on this subject as well

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Meredith J. Sprunger

The fact of evil and suffering in man’s experience is the most perplexing problem confronting religionists who believe in an all wise, all good, all powerful God (referred to as the "theodicy" problem). Some theistic philosophers attempt to solve this enigma by assuming limitations in God’s wisdom or power. Others admit the rationally inexplicable nature of this vexing question, which, they point out, is due to man’s limited knowledge, and leave the issue in the realm of divine mystery. I believe there is a more adequate approach to this troubling problem.

The problem of evil has perplexed man primarily because he has failed to comprehend the dynamics of the perfect methods and goals of an all wise, all good, all powerful creator. To catch a glimpse of the wisdom behind the divine plan, we need to be aware of basic universe facts and purposes regarding man. First, we live in an evolutionary universe. Evolution is the basic method of creation, growth, and achievement. There is no substitute for experience in an evolutionary universe. Second, we are imperfect beings living on an imperfect planet; not by accident, divine limitations, or creative inabilities; but by deity purpose and design. We possess a degree of free will as well as imperfection. Such a combination makes mistakes (evil) inevitable. Along with these limiting conditions, the basic law of the universe is the demand for growth toward perfection.

When we contemplate these facts and conditions a great purpose for man which is both wise and good, begins to emerge. Man is participating in his own creative growth toward perfection. Among the universes of creation, God, no doubt, does create perfect universes with perfect beings; but such personalities would not have the same qualities as those participating in their own growth toward perfection in an evolutionary universe.

By starting at the bottom of an evolutionary universe and experiencing growth from the lowest form of life having truth perception, or true choice, to eventual perfection, man will possess an experiential maturity, appreciation, and wisdom impossible to any being created perfect. This is an unalterable aspect of reality. Experience always adds to any other form of universe reality. God, being true to his own nature (reality), does not, indeed cannot, create a perfect being that has all of the desirable qualities of one created through evolutionary experience, and participating in his own creation.

In such an evolutionary universe, there are certain inevitabilities. In order to develop courage, evolutionary beings must live in an environment where fear, struggle, and hardship are encountered. If such personalities are to achieve loyalty and integrity, they must have experience in a society where betrayal and duplicity are possible. If man is to appreciate pleasure and achieve happiness, then must he dwell in a world where pain and suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.

Through the educational process encountered between the hammers of suffering, and the anvils of necessity, the creative evolutionary process is a forging out of man the beginnings of a noble, strong, and thoroughly experienced being whose potentials transcend lowly man’s fondest dreams. Man’s anxieties and sorrows, his trials and suffering are just as much a part of a wise and good divine educational plan in the universe, as the lessons of childhood; the rigor of school days; and the psychic suffering of adolescence are necessary in developing character in humankind, at our present level of existence. That which appears evil, cruel, or unjust, when we see the total situation from a universe point of view, we realize was due to the illusions of a partial and immature understanding.

The foregoing presents a positive understanding of the reasons for imperfection, suffering, and evil in an evolutionary universe; but it does not speak to the excessive and irrational aspects of evil and suffering. These unreasonable and absurd characteristics of the problem of evil may be better understood if we realize that in an evolutionary universe, God not only establishes physical, mental, and spiritual laws which operate more or less autonomously; but also delegates all of the power and control possible to subordinate beings, including man; because in his perfect wisdom and unselfish love, he knows that these procedures will eventually be the most rewarding way of sharing his divinity (reality) with every being, past, present, and future, in such a universe.

God, being fully aware of the potential and actual evil with would result from delegating such creative power and authority, also established compensating and reclamation sources of ministry and salvation so that everything deprived of personalities on one level of universe experience, will be made available or compensated for, on other levels of experience.

The rebellion of a "Lucifer" and other universe personalities from the divine way, may result in erratic, unexpected, or uncontrolled behavior by both intelligent beings and natural laws on the planetary level. This "chaos" is not arbitrarily corrected in an evolutionary universe, because such arbitrary action is not in harmony with the divine wisdom of creative evolution. Time is required for personalities to make decisions, and divine justice never destroys what loving education can save. Evil is more clearly seen for what it is, when allowed to run its evolutionary course. We are being thoroughly trained to recognize and resist all of the dynamics of evil. Finally, far more good will accrue in the universe by this evolutionary process of overcoming evil, than by applying arbitrary solutions. God inaugurated an evolutionary universe out of a Fatherly love to share himself with creation, even though at immature levels, the problem of evil would be a stumbling block to the comprehension of the wisdom of the basic purpose of this creative process.

http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc796.htm

http://www.realityize.com/webpages2003/midwayer.html

[jonnyblitz]

293. i guess i just cant believe totally silly fairy tales

just because people tell you that are supposed to from an early age. I shake my head in wonder at some of the completely insane stuff people are willing to believe because its "traditional" and "my parents believed it". It's why things are so wrong in the world. It carries over into other areas. Makes me sick man is so ignorant and primitive still in regards to that topic and yet so intelligent in other ways.

[jonnyblitz]

295. send me a pic of good catwoman then i might believe

all this god nonsense. He is an old white guy with a big white beard and blue eyes right? I simply ask for proof. nobody can give it.

[Northwind]

299. Creation of heaven and earth: Creation of heaven and earth...

If by "heaven" you mean "space" then the answer is the same as for Earth. I do not really need to explain it. My not having absolute knowledge of the fundamental structure of reality is no indication that there is a god.

Answer for "mankind": Pretty much the same.

What miracles?

[noahmijo]

303. Well I DO believe in God

and quite frankly I could care less about what you believe in or what you don't believe in.

Fair?

[slackmaster]

304. Slippery slope

If you believe that God created heaven and Earth, then where did God come from?

:shrug:

[midwayer]

306. My opinion is God is infinite which ecapsulates the finite(eom)

[midwayer]

305. Scientific Revelations

SOME,

may be interested in this essay

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/ginsss2.htm

Then again, SOME may not

[Ducks In A Row]

308. In a word, burping

Lots and lots of burps.

[opihimoimoi]

314. The Fallopian Theory allows us to plod on learning, climbing, traveling

over hill and dale, until...someday, the Human Species reaches the "EGG"....as each of us individual humans did many years ago. As spermazoa/zygotes...we had no conciousness, only instinct to travel the F Tube...then we slammed the door on all our bros and sisters.

We humans need to find the "EGG" so we too can grow/mature to full conciousness as our zygotes once did. Of course the odds are against us as we are very much imbedded in the Instinctive Mode as a species.

Most likely, we will self extinct some time soon unless we awaken/mature to Global Peace and experience it. But we are stifled by the old cortex of our brain....anger, arrogance, hate, greed, ego, vanity, etc etc.

[Nikki Stone 1]

319. If you believe in God, where did he come from? Who made God?

It seems odd that something like a conscious deity would have not begun somewhere.

[Tight_rope]

321. I GOT A QUESTION: HOW DID ORGANIZED RELIGION START?

I'm not saying that I do or not believe it GOD!. I just was some insight as to how this whole thing got started

[Mordecai]

322. It's very simple.

God created everything.

It's impossible for a universe to begin with a bang. There was nothing here before the bang. How can a universe form from something that wasn't even here? It just can't.

[killbotfactory]

324. Okay...

Throughout mankinds history, people like to make shit up when they didn't know what was going on. There's no proof of heaven or miracles. We don't know how the universe was created, but that does not mean there is some sort of "god" out there fucking around. If god created the universe, then who created this "god" fellow? If god did care, then why didn't he make it obvious to everyone? He would know we're human - and couldn't possibly account for everyone.

Also, why on earth would he let all this crime and all these horrible things happen? Why the FUCK would he let my wife be raped as a 12 year old little girl? To test her FUCKING FAITH?!

Yeah... sorry, there's just no such thing. It's too silly and ridiculous.

[midwayer]

334. UNDERSTANDING EVIL IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE

Also, why on earth would he let all this crime and all these horrible things happen? Why the FUCK would he let my wife be raped as a 12 year old little girl? To test her FUCKING FAITH?!

I'm sorry to hear that and truly one of the most disconcerting aspects facing mankind.

Just a thought

And feel free not to read this if you wish

Here is one view that may help to explain:

The ultimate problem in theism is the enigma of evil. How can one reconcile belief in an all-wise, all-good, and all-powerful God with the destructiveness of nature, the unjust and arbitrary suffering of people, and the social evils which are endemic and culminate in events like Dachau and Auschwitz?

http://urantiabook.org/archive/mjs_archive/mjs_evil_in_experience.htm

[soundfury]

326. The X Men :-)

Hey, accidents can happen. :eyes:

[midwayer]

335. Sydney Morning Herald | July 22 2004

'Multiverse Theory' Holds That the Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=64201&mesg_id=64201

[VOX]

343. Most people seem hung up on the simplistic "celestial puppeteer" idea...

You know -- the all-knowing, all-seeing, not-so-friendly old man in flowing white robes, who can send a lightning bolt through your heart in a split second if you so much as even think about masturbating, etc.

As we grow in years, experience and knowledge, we can shed this restrictive Sunday-school construct in the way that a lizard sheds its skin. It's a tough idea to get past -- where are all the masterful, historic paintings of heaven? (Other than depictions of some wispy angels flying about?) There are plenty of famous paintings depicting the torments of hell -- think of Hieronymus Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" -- but the idea of heaven has also been reduced to a child's notion of winged angels plucking harps on clouds.

Throughout history, many individuals have been struck with "cosmic consciousness" -- an abiding sense that they are personally connected to the processes of the universe, thus to all living things, and to the energy that drives it all. Certainly Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad (the elemental transcendental figures) come to mind.

There is an kind of intelligence inherent in the energy of the universe -- galaxies spiral outward, like whirlpools in water, or like the pattern of a nautilus shell. Each of us beats his/her heart without having to think about it. In a way, it is we who shine the sun -- the receptors in our eyes and the nerves in our skin acknowledge its light and warmth.

This energy or power, which theologian Paul Tillich called the "ground of being," is simply another name for God -- one of many names. Each of us is a unique aperture through which the universe perceives itself -- John Jones sees a vastly different universe than Mary Brown. And so, each of us is "doing it," watching the whole show, and thus, by extension, each of us is God. Jesus knew this, saying "I and the Father are one." "Tat Tvam Asi" is one of the greatest of the Vedantic statements, meaning "that thou art," or, "You are it." Simply another way of saying, "I and the Father are one." Thousands of years ago, in certain regions, this idea was deadly to its thinker.

Jesus was executed because his conviction of personal divinity directly threatened the power structure of his place and time. Had Jesus lived in India and run down the streets shouting, "I am God," he would have been told, "Congratulations, kid -- you got it!"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

346. Thus spoke Valentine Michael Smith

"Thou art God"