[retsoksirhc]

Speaking of circular reasoning... and not that I'm accusing anyone of anything. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish. Circular reasoning was mentioned, and I know of a funny comic about it. Here's to lightening the mood.

[scottyv]

Actually the Christian faith is justified it is call the Bible, so now accept it, well figure you won't like that answer but that is it, now the ball is in your court since God will hold you liable for your choice.

And yes, you are either for God or against God, there is no medium ground, Man is evil just because he is man it is only though Christ that there is salvation.

Justification by faith is problematic in its many forms. It doesn't not allow for any real dialogue. Essentially Chucky you are saying that people have to believe what you believe or they go to h-e- double hockey sticks (I have to be careful what I post, they are watching me).

Just because you believe a thing and others do to, doesn't make it true. Forgive us for testing the waters here but whether you realize it or not your logic is flawed. Step away from your faith and give us some solid answers.

As for being for or against God... cosmic chessboard theology ended over a hundred years ago, come on, pick up a book catch up with the what is going on in the world. We need some serious answers. This... believe in the bible or go to hell schtick is getting real old.

No one that I know would seriously consider that a God of the universe would ask his creation to abandon their logic and reason in order to believe. It just does not make sense.

[scottyv]

So....

Q- Do we know God exists?

A- Of course. The bible tells us so.

Q- How do we know to believe the bible?

A- Because it is the word of God.
----------------------------------------------------

Lob,

If you will permit me an exercise in reference to your post I think I can demonstrate a thing.

Do we know that God exists?

No. "WE" collectively do not, that is part of the problem.

I personally do, unarguably. I have stared into the face of God and it has shaken me to the core. It is an experience I am reluctant to repeat (but that is another story). In fact, many people know to the core of their being that there is a god. We just can't agree on who or what that God is.

If you take all of human history (sans modern aethiests), we can see that humanity has recognized an otherness and have explained it in terms of God or gods. Whether it be sun gods, or wind gods, gods of fire, water, planets, love etc... Man in his most intuitive and uncomplicated form has always explained the things they do not understand in terms of otherness (most specifically god(s)), which is something that shouldn't be ignored or explained away as superstitious or primitive. To ignore intuition in the light of today's technological and scientific advances would be irresponsible.

As we progress as a species we have been able to understand some of these things and place explanation to them. For example water is no longer a god it is one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Yet that isn't the answer either, because as we break things down into even smaller parts, we come up with bigger questions that need more answers. There are trace elements even within molecules that are found throuout the cosmos.

People need to look for God, in fact I would argue that science is actually the modern method of understanding God. Francis Collins a theoretical scientist postulates that math is the perfect language between god and humanity as it is universal in form and recognizable by all despite culture, creed, ethnicity, or station in life. Think about it, math is out there, we just have to learn the language and put characters to it, we have theoretically traveled billions of light years just by using math, it blows my mind. Now that doesn't mean we can speak to God or that it can speak back to us but consider the many things we have learned through this process. It is acutally a very accurate way to communicate as the cosmos is slowly revealed to us. I am not saying I believe this completely, but it is a much better form of communication than a two thousand year old text like the bible.

That some, maybe even most, Christians will insist that the Bible contains everything you need to know about God is absolutely absurd. However, and I say this with all seriousness, respect, and admiration for the book, and its followers.

That book DOES contain all one needs to know about how the God of the universe, wants us as a creation, to treat one another. This should not be over looked or minimalized because some very silly people believe some very silly things. Talking serpents, virgin births, resurections, healings... paaaalease!

Peace!

[amIwrong]

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?

That's like asking if an atheist can be ethical. Sure they can. Why wouldn't they be? The next surgeon to operate on you may be jewish, muslim, buddhist , that does not mean that they are of a different ethnic decent either. Ethnic decent may have nothing to do with a person's religion.

That question almost implies that the only good people in the world are Christians. Do you realize how that sounds? It does not sound very "Christian" that's for sure. There are a lot of good people in the world who aren't Christian. They are in every walk of life. They have professional careers to homeless people. Christians could be a child molester or not. A person's religion does not always dictate their behavior, most times it does not.

A good person may have no religion at all. If there is a God, and he/she is forgiving and loving I doubt seriously that religion does matter to a loving and forgiving God. If there is a God and he/she is hateful and a punisher then maybe it does. Is a Christian God hateful? Why don't you ask he/she? Thanks for being open minded enough to ask.

[lobrobster]

I personally do, unarguably. I have stared into the face of God and it has shaken me to the core. It is an experience I am reluctant to repeat (but that is another story).

It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.

If you take all of human history (sans modern aethiests), we can see that humanity has recognized an otherness and have explained it in terms of God or gods. Whether it be sun gods, or wind gods, gods of fire, water, planets, love etc...

We have a need to understand and make sense of the world around us. So we develop the axiom that 'any' answer is better than 'no' answer at all. Once upon a time, it made sense to believe in gods. Back when we didn't understand why volcanoes erupted, how tsunamis formed and had no idea about tectonic plates shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know about germs, bacteria, or viruses and had no idea why people got sick and/or died. There was a time where it may have been perfectly reasonable to invent powerful invisible beings/gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.

Man in his most intuitive and uncomplicated form has always explained the things they do not understand in terms of otherness (most specifically god(s)), which is something that shouldn't be ignored or explained away as superstitious or primitive. To ignore intuition in the light of today's technological and scientific advances would be irresponsible.

I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!

As we progress as a species we have been able to understand some of these things and place explanation to them. For example water is no longer a god it is one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Yet that isn't the answer either, because as we break things down into even smaller parts, we come up with bigger questions that need more answers.

I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.

That book DOES contain all one needs to know about how the God of the universe, wants us as a creation, to treat one another.

Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.

I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED the bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!

[amIwrong]

Excellent

It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.



What is a much more likely scenario is that man has a need to understand and make sense of the world around him. 'Any' answer is better than no answer at all. It made sense once upon a time when we didn't know why volcanoes erupted, or how tsunamis occurred and had no idea that tectonic plates where shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know germs, bacteria, and viruses existed, so we had no idea of why people got sick. There was a time where it may have even been logical to create powerful and invisible gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.




I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!



I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.




Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.

I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED to bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!

[scottyv]

It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.

I am not reluctant, I gladly tell it. To tell it truthfully, it is a long story, too long to write in a thread it encompasses many years of my life.

What is a much more likely scenario is that man has a need to understand and make sense of the world around him. 'Any' answer is better than no answer at all. It made sense once upon a time when we didn't know why volcanoes erupted, or how tsunamis occurred and had no idea that tectonic plates where shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know germs, bacteria, and viruses existed, so we had no idea of why people got sick. There was a time where it may have even been logical to create powerful and invisible gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.

I can certainly see how on the surface it would seem so. However, the point is... there is no “Answer” scientific or not, we presume we are right just as they did back then as it makes sense to us today as it made sense to them then.

The deeper we look the more questions we find. Science has not disproved God, it has merely been able to put better names to processes and create bigger and more profound questions. Intuitively, humanity recognizes something other/beyond one’s self. We look into the heavens and we are not satisfied with naming it…sky or blue. We are not satisfied with distance, or space, we keep going. Once we name a thing, it is not over, we keep looking, we keep searching, we can’t look back at people of history and say that they were wrong in their presumptions when they, like us, are just a part of the same process.

A hundred years from now what we scientifically theorize may seem as simplistic and superstitious as Thor.

I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!

While I completely agree that it is irresponsible for people to favor what we consider the "superstitious" over scientific as we know it today, the truth is that there is no superstition. That is my point. Those were merely their process of understanding just like ours is scientific, but even today quantum physics threatens and theoretically has the potential to make scientific theory look as remedial as the things we consider superstition. Yet it is all just another step in the same process.

I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.

They weren’t “making” one up. They used the same tools we have today. They were using reason and logic; they just had less technological tools in their tool box as we have today. We have to stop thinking in terms of right and wrong and start thinking in terms of process. Someday we might find ourselves defending scientific theory in the light of more technological processes, and we will be perpetuating the same problems.

Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.

I have read and studied the bible in all of its shame and glory. You are absolutely right. But I stand by my statement. I am not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The teachings attributed to the person Jesus of Nazareth are quite profound. I am intentional in separating Jesus from the common belief of the bible as it is my understanding that even his apostles misunderstood him (much like the majority of Christians do today). Add Constantine to the mix and it is very hard to find the true nature of Christianity.

I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED to bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!

I agree. It is mainstream Christian dogma that makes the bible ethically and morally founded. Were they to truly read their bible with open minds they would certainly see that it is not so. However, they have spent centuries justifying their texts and muddling the minds of their followers that it has opened the door to biased subjective interpretation.
The bible wasn’t written to be a hand book for humanity (unless God is an idiot). It is a collection of texts that have been shaped and sorted to fit a theology that was sanctioned by Constantine to keep the religious and political peace in the 3rd Century.
In many instances the bible has profound, moral and ethical truths, but that is not what it is about. It also has some horrendous situations and justifications, but that is not what it is about. The truth is…it is not about anything. At best we can say that the texts are men’s interpretation of the holy or otherness in certain historical, allegorical, situational, literal, and metaphorical instances.
There is a big difference in saying that morality comes from god as opposed to morality comes from the bible. I don’t have a problem saying that morals come from God as I believe them to be hardwired, much like our instincts to love and search for meaning. People get confused on this issue when religious people make the mistake of making God synonymous with the bible. The Hebrew oral tradition out dates the written text by as much as 5000 years and it would be ludicrous to presume that people prior to the bible had no morals.

For what it is worth…
~S.

[ordinaryguy]

People get confused on this issue when religious people make the mistake of making God synonymous with the bible.

I agree, but it's even worse than that. They put their interpretation of the Bible above God. I call it bibliolatry.

[amIwrong]

I love watching all this debate, but what does any of this have to do with the question "Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?"

I agree, but it's even worse than that. They put their interpretation of the Bible above God. I call it bibliolatry.

[lobrobster]

I am not reluctant, I gladly tell it. To tell it truthfully, it is a long story, too long to write in a thread it encompasses many years of my life.

Feel free to PM me. I'm sincerely interested.

I can tell from your posts that you're thoughtful and intelligent, but you've made a glaring error here. I'd like to ask you to stop and think this through...

However, the point is... there is no “Answer” scientific or not, we presume we are right just as they did back then as it makes sense to us today as it made sense to them then.

Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.

The deeper we look the more questions we find.

This is a good thing and we should expect nothing less.

Science has not disproved God,.

Nor will it ever. Science has not disproved gremlins, fairies, or unicorns either. This doesn't mean we have any compelling reason to think they exist, however.

Intuitively, humanity recognizes something other/beyond one's self. We look into the heavens and we are not satisfied with naming it…sky or blue.

You keep bringing up the word 'intuitively'. I wonder what you mean by that? I further wonder why you seem to be implying that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence? Perhaps I'm just not as impressed by intuition as you are.

we can't look back at people of history and say that they were wrong in their presumptions when they, like us, are just a part of the same process.

Of course we can! And I'm sure if you take moment to think about what you're saying, you'd agree...

You don't think we learn and progress as time goes on? You don't think our understanding of things improves? Are you suggesting that we cannot now say the previous presumption that the earth is flat was wrong?? Or that we shouldn't dismiss the notion that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, instead of the other way around? Think about what you're saying here. You don't strike me as a fool, yet this is an incredibly foolish statement. Please re-think it, or re-explain what you mean.

A hundred years from now what we scientifically theorize may seem as simplistic and superstitious as Thor.

This is no doubt correct. One hundred years from now we will be proven wrong about many things, I am sure. But I fail to see your point. What has this got to do with the fact that earlier people were wrong about many things such as Thor and what caused thunder, or the shape of the earth? Surely, you don't think this is an argument for god, do you? If so, that's some very poor logic on your part. No offense... Your entire position on this needs to be re-thought out.

While I completely agree that it is irresponsible for people to favor what we consider the "superstitious" over scientific as we know it today, the truth is that there is no superstition. That is my point. Those were merely their process of understanding just like ours is scientific, but even today quantum physics threatens and theoretically has the potential to make scientific theory look as remedial as the things we consider superstition. Yet it is all just another step in the same process.

I'll give you some slack here. What we now consider superstition, was a 'theory' back then. Predicting an all-powerful super being was probably as close to a scientific theory as they could come up with back then. Like science today, it was a 'prediction'. But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...

Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified. The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.

There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying. But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.

[lobrobster]

I love watching all this debate, but what does any of this have to do with the question "Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?"

Because before we can answer this (or any) question, we should examine the source(s) from which we obtain our answer from. Unless of course, you don't actually care about whether the answer you get is true. That might sound silly, but it's become increasingly obvious to me, that many believers don't actually care about 'truth'. Rather, they seem much more concerned with finding answers that console them. Even if they have to make one up, or ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

[amIwrong]

Haha, I see. But to be fair, being that it is all a matter of faith, doesn't the term speak for itself. Faith. So, there really is no verifiable source of truth, just a faith that it is there. I know a lot of people use a book of their religion, such as the bible as a reference, but no person in the world could know if it has been tampered with by man. I mean, it was wirtien by man. So, then, the question, technically can never be answered on that basis.

Because before we can answer this (or any) question, we should examine the source(s) from which we obtain our answer from. Unless of course, you don't actually care about whether or not the answer you get is true. That might sound silly, but it's become increasingly obvious to me, that many believers don't actually care about 'truth'. Rather, they seem much more concerned with finding answers that console them. Even if they have to make one up, or ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary. Whatever gets ya through the night, I guess.

[ordinaryguy]

Feel free to PM me. I'm sincerely interested.

Copy me on that PM, scott, if you send it. I'm interested too.

But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...

Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified. The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.

There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying. But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.

This is a good debate, guys, and I think I agree with you both, but on this particular point, I have to come to scott's defense. If I understand correctly, he's not plugging God in for answers that he doesn't have. And I don't think he's saying that the explanations of antiquity are just as factually correct as our "scientific" ones. He's just pointing out that our craving for an explanation is not different in kind than the one that drove them, and that for all it's technological, mathematical, and logical sophistication, the process we go through these days to arrive at our explanations is not fundamentally different from what humans have done ever since we developed the capacity to wonder "Why does that happen?". Obviously, there are still plenty of people around who are quite satisfied with the answer "God did it. Now quit asking." But scott doesn't strike me as one of them.

If I've misrepresented your idea, scott, I apologize in advance. It's a fair statement of my idea, at least.

[amIwrong]

I agree as well, no doubt. I just meant how that tied into the question I wasn't sure, but wanted to clarify.

Copy me on that PM, scott, if you send it. I'm interested too.


This is a good debate, guys, and I think I agree with you both, but on this particular point, I have to come to scott's defense. If I understand correctly, he's not plugging God in for answers that he doesn't have. And I don't think he's saying that the explanations of antiquity are just as factually correct as our "scientific" ones. He's just pointing out that our craving for an explanation is not different in kind than the one that drove them, and that for all it's technological, mathematical, and logical sophistication, the process we go through these days to arrive at our explanations is not fundamentally different from what humans have done ever since we developed the capacity to wonder "Why does that happen?". Obviously, there are still plenty of people around who are quite satisfied with the answer "God did it. Now quit asking." But scott doesn't strike me as one of them.

If I've misrepresented your idea, scott, I apologize in advance. It's a fair statement of my idea, at least.

[ordinaryguy]

I agree as well, no doubt. I just meant how that tied into the question I wasn't sure, but wanted to clarify.

This is a good example of a thread that has taken on a life of its own, one not necessarily much related to the original horse, which was beat to death several pages ago. They're fun sometimes, and as long as they don't get mean and nasty, the mods usually let them run.

[ordinaryguy]

Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.

I think you're pushing logic beyond its useful domain here. For categorical logic like this to work, it has to be applied to a concept of "god" for which a precise and unambiguous distinction between "god" and "not god" has operational meaning. I don't think we're there yet.

[scottyv]

[QUOTE]

Feel free to PM me. I'm sincerely interested.

I will certainly put some thought into that. I have never written it down, it might do me good. Personally I think it is a story better told over a second or third shot of Tequila, both in the telling and the hearing.

I can tell from your posts that you're thoughtful and intelligent, but you've made a glaring error here. I'd like to ask you to stop and think this through...

It wouldn’t be the first time I will open my mind to your suggestion.

Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.

You are absolutely right. The context in which I was referring however was not the end game (whether or not God exists) it was process (how we determine whether god exists and the problems that come with the kitchen). Me, I do not think I had made myself clear.

Nor will it ever. Science has not disproved gremlins, fairies, or unicorns either. This doesn't mean we have any compelling reason to think they exist, however.

Lets use a better medium. Likewise science can’t prove human rights or justice. Yet we have very compelling reason to know they exist. In my opinion, so you know my position, science and religion are Yin and Yang. It is human process that confuse and polarize the two.

You keep bringing up the word 'intuitively'. I wonder what you mean by that? I further wonder why you seem to be implying that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence? Perhaps I'm just not as impressed by intuition as you are.

If I implied that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence, I have not made myself clear. I thought it obvious that as a species we have lost/abandoned a large sense of our intuition. We have embraced other processes, scientific and technological and left a rent in the fabric of our psyche. I am merely suggesting that we should slow down, consider the information at hand and take a more intuitive look. It seems our voracious hunger for knowledge is ever reaching, always forward and little time is spent considering. Like the Jeff Goldbloom line in Jurasic Park, “Science can be so preoccupied with whether or not it can do a thing, that it doesn’t stop to think whether it should do a thing” (loosely paraphrased).

Of course we can! And I'm sure if you take moment to think about what you're saying, you'd agree...

You don't think we learn and progress as time goes on? You don't think our understanding of things improves? Are you suggesting that we cannot now say the previous presumption that the earth is flat was wrong?? Or that we shouldn't dismiss the notion that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, instead of the other way around? Think about what you're saying here. You don't strike me as a fool, yet this is an incredibly foolish statement. Please re-think it, or re-explain what you mean.

Lob, this is where you are wrong, I am an incredible fool :D . Again I think I have not made myself clear. I am not saying we shouldn't alter our information, as we progress. Of course we progress and make strident growth, I am merely trying to point out that we haven't really gotten very far. As to improve, well… that I am not so sure of, after all more people are starving in the world today than in any other time in history, likewise our incidence in genocidal accounts. We have weaponry that can decimate entire continents. We embrace false ideologies through the same processes that we criticize religion for. If we can’t feed or protect one another (the foundation of the human experience) how improved can our understandings be?

We can put a robot on Mars but we can't get supplies and materials to the 9th district in New Orleans even this many years afterwards. People need to eat…they should be fed, people need to be protected…they should be protected from both the elements and oppression.

California has the agricultural ability to feed the whole of the U.S. The U.S. has the agricultural ability to feed the entire world’s population. Science has determined this statistically as well as factually. Yet we throw away more food (as a nation) in 3 months than Africa can grow in a year. But I digress.

I was merely suggesting that instead of looking at it in terms of right and wrong that we view it in terms of process. By doing so we can attach ourselves to a tradition of understanding instead of isolating and polarizing our positions when in our attempts we are looking for the same answers.

This is no doubt correct. One hundred years from now we will be proven wrong about many things, I am sure. But I fail to see your point. What has this got to do with the fact that earlier people were wrong about many things such as Thor and what caused thunder, or the shape of the earth? Surely, you don't think this is an argument for god, do you? If so, that's some very poor logic on your part. No offense... Your entire position on this needs to be re-thought out.

My intention is not to prove or argue for God, and this would not be the first time my logic has been poor. I am merely trying to suggest another way to view it so that we can see the larger picture in hopes to graduate the argument to a position where things actually matter. Hindsight is 20/20 or so they say. The problem though is that consequence is paid long into the future. What I mean to suggest is that though they are “wrong”, and we have acknowledged that we might find ourselves just as “wrong” in the future, we are still spending our time focusing on the things that are wrong about our past instead of trying to use our progressive information for the betterment of humanity. We would rather have cell phones than place healthy running water in 3rd world nations. For all of our science and technology we have created very little GOOD. (I had to throw that part in so that amIwrong would not chastise the argument ). Is it just me or is she just way too sexy to be talking theology?

I'll give you some slack here. What we now consider superstition, was a 'theory' back then. Predicting an all-powerful super being was probably as close to a scientific theory as they could come up with back then. Like science today, it was a 'prediction'. But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...

Please do not offer slack, I have been known to hang myself. Also, I would suggest that it wasn’t prediction so much, but rather conjecture based on the myths and traditions of their days, things portent and symbolic.

Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified.

I am a bit confused by your use of words. It is not my intention to draw you into a semantic argument can you clarify for me?

First, primitive refers to the earliest of our kind or species so we are heading out of context. The people who interpreted nature and as a result, postulated gods as are not primitive. They were every bit as intelligent as you or I, they just had a different set of tools to work with. We are talking about people who created calendars and mathematics, medicine and civilization, politics and government.

Second, falsified refers to altering or representing something falsely, or proving a theory false. It is important to make the distinction that these were not theoretical beliefs. As such, they were as much fact as we consider justice and human rights. They have not been disproved, or falsified, they have been moved into a different category.

The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.

Also, if I may be so bold. The theory of Evolution and Natural selection has not falsified Supreme Being creation (it has proved to be an obstacle for a literal interpretation of the Genesis text, but that is apples and we are talking oranges). Who’s to say that a Supreme Being didn’t use the process of Evolution to create the cosmos?

As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.

I am very poor at making my points forgive me. I live very much in my own head. While the supernatural have been explained in other ways those new explanations are still lacking, much like the supernatural explanations. The book isn’t closed on thunder and lightning, in fact it has opened the door to particle acceleration. We just have another piece of the puzzle, we may know the compounds involved, but what we call thunder today may turn out to be as ridiculous sounding as Thor a hundred years from now. In the process we may be closer to the answers than they were, but we have not explained Thor away, we have just re-named it. The concept is still there. It is not right or wrong…it just is.

There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying.

Actually it means that I have a personal unwillingness to believe a truth. In point of riposte it also presumes you know the truth. If you have the truth by all means offer it. I don’t see that you do. Allow me to admit my skepticisms; I have spent a lot of time trying to be objective. I believe truth is subjective so you can reason my conundrum. My life’s has directed me to question and challenge everything. Make no mistake though, I do not find it satisfying. I find it unnerving and frustrating. I do not plug God into my misunderstandings; I just find it ridiculous and irresponsible to omit God from the process when we have no answers.

But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.

This is where we part ways. God is more than “likely”, God is fact. We just have no words or characters to describe it accurately. We tried Thor, that didn’t work. We tried thunder, that hasn’t worked. We tried Evolution, that hasn’t worked. We have tried, Big Bang, that hasn’t worked. We will keep trying until we get it right. God is truth and we are all searching for it. Whether it takes the form of a benevolent creator, or a mad scientist, I am sure I do not know, but the truth is out there, we have evidence, and we keep looking. It is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of process and we are part of it whether we are right or wrong.

Peace,
Scotty

[lobrobster]

Haha, I see. But to be fair, being that it is all a matter of faith, doesn't the term speak for itself. Faith. So, there really is no verifiable source of truth, just a faith that it is there. I know a lot of people use a book of their religion, such as the bible as a reference, but no person in the world could know if it has been tampered with by man. I mean, it was wirtien by man. So, then, the question, technically can never be answered on that basis.

I've always said I don't have a problem with people who are intellectually honest enough to admit they are relying on their 'faith'. It's those who insist that their conclusion that a supernatural being exists is based on some rational conjecture based of evidence that I have a huge problem with. Just call it 'faith' and we'll get along fine.

[amIwrong]

I am on board with you 100%. I think we are talking about the same point but from different angles.

I've always said I don't have a problem with people who are intellectually honest enough to admit they are relying on their 'faith'. It's those who insist that their conclusion that a supernatural being exists is based on some rational conjecture based of evidence that I have a huge problem with. Just call it 'faith' and we'll get along fine.

[scottyv]

Ordinary,

You understood my point well, and clarified it better than I could, thank you. I would have agreed with you but "they" have taken my agree/disagree privalages from me because I disagreed too much.

~S.