ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

In Science We Trust?: Are God and Science Incompatible? (Spoiler Alert ... No.)

Updated on March 13, 2014

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - Albert Einstein

A Brief History of Atheism

Western Atheism dates back at least as far as the 5th Century BC in ancient Greece. Much like today, there were some who held strictly materialistic views towards the natural world and rejected the notion of any spiritual elements, like Democritus, others whose views more stemmed from a critical eye towards the religious views of their day, like Diagoras, and those that viewed religion as a "deliberate imposture devised by some cunning man for political ends" as Critias did. Just as the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun.

Atheism seems to ebb and flow throughout human history along with the availability of information. Beginning with the fall of the western Roman Empire (400 AD) all the way through to the 15th Century, the same century that the printing press was invented, cumulative information gained throughout history wasn't readily available. The masses were generally left to depend on the interpretations of the few who had access. Atheism re-surged in the later portion of the Age of Enlightenment as information became more and more accessible.

Humans are a curious species. We want to know how things work. We want to question established ideas and beliefs. We're just built that way. Atheism is a natural product of that.

So it's not surprising in this age of information, especially in western civilization where individual rights and liberties are protected, for there to be a swelling of what some refer to as the New Atheist mentality. New Atheism is a term used to describe those who feel religion is a human trait that holds humanity back and therefore cannot be tolerated, and who actively criticize and argue against it using rational arguments in an attempt to expose religious belief for what they believe it really is.

Many in this camp hold the view that science and the idea of any supernatural being cannot coexist. That modern scientific discovery only confirms that the natural world needs no supreme being as its creator, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant, blinded by indoctrination. Obviously, level of scientific understanding in no way addresses whether or not there is a God...

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." - Albert Einstein


God and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very much interrelated. And when understood as such, one can inform the other, and vice versa.


Christians in this Modern Age of Science and Information

When faced with scientific facts that seem to contradict the bible, the majority of Christians in this day and age react in one of two ways. They either reject science as a deliberate attempt to debunk God, or they become all too willing to demote those passages in the bible that appear to contradict modern understanding to metaphorical stories that are not so much grounded in actual history, but were more formulated to convey ideas and messages through imaginative storytelling.


Saint Augustine

At the beginning of On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin included the following quote from Sir Francis Bacon, pioneer of the scientific method and considered by many to be the father of Empiricism...

"Let no man think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word or in the book of God's works, but rather let man endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both."


In this quote Bacon is echoing the sentiments of Saint Augustine, a 4th century Latin philosopher and theologian recognized by Catholicism as a Doctor of the Church and considered by many Protestants to be one of the theological fathers of Reformation.

St. Augustine believed God reveals himself to us through two sources: The Book of Nature (the physical world) and The Book of Scripture (the bible). He believed that if at any time the two appear to conflict in any way, then it's human interpretation that is flawed.

"Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge" - St. Augustine


Saint Augustine wrote on many topics. In one in particular, 'De Genesi ad litteram', or 'The Literal Interpretation of Genesis', Augustine attempted to interpret those early chapters of Genesis that have been a mystery for ages, even throughout "biblical times" they were already ancient history. Before getting into his literal interpretation, he prefaced it by stating ....

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.
It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."
De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Augustine)


Augustine's interpretation was based on the best understanding of his time, which was obviously nowhere near the level of understanding we have today. In fact, speaking on the creation account specifically, Augustine acknowledges that interpretation is difficult, and says that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information becomes available.

This is something I whole-heartedly agree with ...

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________


Many of the Founders of Modern Science Were Themselves Christians

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, and Kelvin were all Christians. And that's just a partial list. Most of these forefathers of modern science recognized science as the study of the natural world, understanding that it's an intense study of God's creation.

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


Darwin was a Christian in the beginning, while his wife Emma remained a christian throughout her life. And even after being troubled by what he viewed as cruelty in the natural world that he struggled to reconcile with the creator God of love as he understood Him, even after losing his daughter and his wife, he would not deny God's existence. When asked he stated his view more fit the views of an agnostic. If he were to see how his name and his work is being used today, that he has been idealized as a kind of atheist poster child, I imagine he would be rather upset about it.


The 'Naturalist' Disposition of Science

The 'naturalist' approach to science, an approach that basically presupposes a natural, observable cause for everything that can be examined, is merely a necessity where science is concerned. It is in no way a dismissal of God. As stated above, many of the pioneers of the scientific method were themselves believers.

Basically, you can not allow for miracles and divine intervention in a controlled test environment as you cannot account for infinite possibilities and determine anything with certainty. Without this approach, every possible outcome could be explained away as God's capability to override the natural order and make something seemingly impossible possible.

Besides, why would God need to override His own creation? The natural world is His making. His design. To count any occurrence that does not yet have an acceptable causal explanation as a miracle performed by God only closes a subject that could potentially lead to a better understanding if it weren't so quickly dismissed as divine intervention.


“By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”
- Ken Miller, Cell Biologist/Brown University Professor/Christian, from his book 'Finding Darwin's God'


Miracles documented in the bible were only ever for the purpose of illustrating to free willed humans His control over the natural world. Everything else has progressed just as He designed it to. Only through the combination of scientific discovery and scripture can we even begin to grasp just how powerful and perfect He truly is.


Conclusion

We live in an incredible age. St. Augustine would have a field day with the depth of knowledge our modern 'book of nature' has. In every imaginable field of study there are teams of experts who dedicate their lives to figuring out how everything works. This combined with the wide availability of information and communication has led to an even greater collective understanding, accessible to a large part of the population.

Just as Augustine believed, as well as many early theologians and scientists, much can be learned about God's nature through His creation. Modern scientific understanding has illuminated errors in how people have traditionally interpreted the bible, but it has not 'debunked' the bible or the existence of God as many would like us to believe.

Science is the study of the natural world. Matter and energy. Assuming the universe came into being as described by the Big Bang Theory, science is only able to detect what exists from the big bang forward. If God is the creator of the universe, He exists apart from it. Proving whether or not God exists is simply out of the jurisdiction of the natural sciences. God's will appears as 'natural law' through the eyes of science.

But, modern science used in tandem with the bible proves to be an incredibly insightful companion guide that can teach more about God's nature than has ever been known before. Spirituality is in the end an internal reconciliation. Inward reconciliation and introspection should not be shackled by the material world's limitations because the mind is not material. You can use knowledge of the material world to establish certain truths, and to guide introspection, but we should also put more trust in the intuition that has gotten us this far. The same intuition that informed our ancestors before the level of knowledge we've since achieved, and that helped us in gaining that increased knowledge. Belief in a higher power of some kind has been all but absolute throughout human history, with the only real exception being those who through learned knowledge of the external reasoned an understanding that did not include divinity. If we have learned anything through scientific discovery, it's that we've still got a lot to learn. To impose limitations, based purely on our limited knowledge of the material world, on our attempts to better understand ourselves through introspection is to ignore the fundamental elements that made us who we are. Science can establish provable/observable/objective truths about the external world we perceive through our senses, but where the mind is concerned there is only subjective understanding. True, you can go astray, and many have. But as long as you don't impose limits, and leave your mind open to alter its understanding when better truths are established, you're then able to use everything at your disposal to achieve better understanding.


Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      LAWL. Voted up as "funny" - lol Love it. Worry not - eventually science will have backed the idea of a god so far into the corner it vanishes completely. Then we will not have to put up with religious drivel any more.

      Good luck with your battle against this ridiculous religion - Ironic pieces such as this certainly help to dispel such beliefs. Once again - congrats in ridiculing Christianity - although - I think pretending to be that dumb is a bit on the nasty side.

      Having said that - they deserve it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Eventually, huh? So Mark Knowles is a man of faith, certain that, though it will most likely be long after you and I are gone, eventually science will dispel the existence of God. I guess everyone has to have something to believe in.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      This is based on experience and observation. The "god of the gaps" ( the only god that exists) has been shrinking since the first scientific observation. In my lifetime I have seen the irrational belief in majik slowly vanish.

      So - yes - based on my observations - eventually it will go away altogether.

      You think predictions based on observations and measurable data is the same as faith in invisible majik?

      If I could vote it up as funny again - I would. LOLOLOL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I understand how you could see it like that. For as long as there have been atheists there have been those that felt just as you do. In my 3+ decades of life I've seen something similar from the believer's standpoint. I've seen those same gaps you speak of, the same gaps that as a believer you expect to be there, remain and even become more clearly defined the further we plumb this existence scientifically.

      One of those gaps is the origin of the universe. Back in the 1920s the general consensus amongst the scientific community was that of a constant ever-existing universe. When Georges Lemaître, astronomer, professor of physics, and Belgian catholic priest, first proposed his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' (which eventually became known as the Big Bang Theory) there were critics who accused Lemaître of trying to interject his religious beliefs into the scientific landscape by suggesting the universe had a beginning.

      Modern science has really helped define just how 'miraculous' the inception of life really was, just how delicate of a balance it is for this planet to exist as it does today, and just how many of the smallest of changes could have resulted in a totally different outcome throughout the formation of this planet and all life on it. We've never before understood the odds against us being here as we are today so well.

      Now we know the universe had a beginning and appears to have all originated at one single point. We now know that every human alive today has one common ancestor. And while we understand the brain as a mechanism much better, while we can track and study chemical changes and how/where oxygenated blood is routed in accordance to various stimuli, we realize we're still far from ever really understanding human consciousness.

      The 'God of the gaps' makes perfect sense as everything other than those gaps would be the result of God's actions, thus appearing to simply be 'natural'. Science has come a long way in defining that. How you perceive it is really just a matter of perspective.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Really - I wish I could vote it up as funny again. Please prove to me that there was a time when the Universe did not exist. LOLOL

      The god of the gaps does not make sense at all. Modern science has not helped define any such majik. LOL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I don't need your 'funny' votes to know I entertain you. Your numerous 'LOL's are reward enough. And I'm sure you'll get a real kick out of this.... Enjoy...

      "Please prove to me that there was a time when the Universe did not exist."

      I guess that would depend on what you define as 'the Universe'. The most widely accepted theory currently in the world of science suggests that all matter that makes up the universe as we know it began as a singularity roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Before that, there's no way of knowing as everything we can observe and study is from that singularity, and there has not been another event like this since that we can observe, so we're unable to 'see' beyond it to what came before.

      But I can maybe see your point. The natural laws of physics that shaped the universe we know today had to be in place before that singularity began it's rapid expansion. At least astrophysicists like Stephen Hawking assume things like the law of gravity to be ever-existing constants and not products of 'big bang' as well. Where those laws originate is still anyone's guess, but these unseen laws are what literally bind the universe together.

      What I find interesting is that a collection of writings over the course of many centuries by numerous authors from the bronze age generations apart from one another can convey a consistent idea of a God that thousands of years later and after centuries of scientific discovery still cannot be ruled out with any certainty.

      They claimed this God created the universe by actually speaking it into existence, as if His words created laws that all existence followed. We now know the universe did actually have a beginning and hasn't always simply existed as is. They describe this God creating the earth and all life on it and in doing so actually managed to describe actual events in earth's history as if witnessed from the surface of the planet, though most of these events happened millions and billions of years before humans even existed. Genesis 1 lists 13 specific details and 6 major eras in earth's history in the correct chronological order and manages to do so from a human viewpoint.

      They claim a duality between the physical body and the spirit which still cannot be ruled out no matter how deeply we dig into these brains of ours. They illustrate the introduction of free will into the world and the beginnings of civilized humanity that lines up with actual events in history and the rise of civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley. And they speak of a God who does not live within the boundaries of time and space as we do, a concept we've only really begun to grasp since Einstein less than a century ago.

      All and all, not bad for bronze age ancestors not far removed from their desert-dwelling nomad descendants. For people from your point of view you wouldn't think ruling this pesky collection of ancient writings out would be that hard to do, yet they're still here and still manage to remain relevant.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      I can rule it out. It is very simple. Bronze age religious drivel.

      Any time you have proof that the Universe did not exist I am all ears - for now all you are doing is rewriting a majik book to mean things it does not mean. LOL

      I see you are dodging though. Now it is hasn't always simply existed as it is. WOW! Awesome! The Universe is different now to what it was when I started writing this comment.

      Not relevant at all. LOL That something "exists" outside of time and space.

      LOL That "We now know the universe did actually have a beginning" Prove it, because we do not know this. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. We know no such thing.

      I wish I could vote your comments up. These pathetic semantics really are amusing.

      Science has proven that a god is not necessary. That is pretty certain. LOL

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Odd that you so tie "science" in with a non belief in majik. Why is that? I came to the conclusion that your Invisible Super Being was nonsense well before I understood any science. When I was a kid - they used to teach you to believe in majik well before they taught you about science.

      You have put the cart before the horse. Lack of belief in majik starts the scientific process. Once you reject "goddunnit" as a reason for anything - you can start looking. And - yes - I know a lot of scientists are "self professed christians" I wonder if that has anything to do with culture, money or power? Or the fact that we used to burn unbelievers?

      Your arguments make no sense. All you are doing is defending an untenable belief in majik. Silly really.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Any time you have proof that the Universe did not exist I am all ears"

      So you don't subscribe to the big bang theory? Is that just 'majik' to you too? True, it's still a theory and not officially 'proven'. So, are you saying that Stephen Hawking and Neil Legasse Tyson subscribe to 'majik' too? Or are you thinking more along the lines of the universe being more than what we can currently observe? Because it's pretty obvious the entire observable universe as we know it now did in fact have a beginning. Anything beyond that is assumption with no basis in facts.

      "You have put the cart before the horse. Lack of belief in majik starts the scientific process. Once you reject "goddunnit" as a reason for anything - you can start looking. And - yes - I know a lot of scientists are "self professed christians" I wonder if that has anything to do with culture, money or power? Or the fact that we used to burn unbelievers?"

      How does that statement even make sense? I illustrated above how a majority of the forefathers of science were Christians. Yet 'lack of belief in majik starts the scientific process'? So which is it? Lack of belief, then science? Or science, then lack of belief? That's putting the cart before the horse.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      "it's pretty obvious the entire observable universe as we know it now did in fact have a beginning"

      Odd. Still no proof. How is it "obvious" LOLOL Because the babble sed so? LOLOLOLO

      Yes - Big bang theory sounds like majik to me as well.

      Go! with the proof that there was a time when the Universe did not exist.

      Homosexuals used to profess to be Kristians to stay put of gaol.

      U think Scientists sed they waz Kristians to keep from being burned at the steak? LOL

      LOL at your entire argument. Dear me - little wonder your religion has caused so many wars.

    • Trish_M profile image

      Tricia Mason 5 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hi HeadlyvonNoggin :)

      I found that very interesting.

      I am agnostic. I don't know whether or not there is any force or 'being', which might be termed God, but I respect the fact that you are looking at logical ways to believe in God and also to accept evolution.

      I think that there are still mysteries. Indeed, no-one knows how life began. While the mysteries remain, I will try to keep an open mind.

      However, I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God. I do believe that it is one tribe's attempt to understand 'life the universe and everything' ~ and that it includes their attitude to 'God'.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Thank you for visiting and for your comment, Trish_M.

      I understand your view on the bible. Part of what I'm hoping to accomplish is to simply point out the reasons I believe we should have another look at the books of Moses totally outside of all the pre-conceived ideas and religious views that are so closely tied to it that often color our perceptions of it.

      I read your hub on the Slaughter of the Amalekites and found it to be a very honest look into the story. At some point in the future I might like to pick your brain on that topic as the 'alternate take' I'm suggesting puts a very different spin on the possible purpose behind those actions.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Well, I guess that is that. Drop me a line when you have some proof that there was a time when the Universe did not exist and had a beginning. Because we know this and it is obvious. LOL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Well, I guess that is that."

      Not necessarily. I'm intrigued. I'm trying to get a feel for the man behind the condescending jabs.

      The big bang theory illustrates how the universe as we best understand it could have mathematically come about given the effects of the laws of physics on the elements that were involved, to grossly over-simplify, but you're right that it is still a theory that has to be taken with a certain degree of faith.

      Judging by one of your more condescension-laden forum comments I get the impression you do not view the theory of evolution as 'majik'. So I take from that you agree with the time frame represented in that theory. Does that mean you also agree with the time frame illustrated by the geologic time scale? Do you agree the formation of the earth happened roughly 5.4 million years ago, formed from the materials left orbiting our newly formed sun through accretion? Giant impact hypothesis behind the formation of the moon? Development of first atmosphere through out-gassing, transition from reducing to oxidizing atmosphere, formation of the oceans, etc?

      The reason I ask is because I get the impression you're more of the materialism persuasion, only believing in what can be physically observed judging by your demands for proof to back up all that you deem 'majik'.

      But since there are things that undoubtedly exist with no descernible natural cause, you must have some sort of belief, some self-made explanation, taken on faith where there is no proof. Since you obviously harbor disdain for my beliefs, what alternate belief system do you bring to the table for me to consider if I ever hope to be something more than a clown to you? Assuming you have something and you're not just some sort of existential nihilist who finds joy in ridiculing the beliefs of others. Don't be that guy.

      Do you believe human consciousness is nothing more than the product of physical processes in our brains like the routing of oxygenated blood, chemical changes, and signal pulses between neurons? Obviously things like humor/laughing/LOL'ing can't be given any physically observable explanation that I'd be able to lay out for you if asked. Yet with all your 'LOL'ing I assume you don't think that's 'majik'.

      So please, don't just 'LOL' at me. Offer me some alternative. Something to believe in that will make me as jolly as you are and able to laugh off everyone else's attempt to explain these things.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Why should I not LOL at you? You make broad sweeping statements about what is "obvious" and what we "know" such as "there are things that undoubtedly exist with no descernible natural cause," which are total fabrications that you have in no way backed up. Everything that exists has a discernible natural cause.

      I don't claim to know or have any belief regarding the existence of the Universe other than that which is most simple.

      The Universe is here. I have no reason to think there was a time when it was not here, so - until you can prove that there was a time when it was not here - the most simple explanation I can think of is that it has always been here.

      So - with that simple explanation - I reject your claims that 1. it had a beginning, 2. It needed a Creator and 3. This Creator did majik to make evolution happen.

      Yes - human consciousness is a biological/physical process that will vanish with our death. Other animals have this trait in lesser degrees (or perhaps more) we barely understand it in ourselves.

      Now - I have asked you to prove your claims. Lets start with your proof that there was a time when the Universe did not exist.

      Then take a look at all your statements and honestly say they make any sense. Or at least back up the more ludicrous ones. When you can do that - I will stop LOLing at you.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I've already explained to you that I cannot prove my claims by your criteria. The big bang and the idea that the universe has a beginning is a theory supported by a majority of the scientific community. If they are unable to convince you, I'm certainly not going to succeed where they fail.

      "Yes - human consciousness is a biological/physical process that will vanish with our death. Other animals have this trait in lesser degrees (or perhaps more) we barely understand it in ourselves."

      So, basically, you assume animals have the same or similar conscious experience (to varying indeterminate degrees) as we humans do based on what exactly? Because they have brains similar to ours? Because some of their behaviors appear to be similar to ours? Is it based on anything other than your ability to relate based on your own conscious experience?

      "Everything that exists has a discernible natural cause."

      Imagine for a minute that I do not experience human consciousness, have never experienced laughing or crying or love or pride, and don't believe they exist because no one has ever proven to me that they do. Can you prove to me they exist? Can you explain to me how signal pulses between neurons and oxygenated blood flow and chemical processes in the brain create this conscious experience I don't believe in because I cannot experience it for myself? Can you explain to me how human traits like laughing and crying and love and pride developed naturally so that I may understand them though I have never and will never experience them for myself?

      In other words, if I were just as unconvinced of the existence of human consciousness as you are that the universe has a beginning, and was just as demanding as you for proof before I accept it and stop thinking of your 'LOL'ing as a fake made-up thing you do, how do you prove it to me? Show me the discernible natural cause that proves it.

      "I don't claim to know or have any belief regarding the existence of the Universe other than that which is most simple.

      The Universe is here. I have no reason to think there was a time when it was not here, so - until you can prove that there was a time when it was not here - the most simple explanation I can think of is that it has always been here."

      This would be fine if you read my hub and just LOL'd to yourself. But you decided to comment and physically type out 'LOL' to make sure I knew you were laughing at me. So, when we discuss back and forth and you finally convince me that my beliefs are indeed laughable, this is the alternative you offer? Believe in nothing because there's no way of knowing? Just stop wondering who we are, where we come from, or if there's anything more to our existence than what has been determined for certain? And then laugh at anyone who attempts to understand for themselves? Not just to ourselves of course, but actually make sure they know we're laughing at them? Even though we wouldn't be able prove they're wrong anymore than they could prove they're right?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      I assumed no such thing about animals. There is massive amounts of scientific data collected that suggest animals have consciousness similar to our own. Some of them can even grasp abstract concepts and understand death.

      I also did not say any of the things you just put in my mouth. I did not say this "Believe in nothing because there's no way of knowing?"

      The Universe is here. The

      You are the one making an assumption that it was not here at some point. You are doing this in order to defend a belief in majik.

      Defend it. Prove to me that the Universe was not here. The Big Bang Theory does not say the Universe was not here. It says all the matter that make up the Universe was already hare, compacted into a black hole.

      So - no creation. No Creator. No majik interference in evolution.

      As usual though - as a religious believer - you have to attack me as believing with no facts therefore bringing me to your level so you can attack my "beliefs" in order to defend your own irrational beliefs.

      This is why your religion causes so many fights.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "I assumed no such thing about animals. There is massive amounts of scientific data collected that suggest animals have consciousness similar to our own. Some of them can even grasp abstract concepts and understand death."

      In other words, there's no proof that doesn't in some way depend on our own experience of consciousness. If we did not experience consciousness for ourselves as a reference point then we'd have no way of ever beginning to fathom what's going on in an animal.

      Consciousness is something that undoubtedly exists yet has no 'descernible natural cause'. So, if there were another form of consciousness that existed somewhere in the universe, like say a God, we'd have no way through science to confirm it's there.

      "The Big Bang Theory does not say the Universe was not here. It says all the matter that make up the Universe was already hare, compacted into a black hole."

      Not entirely accurate, but I get what you're saying. The laws of physics and that singularity of matter did exist at the beginning according to big bang. There is no explanation that covers this coming from nothing.

      "As usual though - as a religious believer - you have to attack me as believing with no facts therefore bringing me to your level so you can attack my "beliefs" in order to defend your own irrational beliefs.

      This is why your religion causes so many fights."

      If you'll recall, I didn't initiate this. You came to my hub and physically typed out your 'LOL's to make sure I understood I was being laughed at. Now that I'm trying to understand your position based solely on what little you've provided, I'm the one attacking you?

      "I also did not say any of the things you just put in my mouth. I did not say this "Believe in nothing because there's no way of knowing?""

      My mistake. Again, you haven't given me much of anything beyond the fact that you think my beliefs are laughable. You said you think religious belief is belief in 'majik'. You said you think big bang is 'majik' too. You said you believe consciousness is a biological/physical process that vanishes at death.

      Some of that was my own assumption based on your view of big bang. If theories built around models that illustrate the formation of the universe as we know it are not enough for you, then through your view there's very little chance humanity will ever know anything about who we are or where we came from. Even if science is capable of determining that with any certainty, it is highly unlikely it will happen before yours or my conscious experiences cease to be.

      I'm just trying to understand your view. This is what I have so far, which as far as I can tell makes typing out comments in hubs criticizing other people's attempts at understanding pointless if we all just cease to be after the handful of decades we get anyway. Am I wrong? If so, please help me understand. I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs. I'm simply pointing out what doesn't make sense to me and why. And have managed to do so to this point without 'LOL'ing at you once.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      No - you are not trying to understand my view at all. My view is clear. There is no god. The Big Bang theory leaves no room for a Majikal Invisible Super Being.

      You are simply defending an irrational belief in an Invisible Super Being. Let me get this right - you are"building a theory around a model,"?

      Where does the Invisible Super Being become involved? LOLOLOL

      Sorry - my mistake. I thought you had written an article and left comments open.

      We know exactly who we are and where we came from. We are humans on earth and we descended from an ape=like creature that evolved from a simpler one.

      Now explain why we need majik involved?

      Your insistence that you are basing this Majikal Super Being on the scientific approach is LOLable.

      Disingenuous actually.

      Last I checked - the Majik book you follow LOLs at unbelievers all the time - no?

    • Trish_M profile image

      Tricia Mason 5 years ago from The English Midlands

      Interestingly, it was a Roman Catholic priest, who first proposed the 'Big Bang theory' ~ though under a different name, I understand.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Odd - he feels free to postulate an Invisible Super Being 0 then when I reject the whole notion - he is apparently basing the Super Being's existence on an accepted scientific principal.

      I guess I just missed how that works. The evidence and all.....

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "No - you are not trying to understand my view at all. My view is clear. There is no god. The Big Bang theory leaves no room for a Majikal Invisible Super Being."

      But you don't believe in the big bang theory either, right? So that's all irrelevant.

      And your view, unless I'm missing something, leaves no room for everything it means to be a human. it explains everything in the natural world, including our physical forms, but it doesn't begin to explain human consciousness.

      In fact, every scientific field that has anything to do with the study of the conscious human mind falls outside of the natural sciences. They're all retained within that other branch of science, the social sciences. That whole branch exists because human consciousness is completely inaccessible to natural science in any observable/provable/measurable way.

      "Sorry - my mistake. I thought you had written an article and left comments open."

      You're right, I did. And my hub clearly was not an attack on atheists or christians. I wasn't laughing at or ridiculing anyone's beliefs. The comments are open to anyone who wants to comment. Notice I approved all the comments you left. You're accepted and given a voice here. Even if it's dripping with sarcasm and ridicule.

      What I'm trying to point out is the lack of desire I see on your part to have an actual discussion. You're not offering me an alternative, you're just pointing and laughing. That's not a discussion. When I try to find out more about your view so I can better understand, you accuse me of attacking you. As far as I can tell my only options in your view is either to abandon my beliefs and adopt yours, or just remain silent and don't say anything. Is there a 3rd option I'm not aware of?

      "We know exactly who we are and where we came from. We are humans on earth and we descended from an ape=like creature that evolved from a simpler one."

      A natural causal existence does not explain human consciousness. It doesn't begin to explain that human spirit that overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds. It doesn't explain will and determination and imagination and inspiration and music and laughter and art.

      "Odd - he feels free to postulate an Invisible Super Being 0 then when I reject the whole notion - he is apparently basing the Super Being's existence on an accepted scientific principal.

      I guess I just missed how that works. The evidence and all....."

      The evidence is the result. Existence. What exactly would you expect proof of God's existence to look like anyway? A big thumb print on the moon? Big arms floating out in space forming planets like clay? A signature on the bottom right-hand corner of a galaxy that says 'YAHWEH'?

      From what I can tell you view our existence here as the equivalent of winning some existential lottery where the odds are incalculable against us being here. Just countless little things that ultimately ended up with us, but could have gone way different with the slightest little change to practically anything.

      I see an intelligently designed existence that doesn't require direct involvement or manipulation by God because He designed everything to self-perpetuate and self-correct. Thus, all of existence appears to have a natural cause.

      I'm using the same evidence you are, just reaching a different conclusion.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Majik! LOL

      K then. Let's dispense with the pretense of the scientific approach. Good for you. At least that is more honest. It was majik becoz u sed so.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      I don't have an answer to the questions you seem to be posing.

      Yes - it could have as easily been some other animal group/species that developed consciousness.

      Sorry. Guess that means we are not so special after all. No need for the sin/atonement/BS you need to give your life meaning.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Trish_M,

      "Interestingly, it was a Roman Catholic priest, who first proposed the 'Big Bang theory' ~ though under a different name, I understand."

      That's right. His name was Georges Lemaître, and he titled his article 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. I didn't include that in the hub, but mentioned it in my discussion with Mark before I found out he considers the big bang theory 'majik' too.

      I was pointing out how this whole believer/non-believer thing has been going back and forth for ages. Back in the 1920s, most in the scientific community believed as Mark does now, that the universe had always been. Skeptics of Lemaître accused him of trying to interject his theological beliefs into the scientific landscape by suggesting the universe had a beginning. Now Mark's saying the same of me. And on and on it goes.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Yup. Your religion always causes conflicts. Believers state garbage based on majik and then fight to defend it.

      Fortunately - you are no longer powerful enough to burn us at the stake.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Sorry. Guess that means we are not so special after all. No need for the sin/atonement/BS you need to give your life meaning."

      Not exactly. Free will makes us 'special' and is also the need for the whole sin thing.

      I'm not sure you've noticed, but we're the only species that lives in such direct opposition to the natural world. We destroy and pollute and create waste and chemicals and materials that don't break down and wipe out animals and their habitats. We're destructive. Not to mention everything we do to each other.

      Everything else in nature rolls right along within the process. Even early humans up to about 6000 years ago lived harmoniously with nature. And many indigenous tribal cultures still do. But with the rise of civilization came armies and enslavement and the taking of land and possessions and all of that.

      In the case of free will, think about life at the cellular level. DNA has been honed over countless generations and is the authority in an organism that the cells that make up the body adhere to.

      Now, what if each cell in your body was capable of its own individual will? At any point they could decide they don't want to die when they're supposed to or don't want to divide or serve their given purpose. This would be a potential cancer that could endanger the organism as a whole.

      Free will let loose in the world is dangerous. And like cells, our short little lifespans are simply not enough to learn how to wield such a powerful ability. So to decide we know better than God would be like a cell that only lives for a day or two deciding it knows better than the DNA code.

      Imagine the cells in your hand decided they wanted to be a hand twice as large. There's no way those cells could comprehend the jeopardy they were putting the organism they're living on in. They wouldn't understand the extra resources being robbed of the rest of the body to keep that large hand alive. Sooner or later that hand would have to be removed to spare the whole.

      I'm sure this will bring about many LOL's, but I see this life as the knowledge base we would need in the next life to be able to wield free will. The full history of humanity, every life experience of every individual, available as the understanding needed to fully comprehend the repercussions of our actions. Every life, no matter how short or tragic, has meaning and purpose.

      That's my take, anyway.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Yup. Your religion always causes conflicts. Believers state garbage based on majik and then fight to defend it.

      Fortunately - you are no longer powerful enough to burn us at the stake."

      Don't worry, you won't often find me defending organized religion. And I would never burn you at the stake, Mark, if that's any consolation. No matter how much you laugh at me.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      That is what they all say.

      LOL at the previous comments. Majik! then OK - at least we have now fully dispensed with the "science" and you are no longer accusing me of obstinately refusing to accept scientific theories.

      Now free will is dangerous. Good oh. Now you can change the title of this hub to something more honest.

      And like all good religionists - you also seem to have managed to convince yourself that your preaching of free will and sin is not religion.

      That gets you a double LOL LOL

      At least you have now made it clear that you do not understand evolution. I guess this is why it does not conflict with your belief in majik.

      When you are ready to come up with a reasonable explanation of Creation - and a reasonable explanation as to how you think the Universe (in any form) was not here - I would love to hear it.

      Seems this is an assumption based on an assumption of a deity. No scientific models involve.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "LOL at the previous comments. Majik! then OK - at least we have now fully dispensed with the "science" and you are no longer accusing me of obstinately refusing to accept scientific theories."

      Haven't dispensed with science, just recognize there's more to existence than what falls inside of natural science's jurisdiction.

      Never meant to 'accuse' you of anything. Just trying to get a sense of your position since you haven't freely given it.

      "Now free will is dangerous. Good oh. Now you can change the title of this hub to something more honest."

      Free will has always been dangerous. Burning people at the stake, the inquisition, the crusades, Hitler; all free will. Not sure why you find my title dishonest or how that's relevant to any of this.

      "And like all good religionists - you also seem to have managed to convince yourself that your preaching of free will and sin is not religion."

      So, according to you, all good 'religionists' disassociate with religion? Makes sense.

      "That gets you a double LOL LOL"

      Finally!

      "At least you have now made it clear that you do not understand evolution. I guess this is why it does not conflict with your belief in majik."

      Then help me. Don't just laugh. What did I say that conflicts? Enlighten me.

      "When you are ready to come up with a reasonable explanation of Creation - and a reasonable explanation as to how you think the Universe (in any form) was not here - I would love to hear it."

      And when you're ready to include that whole other branch of science in your explanation of existence, which of course consists of everything that exists, then you'll finally be looking at the whole picture. Trying to explain existence using only one of the two branches of science is like trying to loosen a bunch of bolts with a screwdriver.

      "Seems this is an assumption based on an assumption of a deity. No scientific models involve."

      Science reveals history. Bible explains history that science reveals. Fills gaps where science has no explanation, like the will that drives life or the dawn of civilization or human consciousness in general.

      Again, if you want to understand all of existence, your first mistake is excluding any part of existence. Religion exists and is a product of consciousness. As is art and humor and music and literature and stake burnings and 'LOL's and sarcastic misspelled comments used to convey one's opinion of the others' intelligence level. It all exists, therefore it is all relevant.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      My mistake huh?

      And there you go telling me what I should be doing. This is why your religion causes so many fights.

      LOL that there is another majikal invisible branch of science. You have nothing to offer - nothing at all.

      I have studied your majik book - it is religious drivel. Your Invisible Super Being does not exist.

      I notice you did not answer my query either. Trying to explain existence with "goddunit" is no answer at all.

      The gaps are shrinking all the time.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Are you not the one here commenting on my 'mistakes'? Again, I didn't initiate this little back and forth. I didn't seek you out to offer you anything. You shared your thoughts about my hub and my beliefs, so I am now telling you why your beliefs don't work for me. Your existential worldview is narrow because it excludes too much that I consider highly relevant information about existence to determine with any certainty what this existence really is.

      "Social science is the field of study concerned with society and human behaviours. "Social science" is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences. These include: anthropology, archaeology, criminology, economics, education, linguistics, political science and international relations, sociology, geography, history, law, and psychology." - from wikipedia

      For my answers to queries like "Where does the Invisible Super Being become involved?", "Now explain why we need majik involved?", and "Last I checked - the Majik book you follow LOLs at unbelievers all the time - no?", feel free to check out my other 3 hubs. If you have any questions beyond that, I'll be happy to address them.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Ah - back to your not starting the conversation by writing this hub and leaving it open to comments. LOL

      The same as us atheists starting the conversation by denying god. LOL

      Not interested in reading the rest of your hubs. You will just tell me that you inviting me to read them and me disagreeing with you is ME INITIATING the back and forth. LOL

      No answers then? Just - "Goddunit" lol

      My existential world view of not believing in majik is not narrow. Any time you have some evidence of majik - I will be happy to discuss it - but pulling garbage out of thin air and accusing people who do not accept it as being narrow minded is why your religion causes so many fights.

      You have not addressed my questions here - why would I think you will do so anywhere else?

      MAJIK!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      My whole point, Mark, is that I'm not telling you what to believe or how to live. I'm telling you why I don't subscribe to your worldview. You're the one that keeps trying to turn yourself into a victim of religious oppression.

      If you were really interested in the answers to your questions, and if you were really interested in an actual mutually respectful discussion, then you would find plenty of pertinant information in my other hubs. But that's not what you're interested in, apparently. You're just determined to make me out to be the bad guy trying to impose my views on you.

      I have addressed your questions in my hubs. I illustrate how simply understanding that Adam was not the first human, but was rather created in an already populated world as the first human with true free will, then the whole rest of the bible makes much more sense and fits right in with actual history and the dawn of civilization. I also illustrate how the creation account describes actual events in earth's history as if witnessed from the surface of the planet, which is the point of view established at the beginning of the chapter.

      Again, your worldview is too narrow for my tastes and completely ignores too much relevant information. If it works for you, go with it. Do what you want. If what you want to do is to go into the hubs of believers, criticize and insult them, then accuse them and their 'religion' as fight-starters, then by all means. But at least have the self-awareness to recognize what you're doing, and don't try to put it on me.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Narrow minded? For not accepting majik as an answer? Gotcha.

      Relevant information? There is none. There is your majik.

      I asked to to 'spain why there was a time when the Universe did not exist. I never mentioned Adam.

      Postulating majikal garbage and accusing anyone of being narrowminded for not believing it is the reason your religion causes so many fights.

      Respectful? Don't make me laugh.

      How is postulating nonsense and then accusing people of being narrow minded if they don't believe you being respectful? LOLOLOL

      I give you all the respect you deserve.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, yeah, I get it. You're the enlightened one and I'm a moron.

      I already told you you're right about there being no proof of the universe not at one time existing like 10 posts ago. That we can't see beyond the laws of physics already being in place and all the matter being condensed into a singularity. You're right, Mark.

      And by that same reasoning, by the same reasoning that says you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, by your same standards, you also can't explain and can't prove the development of a self-aware conscious human mind. By those same standards you use to deem my beliefs 'majik', human consciousness qualifies as 'majik' too. Just because you can't grasp that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

      Humans cause fights, Mark. Not just religion. It's this kind of narrow-minded worldview that's exactly my point. You're harboring a grudge of some sort. You have apparently felt religiously oppressed at some point in your life and you're acting out. I'm not your dad or your preacher or teacher or whoever it is you're really mad at.

      That's clear to me because you make definitive claims like God doesn't exist without proof. That same proof and evidence you so proudly state to be your guide in finding the truth is also lacking in the beliefs you're trying to pass off as rational and reasonable. Your claims are unproven so they are your beliefs. It's as simple as that.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Definitive claims like the Easter Bunny does not exist without proof? K then. LOL

      This is why your religion causes so many fights.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Yes, I understand you don't get it. I understand that in your narrow simplified view that this statement makes perfect sense to you. No need to reitterate.

      Yes, I understand that you harbor a grudge against believers and religion. I understand you blaim them for all of the world's problems. No need to reitterate.

      You think you have it all figured out. Good for you. I know you don't. I know there's way too much you're leaving out and see huge gaping flaws in your logic. You don't. I can't make you see it. That's fine with me. Go forward with your narrow worldview and that chip on your shoulder and be happy.

      I'm not starting a fight and I'm not continuing a fight. That's you. Until you're able to recognize that you're projecting your own hang-ups on others so that you don't have to address them for yourself then you're going to be stuck where you are. I can't help you there. That's all on you.

      Arguing with me is not going to fix anything. You only have a handful of decades left before you blink from existence and your conscious mind ceases to be. After that, according to you, none of this will matter. So why waste what time you've got left arguing with me? What do you hope to accomplish?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      I hope to make the world a better place.

      Sorry you feel that is not worth the trouble.

      Odd you keep telling me I am narrow minded because I don't believe in majik.

      This is why your religion causes so many fights.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I'm telling you you're narrow minded because you have clearly illustrated to me that you dismiss half of existence in your attempts to understand existence. I'm pointing out the obvious. You can't see something that obvious. Not sure what else I can do.

      Prove me wrong. Prove to me that you can prove the existence of human consciousness scientifically. Prove to me how human consciousness is any different than anything else you deem majik. You've ignored that whole part of my argument, which is made all the more obvious by your 'easter bunny' statement.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      I dismiss nothing but majik.

      I dismiss your BS.

      You are the one making the claims. You prove that your lol "obvious" invisible, unmeasurable, illogical "half of existence " exists.

      Go on - I dare ya. Until then you are doing what religionists do. Claiming majik and then attacking anyone who does not agree.

      Prove that human consciousness needs Majik.

      Guess you did not bother reading your majik book either - did you? Even the babble says your invisible super being exists outside separate from logic and reason.

      How funny you want proof. LAWL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Obviously I can't prove 'majik'. Right? Isn't that your whole point? You're the rational one who uses only facts and evidence. So this should be easy for you. Show me the facts and evidence that proves me wrong when I say that human consciousness qualifies as 'majik' according to your view. If you can prove its existence scientifically then you prove me wrong and we're done here. It's just that easy.

      So, go on. I double-dare you.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      I never said human consciousness was majik. Please stop lying about me. Human consciousness developed. For the sake of argument - let's say it exists.

      Why does there have to be majik involved in the development?

      It appears to have developed naturally. If you have some evidence of majik other than - you cannot comprehend how it could develop without majik - I am all ears.

      Sadly - I suspect to will attack me again for ignoring what is "obviously majik" lol

      That god of the gaps is shrinking all the time. The fact that you have not investigated the massive amounts of research into how "consciousness" develops does not mean it was majik.

      Go! As you are a biog, big fan of science - I think we can both agree that the one making the claim needs to back it up.

      You are the one making the claims.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, I know, you always think you're being attacked. You desperately want to be the victim here and make me out to be the big, bad guy. Whatever works for you.

      "It appears to have developed naturally."

      Now you sound like me. By your standards you choose what exists and what is 'majik' based on proof and evidence. So, if you believe human consciousness exists and is not 'majik', then you must have proof that it developed naturally. Otherwise, you're contradicting yourself. Simply show me your proof and you're done.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      LAWL

      You are the one attacking me as being narrow minded.

      SO - you say - "Consciousness developed, but it must have been majik unless you can prove it was natural."

      Surely you see how ridiculous this is? Natural is the default. It developed naturally and there does not seem to be any supernatural majik involved. You are the one claiming it was super natural majik.

      The burden of proof is yours.

      Go!lolololol

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      No, I'm telling you why your viewpoint doesn't work for me. In my opinion, you leave way too much out that I feel is relevant, therefore I find you're view narrow minded. Am I not allowed to have an opinion that's different than yours? Do you think anyone who disagrees with you is attacking you? Or is that just believers?

      You're just proving my point. This should be easy for you. You're assuming it developed naturally. You apparently have no proof or you just would have typed it out between 'LOL's. But you haven't because you don't.

      Tell me, what purpose does laughing serve? How does that help in survival so that now every human is capable of laughter? Or crying? What natural need does it satisfy? How did we as a species become destructive and live in such opposition to the natural world naturally?

      Explain to me the physical causes that create our conscious experience, or admit there are things you know exist that are just as unprovable as what you deem 'majik'.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      LOL

      It was majik unless I prove it was natural? LOLOLOLOL

      Let me guess - homeschooled?

      This is why your religion causes so much ill will and hatred.

      I think we are done here.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      You're right, you are done.

      You've been condescending (ex. "homeschooled?", "It was majik becoz u sed so"), arrogant, and dismissive from the very start, all while trying to say it's my 'religion' that causes ill will, hatred, and fighting.

      Meanwhile you try to pass off your views as logical and sensible, and dismiss anything outside of that as 'majik', yet can't stay consistent in your standards as far as how you determine what's 'majik' and what isn't. I'd point out something that undoubtedly exists and that you acknowledge, yet falls outside of your standards, and all you could say is that "It appears to have developed naturally". When I said it 'appears the universe had a beginning' I got LOL'd at. In-con-sistent.

      Trying to say self-aware conscious humans that laugh and cry and create art and music and cities and have philosophical and existential arguments just sprang up naturally out of a natural causal world where nothing else like it exists sounds more like 'majik' than anything I suggested, and has no scientific basis beyond assumption.

      I have ancient texts from the same time and place as the dawn of civilization to back up my views. You just have assumptions to fill the gaps between the facts with nothing concrete to base it on, and no other example of anything like it happening anywhere else ever.

      Say what you will about my views, and laugh it up all you want. At least I'm consistent.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Consistent?

      Yes - you claim majik and then insist other's disprove your claims. LOL that anything that comes out of evolution that was different to anything before it could not be natural.........

      Oh - wait

      You have ancient texts and I have nothing but scientific evidence. Gotcha.

      I can see your pain. Your entire reason for being here seems to be to do with the obvious issue you have with majik/science. Don't understand it? Must be majik then.

      I will continue to laugh at you all the time you take the "this is not possible, it must be majik. Now prove otherwise." stance. And especially - "there is stuff you cannot see that makes up half of existence. I don't need to prove it, but you are narrow minded if you don't believe in it."

      Because this is the sort of religious reasoning that causes conflict.

      Odd you don't see the dichotomy either. You get to claim majik as the default and I have to disprove it. Yet you claim to be interested in science?

      This is why you are having such a hard time reconciling the two.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I have no problem reconciling the two, as my other hubs clearly show.

      "You have ancient texts and I have nothing but scientific evidence. Gotcha."

      Cute Mark, but I'm pretty sure you actually do comprehend what I write. We both refer to the same scientific evidence. As I clearly stated, I have these ancient texts to back up my explanation of the gaps between the evidence where you have nothing more than assumption. Not the evidence, Mark, the gaps.

      Unlike the universe, it's obvious that human consciousness didn't always exist. It had to develop at some point along the way. So your 'it exists therefore it must have always been there' explanation doesn't apply here.

      Like clothing, for instance. Humans first started wearing clothing tens of thousands of years ago for functional purposes, like to keep warm in the colder northern climates when they migrated out of Africa. But somewhere along the way humans started wearing clothing not just to serve a functional purpose, but they actually became bashful unlike any other species on the planet and began wearing clothing to cover themselves. Genesis actually covers this. Science as of yet has no explanation. I've checked.

      "Your entire reason for being here seems to be to do with the obvious issue you have with majik/science. Don't understand it? Must be majik then."

      Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand.

      "I will continue to laugh at you all the time you take the "this is not possible, it must be majik. Now prove otherwise." stance. And especially - "there is stuff you cannot see that makes up half of existence. I don't need to prove it, but you are narrow minded if you don't believe in it.""

      I asked you to prove it to make a point. Your inability to prove it is because there is currently no explanation. As for the 'stuff you cannot see', I'm talking about stuff I know you know exists. There really are fields that are dedicated to studying the human mind and other fields that study everything born or the human mind. I know you know this. These fields do not fall under the 'natural science' umbrella. They're in the other branch.

      "Because this is the sort of religious reasoning that causes conflict."

      Conflict is most often created when people assume they know or understand something better than others. Just like you've clearly illustrated here. The conflict we've had here comes from your assumption you know better than me. Here you've repeatedly made the same mistake that organized religion has for centuries. You assume you know better than others. That causes conflict.

      I tried and tried to have a mutually respectful discussion with you. You weren't having it. You think you know better than me. Thus, conflict. Then you blame me.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      You don't think you know better than me? LOL

      Human consciousness did not always exist, therefore it is majik? And I must prove otherwise?

      This is why your religion causes so many fights.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      That's why I try to have discussions. I know I don't know better than everyone else. I attempt to learn from others through discussion. You just point and laugh and ridicule, therefore you're unable to have a mutually respectful discussion and therefore don't learn and grow. I approach these discussions ready to learn, you assume there's nothing worth learning.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      "You think you have it all figured out. Good for you. I know you don't. I know there's way too much you're leaving out and see huge gaping flaws in your logic. You don't. I can't make you see it. That's fine with me. Go forward with your narrow worldview and that chip on your shoulder and be happy."

      Liar.

      All I am leaving out is majik.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      If you can tell yourself that this is all nothing more than 'majik' and be content with that answer, go with it. I'm not content with that answer. I couldn't be content with your reasoning. It leaves too much out. If it works for you, I'm glad. You seem jolly enough, I'm glad your happy and am fine with you believing what you want. I want no conflict and I don't want to argue with you. If you want to have a real discussion, I'm always up for it. If you want to come ridicule my beliefs you're going to hear what I think. It's as simple as that.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      I tried to have a real discussion. All you want is proof that it was not majik that we developed consciousness.

      This is not being reasonable.

      Prove it was majik.

      Go!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Your very first line in your very first comment began with you laughing at me. And you've consistently done so since. That's not a real discussion, Mark. And neither is disrespecting me and my views by labeling them with your condescending title 'majik'.

      I asked you to show me what proof there is of the development of consciousness. I know there is no causal explanation. I illustrated that by asking you to tell me what it is. You haven't. I know you can't because I know there isn't one. I was making a point.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      LOL There is plenty of causal explanations. It is called "evolution".

      Now show me the majik!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Sure, Mark. Evolution. That explains it. No need to look any further than that. Case closed. Good work.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Yes. There is MASSIVE amounts of data regarding this subject.

      There are papers hundreds of thousands of words long - that clearly you have not researched and you expect proof from me in a comment thread?

      Here is a good one to start with:

      http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?...

      Your "gap" is shrinking all the time and "majik" or "god" is not an answer.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      And if you prefer to watch videos instead of reading scientific papers, TED is an awesome resource:

      http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consci...

      http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_sh...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      That looks like some fascinating material that I appreciate you passing along. That's more like it, Mark. I'm familiar with the concepts that particular article is talking about. That's why I point out things like humor and laughter. You can assign causal reasonings to consciousness similar to what's done here, where actions are dictated by an attempt to realize a consciously developed plan, versus 'immediate environmental contingencies' at it puts it.

      Now, carry that through to what we know today as human consciousness. Where does a sense of humor come about and why? And I don't mean laughter as a social mechanism to convey the sense of a light mood to others you may encounter, but the sense of humor where a thought can cause one to laugh involuntarily. What purpose does this serve in a causal-only existence? Or crying?

      I don't just fill gaps by saying 'God did it'. While my faith is unshakable, my logical mind wants to understand. Even where I do see actions by God as an explanation, there's reason behind it. It's not my go-to placeholder. There's logical reasoning behind the whole thing. I just allow for more to be possible than non-believers do, but that doesn't mean I dismiss scientific understanding. I use it. As I said in my hub, I believe God reveals Himself to us through two sources, the bible and nature. So science to me is the most detailed look at nature you could possibly ask for. And through it I've found answers that the bible alone could only hint at.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      No. This is not logical reasoning. Sorry. even the bible tells you that god is outside of logic and reason.

      There is a clash here that you are choosing to ignore. There is no logical reasoning behind the whole thing. Logically - a god is impossible.

      I don't care what you believe, but it sure ain't based on logic and reason. That is NOT what faith is all about. In fact - by claiming logic and reason - you disprove the christian god, because that god relies on faith.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      You're making a lot of assumptions here. My hubs should make what I'm saying clear, but I know you already said you're not interested in reading them. It all makes perfect sense to the point of being poetic.

      Your simplistic understanding of the bible as illustrated here leaves a lot of relevant information out. My faith led me to these conclusions. You know, that whole 'seek and ye shall find' thing? I've found that's totally true. This is what I seek and I feel I have found.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      My simplistic understanding? I see what you mean about being respectful. LOL

      You are the one making the assumptions. And being pretty condescending as well.

      Stick to goddunit then. By logic and reason. LAWL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I say that strictly based on your comment. It illustrates a simplistic understanding. That's not condescending, that's observant. If I'm mistaken, correct me.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      Not sure it is worth it. Your lack of understanding and inability to reason is getting in the way of our discussion.

      So - you were homeschooled?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      HAHAHAHA!!! Not sure if that was meant to be funny, but I enjoyed it. No, Mark, I was not homeschooled.

      Like I said, I'm open to being wrong. I in fact appreciate when someone can prove me wrong about something because that means I've learned something new I did not know before. I live for that sort of thing.

      I understand how you can see my view as having a 'lack of understanding' and 'inability to reason'. You wouldn't be the first non-believer to site that as reasons to not get into a discussion with me.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      It is not possible to prove you wrong. You have created a scenario (religion) where this cannot be done.

      You postulate a god, and postulate divine intervention and then ask to have that dis-proven.

      This is false logic, and the exact opposite of the science you claim an interest in.

      Now if you have some evidence of this god and proof that He intervened - I am all ears. Until then - you are asking to be ridiculed.

      And yes - it was supposed to be funny.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I can almost agree with that, other than the 'false logic' or the 'asking to be ridiculed' part. This is what I've been trying to convey. God isn't physical. You're not going to look through a telescope and see a giant being physically molding existence. Existence is the result of His actions. According to the bible, He spoke existence into being. His words are the laws that bind the universe together and make it work.

      That's why I did the other hubs. Those other hubs show in great detail how the first few chapters of Genesis describe what we can only recently confirm scientifically/historically. Just the fact that ancient documents from thousands of years ago are able to do this is my 'proof' that more is at play here, because other than sheer coincidence this just isn't possible without the existence of a supernatural element.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 5 years ago

      This is nonsense. Sorry.

      I don't believe in majik and this makes it impossible to converse with you. This is why your religion causes so many fights. Your insistence that you know something I don't know and it is invisible and I am being narrow minded for not believing what I know to be nonsense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I get how you can see it that way. And I respect that.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

      ...Just like the fish in an aquarium must think the food that is dropped into the tank comes from magic?

      Hey there, HeadlyvonNoggin, I would really like for you to comment on my ex-Hub entitled "God is from another Dimension."

      Well, I tried to post a link to it in the comment field, but a warning came up and said that it is a prohibited link (who would have thought?).

      Anyway, just follow my profile link, click on the Perpendicular Blog link, and scroll down until you see that post.

      Dang, I never knew it would be this complicated to give a link!

      At any rate, if you are a smart man, you can easily find the post... I look forward to your response...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Thanks, Insane Mundane, for reading and for the comment. I think I found your article. I found out in much the same way that posting personal links, at least hub links, is frowned upon. Anyway, I didn't see a comment section on your blog so I'll respond here.

      First, the tone in which you write sounds a lot like how my first draft sounds before I delete it all and start over. The rant that comes from my initial reaction to something. I can relate. And I think I can also relate to the frustration you feel through discussions with atheists, especially those that swear they're not materialists, yet become decidedly materialist in their objections to any and every idea you present. I also have to say I loved the pic illustrating the 'in utero' conversation between the theist/atheist twins.

      I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on my other hubs as well, the three titled 'God created evolution'.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

      Unless you land on a post directly, the 'comment section' link is on the right-hand side of each individual blog post title.

      Yeah, I'll most likely come back soon and check out ya other Hubs; cheers! [By the way, that wasn't a rant, my first draft goes on in my head - which is way too stern for any blog or website on the web; ha!]

    • rjbatty profile image

      rjbatty 4 years ago from Irvine

      Headly: This is about the longest streams of comments that I've come across.

      Scientists are able to "prove" their theories via mathematics. They extrapolate what probably happened billions of years ago with a piece of chalk. If the math is correct, and no one can observe any obvious or non-obvious flaws, the theory becomes part of scientific journals and possibly even text books. The belief that the theories of physicists are accurate is all contained in their complex formulas.

      Within these formulas there is no room for God. At least not at the present moment.

      Even though we are just starting to understand subatomic particles (quarks, string theory) and we are just glimpsing at the outline of phenomena as dark matter, dark energy and singularities, the scientific community feels reasonably sure these conundrums will (in time) be puzzled out. And everything works out smoothly without the interference of a supreme being. But, something odd is happening in the study of string theory. It has been postulated that there may be an infinite number of universes side-by-side, like a foam of bubbles. The behavior of strings in the subatomic world has opened the door for scientists to visit something similar to the realm of the supernatural.

      String theory has been "explained" as such: String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory posits that the elementary particles (i.e., electrons and quarks) within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but rather 1-dimensional oscillating lines ("strings").

      The earliest string model, the bosonic string, incorporated only bosons, although this view developed to the superstring theory, which posits that a connection (a "supersymmetry") exists between bosons and fermions. String theories also require the existence of several extra dimensions to the universe that have been compactified into extremely small scales, in addition to the four known spacetime dimensions.

      The theory has its origins in an effort to understand the strong force, the dual resonance model (1969). Subsequent to this, five different superstring theories were developed that incorporated fermions and possessed other properties necessary for a theory of everything. Since the mid-1990s, in particular due to insights from dualities shown to relate the five theories, an eleven-dimensional theory called M-theory is believed to encompass all of the previously distinct superstring theories.

      Many theoretical physicists (e.g., Stephen Hawking, Edward Witten, Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind) believe that string theory is a step towards the correct fundamental description of nature. This is because string theory allows for the consistent combination of quantum field theory and general relativity, agrees with general insights in quantum gravity (such as the holographic principle and Black hole thermodynamics), and because it has passed many non-trivial checks of its internal consistency. According to Hawking in particular, "M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe."Nevertheless, other physicists, such as Feynman and Glashow, have criticized string theory for not providing novel experimental predictions at accessible energy scales.

      The field of physics has obviously left the boundaries of the English language, as one might suspect when speaking about 11 different dimensions. If physicists are able to develop a unified field theory, then a great achievement will have been obtained. And what if we discover a similar number of dimensions that also control influence over our seemingly familiar cosmos? Might one or several of these extra dimensions have room for God? Since we really have no idea what he might be or even if he is visible to any of our senses, the quest might be quite difficult. It would only be pure hubris to claim that we understand all aspects of the finite and infinite world. This is why I do not put all my eggs in one basket. Science may provide us with an invaluable wire frame of how the macro and micro worlds coexist. But, what would we do if in our searching we found the place where God has been "hiding?" Wouldn't that be one heck of a conversation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Thanks, rjbatty, for reading and for the comment.

      You've hit on a topic here that utterly fascinates me. My belief in God has been ever-present, so in all things science I see a correlation, and this is no exception.

      In regards to finding God, I see Him as the creator of all. If He created existence then He existed before, and therefore outside, of this universe or any alternate dimension, and beyond our capability to detect Him in any sort of observable fashion. If He truly is the infinite creator then He will not be found within the bounds of His creation or subject to its laws. To badly paraphrase Judge Dredd, He is the law.

      As for M-theory I see this being a highly likely scenario in the context of God. Of course this is all rampant speculation on my part, but it hopefully makes for interesting discussion at the very least.

      If God is the creator of the natural world, then His one will is the singular will that creates/governs/propels existence. Everything from the same single unified source. Now, according to Genesis, God's creation of Adam marks the first of His creations able to behave outside of the will of God. Adam was the first being to have an individual will of his own. He, and everyone that followed, was in affect a creator capable of creating choices and actions not born of God's will/natural law.

      So, in that context, if we as free-willed beings are capable of decisions/choices/actions independent of God's will, then each decision/choice/action born of our creative capability is a change in the natural order of the universe. Once we create something of our own will, we have created an alternate dimension where our creation exists alongside the other that exists as if we had not created it.

      This, again in my mind, is the whole purpose of everything. The meaning of life, so to speak. Free will is an incredibly powerful capability. It's as potentially creative as it is destructive. If each of us are capable of creation, yet incapable of grasping the full extent of the effects of our actions/decisions/choices, then we're at all times a potentially cancerous element in the natural world. We would need an extensive knowledge-base of experience and understanding to wield such a powerful capability. Life, the full extent of human history, would serve well for just such a knowledge-base. Centuries of human experience. A detailed guide of what not to do and why.

      I'd like to write a hub on this topic at some point, but being that you're the first to bring it up you kind of got the full brunt of my M-theory related tangent.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, I would like to add several comments to your interesting hub.

      First, I agree with you that they were atheists in Greece, however, the biggest Greek Minds were not atheists; and in fact, the Roman law was based on their religion. I would strongly recommend reading The Republic by Plato

      http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plato/p71r/

      BOOK II: THE INDIVIDUAL, THE STATE, AND EDUCATION

      (SOCRATES, GLAUCON.)

      "....Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men. 

      For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him.

      That appears to me to be most true, he said.

      Then we must not listen to Homer or to any other poet who is guilty of the folly of saying that two casks

      "Lie at the threshold of Zeus, full of lots, one of good, the other of evil lots,"

      and that he to whom Zeus gives a mixture of the two

      "Sometimes meets with evil fortune, at other times with good;"

      but that he to whom is given the cup of unmingled ill,

      "Him wild hunger drives o'er the beauteous earth."

      And again—

      "Zeus, who is the dispenser of good and evil to us."

      And if anyone asserts that the violation of oaths and treaties, which was really the work of Pandarus, was brought about by Athene and Zeus, or that the strife and contention of the gods were instigated by Themis and Zeus, he shall not have our approval; neither will we allow our young men to hear the words of AEschylus, that

      "God plants guilt among men when he desires utterly to destroy a house."

      And if a poet writes of the sufferings of Niobe—the subject of the tragedy in which these iambic verses occur—or of the house of Pelops, or of the Trojan War or on any similar theme, either we must not permit him to say that these are the works of God, or if they are of God, he must devise some explanation of them such as we are seeking: he must say that God did what was just and right, and they were the better for being punished; but that those who are punished are miserable, and that God is the author of their misery—the poet is not to be permitted to say; though he may say that the wicked are miserable because they require to be punished, and are benefited by receiving punishment from God; but that God being good is the author of evil to anyone is to be strenuously denied, and not to be said or sung or heard in verse or prose by anyone whether old or young in any well-ordered commonwealth. Such a fiction is suicidal, ruinous, impious.

      I agree with you, he replied, and am ready to give my assent to the law.

      Let this then be one of our rules and principles concerning the gods, to which our poets and reciters will be expected to conform

      —that God is not the author of all things, but of good only...."

      You see Headly, Greeks like Socrates, Founders of Western Philosophy, believed in God; loving and  caring God - creator of good things only. Minoans called this God Wadd - God of Love and Friendship.

      But they also believed in Devil / Satan -source of evil and wickedness, creator of his own people.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Hey there, HeadlyvonNoggin, it sounds like you think similar to me about the "God from another dimension" concept, albeit I think you and a few others on here should check out my Hub about fractals; watch the quick vids, and get back into the proportion of all things; ha!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius 2012,

      I do know that the majority of Greeks viewed their mythological tales of gods as actual history, and that those of atheistic views were very much in the minority, but the bit you included from the Republic of Plato is new to me. It's interesting to see how prominent the viewpoint was in the making of their laws.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Thanks for reading and commenting, Insane Mundane. I will check out your hub, and will provide a link for anyone else who may want to read it as well ...

      http://insanemundane.hubpages.com/hub/Fractals-any...

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Now Headly let's add some events that lead to the fall of  the Western Roman Empire, many people are not aware of.

      The Burning of Rome, 64 AD

      During the night of July 18, 64 AD, fire broke out in the merchant area of the city of Rome. Fanned by summer winds, the flames quickly spread through the dry, wooden structures of the Imperial City. Soon the fire took on a life of its own consuming all in its path for six days and seven nights. When the conflagration finally ran its course it left seventy percent of the city in smoldering ruins.

      Rumors soon arose accusing the Emperor Nero of ordering the torching of the city and standing on the summit of the Palatine playing his lyre as flames devoured the world around him. These rumors have never been confirmed. 

      In fact, Nero rushed to Rome from his palace in Antium (Anzio) and ran about the city all that first night without his guards directing efforts to quell the blaze. But the rumors persisted and the Emperor looked for a scapegoat. 

      He found it in the Christians, at that time a rather obscure religious sect with a small following in the city. To appease the masses, Nero literally had his victims fed to the lions during giant spectacles held in the city's remaining amphitheater.

      Emperor Nero's jewish wife.

      In the ninth year of his government, Claudius commanded all Jews to leave Rome because, according to the evidence of Flavius Josephus, they had caused Agrippina, his wife, to take on Jewish customs; or also, as Suetonius writes, because frequent upheavals gave the impetus to the persecutions of Christians.

      One sees that the pagan Emperor Claudius was tolerant in the extreme towards Christians. When he became tired of the mutinies that the Jews caused, he expelled them from the city of Rome. The Acts of the Apostles also report this expulsion.

      One sees here the Jewish tendency to cause their influence to rise up to the steps of the throne, by their controlling the Empress in order to exert influence on the Emperor. 

      In so doing, they held to the completely distorted teachings of the Biblical book of Esther, giving this an ambitious interpretation. Esther, a Jewess, was successful in transforming herself into the Queen of Persia and in exercising a decisive influence on the King, in order to destroy the enemies of the Israelites.

      However, in the case of the Emperor Claudius, the attempt openly failed, which did not occur with Nero, with whom it was successful in bringing close to him a Jewess named Poppaea, who soon transformed into the lover of the Emperor, and, according to some Hebrew chronicles, into the real Empress of Rome. 

      This jewish empress was successful in exercising a decisive influence upon this ruler.

      Tertullian, one of the Church Fathers, says in his work “Scorpiase”: “The synagogues are the places from whence the persecutions against Christians emanate.” And in his book “Ad Nationes”, the same Tertullian writes: “From the Jews come the slanders against the Christians.”

      During the rule of Nero, tolerance at first reigned towards the Christians; however, the Emperor finally gave way to the persistent intrigues of his Jewish lover Poppaea, who is described as the originator of the idea of laying the blame for setting fire to the city of Rome upon the Christians, based on which the first cruel persecution of Christians that was carried out by the Roman Empire was justified.

       Re: Emperor Nero's jewish wife.

      In order to defend the truth, we will quote the reliable evidence of an authorised Jewish source: 

      “Rabbi Wiener, who, in his work “The Jewish Food Laws”, confesses that the Jews were the instigators of the Christian persecutions in Rome, observed that under the rule of Nero, in the year 65 of our calendar, when Rome had the Jewess Poppaea as Empress and a Jew as prefect of the city, 

       the era of martyrs began which was to extend for over 249 years.”

      In these instigations of the Hebrews to call forth the Roman persecutions against Christianity, participated even those Rabbis outstanding in the history of the synagogue, such as the famed “Rabbi Jehuda, one of the authors of the Talmud (the sacred books and the source of the religion of modern Jewry), who  was successful in the year 155 of our calendar in obtaining a command, according to which all Christians of Rome were to be sacrificed, and on the grounds of which many thousands were killed. The executioners of the martyrs and Popes, Cayo and Marcelino were in fact Jews.”

      During three centuries, the Christians showed heroic resistance, without answering violence with violence. 

      In fact it is understandable that, after three centuries of persecutions, when Christianity had gained a complete victory in the Roman Empire through the conversion of Constantine and the acceptance of the Christian religion as the state religion, that it was finally decided to answer violence with violence, in order to defend the victorious Church – as well as the peoples who had placed their faith in it and who also saw themselves continually threatened by the destructive and annihilating activity of Jewish imperialism – against the lasting conspiracies of Jewry.

       

      In his book Die Brand Roms, German scholar Gerhard Baudy argues that Christians really did burn Rome in 64 AD, as Nero charged. However, he cites in a footnote a modified argument -- that:

      Messianic Jews ("Apostle's" Paul's Christianity) burned Rome in64 AD, and that Empress Poppaea Sabina "deflected" Rome's invesetigation from those Jewish Zealots to the "Christians" (who were followers of Apostole Peter, and believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah).

      Messianic Jewish Zealots, Paul's Christianity, torched Rome in 64 AD, and the Jewish Empress steered the investigation away from the Zealots towards the hated by Jews, Christians. 

      Unable at first to discern Paul's Messianic Christian Jewish sect, from Peter's Christianity, Nero went along and literally had his victims (Christian Gentiles followers of Peter, not the Jewish Messianic Christians followers of Paul), fed to the lions during giant spectacles held in the city's remaining amphitheater. Nero also crucified Peter, while Paul was allowed to leave Rome and went to Ephesus to prosecute Apostle John and his followers.

      Paul was beheaded in 67 AD. upon returning to Rome,  and the Jewess  Poppaea was kicked out of palace, when Nero realized what the Jews had done. 

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      In our recent conversations you've been trying to convince me that there is an elaborate far-reaching Jewish conspiracy to change written history and hide the 'truth'. Now, here, you write out this long post that's not really relevant to the hub about how particular Jewish individuals played a role in the Roman persecution of Christians and the eventual fall of the Roman Empire by basically stating that it's in their inherent nature ... "One sees here the Jewish tendency to cause their influence to rise up to the steps of the throne....".

      I hope you can see that it's a bit hard to accept what you're claiming. If I understand correctly, you seem to be looking for a way to keep Christianity while removing the Jewish people from the equation. And you seem to lay a lot of blame at their feet, though doing so requires accepting that every single iteration of the bible has been altered in a cover-up that involves strategically placed individuals in all the highest levels of power and authority. I have a hard time accepting this for multiple reasons. For one, I'm not sure you realize just how small of a percentage of the world's population is Jewish. You're talking about a very small number of people having such a dramatic impact, and apparently without the help or guidance of, and under the nose of, an all-seeing/all-knowing God.

      Please correct me if I am misunderstanding as that is always a possibility.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Earth provides a life-giving substrate that has obviously been "played" with, numerous amounts of times throughout the time-tables of history; albeit I'll never believe in the silly speciation concepts of Evolution nor the magic from a Primordial Soup theory or the Dogma dung from organized religions, howbeit there is definitely a divine unity amid the madness, nonetheless...

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, 

      The reason I've put this not very relevant post, was your statement about the fall of Western Roman Empire. 

      As you have rightly noticed, it was the fall of Western (part of) Roman Empire, which was overrun by Messianic Jews; not the "main" Roman Empire which was transferred by Constantine the Great to Byzantium. 

      Couple of months ago I was reading the book, The World's Grate Letters, published in 1940. This book included letter of Pliny the Younger, in which he ask the emperor Trajan, how to arrest and punish "The depraved and excessive superstition" of the early Christians ( the Jerusalem Church; not the Jewish Messianic Christians - followers of Paul). 

      Several pages later, there was a letter of Saint Jerome written to St. Augustine; in this letter St. Jerome was describing the decline and fall of Rome before his eyes. St. Jerome wrote:

      "... the wolves of the North have been let loose..."

      "I SHUDDER when I think of the calamities of our time.

      For twenty years the blood of Romans has been shed daily between Constantinople and the Alps.

      Scythia, Thrace, Macedon, Thessaly, Dacia, Achaea, Epirus - all this region have been sacked and pillaged by Goths and Alans, Huns and Vandals. How many noble and virtuous woman have been made the sport of these beasts."

      Isn't this strange to know? In the fourth century, those people, the Vandals, overrun whatever was left of Christian Church of Rome (the head of the true Catholic church had been moved by Constantine to Byzantium), and created the new Roman - Vandal Catholic Church. 

      The true Catholic Church (inside Byzantine empire), prospered and spread North, East, South and partially West, for another 800 years, while the Vandal church of Rome, unified with government, dragged Western Europe in to Dark Ages; there was nothing Christian in this Judeo-Vandal church of Rome which was preoccupied with slaughter of innocent people and crusaders wars. 

      In the year 1204, this Judeo-Vandal  Church of Rome, organized the IV Crusade, this time against the true Christian Church of the Roman Empire.

      Headly, let's look back in to the history of Christian Church, of the second and third century.

      Hadrian was the 14th Emperor of the Roman Empire,

      he reign from 10 August 117  to 10 July 138.

      Historians list him as one of the five good emperors.

      He was a great builder, merciful in many of his judgments.

      Hadrian was protector and promotor of Christianity and demanded due process of law for Christians.

      In a letter to Minucius Fundanus, Hadrian wrote:

      "...I have received a letter written to me by His Excellency Scrennius Granianus, your predecessor. It is not my intention to leave the matter uninvestigated, for fear of causing the men embarrassment and abetting the informers in their mischiefmaking. If then the provincial can so clearly establish their claim against Christians that they can sustain it in a court of law, let them resort to this procedure only, and not rely on petitions and mcre clamor. Much the most satisfactory course, if anyone should wish to prosecute, is for you to decide the matter. So if someone prosecutes them and proves them guilty of any UlegaEty, you must pronounce sentence according to the seriousness of the offense. But  if anyone starts such proceedings in the hope of financial award, then for goodness sake arrest him for his shabby trick, and see that he gets his deserts" (History of the Church by Eusebius).

      BTW. Jews rightly called Hadrian - the king of Edom.

      In 293, Diocletian created a new administrative system (the tetrarchy), in order to guarantee security in all endangered regions of his Empire. He associated himself with a co-emperor (Augustus), who was then to adopt a young colleague given the title of Caesar, to share in their rule and eventually to succeed the senior partner. The tetrarchy collapsed, however, in 313 and a few years later Constantine I reunited the two halves of the Empire as sole Augustus.

      In 330, Constantine moved the seat of the Empire to Constantinople, which he founded as a second Rome on the site of Byzantium, a city well-positioned astride the trade routes between East and West. 

      Constantine introduced important changes into the Empire's military, monetary, civil and religious institutions. As regards his economic policies in particular, he has been accused by certain scholars of "reckless fiscality", but the gold solidus he introduced became a stable currency that transformed the economy and promoted development.

      Under Constantine, Christianity did not become the exclusive religion of the state, but enjoyed imperial preference, because the emperor supported it with generous privileges. "

      The western part of Roman Empire was lost to Visigots and Vandals (the lost tribes of Israel) who sucked Rome, however, as empire, the Roman Empire had prospered in Byzantium for another eight hundred years.

      This happened because Constantine I has moved  Roman capitol to Byzantium, later known as Konstantinopol (present Isatanbul). 

      After  Rome was sacked by Vandals, the Roman Empire with its capital of Constantinople,  prosper until the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204) .

      The Fourth Crusade, which was originally intended to conquer Muslim-controlled Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt, was organized by Rome run by Vandals.

      Instead of attacking Jerusalem, in April 1204, the Crusaders of Western Europe invaded and conquered the Christian  city of Constantinople, capital of the new Roman Empire. 

      This is seen as the final act in the Great Schism between the Roman Christian Church of Constantinople  and Roman Vandal Church of Rome.

      The great historian of the Crusades, Sir Steven Runciman, wrote that the sack of Constantinople is “unparalleled in history”.

      “For nine centuries,” he goes on, “the great city (Constantinopole) had been the capital of Christian civilisation. It was filled with works of art that had survived from ancient Greece and with the masterpieces of its own exquisite craftsmen.

      The Venetians wherever they could seized treasures and carried them off. 

      But the Frenchmen and Flemings were filled with a lust for destruction:

      they rushed in a howling mob down the streets and through the houses, snatching up everything that glittered and destroying whatever they could not carry, pausing only to murder or to rape, or to break open the wine-cellars. 

      Neither monasteries nor churches nor libraries were spared. 

      In St Sophia itself drunken soldiers could be seen tearing down the silken hangings and pulling the silver iconostasis to pieces, while sacred books and icons were trampled under foot. 

      While they drank from the altar-vessels a prostitute sang a ribald French song on the Patriarch’s throne. Nuns were ravished in their convents.

      Palaces and hovels alike were wrecked. Wounded women and children lay dying in the streets. 

      For three days the ghastly scenes continued until the huge and beautiful city was a shambles. 

      Even after order was restored, citizens were tortured to make them reveal treasures they had hidden....

      For the next half-century, Constantinople was the seat of the Latin Empire.....

      In 1347, the Black Death spread to Constantinople.

       In 1453, when the Ottoman Turks captured the city, it contained approximately 50,000 people.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople#Histor...

      Ottoman Turks were part of the lost 10 tribes of Israel, which were entirely taken away by the Assyrians, in the ninth century B.C., to be placed across the Caucasus Mountains and never returned to Palestine; and so were the Vandals, creators of the Western "Roman" Empire.

      Headly, I hope that this bit long comment will provide some historical background to why atheism ebb and flow, especially, in the western Roman Empire.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Well said.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Thanks!

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 4 years ago from Australia

      Atheism without humanists become sociopaths as shown by their desire to legalize bestiality and end the lives of one year old children.

      If we add REAL humanism to atheism we get a more benign product.

      However, real humanism EVOLVED out of religious thought, so why are the "new atheists" denying their own evolutionary history?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I'm not sure what you're referencing in regards to the 'desire to legalize bestiality and end the lives of one year old children', but I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as that. I think the tenents of humanism appeal to the atheist as it tends to focus on knowledge and learning and rational thought in regards to philosophies and morality. And being that the atheist see reality as being without a god, they tend to view religions based around the idea of a god as being inherently opposite of humanism.

      But you're right in that the environment that allows for thoughtful philosophical reasoning and appealing to the favorable conditions of the 'human nature' aspect of people had to first be established by the more religious/spiritual minded before real 'humanism' could flourish. To the atheist mind religious thought is just a rationalization that humans developed along the way because they needed it. It was a way to rationalize what they didn't understand about the world around them. But, as you said, that would make religious thought a vital part of our evolution, a product of our developing psyche, and something that served a key role in bringing us to where we are now. So, in that light, is it really something that can be viewed as purely detrimental to the human condition? Something that must now be cut our and eradicated?

      Personally, I think modern science has added fuel to the fusing of humanism and atheism. It's an alternate source of understanding beyond the purely spiritual/religious explanations regarding the 'how/why' questions of existence. The fact that it has found flaws in some of the religious explanations that had always been held as absolute 'truths' by religious organizations has made it seem the more rational of what they view to be two polar opposite viewpoints. And the modern knowledge of the inherent causal aspect of this existence has made it easier to explain away the things in existence that at one time it seemed could only be explained by an intelligent creator. It makes their faith in a belief system that says existence as we know it is possible without an intelligent designer stronger.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 4 years ago from Australia

      I have no problem with real humanistic atheism, but I must point out again new atheist leaders such as Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins promote and approve of beastiality and legal child infanticide. They call them "zoophilia" and "after birth abortions" respectively to try to sanitise and re-sell these truly socipath ideas.

      The new atheism is not humansitic since it subverts essential human values (as argued above).

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Wow, Oztinato, you've just introduced me to a whole new conversation being had that I wasn't aware of before. Thank you for that. To learn more of what you're talking about, I found the following discussion between Singer and Dawkins ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxdMUuZXUY. I'm sure you're probably aware of it already. I'm posting here more for anyone else who may be following along who was maybe as unaware as I was of the ways of thinking your talking about.

      What strikes me, in my attempt to view this in a purely logical manner and from an atheist mindset, is that they don't seem to consider the acts in themselves that they're suggesting. Or, the potential actions taken, I guess I should say.

      They're trying to view morality in a purely logical sense, which I can understand, by removing the barrier between us humans and the animal kingdom we evolved from, sighting that we all have the capacity to suffer in common. We, as humans, have the ability to remember the past and imagine potential futures, thereby making us unique (we assume) amongst the animal kingdom in that regard. That in itself gives us the ability to reason and to ponder these types of ethical/moral questions.

      But what about the fact that we, as a reasoning self-aware animal, are able to choose our behavior above that of animals whose behavior is more determined by instinct and the environment in which they live? Are we not, in that capacity, taking it upon ourselves to 'take the reigns', so to speak, from nature in our attempt to rationalize and quantify morality and decide for ourselves who or what has the right to continue living or not? Being that reason is still such a new development in the grand scheme of things, do we really think ourselves ready to take the wheel here? Especially considering everything we assign to the non-human animal condition as far as whether or not they're conscious, or capable of mourning, or whatever, is subjective assumptions on our part due to our limited capacity to observe. And that's without even getting into the whole inter-species sexual interaction aspect of the discussion. I'll leave that one alone for now.

      But I feel I should say, I have not yet watched the entire discussion, so maybe they cover that aspect of it later. And I should also say that from what I can tell Dawkins doesn't necessarily seem to be 'on board' with Singer in as much as he just seems to be trying to have an open and logical discussion about Singer's controversial views. But that's just my assessment based on no more than my partial viewing of this one discussion.

      But this does lead to something I have discussed with others in the past as far as the purpose and meaning we humans assign to our lives. The fact that life is important to us. Events and relationships are meaningful. If existence is not the result of a conscious purposeful being, then nothing really has any real meaning, and the purpose and importance we apply to our lives and various aspects of it are manufactured concepts we've created for ourselves in an attempt to appease our more capable brains that make us capable of realizing the inevitability of our own eventual demise.

      In my mind, you can't remove God from the equation without also removing the validity of what's important to humans. Removing God removes the possibility of free will and reduces the importance we assign to our lives to ultimately being nothing more than biological machines coping with the evolutionary development of reason that makes us aware of our eventual extinction. It reduces the entirety of human existence to a flicker that lasted for an instant on the cosmic timeline where a part of the universe became aware of itself just briefly before fading away back into nothingness. That's how I see it anyway.

      Sorry, I kind of got carried away there. You introduced me to a topic that's piqued my interest and I just kind of rambled on about it. Now, back to listening to the rest of that discussion now that I have that off my chest. Thank you again for broadening my mind. I always appreciate that.

    • rjbatty profile image

      rjbatty 4 years ago from Irvine

      HeadlyvonNoggin: You say, "...you can't remove God from the equation without also removing the validity of what's important to humans. Removing God removes the possibility of free will and reduces the importance we assign to our lives..." What you stated is merely a psychological barrier. Once an individual dispenses with the idea of a creator, we are left to assign "validity" and importance to our deeds to ourselves. We can create God when there is none, and we can assign importance (i.e., meaning) to our actions out of our own psychological predisposition, our propensity to cower to things beyond our comprehension. In earlier cultures this would extend to all acts of nature (e.g., storms, thunder, lightening, earthquakes, eclipses, etc.). None of this reduces us to biological "machines," as you suggest. Evolution has taken us to a point where we can be self-conscious and ponder upon the universe, as well as our eventual death. There is no tragedy here. The tendencies of the universe created us for no purpose and will cease our existences with an equal amount of indifference. Thus, how many tears should we shed about this process of/life and death? If the universe is ultimately meaningless, how can the existence of brief life forms have any bearing? And that's the big rub. Are we capable of living "just/moral/decent" existences in the absence of a guiding Big Daddy?

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 4 years ago from Australia

      The more one looks into this we can see that new atheism, devoid of true humanism, is well on the way to legalising infanticide as seen in the Netherlands where it is now legal to kill children up to the age of one.

      As for the legalisation of beastiality, this was just narrowly defeated in the German parliament! Certain "new atheist animal liberationsts" actually want legal sexual relations with their pet animals!!

      By sharing quiet conversations about legalising infanticide Dawkins is taking a subliminal approach by saying "its ok to talk calmly about killing children up the age of one". Likewise in his comments about bestiality.

      Atheism without the TRULY humanistic appraoch is instant sociopathy.

      I believe these kinds of new atheist "buggers" should be ridiculed publicly as Dawkins recommends his followers to do with religion.

      Many atheists are saying we are "hardwired" to believe in God: this may be truer than they have yet considered, as without either true humanism, or a God concept, the human mind almost instantly degenerates into socipathy as shown by Singer and Dawkins themselves.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Yes, exactly, rjbatty. Without a deliberate purposeful creator it's like you said, "the tendencies of the universe created us for no purpose and will cease our existences with an equal amount of indifference." Any purpose or meaning we assign to life is created after the fact, and is manufactured by us as a kind of coping mechanism to make us feel better about what these highly evolved reasoning brains make us realize about our own mortality.

      Without a purposeful creator, without a spiritual/non-physical element at play with a non-physical soul that interacts with this finite world through this finite body, our 'self' can be nothing more than the product of a physical brain which means its behavior is constrained by the same physical/biological/chemical laws that govern all matter. True free will is not possible in that environment. Our ability to remember the past and imagine possible futures only really gives us the illusion of having control, when we actually could not have chosen otherwise. Other than the inherent uncertainty at the quantum level which allows the possibility of chance, it could not have been an actual conscious choice as our biological make-up and our previous experiences are what would actually determine our decisions. That's why I say it reduces us to biological machines. The only way free will is truly possible is if a part of the 'self' is something nonphysical and therefore not constrained by the natural laws. That's the thought behind it anyway.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      One could easily study some of the basic concepts behind the Anthropic Principle and compare other coincidences like us living during the perfect time in which the sun and moon align just so, in which an eclipse can even occur, for example, and begin to question the common atheistic view of a mechanistic cosmos - which is ridiculous, to say the least.

      One should never underestimate the power of thoughts, as they are more divine than most realize as the ongoing conundrum of consciousness creates, destroys and re-creates until the pieces fall back into place.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Well I have to hand it to them that this is at least the most honest form of atheism I can imagine. If you're going to approach existence with a no-God mindset, this is the logical way to go about it. And the problems with that mindset become pretty quickly apparent. Basically, if you're going to claim this as a belief or philosophy or whatever, go all the way with it. If you do attempt to interject humanism, on what basis do you assign importance to humanity over others? Definitely something to ponder.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Good point, IM. Our knowledge of the mind is, to me at least, the most obvious example of something that definitely exists, yet is completely undetectable in any sort of empirical, verifiable way. There's a whole world going on in each of our heads that from the outside looks like nothing more than firing neurons and oxygenated blood flow and chemical changes. There's nothing there to suggest the dynamic/creative mind that's working within that mass of tissue in our skulls. So who's to say that's the only example? That's just the only way we know of that a thinking/reasoning/self-aware/creative mind can exist, and the only way we know that is because we each experience it for ourselves. Who's to say lightening isn't a thought, or the fusion happening in the sun, or whatever, Our power of thought is the single most creative/destructive element in all the natural world. What makes anyone so certain that it's the only thing in existence so capable, yet totally undetectable?

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 4 years ago from Australia

      OK it sounds like people are starting to realise that without god in the equation the math doesn't work and a human being can become a very strange creature like a Peter Singer type who calmly wants to kill babies or sleep with animals for some odd reason.

      Perhaps God is like imaginary numbers in maths, whereby higher maths can't be done with the idea of imaginary numbers.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      That may be true for the most part where the people involved in this particular discussion are concerned. But if you want to find a whole slew of people who have not yet made that realization, go check out the 'religion and philosophy' forum section. There you'll find a whole slew of people who definitely have not, and who will dedicate a good chunk of their day to telling believers that their way of looking at the world doesn't work.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 4 years ago from Australia

      Thanks for that. Yes I will do that and take a look when time permits. However I already know that such people do not respond to the facts about the atheist views regarding legalisation of beastialty/infanticide. Its called being "in deep denial" and is a disturbed psychological state similar to what I have tried to outline here.

      We are dealing with a mass psychological phenomena. It seems to be that New Atheism is like a religion similar to Scientology, where the "hardwired" need to have faith is occurring, but in a total ethical vacuum.

      (PS excuse the typo in my previous response: it should read ...higher maths can't be done withOUT the use of imaginary numbers)

    • profile image

      Jim Miller 3 years ago

      Great post. In Hardwired: Finding the God You Already Know, I look at the ways that God is apparent if not obvious through free observation. In fact, I argue that through observation we come to some pretty unavoidably theistic conclusions. I've never felt threatened by science.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thanks Jim. Yeah, it's strange to me that we can find out things like how the universe actually did have a beginning and came from a single point, or how life is built on top of this intricate system of retaining and passing on genetic information, and see these kinds of things as confirmation that there isn't a God. It seems backwards. But, this knowledge is still relatively new, with most of it only coming in the past century or so. There's this tendency to think that this new knowledge is totally unrelated to knowledge we had before. I think it just takes time to absorb and assimilate, but I think people will come around to the idea that it's all related eventually.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      The usual argument offered by atheists of even high standing goes like this:

      "God can't exist because of all the terrible things that happen" but this is not a rational argument because it blames an allegedly non-existent God for the occurrence of terrible things. That is, the statement is based on the existence of God FIRST and then uses the "supposed" existence of God to try to negate Him: irrational and faith based but not scientific.

      Even high ranking atheists like Hawking, Dawkins, Attenborough etc. use this so called logical argument.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I agree, Oztinato. I run into this all the time. An argument against the existence of God will be given based on their grasp of what God 'should' be if He did in fact exist and how reality doesn't match what they think it 'should' if that were the case. Then, when I try to address their statements speaking in the same way as if God existed, I get told that there's no evidence for God as a reason why they reject my statement. It's maddening at times and pointing out this fallacy can be like pulling teeth.

    • profile image

      oztinato 3 years ago

      It seems when we point out the flaws in the atheist rationale they go into denial. Really their beliefs are similar to scientology where aliens become like angels etc. Its best not to engage them in debate but to attack them legally on the way their thouhhts have a knack of shrinking humanism.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      LAWL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      oztinato,

      I definitely know what you mean, but I can't say I agree with attacking them legally or in any other way. I just try to encourage further thought through discussion. In discussions I've had I've found that many who label themselves atheists are former believers who were indoctrinated earlier in life, but then fell away when critical assessments of the traditional viewpoints didn't appear to hold up. Something I can relate to. But to come away from that experience with the conclusion that atheism is the answer is where they lose me. It's as if that same critical eye was never turned towards the new viewpoint they've adopted to see if it actually stands on its own.

      While this is certainly not the case for everyone, it seems to me the vast majority of atheists simply haven't thought these things out to their logical conclusions. Because, you're right, they do 'shrink', or diminish, our humanism. I understand the urgency with which many are eager to toss out the proverbial bathwater where traditional religion is concerned, but I'm pretty sure there's a baby in there.

    • profile image

      oztinato 3 years ago

      I respect your opinion and we are all free to take our own approach. However, we need to remember that the leaders of New Atheism ARE already attacking on legal grounds on many fronts. Therefore, by not challenging them on points of law they will keep making legal changes. For example, their apparent love of beasialty and infanticide are now starting to make legal ground. As we agree that new atheism is rapidly leading to a moral vacuum it is best to attacke them on legal grounds right now. One way to make a legal challenge online is too report all people defending beastiality and infanticide as these are still highly serious crimes in most countries.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      oztinato,

      What legal changes are you speaking of specifically in regards to their 'apparent love of bestiality and infanticide'? Because the majority of atheists I speak to, even the more fervent "New Atheists", are just as moral as anyone else. This to me just sounds like someone being overly paranoid or overly dramatic. Demonizing atheists by making them appear to be some sort of immoral monster is no way to go about it. We all still have to live together on this planet so we simply need to recognize and acknowledge the middle ground between us all that allows for rational discussion and finding rational and fair compromises where necessary. Making it a mission to report people as being bestiality or infanticide sympathizers sounds like the actions of a militant or extremist group. Becoming the lowest common denominator on either side of the fence is simply not productive and will only throw more animosity into the mix that causes even further division.

    • wilderness profile image

      Dan Harmon 3 years ago from Boise, Idaho

      To me, science and religion make very poor bedfellows. The very basis of science, the scientific method of discovery, is irrelevant and often impossible to use in religious searchings for truth. And the reverse is just as true; the method used by religion to find truth is the antithesis of science.

      About the most that can be said is that religion watches science for new truths and accepted facts as the religions "truth" must then be modified to fit common knowledge. Evolution might be a good example of this.

      That is not to say that one or the other does not have a place in our lives; both most certainly do. It's just that the two MUST be kept separate in each of us as they are not compatible.

    • profile image

      oztinato 3 years ago

      It is common knowledge that the new atheists have been legally challenging religious and spiritual issues for many years eg.the use of religion/religious symbols in education. No one can deny this. I am stating that the religious/spiritual people have the same right to make legal challenges against the principles of atheism. This is particularly so with the newer cutting edge atheist concepts of infanticide and beastiality. Please refer to wiki under “Peter Singer”: a leading atheist professor and close friend of Dawkins, who wants to legalise beastialty under the heading of legal “zoophilia”. I know it’s hard to believe but just a little research will show you that what I am saying is actually fact. This relates to the point I have been making in my messages on this thread: that new atheism is leading to the rapid legitimizing of socoipathy as some kind of acceptable norm. In other words without a “god” concept ethics just don’t work and quickly devolve.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato - Yeah, that Peter Singer freak seems to think it is A-Okay to have sexual relations with other animals, as long as nobody is harmed. He thinks that since the humans are animals, that there is nothing wrong with ... Yikes! I'm not even going to talk about that guy's sicko fantasies. However, there are various sources on the web that speak of this, including Wikipedia. He is just one of the many demented perverts that think it is normal to play what-what-in-tha-butt with your neighbor's dog, evidently. Thanks a lot, for bringing this Peter character into the Hub, by the way... LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      wilderness,

      If there is truth to God then they are completely compatible, even inseparable. Though a distinction must be made where 'religion' is concerned. Religion is not one and the same as God or even spirituality. Religion is a man-made thing. It's institutions built atop an ideology where they establish themselves as a kind of authority as to what's true or right. And, of course, being an 'authority' it's kind of hard to change your tune when new information proves one of your 'truths' wrong.

      But in matters of spirituality I'm of the same mind as St. Augustine in that I believe God reveals His nature to us through both the 'book of scripture' and the 'book of nature'. Yes, the scientific method requires a naturalist mentality as a necessity. I get that and I agree. Information gained through science can give better understanding. But where understanding the entirety of existence is concerned, science alone can only account for the physical/material world. I believe it requires more beyond just what's learned through the natural sciences in gaining a better understanding of the entirety of existence. If we're to lean on science alone then it leads to the conclusion that we're just as mechanistic and decidedly 'un-human' as the rest of the universe. I believe it's only through both science and spirituality that you can truly reach conclusions as far as meaning and purpose in life are concerned.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      oztinato,

      I am familiar with Peter Singer and his viewpoint. And while I understand that it may be troubling to many the kinds of things he suggests, he's really only trying to assign values to morality in a cold causal, non-human centric, reality. And yes, I agree that is a slippery slope where atheism in general is concerned as it tends to make light of the things that make us truly human, almost making it a point to demote humanity to being nothing special in the grand scheme of things. And in his case in particular these ideas are often taken to further extremes than elsewhere.

      However, equating the entirety of the atheist community, or even just the 'new' atheist community, to being one and the same in mindset to Mr. Singer is no different than equating all Christians to being of the same mindset as Fred Phelps and the people of the Westboro Baptist Church. It's not accurate and it tends to demonize people who are in no way deserving of the reputation it paints for them.

      The fact is the laws of the land are meant to be set by and for the people of the land. And if the land is populated by theists and atheists alike then the laws should be equal to both in consideration. Trying to make the legal system a kind of battle zone only promotes animosity with our fellow countrymen and women. That's no way to be. Christians in general are supposed to be accepting, non-judgemental, turn the other cheek types. Not warriors mandating their own missions in life to 'fight' whatever. While I understand the concern, I don't think it's realistic to pigeon-hole atheists in general as being morally ambiguous or vacant.

    • profile image

      oztinato 3 years ago

      There are good atheists and bad atheists; good religious people and bad religious people. There is no attempt to pigeonhole people by asserting that legal action is the only way to stop the cutting edge of the new atheism in regards to these matters. The sheer scale of new interspecies diseases and its affect on mankind Demands a legal fight; as does the killing of six month old babies. Any attempt to casually and coldly dicuss these things is clinical sociopathy.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      oztinato,

      Do you have any actual examples of legal precedence being made on either of these fronts?

      For one thing, making laws against inter-species relations, which I'm pretty sure are already in place, won't stop those who do those things from doing those things. And the system in place where setting laws are concerned is there so that things like legalized bestiality or infanticide will not be allowed without people all along the way weighing in and arguing for and against. Just as it should be.

      But I think my biggest issue is your idea about flagging people for what they say. Freedom of speech is there for a reason. You have the legal right to stand out on the street and talk about doing things to animals or killing babies until you're blue in the face. That's your right as an American (assuming you're American, that is). Once you start justifying actions being taken against people merely for what they say, or write, gets into some really troublesome territory.

      Half the problem with the world today is that people seem to be so eager to be appalled by something and to condemn. There are those taboos that probably wouldn't be the problem they are if people were simply allowed to voice their thoughts and desires without being crucified. The whole reason these problems become what they are is because they're never externalized. People don't dare talk about them, so they just sit inside and fester and become something truly hideous. Tolerance is the key. Recognizing we're all faulty and we can all relate to one another simply as humans will open the door to a better future. At least, that's what I think.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      Infanticide is already legal in the Netherlands and was supported by international atheist groups ( which are connected worldwide: see wiki). Recently legalized beastiality was only narrowly rejected in the German parliament. The legal efforts to make these things legal are continuing.

      I agree with Free Speech and reserve the right to engage in free speech. Of course if an atheist chooses to freely discuss their views on the right to practice infanticide or beastiality they can do so, but that doesn't mean they are immune from laws which regard these things as serious and abhorrent crimes of the highest order. Free speech does not make anyone immune from the law. It might make such people reluctant to blog and argue any view that is actually a serious crime, but that only means that such sites won't attract as many unethical people. To allow impunity to those who discuss lawbreaking online is the same as allowing, say. terrorists to plan crimes on the net without punishment. N'est pas?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      So, do you think God isn't actually in charge and it's up to us to police the world? Is God counting on us to make sure the rest of the world is in line and behaving as they're supposed to? Just think about what you're saying here. You're basically making the same mistake that humans have made since the dawn of civilization. You have your mind made up that how you see things and how you think is the definite right way, and then take it upon yourself to in some way invoke your will on those that differ. Is it our place to go over to China and tell them that their policies on controlling procreation are morally wrong and need to be changed? There are muslims who are just as certain as you that everything we Americans do is wrong. How would you feel if they made it their mission in life to come over here and force it down our throats?

      Now I know that you're speaking here on a couple of topics that seem pretty cut and dry, morality-wise. And I'm not saying I don't detest those things because I do. But I want you to just step back and think about this for a minute in a much more generic context. Which will yield the better results? Using legal action and flagging offenders and standing your ground on what you deem right and wrong? Or simply living your life the way you feel it should be and serving as an example to others?

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      I am following a dictum common to many religions and that is "obey the law of the land you are living in" as much as we can. This is a Dharmic viewpoint. Its not up to me to go overseas and tell others what to do. I am not a Napoleon! I think we should look to our individual immediate environments and do what we can there. If I went to another country and broke their laws I should expect the consequences. Likewise if in our own country we see or hear of serious lawbreaking it is up to the individual to choose what to do about it. Fortunately the laws against beastialtiy and infanticide are almost still universally held. Interestingly even our prehistoric forbears must have practiced these laws as the species survived until now without inter species diseases wiping everyone out. So we could say that a Neanderthal person had more wisdom that Peter Singer and his many many followers! :)

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Some of y'all are simply nuts! When they pass a law that states it is legal to screw your neighbor's dog in the ass, is the day Oztinato actually has a point besides his/her inane ramblings about some fetish that isn't even limited to atheists. You do realize that many Christians also execute even freakier actions than that, right?

    • profile image

      oztinato 3 years ago

      Legally speaking if somebody were to contemplate,plan and coldly discuss say the future killing and of an infant or the organizing of besitiality, religious or atheist, they are still commiting a crime. As I said prior, those who talk on the net about organizing terrorism are already committing a crime. Its not hard to understand.People who discuss these things and try to make them "legal" have lost at least one of their proverbial marbles. Once the bag is open all the marbles follow so they eventually lose ALL of their marbles: but the weird thing is they think they are still normal! It is important to note if a person thinks its actually normal to talk and plan these things with impunity. This certainly means the first marble has dropped out of their collective bag of marbles, but they haven't even noticed!! This has been my point the whole discussion here: that atheism as an ethical philosophy has nowhere to go but down and just doesn't work. If they manage to legalize beastiality the next logical step for them is to legalize marriage to animals which many are trying to do as we speak. If you just take a few moments to research these claims you will, hopefully to your surprise, find this to be true.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @oztinato - You can marry anything. A couple years ago, I read where a guy married his pillow... Hold on, let me find it... http://thefreaky.net/stranger-than-fiction/man-mar...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      oztinato,

      I understand the concern. But in my mind those still 'universally held' laws should be a comfort in that for the most part humanity recognizes and properly protects against these acts, despite the vast array of cultural differences. That's why I don't personally see a danger as far as a change in the laws are concerned. Level heads will prevail, basically.

      But I just want to stress that associating these acts to a specific group, like atheists, is a bit misleading. Kind of like Insane Mundane said, these acts are not limited to atheists. These are human characteristics and should be treated and addressed as such. Much like any other group of humans, the vast majority of atheists seem to be law-abiding citizens with many of the very same views as far as morality goes. In fact, those who are most vocal and motivated to make a change are those who view religious influence in society as damaging and detrimental. And, like you, they feel compelled to take action to make things 'right'. And they're not wrong, I don't think, in that there are certainly damaging things that come directly from the influence of religion. In fact, that's what compels most terrorists. Religious beliefs.

      Did you know that a large percentage of the human population today has traces of Neanderthal DNA? Unlike most inter-species interactions, mating between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens could and did actually result in procreation. But I do think you're right in that for most of the history of life animals and earlier precursor species of humans were compelled purely by instincts, chemical happenings, and inherited behavior, with the most successful inherited behaviors passing on to ensure those 'right behaviors' are the most prevalent. Once we humans began using our own logic and reason apart from natural instinct it's easy for those bodily desires and instincts to get twisted once they're filtered through the logical/reasoning processes of the higher brain functions. Our late-evolving intellect and capabilities make us the equivalent of toddlers, or grade-schoolers as IM likes to put it. We're still learning and we still, from time to time, put our hands on the hot stove.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      I am not claiming that individual atheists alone practice "abominations" but that atheist leaders alone practice trying to legalize them. Surely I can't be more to the point than that.

      My main point is that atheism as a philosophy has nowhere to go. Spirituality, not politicized so-called spiritulity has thousands of years of art, philosophy, literature and even sceince to offer. The classic Hindu philosophy in particular offers endless scope for further advancment in the joining together of science and religion.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      I completely agree with you that the philosophy of atheism has nowhere to go. One of the primary drivers behind what I write about and why I engage in these discussions is to bring together science and religion and to show that they're intimately interconnected with one another.

      As for atheist leaders, there will always be fundamentalists in some form, in every group. The vast majority will be level-headed and perfectly rational, but the law of averages dictates there will always be a percentage that will be more extreme. That never changes. But what will also never change is that they'll always be the minority. So the systems in place that determine the laws, in my mind, will be sufficient to avoiding the kinds of laws you're concerned about.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      Mr VanNoggin (love that name!) I would like to agree with you but with deep reservations. Yes it is entirely possible for an atheist to be just as good a person as a believer in God; but from the way things are going this is turning into the minority and not vice-versa. This does not mean that all atheists are intrinsically bad, only that human beings are far more deeply hardwired for spiritual beliefs than society has so far recognised. In other words by removing spiritual ethics we get a society that doesn't function correctly and "turns" on itself and self destructs. A religion used for political motives does the same thing. It becomes polluted.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      I agree that the atheist mindset leads to conclusions that are potentially damaging to the human psyche. One of the arguments I'll sometimes make is that if the atheist movement were actually able to accomplish what they wish and were able to change the tide and convince the vast majority of the population that their viewpoint is right, that all we are is chemical/biological mechanics, that there's nothing beyond death, no one watching over, and that everything will eventually disappear back into the nothingness from which it began, that this viewpoint being the dominant one throughout the world would have a decidedly negative impact.

      Where I disagree is with the actions you suggest we take. If I were an atheist considering the believer's viewpoint based on the behavior I see in other believers, then in my mind converting to that way of thinking would also include taking up these kinds of actions. If we're simply respectful, understanding, and can show that being a believer doesn't mean having to forgo logic and reason, or having to take up the fight on these kinds of fronts, then that's something I would think would be way easier to accept. Not to mention the fact that these actions would put me in a defensive posture where I'm no longer open to reasonable discussion.

      What we do and how we conduct ourselves is the single most important aspect to all of this I think. I mean, I'm a Christian, yet the behaviors and actions of most Christians make me want to disassociate. If that's what being a Christian means, then I don't want to be that.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      I think we are largely in agreement on a lot of this.

      The new atheist ideas that potentially challenge human life (either by its illegal destruction by infanticide or inter species diseases) need to be forcefully legally challenged. A single inter species disease such as AIDS is still doing a lot of damage to humanity. Imagine new diseases like rabies/flu hybrids! It is unscientific to allow such horrors in the name of atheism. Will science "cure" these too?

      I often point out to atheists that all alleged humanist/atheist views EVOLVED out of early religions; hence religion should be respected and analyzed much more carefully as the precursor of their own philosophy. Many leading atheist academics completely overlook the amazing contribution of Classical Hinduism to uniting science and religion. Hinduism also offers the solution to worldwide inter-religious dilemmas as it posits a way to unite all disparate philosophy including atheism. I see no difference in essence to any major religion. Religion needs to evolve further in this way to help humanity and to stop the spread of wildly dangerous new atheism.

      Of course, as we are in fact hardwired to "Believe" even the most ardent atheist scientist has a helpless irrational unscientific Faith in science. They are de facto "Science-ologists". The commercial genius of Hubbard (and actual Scientology) understood the great marketing value of a new science based religion with aliens instead of angels; without Gods but God like Aliens nevertheless. Science can make very childish nerdy errors: it seems when they "discover" something there is a strong mistaken tendency to believe they have "invented" it. They even patent these "discoveries"! The flaws inherent in atheist philosophy are often totally ignored by themselves. The Dawkins call to arms of "ridicule them" can easily be applied to themselves when we look at trends to legalize beastialty etc. There has to be a challenge even in debate.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      The evolutionary "bones" of atheism are in fact ancient religious beliefs and early primitive ethical systems. To try and forgo the bones of an ethical structure cannot and will never work. It will collapse into a pool of dysfunctional matter.

      An atheist system based on human values can work. Some of the most fundamental values are the the cherishing of human life and the protection of the weak and innocent. If an atheist system possesses basic human values it will work. At the moment the atheist systems offered are quite literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    • rjbatty profile image

      rjbatty 3 years ago from Irvine

      Christopher Hitchens argued that he did not need religion in order to have a moral compass. He spoke (and wrote) that homo sapiens were intrinsically self-regulating as a species and did not need a manifesto to keep them on a moral footing. I think that for most of us (homo sapiens) this is true. Whether those who hold to their supernatural beliefs would be unhinged if it were somehow possible to prove the absolute non-existence of God can only be a thought experiment.

      To get a full sense in the futility of arguing for (or against) an all-seeing, all-knowing god who cares about us ALL in an individual sense, just go to YouTube and observe Hitchens debate those with a sense of faith. I watched a couple dozen of these conflicts, and the time spent was beneficial because I got a good scope of the arguments from both sides.

      Concurrently on YouTube I watched documentaries and discussions involving quantum mechanics, string theory, multi-verses, membranes, holographic reality, and more. The purpose of quantum mechanics is to meld Einstein's theory of relativity to the sub-atomic world, which do not seem to conform with each other. Physicists are making some small headway in this difficult realm -- such as confirming the existence of the Higgs particle, but most of the effort is being exerted in the area of mathematical possibilities -- chalk on a blackboard. Some theoretical physicists concede that they will never be able to "prove" that multiple universes exist -- a necessary component to adding validity to the concept of string theory. Maybe they are right or maybe they will surprise themselves.

      Hitchens argued (quite accurately) that religion was responsible for holding back man's enlightenment for a century by chasing shaman and witches and burning them at the stake. Thus, it is clear that the separation of church and state is absolutely necessary for an advanced species. Even people such as Hitchens did not demand that religion be banished. He only wished that the dogma not be funneled down his throat.

      Science would like to discover a theory of "everything." I see no harm in their trying. In the same light, I see no harm in someone offering prayers to lighten his/her "soul." For me, religion or spirituality is a very individual and private matter. If I were on a jet nose-diving toward the Atlantic Ocean, I'd be mumbling prayers to the mother of god, and not thinking about the soon commingling of my atoms with the water below -- even though I do not consider myself a religious individual. I suppose I'm an agnostic. I rule nothing out.

      So far the universe is unfathomable to science -- although it has brought us a great way from believing the world is as flat as a pancake. Even if science could answer the great questions, it would never portend to create moral edicts. And religious institutions would do themselves a great favor by allowing scientists to explain the physical world and to concentrate on individuals who seek help with the "dark night of the soul." They may need more equipment in their tool kit than they have at present -- since there does in fact seem to be a substantial exodus from the churches.

      Like everyone else, I'm just a hominid. I am filled with fears. Some justified, most others not. Be that as it may, I receive small solace from knowing I'm composed of atoms (or as some believe, dark matter). I'd much rather believe that I am (at my base) composed of some divine energy that is inextinguishable. I am frail and the concept of eternal nothingness puts a giant hollow in my stomach.

      We all want to believe that our lives are worth something more than electrons -- as wondrous as they may be.

      I suspect there is nothing for us beyond this world. Once we leave our corporal forms, once we no longer are capable of sentience, in all probability there is nothing. The saving grace is that we will never know it.

      Finally, there is really no need to join one side or the other in this matter. Give science and religion a wide berth, and all should be fine.

      While I regard most of religion as myth or symbolic story-telling, I know one thing for sure. If I were to enter my daughter's room and see her floating toward the ceiling, my first call would be to a priest, not a physicist. This avenue is easily available to those who remain flexible.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      The consistently irrational "average response" of allegedly rational atheists/agnostics to the cutting edge atheist issues of infanticide and beastiality is remarkably consistent: they just ignore these issues or pay brief lip service to them.

      What if you entered your daughter's room and you saw her having intercourse with an animal? Who would you run to then, a priest or a physicist? The priest might instill some virtues, the physicist will probably just choose to ignore it.

      By ignoring valid points there is no actual debate.

      What about the valid point regarding the irrationality of having Faith in science? What about the valid point regarding the Evolution of atheist philosophy from ancient religions? What about the point that atheism can work as long as it adheres to human values?

      If you don't or can't respond to valid points I fully understand this to simply be a symptom of vacant atheist thought.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      This comment field has turned into a flaming farce... LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      rjbatty,

      You seem very much of the same mind as I am, with only a few particular differences. I have followed the debates and the science. I see many issues with the traditional ideas of religion, and I see the hollowness of materialism that in my opinion falls well short of encompassing all that existence/reality is. Where I see completeness is where I see harmony between the two. Not so much the age old human ideas of God via the religious institutions of the past as much as the concept of God Himself, in the context of existence as we of this age understand it.

      To me it's free will that is the key component. It's the primary puzzle piece that doesn't fit into the material picture. And it's what makes the leap from a universe born of impartial intelligence to the idea of a personal God who would take such an interest in our behavior, though we're such a small and seemingly insignificant speck in this universe.

      I look to science to help understand God. If the natural world is the deliberate creation of a deity, then the way it works is insight into that deity. And in the natural world we see order. Take biological life. We humans are made up of trillions of cells, each performing very specific functions and behaviors that contribute to the system as a whole. This works because each of those cells behave in accordance to the DNA code of the body. A code that has lived far beyond this one body, that has been honed over numerous generations.

      Behavior is key to how the universe works. Matter behaves in consistent ways, and because it does, the universe exists. Free will in this universe would be the equivalent of cancerous cells in a body. Like if all the cells that make up your left hand were capable of deciding how to behave and decided they wanted to be a hand twice as large. Being limited as they are to this one body/life experience, they have no hope of fully grasping the harm they do, where increased need for resources robs the rest of the body that makes their being there possible. They endanger the system as a whole.

      The story those ancient first books of the bible tell make a whole lot of sense in this context. You've got this all knowing God who knows past and future who 'regrets' putting humans on the earth in Genesis 6 and 'tests' Abraham by commanding him to kill the son he was promised and blessed with in old age in Genesis 22, only to stop him at the last minute. These stories aren't narrative inconsistencies of bronze age storytellers. These stories underline the power of free will. The Adam and Eve story is the perfect illustration of this. First you have an entire existence that simply becomes what God wills it to be and follow every word to the letter to the point He deemed it all 'good'. Then you've got this one creation whose placed in this very test-like scenario where he's not told what to do, but just one thing not to do. There's one rule made by the same creator that spoke everything else into existence. And he broke it.

      It's from that point forward that everything changes. Now, rather than being an all-powerful God in control of everything He's a God seemingly incapable of controlling His human creations. This isn't, however, a failure or an imperfection, but the desired result. Free will was the point. But to realize a desired end He had to interact and intercede. That's the story of the old testament. God working within in the confines of a world where free will exists to realize a desired outcome. Free will is what could cause God to 'regret' something and why God would need to 'test'. Because free will is a will apart from His. An individual will. Our own minds. We're truly free because we were capable of an unexpected, undesired result that then warranted a flood. And while a God who exists apart from time-space would see past/present/future, He'd still have to 'test' Abraham because of his free will. He's able to make decisions, not 'of God, but 'of' himself. So God would actually have to create the situation that then made Abraham make a choice, to know what that choice would be.

      I agree with Hitchens about Homo sapiens. For tens of thousands of years humans were peaceful. They formed trade routes where they worked with one another over great distances. They weren't the male-dominant cave men they're often made out to be. Men and women were equal. There was no class structure. No violence. That all changed in the very age and in the very region that Genesis is set. It's in this age that humanity went haywire. The 3rd millennium BC is a notably violent a chaotic time. This was the first age of civilization. of armies and organized warfare, of laws and prisons. A rather sudden change. The stories of the bible talking about visitors to a strange town being in danger of being gang-raped by the men of the town, the Israelites being attacked out in the open, this are very much on point if set in that age. And the stories people find most hideous, like stories regarding the Israelites being commanded by God to take land, kill every man and baby, take the virgin women, all of that, these are not the ideal desires of God in regards to how life should be. These are the actions necessary for the descendants of Abraham, who God promised to make numerous, to survive this tumultuous age of human history. You were either the people in power by force, enslaved by the people in power and living under their protection, or you were out in the open and exposed. Those who did not do as the Israelites and everyone else did, are simply no longer represented in the population.

      These stories, in my mind, tell a very realistic story about an all-powerful God creating a truly volatile, but ultimately worth-while, creation. Free will. Think about it in the context of God being a scientist of sorts. He first creates a finite existence, a kind of temporary environment to introduce something so volatile as free will. He then introduces this element in a region that's the geological equivalent of a storm drain. Before long there's an undesired result that He 'regrets' and He floods it, like a scientist using safety measures. He then continues one with a particular specimen showing favorable attributes (Noah), and harvests from him. Then He chooses another particularly favorable specimen, Abraham, then harvests from him. But now He's doing so in an environment where free will is running rampant elsewhere. So He interacts with this particular bloodline, controlling their breeding, what they eat, who they mingle with, that ultimately results in the birth of Jesus. The desired result.

      Yes, humans have made a mess of things in the ages since. That includes ideas born of religion. These are just man-made concepts in trying to make sense out of ancient texts from an ancient time with limited knowledge. But the God it speaks of and the impact of those stories being described, I think they are very much real.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Ah - God is a blind, mindless cunt with no understanding of the possible effects of what he "Creates". Oddly - this childish understanding is exactly the same conclusion I came to and the reason I decided the entire story was utter garbage. Works for you though Mr Noggin? No wonder you prefer to remain anonymous. ;)

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      I rest my case: no rational reponses to my valid points from the average atheists.

      By blaming an alleged non-existent God for human suffering they rely on the supposition of God's existence to try to disprove His existence. That's not rational.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I wouldn't say He had no understanding. God essentially created a boulder so large that even He can't move it. He created beings with independent wills. If He actually knew what would happen then these wills of ours would not be truly free. To me it's this element of the story that really fleshes it out and makes it real and relevant in this universe as we now understand it. Because free will in a purely material existence is impossible. It can be nothing more than an illusion.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      I did as you suggested and looked into these claims you're making. Everything I've found seems to refer back to Peter Singer, and predominately to the discussion he had with Dawkins. I personally don't have an issue with this. I think it's an important discussion to have. Yes, it challenges us and makes us react strongly to some of the ideas born of it, as it should. But really, what makes us humans so unique in the natural world is our ability to choose our actions via reason and logic rather than through pure instinct. Our reasoning minds aren't as honed as natural instinct. Reason is still a fairly new component of reality in the grand scale of things. So, I think it's important to have the difficult discussions to better understand the choices we make.

      Take infanticide, for example. We see examples in the natural world where mothers, like cats for example, eat their young if they are feeble or somehow physically limited. Birds push their young out of their nests, sometimes to their deaths if they're unable to fly. We humans, with our capabilities to reason, to remember the past, and to understand and realize our own impending death, tend to look at things a bit differently. But from the believer's standpoint the natural world is governed by God's will. And in the natural world you have infanticide. In a purely instinctual sense it seems this is a logical conclusion. The wild is a dangerous place, and a newly born young one whose born without the physical capabilities needed to sustain life, this seems to be a mercy killing on the part of that young one's parent.

      In the natural world it's trial and error that wins out. There are no logical or moral decisions being made, only instinctual. And those who made the decisions that may seem deplorable to you and I are still represented in the animal kingdom today at least partly because those decisions made them more successful.

      I get the knee-jerk reaction, but I think that's all this is. I don't see the dark future that you seem to. Maybe it's the faith I have in humanity in general in our tendency to ultimately make the right choices. I think level heads will win out in these regards as well. So I have no problem with the conversation being had. I encourage it.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      More drivel. But - hey - if you think the guy who murders everyone for not doing what he expected them to do when he gave them "free will" is worthy of your groveling - be my guest. I rejected it about age 12 for exactly the same reasons. God the mad scientist with no idea what he is doing. LOL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      It's not a matter of not doing what He expected. It's a matter of what they chose to do becoming detrimental. They did exactly what He expected... the unexpected. They have their own minds and make their own choices. Like in Gen6, Adam's descendants decided they found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and began to marry and have children with them. This interbreeding resulted in 'wickedness' in humanity, which is what it explains as being the reason for the flood. That choice made by Adam's descendants led to a result that was causing harm. Like cells in your body at odds with one another. The flood's the equivalent of removing cancerous cells. You can see it as murder. I see it as necessary.

      It doesn't make sense any other way. Without free will there's no point to any of it. There's no point in existence just playing out like a continuing causal ripple, regardless of what you or I do. There's no point to commandments or judgement or any of that. No point to life in general. Without free will we're each just passive observers under the illusion that we have some sort of control, when in actuality we're just biological machines going through the motions.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      No - it doesn't make sense full stop. LAWL! There is no point to life other than to live it. Only you religious zealots think you are above that. Interesting that this is the way Hitler thought about the Jews. Just taking out the garbage like wot god dun innit. No wonder you guys have murdered so many who don't agree with you. If goddunit, you can do it as well. Disgusting philosophy that you follow. I understand why you prefer to hide your identity.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      ...All hell broke loose the very nanosecond the magical talking rocks created consciousness for all to ponder... LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      The flood was another in a long line of mass extinctions. Mass extinctions shaped us. Made us who we are. The God described in the bible very much fits with what we observe in nature. It wouldn't really make much sense if He didn't. The world's a harsh place. If it wasn't for a whole lot of things dying you wouldn't be here. According to the story, we wouldn't be here as we are if not for the flood. The God that made this universe knew what He was doing. It all makes perfect sense. You just have to openly consider it. To say "There is no point to life other than to live it" tells me you haven't really thought much of anything beyond what you don't agree with. That same keen critical eye that picks apart what you don't agree with should shift its focus to what you do agree with to see if it really makes any sense.

      "Disgusting philosophy that you follow."

      Your 'humanist' agenda advances the idea that life has no point, there's nothing beyond death, nothing we accomplish ultimately matters, humans are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, we don't actually make our own choices but are just biological machines, and before too long we'll all just vanish back into nothingness. Mine says a creator went way out of His way to ensure we can live and cohabitate this planet with our own minds and our own wills, capable of choosing whether or not to continue living beyond death or vanish into nothingness.

      "He presents a nihilistic vision, in which the universe is ordered around principles of struggle between weak and strong, rather than on conventional Christian notions long prominent in Germany."

      "In Hitler's Table Talk, and according to the testimony of various intimates, Hitler often voiced stridently negative views of Christianity."

      "Alan Bullock wrote that Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest. Hitler used a Nazi variant of the language of Social Darwinism to persuade his followers that what they were doing was justified by "history, science and nature"."

      "So, concluded Rees, "the most coherent reading of Mein Kampf is that whilst Hitler was prepared to believe in an initial creator God, he did not accept the conventional Christian vision of heaven and hell, nor the survival of an individual "soul"... we are animals and just like animals we face the choice of destroying or being destroyed.""

      - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Ad...

      I wouldn't be so quick to play the 'Hitler' card. Your philosophy much more closely resembles his than mine.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      Von Noggin/Mark,

      If you research further you will see that perfectly healthy innocent indviduals are in the "plan". Humans have written laws animals don't. Its not that I think all atheists are bad; however most are remaining very quiet while the leadership is pushing for radical law changes. Calmly planning infanticide is still one of the most heinous crimes on the books. Yes people are free to talk about the issue but not to plan and encourage others to perpetrate. This is where the legal argument begins.

      MARK,

      blaming God for everything bad that happens is betraying a belief in God. Can you see this? or will you just use the C word and not actually debate the false logic of 'using the existence of god to try and disprove God?'

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Noggin - Like I said - you want to worship the psychotic Super Daddy - be my guest. I understand you have no morals and

      Random internet troll - I did no such thing. "Bad" is a human concept and does not disprove your imaginary, invisible, undetectable, nonsensical super daddy - nor have I ever made the argument you are lying about me making. The story simply makes no sense and creates the lack of morals you both demonstrate. Show me your "research" and quote me instead of making a fallacious argument.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Sorry - my comment was cut off - you are the one claiming mass extinctions of sentient beings for not doing what god wants is perfectly natural and reasonable - not me. I find this attitude disgusting - no matter how many times you pretend Hitler did not believe he was doing God's work. :( Disgusting philosophy you follow. I think it has something to do with your delusions about "interbreeding" and ignoring nature.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I'm just being realistic, Mark. If it's as you say then everything I do is simply the product of genetic/biological/chemical mechanics. You and I going back and forth in this discussion is what we're each predisposed to do and it's outside of our control to alter it. You'll simply react to what I say in whatever way you're material brain dictates, and I'll simply react to your reaction in the same way.

      But if we really do have control of our actions then we are able to behave outside of the purely material behaviors of our minds that the natural laws dictate. And if that's the case then there's something about us that isn't entirely material. There's something non-physical. Perhaps spiritual. If we're free to choose our behavior then we're an anomaly in this natural universe as that capability in itself would be 'unnatural'. That would mean that we're the only known lumps of matter in all the universe whose behaviors are dictated, not solely by the physical laws, but by each of us sentient beings willfully choosing through employing our logic, reason, personal leanings, etc.

      And if we truly have free will, then the most likely explanation to what we observe is that there is a deliberate creator. And if there is free will, and if there is a deliberate creator, then the stories of Genesis describing a particular creator that specifically created free will is the most likely answer. And the evidence of that region's history in the specified timeframe lines up quite nicely with the events described in Genesis. Not to mention it also marks the origin of a distinct, fundamental behavioral change in humans that mirrors the changes described in Genesis.

      It's simply the most likely, most logical, answer.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Never said any of those things. I would prefer it if you stopped lying about me, but as you are a believer, I can understand why you would not do that.

      Logically, likely. Innit. as wot it sez in FSM babblle. I have one wurd - spaghetti. See? Hard ter argu wiv innit?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      You didn't have to say all of that. It goes with the territory. If you don't realize these are the logical conclusions of your own viewpoint then you've apparently got some assessing to do. If you're going to spend so much time and energy 'fighting' for what you think is right, then it might behoove you to actually know what you're fighting for, at least as well as you know what you're fighting against.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      What territory is that? Sorry - I am "fighting" now ? Interesting - no wonder you choose to hide your identity. I don't blame you - must be scary.

      SPAGHETTI!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      'No God' territory. Material-only territory. And yes, you're clearly fighting. Your words are combative and the frequency of your posts and the amount of time and energy you spend is clearly motivated by strong feelings. Otherwise you wouldn't bother. My name is clearly displayed on my profile page. And my not using a pic of myself is more an act of mercy than anything. Besides, this isn't about me. It's about truth.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Material only territory includes those things huh? The same way virgins must marry their rapist in god territory I suppose. Never been anything other than clear that I find your lack of morals disturbing, but arguing for ration and reason is not exactly "fighting" although your constant lies about my position do tend to provoke a negative reaction I must admit. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts and so much ill will and hatred. And that is the truth. Not that you have any interest in the truth - you already dun made it all up. :( Don't blame you for choosing a generic "Christian" name to hide behind either. You go Mr Um Christian! lol

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      That really is my name. As for 'God territory', I'm not sure how familiar you are with the climate of the age and region being described, but a man being forced by a law to take any kind of responsibility was unheard of. And it's not like the woman had much of an option in those times. There was no established order in the land. There was no one to turn to. It was chaos. Again, these were not laws to establish the ideal way of life in 'God territory'. This was an age when free will was running rampant and surviving it meant having to handle things in ways that you and I nowadays find barbaric compared to what we know.

      I'm not sure I've ever actually seen you make an 'argument' for ration and reason. You usually just criticize and try to agitate. And I have not lied about your position. The material-only viewpoint naturally leads to these conclusions. Just take some time to ponder it and then maybe tell me why it can't be true. Tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me how pure material can make a conscious choice. These reasons are why I could not accept an atheist/material viewpoint even when I was troubled by the ideas of traditional Christianity. It just doesn't stand on its own. It doesn't adequately describe the human condition.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      Mark,

      your comments about blaming God for "bad" things logically reveals an asumption that God exists in the first place. Surely this is obvious by now.

      The arguments against the existence of God I would have thought needed to be based on cold math and not irrational emotion.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      I don't believe god exists and said no such thing. Please stop lying about me - thanks. No evidence of god - logical cold math. Reason and logic.

      As for Mr Noggin claiming that marrying the woman you raped is the "moral" thing to do, I think I can rest my case regarding morals.

      Noggin - just because you don't understand the human condition - don't assume a majikl super being dunnit - try understanding some science instead.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I never said the rapist having to marry the woman he raped was 'moral'. If you understood the age and region these stories were set against then you'd better understand the meaning behind what's being described. Like any story, context is key. It changes everything. We're fortunate enough to live in an age where it can be known. We now have the most knowledge of that point in our history than anyone since that age. Yet most people who so flippantly dismiss these texts are doing so based either on a cursory read without the benefit of the proper context, or based on ideas formed around these texts in ages where this information was not available.

      You and I live in a world where all the boundary lines have already been set on the map. The powers that be have already been established and the laws are enforced by those who rule the land you're in. The age these stories are set against is completely foreign to us in every way. It's the age that we first see violent acts of battle and war depicted and glorified in art work. It's the first age of organized militaries and wars and cities built with fortified defensible walls. You were either the ones in power through sheer might, enslaved by those in power and living under their protection, or you were out in the open where there were no rules and very little chance of survival. A man having to take responsibility for a woman he raped was unheard of in this age. It wasn't about morals. It was about establishing some sibilance of order amongst chaos.

      I understand science just fine. And if you did as well then you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. And I understand the human condition and just how inadequate the material viewpoint explains it. It explains everything else in the natural world quite well, but it insists that all we are, all we love or feel strongly about, everything down to your favorite color, is nothing more than biological and chemical mechanics. To make the human condition fit you first have to reduce it down to something less than human. If you're right, and it's my lack of understanding of science or the human condition that results in my thinking being faulty, then help me understand as you do. Explain how I'm wrong. Tell me what it is that you know that I don't that makes you so certain.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Interesting that you think you understand the age so very much better than I do. Yay! Well done you. Almost like you actually lived there. Like any story - context is indeed key. I agree people who believe in god - especially the one you propose do tend to think women are chattels. As you understand so very, very well - which belief came first? Is it that believers in god think women are chattels - or people who think women are chattels are predisposed to believe in god?

      If you understood science you would not make the claims you continue to make.

      Clearly you do not understand the "human condition" at all if there has to be majick to explain it. Sorry - I have already explained multiple times where you are wrong. Proposing nonsensical, untestable, unprovable unnecessary majick and then demanding someone disprove it is not the way it works. Not sure how many times I need to say that for it to sink in. If you understood science - you would get this.

      Because you don't understand where human emotions originate is not a good basis for your irrational belief in majick - sorry dude.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Actually, the social status of women is a key characteristic that signifies that dramatic behavioral change. It's been proposed that this behavioral change is the result of the emergence of the modern human ego. A more pronounced ego, or a stronger sense of self-awareness. And there's psychological merit behind this idea specific to the subjugation of women because a more enhanced ego would make one feel more separated from the natural world and from one another. Because women are more closely tethered to nature through menstrual cycles and nursing and such, it's believed that this is why humans in this age began to treat women as less socially, and began to view sexual acts and things like menstrual bleeding as 'gross', basically. And this goes hand in hand with what's described in the Adam/Eve story as a result of their choice. A more enhanced sense of self and women being under the proverbial thumb of men. Not so much a curse as it is a natural result. In my viewpoint, this emergence of a more pronounced ego IS the emergence of free will. Behavior no longer dictated so strongly by pure instinct and a 'tribal' mentality, but more determined by an individual will.

      This change is first seen in the Ubaid period (5500-4000BC) in southern Mesopotamia. Then, in the centuries following that dramatic climate change (5.9 kiloyear event - 3900BC) this behavioral change spread out from Mesopotamia into Egypt, the Indus Valley in India, then up into Europe and elsewhere. Though human cultures for thousands of years had been 'matrist' cultures where women had equal status in their societies, from that point forward and on through to today the vast majority of human cultures have been decided 'patrist'. And that timeline mirrors the stories of early Genesis, beginning first in Mesopotamia and lasting the same length of time as preflood Genesis (roughly 1600 years), then spreading throughout the land after Babel.

      I'm not asking you to disprove what I'm saying. I'm asking you to prove your assertions that you continue to state as if they are fact, though I know for certain they are not. You claim that my level of understanding of science or the human condition is what leads me to errant conclusions. I'm asking you to explain what it is that you know for certain I have wrong. You keep insisting that I'm trying to interject 'majick'. Yet, by your standards, the human mind would count as 'majick'. I'm simply acknowledging that there's more to reality than what is detectable by science. More than purely material. You can call that 'majick' if you like, but that only really highlights the flaws in your viewpoint.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      So - I need to prove that there is no evidence of anything super natural? I prefer Majick mysel. I understand you totally reject science - I got it. Because there is something super natural wot you got innit. LAWL

      Prove it.

      And - please stop lying about what I have said. I know you don't have the capability to determine morals - but - please at least try to be honest.

      Nursing and such huh? LOLOLOL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      You're misunderstanding. I'm not asking you to prove there's no evidence of anything super natural. That's easy. I can't ask you to give me proof, positive or negative, via the 'NATURAL' sciences of something SUPER-'NATURAL'. That's just silly. What I'm asking is that you prove the entirety of the human mind and the human condition can be attributed to purely material functions. Because it's on those grounds that you reject what I'm saying. You claim that it's my 'rejection' of science, or my lack of knowledge. That there's something you know that I either don't know or refuse to accept that leads you to the 'right' conclusion and makes you certain that I am wrong. I'd like to know what that is.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Well - as we have no evidence of majical or "non-material" in science - Science rejects anything without evidence or testability. I get that you reject this approach of science. I guess that unless you have something other than majick - the reasonable thing to do is reject it. Purely material huh ? Like wot science does innit?

      Any time you want to offer some majick in as evidence I am all ears. Until that time - I will stick with reality - as science does. I know you hate science though. Pesky damn reality. lol

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      This is nothing more than your own limited understanding that you're then projecting onto me and others. By this same line of reasoning, the mental experience that we each know for certain exists because we each experience it, is majick. "Science rejects anything without evidence or testability"? You realize there's no evidence of the mind, right? No way to test one way or the other that it actually exists? Do you see the error here in your viewpoint? There's at least one thing we know exists that isn't material. And it's just plain gullibility to think that's the only thing. It just happens to be the only thing we each experience personally. We basically have to assume that others have the same experience we do because you can't prove it.

      If your standards were correct, then the mind would fall into the 'majick' category and would be 'rejected' by science. So, is it that the mind doesn't actually exist, or is it maybe that your limited understanding is leading you to false conclusions?

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      Mark

      people who are spiritual admit freely they have an irrational and emotive feeling for believing in God. I am surprised when atheists also use irrational and emotive feelings for Not believing in God!

      It may be impossible for either atheist science to "disprove" God's existence without first positing God's existence: this could actually turn out to be one of the proofs of God's existence.

      Its up to atheist scientists to provide rational mathematical proofs that God does not exist not vice versa: we spiritual people are not claiming our belief in God is based on science.

      In science there is still no mathematical "ultimate cause" for existence. In the realm of religion there is an "ultimate cause" given: God.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Interesting that you think you have a greater understanding than everyone else Mr Noggin - this is why your religion causes so many conflicts. Your lack of knowledge of science is shocking - I suggest an adult education course or something. Then you will discover that there is plenty of evidence of the mind. Dear me. :(

      Random internet troll - drivel. lol - Please show me that there was a time when "existence" did not exist.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I think you're confusing physical brain activity as 'proof' of the mind. There's a reason it's called 'subjective'. There's a reason there's a whole other branch of science, beyond the natural sciences, that predominately deals with the mind and things born of it, namely the social sciences, like sociology and psychology. if we didn't each have a mental experience to then associate to physical brain activity we observe there'd be nothing about the firing of neurons or the coursing of oxygenated blood to the lobes of the brain that would in any way suggest there's a mental experience happening within. This is because, scientifically, the mind is invisible and undetectable.

      I don't think I have a greater understanding than anyone else. I'm just realistic about what is actually known. You're making a common mistake that is typical of the materialist believer. You're extending the capability of science beyond what is actually known. Instead of 'Goddunit', now it's 'science 'splains it'. These are actually materialist statements of faith that you're under the illusion of being 'backed' by the authority of science. Your inability to recognize this is due to your level of faith in what you believe in being strong.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Please stop lying at me . You clearly stated "This is nothing more than your own limited understanding that you're then projecting onto me and others".

      You are making the common mistake of believers in majick that you think you have some sort of superior understanding. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.

      The glaring contradictions in your last statement are laughable. Honestly - find an adult education course or something. Really.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I understand you're blinded by your own certainty/faith in what you believe in. I understand that certainty convinces you that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. And I'm fine with all of that if that works for you. But when you insist on then projecting your flawed ideology onto me as if your ignorance is somehow my fault then I'm compelled to point it out. You're the one assuming my knowledge/understanding is somehow lacking, therefore you're assuming your knowledge/understanding is superior to mine. You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of (ie. Projecting).

      Do you really think that half the world's population, including half the scientific community*, who all believe in a higher power of some kind, are all 'less smart' than you and are just a couple of 'adult education courses' away from reaching your level of enlightenment? Doesn't that seem just a tad far fetched? Clearly, level of knowledge/understanding of science is irrelevant, so isn't the more likely answer that you're wrong?

      * "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power." - http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-...

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      So what? My flawed ideology huh? LOL I don't care how many scientists are too scared to admit they don't believe in nonsense. Even so - 67% don't believe in god.

      Not sure what that has to do with anything because I would hazard a guess that most of them that do believe, do not believe in the Magician that steps in to change things to suit when they don't go to plan.

      No morals - that is your problem.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Interesting that the survey you quoted was taken from members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - mostly supported by religious organizations.

      http://www.skepticink.com/gps/2013/03/04/intellige...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_...

      http://news.yahoo.com/religious-people- … ml#upCr476

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      What do you mean you're not sure what that has to do with anything? You keep suggesting it's my lack of knowledge/understanding of science that's the problem. You keep suggesting I take courses to educate and correct myself. These are your statements. So, I then point out how plenty of people who clearly have a level of understanding that qualifies them as practicing scientists believe as I do, and that roughly half of them believe differently than you do. So this has everything to do with your fallacious statements. Your ignorance leads you to believe that everyone who disagrees with you either isn't as smart as you or that they're somehow deluded or 'too scared to admit'. It couldn't just be that you're wrong, could it? That's impossible. So, the next best answer is that everyone is dumb, deluded, or scared.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Yes - I don suggest those things. So what is a few scientists believe in god - I bet none of them believe the nonsense you are arguing for. Really - go back to school. I would appreciate it if you stopped lying at me as well - 67% don't believe in god and - really - how many believe god stepped in and messed with evolution? LOLOLOL They don't "believe as you do" at all. You sir, are a liar.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Re: the survey

      Of course. They're supported by people you don't agree with, therefore everything they say is suspect. See how that keeps happening? The first line of the second link you provided should have stopped you in your tracks, but it didn't ... "Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 of scientists are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example)."

      That's just one of many that has led to basically the same conclusion to varying degrees. No matter how you slice it, your statements to me are clearly flawed and based in your own self-applied ignorance. The vast majority of the founders of science were Christians. The guy that first proposed the theory now called 'Big Bang', a physicist who was a practicing catholic priest. The tendency for scientists to be more prone to non-religious leanings has much more to do with the political/social stigma of religion/science and the fact that non-religious people have been more prone in the past century or so to choose scientific career paths than those who grew up in religious households. The fact remains, level of knowledge/understanding of science is irrelevant.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I never once said God 'stepped in and messed with evolution'. Where'd you get that?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      LAWL! "plenty of people who clearly have a level of understanding that qualifies them as practicing scientists believe as I do"

      Liar.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      I think it is fantastic that you no longer think god messed with evolution in any way - well done you. You been taking science lessons Mr Christian?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Liar, huh? Now Mark, be nice. See how your own ignorance leads you to making combative statements and false accusations? We're talking about belief in God/higher power here. The stuff I'm talking about regarding Adam, that behavioral change, etc, that's a hypothesis, not a belief. My belief doesn't hinge on me being right about any of that. My belief is apart from that. Not to mention the fact that all of that is totally separate from the obvious point of the discussion in regards to your statements about me needing to learn science and take courses.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      No - just telling the truth. "plenty of people who clearly have a level of understanding that qualifies them as practicing scientists believe as I do" is a lie.

      Seriously - get an education, man.

      Sorry it bothers you that I despise liars - why is that? Mr ummm LOLOL "Christian" LAWL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Re: God meddling in evolution

      Well thank you for finally accepting/acknowledging just this small piece of what I've been saying all along. Like this in particular which I addressed in hubs published nearly 2 years ago now, after publishing much the same thing on my blog a couple of years before that. But let's not take any sort of facts like that into consideration. Let's just jump to erroneous conclusions because they're much easier to argue against than the actual truth.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Please stop lying about me - thanks. Facts? Actual truth? No wonder you prefer to lie about your real name. :(

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Let's break this down, shall we. And let's take the figure you gave ... "Even so - 67% don't believe in god." That's still 1/3 of the people polled who do believe in God. Even if I hadn't specified 'God/higher power', which I did, that's still 1/3. So, it seems they believe as I do, whether that be the 33% who believe in a personal God, or the 51% who believe in a higher power. Because 'plenty' is non-specific, it doesn't really matter which way you go, it still applies. Unless there were only 3 people polled, which I know isn't the case in the survey I referred to. So, I didn't lie.

      As for an education, if you could maybe point out just one thing I have factually wrong maybe then I'll know where to start.

      You don't even believe that I'm using my real name. I'm not sure what to do with that. You can look me up I guess. I'm in Roanoke, TX, currently. I'm 38. I've lived in the Dallas/Ft Worth area all my life. My parents are Gary and Gloria Christian. My grandad's name was Carl Christian. It really is my family name.

      So, relax, you can like me. I'm not lying to you.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Seriously - are you really this ignorant? Awesome that you no longer believe in a god that interferes - well done you.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I'm not sure what kind of help to refer you to, but all the ignorance on display in this particular back and forth has been spewing from you. Either that or you're just playing dumb. For no apparent reason at that. Not sure what you get out of this. Not sure why it's even worth your time. I've had enough discussions with you to know you're actually an intelligent guy. We've reached the point here where you're now just making stuff up to argue about. And not even good made-up stuff. Are you enjoying this? It's funny that you accused Oztinato of being a troll, because trolling is the perfect description for what you've been doing in this thread for at least the past 10 posts or so.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      How many times do I have to tell y'all freaks: We are all apart of this thing we call God! It is all cosmic poetry in the end... LOL!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      MARK,

      I am not saying there a time when existence wasn't here: this is what atheist science claims.

      This "existence" is claimed by Hindus to be God itself.

      Now do you understand?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Well - I admit I am ignorant of this extra reality you claim to be aware of. Odd - claiming that you know something that exists outside of reality and then calling me ignorant for not believing you is why your religion causes so much conflict. Seriously - go do some studying and you will find that no science accepts any such thing.

      Random internet troll - what is wrong with the word "existence" for existence? Lying about the word "god" not having any connotations above "existence". Atheist science claims no such thing - sorry.

      But - now we can dispense with the word" god " and simply call existence, "Existence," we have no argument do we?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      You keep doing this. I know you have absolutely no respect for me or my viewpoint, but that total lack of consideration leads you to a false sense of what I'm saying, basically because you don't really care. So when you repeat back what it is you think I'm saying it in no way resembles what I actually said. Then you make fun of that, which, while entertaining, is kind of pointless. My statements regarding your ignorance have nothing to do with your not believing me. They have to do with statements you make on a regular basis. Statements that reveal a flawed grasp and limited understanding that then make it difficult to have a real discussion.

      I'm not claiming to be aware of an 'extra reality'. I'm just trying to point out the limitations of the viewpoint you've spoken from for as long as I've talked to you. Believe it or not, like it or not, I'm trying to help. We all need to smarten up. There's a lot of misinformation floating around in these discussions making it impossible to see eye to eye when, in actuality, there's quite a bit of common ground that allows for real discussions that could very well lead to real, positive results.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      MARK,

      it would be nice to hear about some cold, logical, actual science or math to clarify your theory eg are there any math formulas about "existence"? Can you link me to that info/site?

      Yes the Hindus see existence as God. Existence and sentience go hand in hand in this view. ie. no sentience, no existence etc.

      Do you agree?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Mr Noggin - I have made it perfectly clear that your dishonest, argumentative approach does not deserve respect. You have consistently berated me for "ignorance" and "narrow mindedness" and consistently stated things as fact and demanded I disprove them when the facts are not actual facts. You claim that a god exists and also " If God is the creator of the universe, He existed before it and is therefore outside of it. Proving whether or not God exists is simply out of the jurisdiction of the natural sciences."

      Not sure why you are now lying about not claiming an extra reality when this is the basis of your beliefs and I just quoted the part where you claim an existence outside of reality. i.e. - the Universe and "Nature". Unless you have some proof - oh wait! No p[roof available because this is Outside the realm of proof" lol

      I guess I want you to understand that this is why you cause so many conflicts with this belief system.

      Random troll - if you can't find any of that information - you are not using the Internet correctly. I see you are now back to lying and contradicting yourself. Please prove existence is sentient - thanks.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I've only been trying to point out to you that your reasons for dismissing the concept of God in general is wrong-headed. That if you're talking about the creator of the universe then you're talking about something that lies outside the observable universe and outside of time and space. You're not looking for manipulation of natural processes and you're not looking for a being that's scientifically detectable. It's fine that you reject my beliefs. I have no problem with that. I just have a problem with the reasons sited as being my ignorance of science. Or, more generally, the idea that everyone who believes in God, or a higher power of any kind, is an indicator that they just need to take some classes. As if level of knowledge is what separates the believer from the non-believer.

      Notice the quote of mine that you're referring to starts with 'If'. That's deliberate. I recognize that I'm talking to somebody who disagrees with me, so I'm not asserting these things as facts. I'm just trying to convey my viewpoint in the proper context and am trying to point out the flaws in your mindset that's made clear in the statements you make. I'm sorry if you feel I'm berating you as that was not my intention. I just see this refusal to acknowledge the true facts of the case as impediments that derail the conversation and fill the discourse with misinformation. Misinformation needs to be dealt with no matter what side of the fence it's coming from. And I'll call out a believer as quickly as I'll call out a non-believer because finding the real truth is the ultimate goal.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Ah - excellent. Glad you no longer hold that belief. Misinformation? I don't understand - I thought you now agree there is NO information. How can there be any MIS information when there is none?

      Seriously - get an education - it will help. Flaws in my mindset? Oh - you mean that I reject your beliefs as garbage because there is no basis for them?

      No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts. But - awesome that you no longer hold those beliefs in god - well done you. Just an "IF" that you don't actually claim is correct. Good oh. No god - just an IF.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      "I reject your beliefs as garbage because there is no basis for them?"

      What basis are you looking for exactly? Do you know?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Anything really. Got anything that does not involve an existence outside of reality that is not detectable?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well, if I did then we wouldn't be talking about anyone or anything responsible for existence because it wouldn't make much sense for the creator of the causal chain to be a link in it, would it?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      This would be why I reject your beliefs - no basis for them. At least you now - i think - admit there is no basis for them. Odd that makes me ignorant and close minded.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Again, you rejecting my beliefs in itself is fine. But the reasons you give is where the problems lie. You stating that my believing in them is due to a lack of understanding or level of knowledge is ignorant.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Not at all. And - really Jez - please stop lying at me. You called me ignorant and close minded for not believing your garbage without any reason. Why else would you beleeb majikal super beings exist outside of reality unless you did not understand what science says?

      Clearly you are ignorant of science if you think there is majick that science cannot comprehend. LAWL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      You just made my point better than I ever could. Your answer is right there in your post. Can you see it?

      magic/majik - the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or *super*natural forces.

      science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the *physical* and *natural* world through observation and experiment.

      How do we determine things scientifically? We observe natural behaviors. Natural causes and their natural effects. So what would evidence of something *super*natural look like? What are we looking for?

      Just the fact that you're looking for magic and think that science can 'comprehend' it says volumes. You're apparently looking for some simplistic invisible cartoon magician floating around in space. If so, then you're right, that doesn't exist, and if it did we should be able to determine it. But if we're talking about one responsible for the creation of the universe then we're looking for something that's not a detectable/observable piece of the universe. That's just silly. You're clearly expecting some sort of magical manipulation of natural processes. But why? If God were to create existence, then he made matter/energy, He made the laws that govern it. Why then would He need to manipulate His own creation? Isn't that really just your own concept that you're determining to be wrong? And doesn't that concept in itself seem a bit short-cited?

      The basis that makes me think there actually is an intelligent creator is in 'natural' processes themselves. Not anything 'supernatural' or 'majik'. The exactness of the laws of the universe would be an indicator of deliberate/intelligent intent. The natural behaviors of the various chemical components that first formed life being mutually beneficial to one another and collectively becoming something far greater than its component parts is an indicator. A naturally formed system that allows for the replication, retention, and passing on of genetic information that makes what would otherwise be a random process accumulative would be an indicator of deliberate/intelligent intent.

      So, looking for 'magic' has numerous problems, from a faulty concept of a creator of the universe somehow being an observable part of the universe, to your thought that science can 'comprehend' magic, these are the indicators that there are clearly some things you don't understand about science.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      You guys can argue until the cows come home, and nothing will ever change. Why don't we focus on relevant, invisible stuff, for starters. Maybe you can work your way into the invisible waves of music that ultimately sounds off to the song of the universe. Hell, get on the quantum level if you have to, but this "I can't prove that the boogy-boogy-man exists or not," really gets old.

      If there are creative brains involved on this page about our creation, then it would be nice to see them on occasions - outside of the mundane science vs. religion drivel.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM,

      I agree. I'm getting on my own nerves.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      MARK,

      Can't find any maths on "existence" itself. Does that mean existence itself is beyond maths and therefore beyond human understanding? What implications do you see in this for science and the debate about existence? If it is beyond human understanding does this question qualify it as a spiritual question.

      I am only reporting to you what the most advanced religion in the world (Classical Hinduism) is claiming as regards existence and sentience being the same.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Mr Noggin - You your self say that you believe in a god that created the Universe and IF you are right - it exists super naturally. Explain how this is not MAJICK please - thanks.

      That is besides the point really - I am - apparently in vain - trying to explain why your beliefs cause so much conflict - attacking me as being short sighted because I don't believe your irrational postulations of MAJICK is what causes the conflict. Faulty concept of god huh? LAWL! This is where your ignorance of science comes in. I think you should retitle your "article" - having nothing to do with each other is not the same as "compatible" - sorry.

      I guess I should give up about now as you are not interested in the truth.

      Mr troll - explain how a religion can be "advanced" LOLOL

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Insane - whether you like it or not - science is how we go about understanding the Universe - including those sound waves of which you speak. . Mr Noggin here is claiming a majikal reality beyond that possible understanding and - accusing me of being narrow minded for not believing it. All the time this continues, there must be a clash between science and religion. The 2 are completely incompatible is why. I am more concerned with getting him to understand why his approach causes so much conflict rather than the fact that there appears to be no majikal reality outside the ability of science to discern.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      You can call it majick if you like. Makes no difference to me. Unless this universe is infinite, and it appears it isn't, then there is going to be a supernatural element at play here in some form or fashion. Whether that be God, a spaghetti monster, some sort of multi-verse/string/M-theory scenario, or something else entirely. Whatever it is it's beyond the scope of science because it's beyond this one observable universe, which makes whatever it is, by definition, super-natural. Which means we're all on the same level playing field here. Nobody knows any better than anyone else. Which is why it's possible for such a large percentage of scientists to believe in a higher power/God.

      Again Mark, you not believing as I do is not my problem. It's statements like this ... "This is where your ignorance of science comes in. I think you should retitle your "article" - having nothing to do with each other is not the same as "compatible" - sorry." I'm trying to help you understand that this statement is due to your own misunderstanding. If you continue to think it's my ignorance of science then you'll continue to be unable to recognize the fault in your own logic and you'll continue to inaccurately accuse others of being ignorant. Which ultimately only adds to the conflict. This is the real truth.

      Belief in God in and of itself does not cause conflict. But you're right that many believers act as if they're somehow entitled or even feel compelled to force their will and their beliefs onto others, and that I don't agree with either. But what I'm trying to help you recognize is that you're actively doing the exact same thing. Yes, there is conflict. That's something that drives me to do what I do. To help people recognize that nobody knows any better than anyone else and that we're all in the same proverbial boat. Then maybe we can acknowledge the middle ground that we can all agree on and move forward from there. Hopefully with less conflict once a better level of understanding is achieved.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Mark,

      Actually, a lot of folks relate quantum physics with spirituality, for example. They usually go back to the "at the quantum level, electrons (small particles of matter) act like both particles and waves... UNTIL they are observed, wherein they just act like particles" stuff... Boogy-boogy! LOL! Or, as Einstein called it, "spooky." Quantum entanglement is also referred to in Buddhism, etc., but under a different words, of course.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Noggin - There is going to be a Super Natural element? Utter drivel. Especially given you just named a couple of non super natural events. Honestly - get yourself back to school. ;) An education would go a long way to stopping you from believing this drivel.

      I am doing no such thing - all I ever ask of a believer-in-majick is that they keep their irrational beliefs to themselves and do not try to propagate them - especially amongst children. Tell you what - you stop spouting nonsense - I stop telling you it is nonsense - do we have a deal? ;)

      Insane - yes. Just because we don't understand it - it is MAJICK!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Mark - Yeah, some people think that free-running, perpetual motion devices and my ZPE stuff is magic. :/

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      And herein lies the problem. Your own ignorance is projected onto me as if it's my mistake and you continue to actively inject misinformation into the discussion and conflict continues.

      Natural = anything within this one observable universe

      Therefore, anything beyond that is *super*natural. Which means it's beyond the scope of science. Ask anybody. Read up on multiverse hypotheses and their utter inability to be tested. I promise, I'm not lying and I know what I'm talking about. All the matter/energy in this universe, the physical laws, time and space itself, exists in this one observable universe. Anything beyond that is beyond our ability to observe/detect/measure. If this universe did in fact have a beginning then it stands to reason that something existed apart from it that in some way resulted in it being here. What that is exactly is beyond the scope of science and no level of knowledge or understanding is going to give anyone anymore insight than anyone else as to what that could be.

      So that's all I ask of you, educate yourself, correct these misconceptions, and stop propagating this misinformation. Once you do that then you and I can peacefully coexist with our differing beliefs without conflict and I will have no issue with anything you say.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      This is a good write-up to give a sense of what I'm talking about that I think you'll find interesting ... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=n...

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      My ignorance? I already admitted I am ignorant of super natural majikal things. You are the one making that stuff up and I reject it. The only reason you seem to thing there are things that exist beyond reality.

      Your link seems to be dealing with "natural" occurrences. and anything unnatural is wild speculation.Nothing Majikal about it - Seriously - educate yourself and you would not keep making these mistakes.

      Odd that you claim knowledge of things that are beyond the observable. Calling me ignorant for not believing you is why your religion causes so many conflicts.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Clearly you didn't read the article.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Headly,

      I don't know if anybody else on here read the article or not, but I read all 4 pages of it. I ended up writing a quick post entitled "The Universe might not make sense?" on another micro-blogging website. It has already made 65 cents in the last hour, seriously... Ha-ha!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Nice! Yeah, I found it extremely interesting. Send me the link. I'd like to read your take on it.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Well, I found it more entertaining than interesting. My little micro-blog post was not of a scientific nature. I've tried those, but they usually don't get very much response from the community over there - on that other website.

      They do pay well over there, so I ended up making it semi-humorous and more or less made fun of theoretical physicists because people can relate better to that: http://www.bubblews.com/news/1412665-the-universe-...

      I usually only post a couple times a day over there and already average about $130 dollars a month or thereabouts. You can post up to 10 times a day, so do the math.

      You should sign up, here:

      http://www.bubblews.com/?referral=51f4b15896d8f2.2...

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Headly,

      I know this ain't some link-fest, but I'll give you a better example of the fun stuff you can post on that site and still make money, here:

      http://www.bubblews.com/news/1414400-the-time-spec...

      By the way, if anybody still uses Internet Explorer for their browser, they may find the load times slow and multiple server errors on that site, until they get all the kinks worked out. Peace out, suckers...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane,

      I like your write-ups. You're the total opposite of me and your writing style is something I should probably strive for. You give your reader enough credit that you don't feel you have to so wordily explain everything. I sometimes struggle with just how much deep to get into something and how much I can assume the reader will already know. I'm not sure I'm capable of summing up something worth reading in such a short article, or bubble, or whatever. Self-editing is not my strong point. Nor is brevity.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      MARK: math from wiki:

      "In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism asserts that it is necessary to find (or "construct") a mathematical object to prove that it exists. When one assumes that an object does not exist and derives a contradiction from that assumption, one still has not found the object and therefore not proved its existence, according to constructivism. This viewpoint involves a verificational interpretation of the existence quantifier, which is at odds with its classical interpretation."

      IE. to mathematically disprove God's existence we first have to assume He exists. So math is therefore on the believer's side.

      Mark, as you are not actually answering my direct questions I don't feel obligated to answer yours. However, I sense a real human being behind your emotive abuse and will wait for a while to see your positive side and then perhaps answer your question re Hinduism.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Random Troll - LOL Mathematics is a CONCEPT. Therefore your god is a CONCEPT also. Assume away - that is all you got. No wonder this belief causes so many conflicts. :(

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Noggin - I read it just fine. Gotta laugh at the guy who claims his Majikal Super Being is beyond the scope of science offering up a wild, untested "scientific" hypothesis as some sort of argument. Your ignorance is shocking. Let me guess - home schooled?

      Insane - yup - we don't understand it therefore it is MAJICK! lol

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Meant to say "untestable" not "untested" - sorry. The scientific inaccuracies in that article are also somewhat shocking. Interesting that you want to go back to the good old days of not seeking any answers because goddunit. Or - to quote your article. “Without naturalness, we will lose the motivation to look for new physics,” according to the only guy making any sense.

      Seriously - is your majikal super being beyond the scope of science or not?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Come on, Mark, seriously? You claim the survey I site is suspect because of its affiliations. I then show you another that says the same and use one of the links you provided to show that all polls taken on the topic come back with the same basic results, so you then call into question all of those in the scientific community that hold beliefs in God or in a higher power. Now you're saying that this article on Scientific American is full of scientific inaccuracies. At what point do you finally admit to yourself that maybe you could have some things wrong and recognize a need to self-assess? It's no wonder you see conflict in practically everything.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Well - it is full of scientific inaccuracies. For a start they are calling that a theory which is utter garbage.

      No wonder your religion has caused so many wars. :(

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      I was bang on - right? Home schooling for you? Honestly - I don't know how old you are but of you are claiming people who believe in a higher power "believe as you do" your ignorance of faith is as shocking as your ignorance of science.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      You make an interesting point. What many like Mark do without even realizing it is they hold a self-made concept of God in their minds that they then argue against. Like when someone says there's no evidence of God. To determine there's no evidence of God you first have to have a concept of God in mind to then determine what evidence you expect to see if He did exist isn't there.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Please stop lying about me. You define it - I will disprove it. ;)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I get what you're saying. Theory is often used as a synonym for hypothesis, even in the scientific community. Like 'string theory', which is acknowledged as a "hypothetical “theory of everything”. That's the way it's most commonly referred to, yet it's clearly not on part with things like the 'big bang theory' or the 'theory of evolution'. So, an argument could be made that there's semantic inaccuracies. However, that's not exactly one and the same as 'scientific' inaccuracies.

      Maybe I missed something, but the only reference I see to an actual theory (other than 'string theory) in this article is the one in regards to the "discovery of the Higgs boson in July 2012 confirm[ing] a nearly 50-year-old theory of how elementary particles acquire mass".

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Hahaha... Nope, not home-schooled. I'm yet another product of the American public school system, which of course isn't exactly something to put on a shirt and wear with pride.

      You're clearly grasping at straws here. First the whole thing about me lying about my name and now this. Do you not have anything better to do? With your superior intellect and all? It seems you could be doing much more good in the world than spending such a significant amount of time arguing with such a simpleton as myself.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      No - it is not. Theory is radically different to hypothesis, which is radically different to "untestable hypothesis". Dear me. :(

      Didn't bother reading it huh? Just jumped on one word? :( "But theories can grow on physicists. After spending more than a decade acclimating himself to the multiverse, Arkani-Hamed now finds it plausible"

      This is not even capable of being a scientific hypothesis. Really - get an education - you will thank me for it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I think you're getting hung up on semantics and missing the overall point. The point is that any ideas concerning what happened beyond the big bang are untestable, and they're untestable for a reason. Therefore, no level of knowledge of science affirms one way or the other whether or not a God is responsible or a multiverse or whatever else.

      If you find such significant errors in the article I suggest you take that up with the periodical, considering they have the gall to call themselves 'scientific'. If you find everything I say and everything this article says flawed, then maybe you can at least point me in the direction of something reputable that affirms what you're saying and illustrates the errors in my thinking. That would maybe give me a starting point as far as where to begin educating myself. Until then it just appears to be your word against practically everything else I've ever read, which I find difficult to accept considering you'll even argue that my name isn't what I claim it is.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Semantics - you mean what words actually mean? If you understood science - you would not be claiming there was a "beyond" or "before" the big bang.

      I have no interest in taking anything up with any periodical. Reputable in terms of what again? That science has no way of seeing into the majikal kingdom your god lives in outside of space and time?

      See? Here we are again - back to you postulating impossible, untestable scenarios and demanding I disprove them. Really - get an education. You will thank me in the end.

      Then you will understand that time began with the big bang and there was no before or beyond. I know - hard to grasp, but still - I think a grounding in science - particularly physics - would help here. You could start be reading Hawking. I believe he is pretty reputable.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Are you familiar with Hawking's "The Grand Design"? Because it's about what was before/beyond this universe. M-theory. A multiverse candidate for a "Theory of everything".

      Yes, you're right, Hawking is reputable.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      No it is not. You think Hawking is saying there was time before the Big Bang? Or that there is something Majikal beyond the Universe, outside of space time? I suggest you read it again, because it is nothing about that at all. As I said - get yourself an education.

      Hawking has an opinion on a majikal super being existing as well - as you seem to believe stuff based on what other people believe - I suggest you go fond out what he thinks about that question.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Allow me to help. This is a quote that speaks directly to your belief.

      “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”

      ― Stephen Hawking

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Yes, I'm familiar with Hawking's views.

      "The authors explain, in a manner consistent with M-theory, that as the Earth is only one of several planets in our solar system, and as our Milky Way galaxy is only one of many galaxies, the same may apply to our universe itself: that is, our universe may be one of a huge number of universes.[11]

      The book concludes with the statement that only some universes of the multiple universes (or multiverse) support life forms. We, of course, are located in one of those universes. The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance, Hawking and Mlodinow explain " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_%28b...

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      And what does that have to do with the fact that a god could not have created these Universes and - according to one of the foremost physicists in the only Universe we are certain exists - chance was all that was needed for life to be possible in this one?

      You asked me for reputable and specific refutations of your claims - now you choose to ignore them? Oh - you didn't want that? I guess I am done here.

      Ciao

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time. You're the one that said, "Then you will understand that time began with the big bang and there was no before or beyond." Hawking clearly thinks otherwise. And as for his views, he acknowledges them as beliefs ...

      "In June this year Prof Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a "personal" God existed. He told Genius of Britain: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.""

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in."

      Direct quote.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Right, and the quote I sited was direct as well, about these being his 'beliefs'. It doesn't make much sense, if we're talking about the creator of the universe/matter/energy/time/space that the creator of these somehow be subject to them, the laws of His own creation.

      2 Peter 3:8 - But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

      Direct quote.

      What he's not acknowledging in that statement is that multiverse scenarios also require time, and it requires time apart from the dimension of time of this universe as you and I experience it. Even within this one universe, for the singularity to change states and become anything other than a singularity requires time and requires a cause. Which is why physicists like Hawking and others postulate M-theory and other kinds of explanations to try to explain whatever it is that led to the big bang and the existence of the components required for it to happen.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Please stop speaking drivel at me. Direct quote from a majik book? LAWL!

      Just "beliefs" huh? LAWL! Sorry - didn't realise you understood this better than him. Oh wait - I know you need to rewrite the bible to fit your beliefs - I guess - why not lie about what he says as well?

      Odd - M-theory makes no such claims or admits any such thing. Allow me to quote it again.

      “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in."

      Didn't exist. No time. Not majikal time that is apart from the dimension you and I experience. Really - get an education. Seriously.

      Guess you didn't actually want me to provide any references after all. Oh well .. Mr "Christian" LOLOL

      Still - now the opinion of the foremost physicist in the known Universe is "just a belief".

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "“To understand the universe at the deepest level, we have to understand why is there something rather than nothing,... Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws, and not some other? I believe the answers to all of these things is M-theory.” - Hawking

      The theory, he said, combines multiple ideas about math and physics. It suggests that there are multiple dimensions or universes, and offers solutions for the behavior of super-massive black holes and the properties of the fabric of space-time. M-theory is a work in progress, but Hawking said he believes that it’s the most promising lead to a unified theory." - http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/10/science/la...

      In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as seven higher-dimensions plus the four common dimensions. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      LAWL! Seriously - Go back to school. t But thanks for the reminder. Mucho appreciated.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I hope you two (Mark & Headly) have got all that worked out now, and are squared away.

      Who here thinks ZPE is magic?

      Who here thinks the power of thought and imagination is magic?

      Who here thinks Nikola Tesla was a magician?

      Who here thinks the big bang is magic and also stupid?

      Who here thinks the theory of evolution involves more storytelling than the Bible?

      Why does Mark not laugh at the Primordial Soup Theory, even though it has never been proven in a laboratory?

      Does the PST involve magic?

      LOL!

      The list could continuously go on and on...

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      MARK/HEADLY,

      math is the purest form of the rational and reasonable. It deals with deep actual realities. Conceptually and mathamatically we have to assume a value for an unknown quantity (be it God, existence or a just a number) hence the purest form of reason dictates the existence of God in any such equation. In other words it is Impossible for the human mind to refute God without first positing Him.

      I think Mark is tiring and on the defensive all the time because reason clearly contradicts the standard atheist views.

      As for he Hawking just MIGHT have a personal reason for refuting God.eg. he MIGHT feel hard done by God.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Not tiring at all Mr troll. Purest form of reason? Oh - you mean you are reasonable and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool? Yup - we all know that is what religious believers think. This is why your religion causes so much conflict. As I said - you define it I will disprove the FSM. RAmen

      Really - go buy yourself a decent dictionary and look up the word "concept".

      Insane - does it have to be proven in a lab to be correct? I don't recall saying that or even having that opinion.... ;)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Me - "If you find everything I say and everything this article says flawed, then maybe you can at least point me in the direction of something reputable that affirms what you're saying and illustrates the errors in my thinking."

      You - "Guess you didn't actually want me to provide any references after all."

      I'm not sure you recognize or acknowledge it, but what you've referred to thus far doesn't contradict anything I've said. This is right in line with what I've been saying all along and directly contradicts statements you've made. Multiverse scenarios, like M-Theory, are attempts to explain the conditions of this one environment being just right as to allow for life (anthropic principle), and it attempts to explain the 'cause' beyond the singularity/big bang, which includes multiple dimensions of time that theoretically permeate this universe and others. All of this is just as untestable as postulating a deliberate/intelligent creator. The only valid answer as to what occurred beyond the big bang is 'I don't know'. Hawking recognizes this and acknowledges his support of M-theory as a belief because in his mind this is the most likely answer.

      Again, level of knowledge has nothing to do with it.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in."

      M-theory says nothing about "what led to the big bang."

      Still - it is just a belief and therefore has no bearing on your postulated majikal super being that lives outside of space and time as we and Mr Hawking experience it.

      Really. Do yourself a favor and get an education .

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Seriously, just stop and think about this. I know you're capable. M-theory is postulated as a multi-verse, multi-dimensional 'theory of everything' in an attempt to explain what we observe in this one universe. Without it we then have to acknowledge that the one and only universe we know to exist appears to be fine tuned for life. It has everything to do with the cause of the big bang, though no actual mechanism is specifically described by it. What it postulates has everything to do with what happens beyond this one universe, beyond the big bang.

      You're basically just using one quote taken out of context to then dismiss everything else, including other things Hawking himself has said. He's clearly not speaking in the context of M-theory when he made that statement. He's speaking in the context of this one observable universe, where according to the theory of relativity, time and space as we perceive it is part of this one observable universe. You can't say for fact whether there is or isn't time beyond this universe, only that it's not the same as time we experience from within.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      By ZPE, are you referring to 'zero-point energy'? I don't think the big bang is magic or stupid. I do think we tend to hang our proverbial hat a bit too much on assumptions to fill in the gaps between the evidence where the theory of evolution is concerned. I don't think Tesla was a magician, but I do think he was incredibly gifted and that he got unfairly ripped off by Edison. And I don't have an issue with the Primordial Soup theory. I just find it odd that all those components that each proved to have behaviors that benefited one another when they worked together to become something way more than the sum of its parts is far beyond simple coincidence. And I think thought/imagination falls outside of the realm of pure materialism specifically because our thoughts and imaginings are willfully driven.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      M-theory is an untestable hypothesis and has no bearing on your claims of majik. Sorry.

      I am not taking any quote out of context. I gave you that quote to refute your earlier claims. It speaks directly to your claims and directly refutes them.

      Just stop and think about this. I would like to think that you are capable, but I fear your religious indoctrination is obscuring your ability to think rationally. But - I will try one more time:

      1. If God is the creator of the universe, He existed before it.

      2. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in.

      Therefore god does not exist and did not create the universe.

      Can't make it any simpler than that - sorry.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Okay, if you understand M-theory to be untestable, then how can you or Hawking or anyone say one way or another what did or didn't exists "before" the big bang?

      if a God is postulated as the creator of everything, including time, then how can He then be bound by the rules of His own creation?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Umm - there was no "before" the big bang. If you understood the physics - you would get that. Dear me. :(

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      That's just it, Mark. Hawking does get the physics and he supports M-theory, which deals directly with what happens "before" or "beyond" the big bang. Do you get that?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Dear me. No wonder your religion causes so many fights. OK - Hawking supports your theory that there is a majikal super being who existed before the big bang. Odd he is so adamant that there was no "before" the big bang. Not sure how M-theory supports the majik either, but I feel sur eno matter how small the gap science leaves, you will cling to it. lol

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Clearly that's not what I said. We're not talking about my beliefs. We're talking about the glaring flaws in your statements. You keep insisting I need to further my education, yet nothing I'm saying contradicts known facts while much of what you're saying does.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      What glaring flaws in my statement? That there was no "before" the big bang? You think postulating a majikal super being undetectable by science doesn't contradict known facts? LOL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      No, it doesn't contradict known facts. Why? Because there are no known facts regarding what happened "before"/"apart from"/"beyond" the big bang. You acknowledge and recognize that anything regarding what's beyond the big bang is untestable and unknowable, yet you still seem to think level of knowledge of science/physics has something to say about my beliefs. You point to one quote from Hawking about there being no time beyond the big bang, and appeal to his authority, yet refuse to acknowledge other statements he's made where he himself, with all his understanding, still subscribes to M-theory. Then you make false statements about what M-theory does and does not speak about. You accuse me of making untestable/unprovable postulations about what's beyond the big bang, and say it's due to my lack of understanding, yet refuse to acknowledge that Hawking subscribing to M-theory is supporting a theory that does the exact same thing.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      There was no "before" and "apart from" and "beyond" are nothing more than speculation, nor are they interchangeable with "before". M-theory doesn't speak about "before".

      Not sure why you keep interjecting m-theory as you obviously don't understand it. After all - science cannot possibly explain your majikal existence - can it?

      Postulating majik doesn't contradict known facts because there are no known facts about majik huh? This would be the very definition of "contradiction" . LOLOLOLO

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "I will describe what I see as the framework for quantum cosmology, on the basis of M theory. I shall adopt the no boundary proposal, and shall argue that the Anthropic Principle is essential, if one is to pick out a solution to represent our universe, from the whole zoo of solutions allowed by M theory. " - STephen Hawking (http://www.hawking.org.uk/quantum-cosmology-m-theo...

      "the anthropic principle (from the Greek, anthropos, human) is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it."

      "String theory predicts a large number of possible universes, called the "backgrounds" or "vacua." The set of these vacua is often called the "multiverse" or "anthropic landscape" or "string landscape."" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

      "In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as seven higher-dimensions plus the four common dimensions" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

      If you don't acknowledge anything "before"/"apart from"/"beyond" this one observable universe then you have to admit that the fundamental laws of this one and only universe are fine tuned to allow for the existence of life, which strongly suggests a deliberate creator. String theory and M-theory both offer an explanation in that there are multiple universes, and that we just happen to exist within one where life is possible, therefore giving us the capability to exist and observe it.

      It's an unprovable/untestable postulation that attempts to explain what we can see/observe/test. Because it's been determined that this universe appears to be finely tuned to allow for life, it's difficult to explain away a deliberately created universe. This is why anything beyond the big bang is merely opinion/belief. And this is why scientists can and in many cases do still believe in God or a higher power. And this is why knowledge of science in no way informs you one way or the other.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Ah - "before" is now the same as "apart from" LAWL

      Does that mean goddunit? Not sure what any of this has to do with supporting your baseless postulations though. Does M theory say there must be a deliberate creator if there are no other Universes? Wow! Interesting. Unless - oh wait - I just checked - it doesn't. Sorry.

      It has been determined huh? LAWL

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Here is your argument again:

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

      Seriously - we are back to me explaining why this approach of yours causes so many conflicts.

      You propose anything you want and then claim it is valid because there is no disproof? Call me narrow minded and ignorant again. After all - you know something I don't know and you don't have to prove it. ;) LAWL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, this is the way Douglas Adams put it, or similar at least. The anthropic principle. But if there is only one universe, and we're not allowed to postulate anything beyond it, then it's difficult to explain how the one and only instance of existence has laws which values are just right to allow life to exist. Yes, if we were formed by the universe then it would seem to us the universe is made for us because it fits us so well. I get that from an 'observer' standpoint. But with there just being the one universe you still have the same issue because there is only one/constant set of laws which determine life to exist. Which is why ideas regarding multiple universes are picking up so much steam.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      No, again, this has nothing to do with supporting my postulations. This has to do with pointing out the flaws in your objections, and your assertions that lack of knowledge/understanding of science is the cause.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      But - the flaws in my objections are valid. You have nothing to support your postulations about the Invisible, Undetectable, Majikal super being.

      Nothing.

      So much steam huh? Is that the same as "strongly suggests"? We must be special huh? Out of all them universes - god majiked this one specially for us. Seriously? Difficult to explain huh? There you go - You don't understand it so it must be majik. How else could it happen? LAWL!

      At least you are now being honest. It is difficult to explain, therefore goddunit - nice. Good for you.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Headly:

      The anthropic principle is an interesting subject. I wrote about it on some other blog of mine a couple years ago or thereabouts. Of course, even the proponents of the Anthropic Principle can't agree, either. You have the strong version, weak version, etc.

      So, you are the one that supports the Primordial Soup Theory? I was wondering who did, from this page... LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      It's not so much that I support the primordial soup theory as it is that I have no valid objections to it. The behavioral functionality of the components that existed are certainly there. What I find odd about it is that these various components did exist together in that microcosm. If that is indeed how life began, then I find it far beyond coincidence that nucleotides have a natural tendency to bind together to form polynucleotides, that lipids have a natural tendency to bind together to form spherical structures that bind to polynucleotides, and that the membrane of this structure naturally allows for nucleotides to pass in, but doesn't allow polynucleotides to get out. Then, on top of all of that there's the capability that some of these nucleotides could replicate themselves. There are so many components involved whose behaviors have nothing to do with one another, yet when it all comes together these things work with one another in such a way that it creates something that's so much more than each of those parts. I just don't see this as being something that haphazardly happened, again, if this is indeed how it happened.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      If your objections were valid then that would mean Hawking is wrong to support M-theory, because it's just as baseless and has all the same issues. It's postulating an unprovable/untestable explanation for what we don't understand. Clearly, because someone of Hawking's level of knowledge is willing to get on board with this kind of idea, then level of knowledge/understanding of science and physics has nothing to do with it. In fact, it strongly suggests that focusing solely on what's observable within this one universe is inadequate for fully explaining what we observe, warranting explanations that go beyond this one observable universe. Therefore your objections to what I'm talking about and it being in any way tied to level of knowledge are invalid.

      Again, this whole line of discussion has nothing to do with my beliefs. I'm simply trying to help you understand that level of knowledge/understanding does not lead to the conclusions you apparently think they do.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Wait - you are comparing yourself to Hawking? Way you! You go! LAWL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      No, I'm showing how the objections you're stating are invalid by illustrating how they apply in the exact same way to a concept backed by somebody clearly smarter and more qualified than myself. Someone who you actually brought up as being reputable and adequately knowledgeable of science and physics.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Right. Your mother must be very proud. You and Hawking - like twins. LAWL! Same thing really lol

      :(

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Come on, Mark. I know you get what I'm saying, and that I was in no way comparing myself to Hawking. I'm just refuting your objections by referring to the very same person you sited as being reputable and showing that he also subscribes to ideas regarding what's beyond the big bang.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      MARK,

      Hawking has recently agree that prior to the Big Bang there were an infinite amount of Big Bangs. The current physics no posits the exists the existence of an infinite series of Big Bangs. ie. they agree that there was in fact "something" prior to the Big Bang/s. Incidentally this idea of previous endless universes was originally put forward by Hinduism about 10,000 years ago!

      I am still waiting for your comments regarding the mathematical certainty of positing a God in any attempt to disprove Him.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Noggin - I got it it. Typical Christian apologetics. Hawking is not a reputable source because he makes stuff up based on no evidence as well. You are like 2 peas in a pod with your postulations. LAWL! Honestly - thanks for the reminder.

      Troll - Please stop speaking drivel at me and go buy a decent dictionary. Look up "concept" for a start. I think it is excellent that you now agree there was no "beginning" and therefore no need for any majikal super being. Next word to look up is "infinite" LAWL+2

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Not exactly. Hawking just realizes, like many physicists have, including those mentioned in that article I referred you to earlier, that any sort of "theory for everything" explanation is most likely going to have to incorporate events that happened beyond the big bang, or beyond our one observable universe. So, based on what's observed within this one universe, they propose models that attempt to explain what we observe. I'm doing the same thing. In either case you're not going to get evidential confirmation, but if the model is close to the truth then what is observable will yield certain expected, or predicted, results.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      Technically, Hinduism doesn't quite go back 10,000 years. The beginnings of the culture in India and the near east first began with the Indus Valley culture, starting around 3300 BC. But I do find it extremely interesting that they were the first to speak in the language of millions of years and were the first, I believe, to speak of multiple universes.

      And these things are hugely relevant in my particular model as the Indus Valley was one of those first civilizations to spring up in the centuries following the 5.9 kiloyear event, an event I associate with the story of Babel in Genesis. Those first 3 civilizations, Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley, all sprang up within decades of one another, and all 3 made use of astronomy and mathematics. And all 3 managed to establish a unique writing system. What's most interesting about the Indus Valley culture is that the language has not yet been deciphered. There's no telling what kind of insight awaits us once someone figures out that ancient language.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      But none of them believe it absolutely. And please stop interchanging "before" with "beyond" as that is simply twisting what I said. Thanks. ;)

      Insights? LAWL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I'm not 'twisting' "before" and "beyond". Our language in general is too tethered to the concept of time and space as we perceive it so these words aren't necessarily applicable in the context of space-time not existing, but they at least do an adequate job in conveying ideas. You just have to allow for that.

      I don't believe my model absolutely either. I'm open to it being wrong and constantly try to prove it wrong. It's not about being right. It's about discovering the real truth. Which is why I'm such a stickler for policing the things you and others say that are baseless dismissals of still very much valid ideas. I don't mind objections, but they have to be logically sound. So I'm going to challenge the logic if I have an objection to your objection.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Tethered to the concept of space and time huh? Well - excuse me if grating the weathering and usability is something I clamber up.

      Not climbing is why the faith ridden make such lovingness.

      I kiss in your pie and ram the wonder.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      MARK,

      it would be unethical of me to to reply to any questions or suggestions you make as you keep avoiding my questions and suggestions!

      ie. 1.hawking's change in position re pre-big bang/s

      2. the pure logic of maths implies the existence of God.

      3. the dictionary defintion of existence implies Sentience

      4 crticising the emotive irrational attitudes of religious people but maintaining your own emotive and irrational attitudes

      etc etc.

      As long as you continue to avoid these rational logical and mathamatical approaches how can we have rational conersation? I am trying to use science and math to communciate with you.

      VON NOGGIN,

      yes officially 3,000 BC pluse 2,000 AD is still a very long time to be dealing with concepts of multiples universes, higher math and highly advanced religious concepts regarding unifying all religions AND atheism together.

      My own studies (which concur online with many serious qualified archaeologists) suggest 10.000BC as the starting date for a very advanced civilisation roaming the globe. But that's another story.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Unethical?

      Go buy a dictionary and look up, not only the words I suggested but also now "ethics," "logic" "emotive" and "implies". I would also appreciate it if you stopped lying at me. LAWL!

      Which dictionary did you buy that told you "existence" implies "Sentience with a capital S? No wonder your religion causes so many wars....

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      I meant unethical on your part. No offense intended.

      I need to get responses to my valid points before answering questions from you. I would be really happy to reply to questions.

      Hawking HAS reneged on "nothing before the big bang"; Existence DOES imply sentience; maths DOES verify the existence of God even before we get started on any equation; you ARE emotive but I don't hold that against you (it just stops us having a conversation).

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Interesting. You clearly don't know the meaning of the word "imply". Maths does not verify the existence of God. I am offended by your dishonest approach - yes.

      I honestly don't see how we can have a conversation if you refuse to learn the meanings of English words and insist on lying at me.

      Let me try again - go look up the words "concept" and "imply" - then we can talk properly.

      Seriously - why does it upset you that I refuse to believe irrational nonsense?

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      I can assure you I am not upset with you in the slightest.

      If I make a point regarding pure unemotional math logic which states we have to give a value to "x" (be it God or anything else) before we can prove or disprove that value I would expect a response from you about that cold mathamatical truth. How can you be offended by logic if you are an atheist?

      Hawking has reneged on "nothing before the big bang". Now, suddenly, instead of "nothing" before the big bang we have an infinite amount of big bangs! By not responding to this point how can you say "I'm lying"?

      I have looked up a several dictionary definitions of existence and depending on the dictionary they generally imply sentience. Legally speaking we have to agree on a specific dictionary (such as a court room scenario) to make some rules of argument about word definitions.

      By accusing me of "lying and not looking at meanings" is in iteslf no reason for you logically to become so emotional and angry.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Infinite amount of big bangs? Really? Excellent - nothing before the big bang then. Thanks. I guess I am saying you are lying because you said "The current physics no posits the exists the existence of an infinite series of Big Bangs. ie. they agree that there was in fact "something" prior to the Big Bang/s. " which is a lie - no one agrees on any such thing.

      If you had said " a small group of theoretical physicists think...." instead of lying that "physics agrees" I would not have bothered pointing out your lie.

      You are also lying that Hawking subscribes to this.

      http://www.christianpost.com/news/stephen-hawking-...

      Imply? Please go look that word up. Also - "concept" - but at least you now seem to agree that god is a concept and does not exist in reality - yes?

      Seriously - imply. Lying about what dictionaries "imply" is not helping either. :(

      Honest;y - I fond it very, very difficult to have a conversation with peopel who do not understand science at all. Go back to "goddunit" - you will be fine. :(

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      It says in that article you supplied that Hawking subscribes to M-theory, which states that there are multiple instances of universes. Not quite infinite, as it's an extension of string theory, which posits roughly 10^500 universes. But all of this is thought to occur beyond this one universe. The bit about multiple big bangs is in reference to the 'big bounce' theory which suggests this one universe expanded out, then collapsed back in on itself back into a singularity, which then 'big banged' again, multiple times.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Not the same as multiple big bangs "before" . Sorry you don't understand the difference between "beyond" and "before". Your troll here was saying Hawking subscribed to before. That is the problem with not understanding English words and lying that you have a new way of using them because of your increased understanding.

      Majick! LAWL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I think you're just being unnecessarily difficult. Both 'beyond' and 'before' are just as inaccurate, technically, but because our language is so tethered to time-space we really don't have a good vocabulary for speaking about these kinds of things. So, much like everyone else does in the world when discussing these topics, you just have to allow for terms like these as they still adequately convey an idea. Using them does not mean a lack of understanding.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "Even the amount of matter in the universe can be different to what it was *before* the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang." - Stephen Hawking (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.ht...

      See, even Hawking uses 'before' at times, though we all know that he knows full well that isn't entirely accurate.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Sorry - tethered to wot now?LAWL! Course we do. I sed it u int beleeb it.

      MAJICK!

      IGNORANT!

      DICTIONARY!

      LOL

      Le kut sed int bel soz int it wot. Awesome that you know what Hawking knows. 2 peas in a pod. Well... Kinda. LAWL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      You've clearly displayed a level of ignorance of science time again in this thread alone that you then try to cover up by projecting this nonsense onto me as if its my fault that you're wrong. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish exactly, but all you're really doing is making yourself look foolish. I give you example after example of physicists who contradict what you say and re-enforce what I've said, including the physicist you yourself sited as being reputable. So then you decide to call the legitimacy of the periodicals I site into question, or you call the physicists quoted into question, or you begin to knit-pick the definitions of words in an attempt to make an argument. Just recognize and acknowledge your own short-comings so you can then educate yourself and fix them. Until you do you're not doing yourself, or anyone in the camp you represent, any favors. You're ultimately just making the exact same mistake that believers are often accused of. You're assuming your own biased position is 'right' and therefore everyone else who sees things differently is wrong. You're holding up progress by continually injecting nonsense and further derision into the discussion. What's the point of all of this fighting against that which you despise if you're just going to become what you despise?

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      I know I know - I just don't understand science. No wonder this religion causes so much hatred. Believers make a mistake? How so? I become what I despise? You? I look foolish because I act like you? Gotcha.

      Sorry if it bothers you that I prefer to use words properly. I can see why you wouldn't want top do that and attack it as "nit picking." LOLOL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      So what words do you suggest? Since 'before' is tethered to the concept of time and 'beyond' is tethered to the concept of space. If you come up with something, you might share them with Hawking and everyone else who attempts to speak in these terms as they all use these 'inaccurate' words when speaking of things 'beyond/before' the big bang as well.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      You guys are great. I think y'all should keep on arguing until the cows come home. LOL! Hell, let's all just pretend it is one gargantuan Bubbleverse consisting of infinite bubbles of universes, then we can all rest assuredly while knowing nobody can prove otherwise. It is fun, but I have my own universe to contemplate albeit it is called imagination.

      The big bang theory of baloney is stupid anyway.

      @Headly: Maybe you need to also quit subscribing to every trending theory out there. Hell, I could have come up with better theories than most of the popular theoretical physicists of today, back when I was 9 years old.

      @Mark - Switch bourbons. Go for something of higher proof, as that cheap shit will cause more aggravation than it is worth; ha!

      @Oztinato - You sure do argue a lot with Mark to be such a Hindu-like being. LOL!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      INSANE,

      I am debating which is ethically different from "arguing": I am basing my points on sound scientific,mathamatical and grammatic evidence.

      I am not interested in using insults and four letter words in the name of "science"; or using bad jokes or alleged humour.

      The scientific facts speak for themselves as I have outlined. The general sceintific consensus is that theories have changed and will continue to change; which allows a lot of ehtical wiggle room for them to contradict themselves. One big bang once, now almost endless big bangs, and in the future?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato: This is a debate? Scientific facts about big bangs? Okay, have fun with that gobbledygook! LMAO!

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      I think it would probably be a good idea to accept that there is not an invisible, undetectable majikal reality outside of the "constraints" of time and space we can experience. Or - show me that your claims have some basis in reality other than as a necessary circular argument to defend a god thing existing. Or - make up some new words and explain what they mean, because "before" is a word that is tied to reality. Once again - if you understood any science, you would be able to grasp that there was no "before".

      As far as we can tell - regardless of how many parallel universes that might - or might not - exist - time began with the big bang.

      But - we already have words: "super natural" or "non-existenent" or "majikal" are available. Allow me to show you how to use them. e.g - "the majikal or non-existent time before time began" would work.

      @Oztinato - Ethical? I suggest that is another word you need to go look up. Might as well look up "facts" while you are at it. ;)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      It's not that there's just one big bang that spawned multiple parallel universes. Part of the reason for the whole multiverse concept is to attempt to explain the fundamental laws being just the right value to allow for life to exist in this one universe. So part of that explanation is that there could have been multiple big bangs, with each creating parallel universes with varying values in those fundamental forces, with this one observable universe being one in which the values are right to allow for life. And the whole reason physicists are more and more beginning to buy into this concept is because they're finding that this one universe by itself doesn't totally make sense on its own, warranting concepts that include events that may have happened 'beyond/before/apart from' the big bang that created this universe. So, whatever the case, it appears there was most likely 'something'. What that is is anyone's guess. But this is where God would be if God existed. Whether it's a creator God or a multiverse or a spaghetti monster, science is simply unable to answer that question. Meaning, as I've been saying since the beginning, we're all in the same boat and level of knowledge/understanding of science is no way informs one way or the other.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      I don't have an issue with the big bang theory. When models can be created that actually duplicate what we see as far as the formation of stars/universes/black holes/etc, then it's hard to think this concept is totally off-base. Now, when it comes to postulations regarding multiverses and such, I can totally see what you're saying. It seems like they're grasping at straws randomly to me. I get the approach, I understand the reasons, but it does seem a bit sophomoric to say the least. But I do more lean your direction as far as thinking the mind is a key component in all of this. When you subtract time and space out of the equation, and just look at what exists, the mind is an anomaly. It doesn't fit. Whatever it is that animates life, the well from which the mind sprang up, doesn't fully compute. Mechanically, life works, but active life in a causal/material reality is like a rock rolling up hill. Life/death is a component to reality that I think will have to be better understood before we can hope to ever fully understand existence as it's a key component within it.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Headly - The models don't duplicate the big bang properly nor do they depict an accurate explosion. For one, it is expanding way too fast and instead of slowing down, it is speeding up. This is more reasons why we need dark matter and dark energy concepts to fill the void. Filling voids with concepts becomes tedious after a while, which is more reasons why I prefer my universe of imagination and the creation of thoughts, instead.

      If you are going to stand by the current big bang theory, although it is constantly changing, you better be ready to start playing with the math and creating fantastical concepts during the process. Theoretical physicists get paid to be Math~Magicians! LOL!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      INSANE/MARK,

      in a formal debate situation Mark would have lost ages ago due to the use of expletives, insults, bad jokes and the failure to respond to points made. I think the same would go for you (Insane) as well just for the use of bad jokes (and failure to respond to specific points). How about responding to questions, acting civil, stopping the terrible jokes and getting on with a serious debate?

      Here's a good start: The traditional definition of "magic" is something that can't yet be (allegedly) explained by science: so by this definition the "why big bangs started" still remains quite poetically magical. So that's one thing science and religion have in common.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato - LOL! First of all, you have never asked me any questions. I don't think Mark has not acknowledged your ignorant queries to him, either.

      You don't know me, evidently.

      You are talking upstream.

      Provide me with something that supports your math, then we can start from there.

      The universe was started by a divine computer program via the cosmic tentacles of existence that surrounds the unity of thoughts split among the endless dividends of one; duh! It has nothing to do with the math you don't have the cognitive function to demonstrate nor the numeric value of zero. Be gone, dear gentle reader... Ha-ha!

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Noggin - M theory is a complex theoretical model that you clearly do not understand.

      As I said - why not try making up some new words to cover this realm that you believe exists instead of tethering yourself to these limiting words that are tied to reality.

      At least now you seem to be agreeing that the only reason you subscribe to a majikal reality outside of reality is because that is the only place left for your majikal super being to exist - yes? In which case- I agree. Your god must exist in a majikal, undetectable reality because he most certainly doesn't exist in actual reality.

      You don't understand life and death? Oh dear. Must be goddunit then. LOLOL

      Troll - serious debate? OK - god is a concept. we good with that? ;)

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      And Troll - just as Noggin does - you haven't actually asked me any questions. You have made absolute, unproveable statements and asked me to disprove them. This is not the same as debate and - as I have mentioned before - this one of the many reasons your beliefs cause so many conflicts.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      What have I said, specifically, about m-theory that leads you to the conclusion that I don't understand? I've sited quotes from reputable sources that support what I've said and contradict statements you've made. If there's something I have wrong I want to know about it. If you could, can you maybe site a reference that contradicts what I've said and shows that I'm not properly understanding?

      And it's not that I 'now seem to be agreeing'. I haven't changed anything I've been saying. You're just now finally grasping what I'm saying, apparently. And, as I've also pointed out, the bible hasn't changed either. The way God is described in those ancient texts, long before anyone knew any of this stuff in regards to the universe being finite and space-time being relative, still remains consistent. The bible describes God as the creator (Genesis 1:1) having a different perception of time (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) and space (Psalms 139: 7-10, Proverbs 15:3). Again, if God is the creator, then He's not going to be a detectable part of the universe. It's not that this is the only place that's left, it's simply the only place that makes sense. If God were somehow a detectable part of this reality then that would mean He's a product of it, therefore not the creator of it.

      As for life and death, it's not just me that doesn't understand. Nobody does. We know what a living organism needs to retain/sustain life, but don't know what life itself is. While there's no structural difference between a living and dead organism, when an organism is alive it behaves as a 'self-sustaining system' that exhibits a host of behaviors (homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, etc) that it does not when it's dead. To date there is still no material explanation for this.

      As far as 'goddunit', I didn't say that. I just said I think life, whatever it is, and the mind, whatever it is, these too are natural products of this natural world that don't lend themselves so well to material explanation. And much like we've found across the proverbial board, things in this universe are interrelated. We're all made of star stuff, as Sagan once put it. So the same elements that formed the cosmos also resulted in life and conscious minds. I simply said I think the key to gaining deeper understanding lies, not necessarily at the boundaries of the universe, but through a deeper/better understanding of these phenomena.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane,

      I understand and agree that things like the rate of expansion of the universe, or why the whole thing inflated in the first place and didn't just collapse back in on itself, is not yet sufficiently explained. I do find that the observed expansion of the universe, the rate, the direction, all leads to the conclusion that it all traces back to a single point, and I do find the explanation of the formation of matter and the evolution of the state of the universe is valid. So it's the most elegant explanation currently proposed, but I agree it's not complete. It does, however, help us better define and isolate the unknowns in the equation. I think it's most definitely useful in that way.

      And I do find it kind of funny that ideas attempting to explain this balance that keeps the whole thing from collapsing has been basically 'patched' into the math. Like Einstein, who basically 'patched in' the cosmological constant to balance out his equations when he was trying to reconcile his field equations with a steady-state universe. A 'patch' he later recanted and was a bit embarrassed about. Now, with the understanding the universe isn't steady-state, we're right back to basically using that same 'patch' again with dark matter/energy.

      Dark matter/energy being something totally undetectable and nothing more than imagined 'math-magic', basically. But, like Oztinato keeps trying to point out, you first have to make something a tangible value in the equation before you can go about proving or disproving it. So, that's what's been done.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Headly - Exactly! We need these variables in our equations for the Math~Magics to work! LOL!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      INSANE/MARK,

      as I was saying, if the rules of debating were applied you both have lost many times over.

      To start all over again:

      1. Did Hawkins renege on the "nothing prior to the big bang" and suddenly start claiming an almost endless series of big bangs?

      2. If you use maths to prove or disprove a value do you have to give an unknown quantity (be it god or just a number) a value?

      3. If the definition of magic is that science labels "miracles" as phenomena it can not yet explain, then doesn't that make the beginning of the universe magical?

      4. If a person in a debate continually uses insults does that disqualify them from an ethical debate?

      5. Is the theory of relativity a concept too in the same way as god is?

      By this stage of course I don't really expect actual replies to questions; I only expect insults, evasion, accusations and bad/boring/alleged jokes (all of which disqualify you from ethical debating). Please go ahead and give me your best shot.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato: For one, this isn't a debate. I like how you now lump people into one entity, which just shows your ineptitude.

      You are the same one that tried to lump all atheists into the same group, before getting massively corrected by all of us; duh!

      By the way, I'm not even an atheist! LOL!

      Your new questions?

      1) Who cares? I have never mentioned that character nor does he know, either.

      2) 2 apples plus 2 apples will always be 4 apples; get a life!

      3) Magic is everywhere. Anybody with a faint trace of common sense/logic, realizes that magic is just a concept anybody uses when God is not involved.

      4) Hell no! Morons that constantly post inane drivel, need to be insulted or have their Internet privileges taken away from certain websites. Go to an established scientific magazine website and upload your poppycock to them, like you have displayed here, and let me know how it works out for you.

      5) Not really, but it is just one of the many fractions from the endless dividends of one.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      I understand life and death just fine thanks - so do billions of other peopel and organisms. Odd - just because you don't understand it - you assume no one else does. But - glad we can agree - as your Invisible Super Being cannot exist within reality - it must exist outside of reality. Now all you need to do is demonstrate that there is something outside of reality. Sadly - this is an impossible oxymoron. Therefore your beliefs are simply nonsense. As to your inability to grasp the apparent fact that both life the mind evolved without majikal intervention - "goddunit" seems the best way to describe that. LAWL This argument from ignorance is a standard religious argument - I know, but still.... :(

      Majiking a "tangible value" for something that you admit is intangible is another example of your lack of comprehension. Can't be bothered to explain any further. but I feel certain there is an adult education course available to you.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Troll. To answer your kwestions:

      1.

      a, I think you mean Hawking.

      b, no he did not.

      c, I already added a link to an article that explains his current opinion on that and you were too lazy to read it.

      2. Really - look up the word concept.

      3. Beginning? There was a time when the Universe did not exist in any way shape or form? Prove it.

      4. Dictionary. Ethical.

      5. No. Yes. Sort of. Not at all.

      Oh dear - I answered. Does that make me ethical now?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      You're making the same mistake that many of your materialist dogma brethren make. Your faith in our scientifically attained material knowledge is strong and often leads you to believe more is known/understood than what is actually the case. Instead of 'goddunit', it's 'science 'splains it'. And, like many blissfully unaware believers, you too are under the false impression that your beliefs are facts, when in actuality you're just ignorant of what's actually known, and remain that way because there's no reason to bother investigating or critically analyzing what you already "know" to be true.

      This is why your belief system is just as potentially harmful as any other and in much the same way causes conflict. It lulls people into a false sense of thinking things are already explained/understood that aren't, which results in continued ignorance. Ignorance that's then projected onto all those who think/know differently, leading you to the false conclusion that you're somehow better/more enlightened/more rational/superior. And I don't think I have to explain to you how harmful that kind of mindset can be.

      You might want to read up on what's actually known about life and death because right now you're claiming to understand something that the experts of the world still do not.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Mistake? Materialist dogma? Ignorant? Belief system? That there is only reality and no majick? Gotcha. LAWL! What a shame you cannot show me my mistakes in any concrete way.

      No wonder your religion has caused 2,000 years of conflicts. Thanks for the reminder. :(

      Really - postulating invisible majikal realms and attacking any one who says they don't believe you is why you will always cause a fight. Likewot Jeebus sed ter do.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Yeah, I know, you're oblivious to it. Blinded by your own faith. It happens. Which also makes you oblivious to recognizing your mistakes no matter how many times they're pointed out. You just convince yourself that all the physicists quoted in a particular article are hacks, or the periodical that carried the article is suspect, or polls are lying or put forth with an agenda, or whatever else you can come up with to justify continuing to believe wrongly as you do.

      I haven't once attacked you for not believing what I believe. That's something else you continually twist around in your own mind to make yourself out to be the one in the right in your own view. To reiterate, I only take issue with the objections you use to dismiss my viewpoint that are baseless or logically unsound. You're free to disagree. Many do. As long as you recognize it's simply a matter of opinion and in no way factually supported. You seem to think your viewpoint is fully supported by facts, which would mean anyone who believes in a higher power of any kind (over half the world's population and nearly half the scientific community) believe in something that is known to be factually false. This, of course, is wrong. Yet, to you, this is the more likely answer than considering the possibility that you could be wrong.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Yeah - I Know. Blind faith in reality. I know your opinion is in no way factually supported - that is wot I dun been telling you. Everything is a matter of opinion and your majikal super being is no more or less valid than evolution. I got it. I understand. Odd you don't understand why you guys cause so much ill will and hatred.

      Like wot Jeebus sed ter do innit.

      Awesome that calling some one ignorant and close minded because they reject your drivel is not an attack.

      Odd that you can lie with impunity as well. I thought the Invisible Super Being burned you for that. Not so? Guess you don't believe after all. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I didn't say you were ignorant or close minded because you reject my viewpoint, I said it because that's what the words you type demonstrate. The sun rises in the east, the sky is blue, water is wet, and Mark Knowles is ignorant and close minded.

      Ill will, conflict, hatred, humans cause these things, with or without religion.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      You are a liar. You called me narrow minded and ignorant because I rejected your viewpoint.

      Save me a seat by the fire. ;)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I'm now adding a lack of reading comprehension to your list of flaws.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      LAWL!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      INSANE/MARK/HEADLY,

      it should be abundantly obvious to all including that the 'alleged' atheists are low on ethical values, constantly use insults instead of answers, and refuse to actually answer any specific questions. That is childish and of the caliber of the "na-na-na-na-na" kids chant. In other words InsaneMark have lost the debate time and again based on basic ethical rules. This proves my point about the average 'alleged' atheist having lower and lower ethical standards.

      Yes this is a debate. I am not having an argument but it seems the emotive 'alleged' atheists are.

      (My apologies for insignificant typos.)

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      LMAO!

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Just add it to my list of flaws like a good judgmental Christian would do. LAWL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      First off, while I am a Christian, I have never and will never proclaim myself a good one.

      Second, this is not a judgement of your character. These are the practical flaws that cause the perpetual disconnect that hinders you and I from ever being able to make any kind of progress in a discussion. These are the things that must first be corrected before an actual discussion can be had. I'm sure your ability to comprehend what you read is generally fine, as I do not doubt you are an intelligent man, but your personal biases in this particular discussion distort how you perceive everything you read, making it impossible to progress.

      I like you and I like your energy and your edge. I'd love to be able to just converse with you like two normal people. I wish I had more access to you and your knowledge and viewpoint like I see when you're talking to people who's views you don't despise.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      LAWL! Like normal people? I don't think you would speak to me as you have done. ;)

      But - when we meet - feel free tell me about the flaws you see in me. LAWL!LLLLL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      While I understand what you're saying, I feel it should be said that there's no value in attempting to keep any kind of score according to debate rules. Nothing is actually gained or lost in the progression of the conversation at large. Both sides can and do often get snarky or dismissive of ideas they don't agree with. Whether acknowledged or not, this is a fundamentally emotionally charged topic. The venting of frustration and the gain/lack of respect along the way is to be expected. Even necessary. From their viewpoint they are surrounded by people constantly trying to force this stuff down their throats, trying to shape how they are allowed to live based on something nobody can actually prove is right. They have to get all of that off their chest or it's always going to be a hanging point.

      Given how people have behaved over the centuries in the name of faith, I'm not sure level of ethics is an argument you want to try to make. This is something believers also have to accept. This is a belief. It's a personal/spiritual belief that has no concrete foundation. If it did then it wouldn't be a belief and there'd be no need for faith. Even when you believe you never really know, or it wouldn't be a life of faith. Faith is only faith if you're still capable of falling. People are fallible. Alluding to behavior as some sort of ethical scale to compare between those who believe and those who don't is a mistake. People have never been a good reflection of God. We're the fallible element in the equation. We're not proper representatives. If you call into question the ethical/moral behavior of the nonbeliever, then you're saying the mean ethical/moral behavior of believers is quantifiably/provably better. That is not an argument that's ever going to have any real traction.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      HEADLY,

      I agree with you that many religious people have not always been shining examples of perfect ethical behavior. Earlier I gave reasons for saying this in regards to the warping of religious values by political hypocrites. Also, my point earlier in the debate was to show how the ethical values have slipped so generally that even beastiality and infanticide and now being put forward as the "new black".

      However, in reference to conducting any kind of proper discussion or debate: a participant disqualifies themselves from serious discussion if they use insults, expletives, non replies etc. Normally such people are tossed out of these kinds of discussions by "moderators".

      I am allowed as an individual to set my own higher standards. In order for me to have a discussion with someone who uses insults they would need to offer a sincere written apology and not repeat the error.

      It seems to me that Insane/Mark might be high school students or such.

      Maybe there are others out there who may have some interesting things to discuss; but at the moment we have Insane/Mark making no sense at all and getting away with verbal abuse on a site that should itself have higher standards.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Oztinato - You are a hypocrite, plain and simple. You keep whining like you have been molested or abused as a child, yet you constantly insult people during the process. Going by your vague verbiage, you are the one who types and sounds like a High School drop-out. Go get an education, dear gentle reader... LOL!

      By the way, your main point was that atheists are big into having sex with wild animals and that they promote bunghole bopping livestock, the neighbor's dog, etc. Personally, I'd rather talk science as opposed to your wanna-be Hindu-like philosophies. Actually, your vacuous statements would be laughed out of a real debate, which is just another reason why this is not a debate.

      When you finish that last game of Bingo tonight, feel free to drop down some more steaming dung for the masses.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      Headly,

      as you can see the level of debate/discussion has sunk down to a new low by "Insane".

      It would be unethical to reply to insults after I have put forward sound and logical points.

      Of course I really like your website and I am will continue to read it in the hope of getting a good conversation out of both believers and "alleged" atheists.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      LMAO!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato: "Logical points." That deserves the double "laugh out loud" award. Dear gentle reader.... This is not HIS website, by the way... LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      I encourage you to continue spending some time speaking to atheists as right now you seem to hold some fairly generalized views of them that aren't entirely accurate and only really apply to the most extreme of cases. This site has a good forum section with a lot of really knowledgeable people on both sides of the fence that can broaden your viewpoint and show you that ultimately they're all just normal people trying to make sense out of things.

      And don't let Mark and Insane discourage you. Mark is probably one the more intolerant and disrespectful atheists you'll encounter on this site. Most of them are good people who will actually engage in thoughtful, mutually respectful, discussion with you. And Insane is his own animal who cannot be so easily categorized. I still haven't figured him out yet. What he's saying isn't totally off-base, he just doesn't spend a lot of time editing his posts to put a tactful spin on it.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Dear Headly,

      I like how you now refer to me as an animal with that rare trait of individuality. I'm glad that you say I'm not totally off-base, yet you have mentioned several times during the last year or so, how much you may think like me in certain ways.

      I will never edit my posts/comments for morons.

      I don't waste time pretending to be something I'm not; I agree.

      Put a tactful spin on anything you like, but the moment you stop being you is the moment you need to start quoting others; blah!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      HEADLY,

      I can assure you I have spoke to many hundreds of atheists on the web and they sadly more often than not seem to be clones of Insane/Mark.

      There are intelligent atheists out there and I look forward to meeting some of them on your great site.

      Von Noggin, I think we agreed quite a while back that the attempt to create a Godless ethic quickly deteriorates into chaos. The first signs of this ethical chaos seems to be a rapid lowering of standards in general followed by a remarkable tolerance (and even humor) about the more serious aberrations I have previously mentioned.

      How about this challenge for any intelligent atheists out there: G=∞E

      (this is based on a Hindu concept of God: Infinite Energy)

      In this case once again we can immediately see how ANY attempt to face the God problem mathematically has to logically result in giving God a value. A cynical atheist should be the first to disprove God with maths, but to do it we first have to assume He exists just like any other theoretical mathematical concept.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      We are all apart of this thing we call God, dear numbnuts! We are all atomically connected to the universe, if you will... LMAO!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Dear Mr. Mundane,

      To be clear, my statement about you not being totally off-base had more to do with your criticisms of Oztinato in particular, and not in regards to how you think in general. About this not being a proper debate and about how his arguments would not hold up if it were. Though I'm not sure he deserves to get his internet privileges revoked on certain sites. And 'animal', I hope you realize, was a term of endearment.

      You are definitely an individual and I value your unique insight. I haven't decoded your viewpoint entirely, but I get the sense that you regard our consciousness as collective and divided amongst individuals. This is something I agree with. I also agree we are not talking rocks that just one day started rolling up hill of our own volition and then started arguing with one another. We just part ways on the biblical God part. You say the universe was created by a "divine computer program", which, of course, would still require a programmer. And we all actually being God collectively means we're the programmers who are now having to go through the pains of figuring out our own creation. I think there has to be a precursor to us for it to make total sense. I think the God described in those ancient texts fits perfectly with the world as we know it today and its events fit into our history and actually help explain it, as well as who/what we are and why.

      I have no issue with consciousness extending beyond this 'current vessel' as I tend to think of life experience as the molding and forging of our conscious will. I do think all of life is interconnected. One giant organism, so to speak. I think of existence as the perfect environment to hone true free will, something capable of behaving outside the boundaries of pure cause. I think life experience is necessary in realizing true free will. Like a kid riding a bike or a bird getting pushed from the nest, you simply have to experience to learn. You have to hurt and get hurt. You have to touch that hot stove. We don't do and not do just because somebody said don't. That goes against our very nature. We want to know for ourselves... why the rules?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Headly,

      We are all apart of this thing we call God. The rules is what we make along the way, yet, again! The universe is vast just like our own imaginations. The cosmos expands, just like our thoughts. Why do you think it is so grand and constantly expanding? The tyrannical God you worship, is what troubles me the most. I could speak of such things, like a dark waiting period upon this recent incarnation and the freedom of life after death upon an embodiment of surreal-ness, but I don't want to sound insane. There is no absolute rules in the cosmos, and the divine tentacles is all about the experience. Say what you will, but I will never listen to a spiritual whore-monger that reads quotes from ancient texts, ever again; cheers!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato/Insane,

      Insane isn't an atheist. In fact, though I know you'll both scoff at the very notion, your two viewpoints aren't that different. I know, Insane, I'll pause while you collect yourself. Hinduism speaks of existence and God and life much like you do. Being interconnected, collective consciousness, we are all God, experiences beyond this current vessel. The primary difference, I think, is that the various veins of Hinduism attempt to assign more concrete ideas to these formless concepts. They try to give their idea of God form, the energy that flows through our bodies, the 'karma' that governs, that sort of thing.

      Oztinato, we do agree that God has to be included in the equation to then be addressed. That's something I'm constantly trying to get across. Though they don't readily recognize it, people like Mark do include God in the equation. The problem is their 'God variable' is a 2D cartoon character/invisible magician. A simplistic notion that inevitably proves false because it's ludicrous from conception. If you first conceive of a much more realistic concept of God, then it's no longer something so easily dismissed.

      Where we disagree is in this idea that a life without belief in God inevitably leads to this vacuous moral conclusion. Society and its natural tendencies lends to self-correction, if for no other reason than pure survival and the recognition that what comes around goes around, basically. Humility is the key. It's when individuals get the idea into their heads that they have it 'more figured out' than those around them and that they have some sort of authoritative understanding that things get hairy, because that leads to intolerance. Whether it be atheists being all too willing to accept that humans are totally irrelevant and life is inevitably pointless and wholly determined by pure matter because they're that unwilling to consider anything that resembles the whole immaterial concept of God they so despise, or whether that be believers telling non-believers that their whole way of life is immoral and wrong. It's these kinds of things things that are culturally insurmountable and inevitably lead to harm.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM,

      A "tyrannical God" is part of your concept, though I can certainly understand how you'd reach that conclusion. This is what I'm always trying to get across. Those stories told in those ancient texts make a lot more sense once put in the proper context. The God of the bible isn't a tyrant. He's a creator who created beings capable of behaving of their own volition. Beings with their own wills apart from His. Once this element was introduced, actions taken by this God as described were simply necessary. Free will is a volatile element. It's dangerous and destructive. And it's out of His control, by design. So, it warranted some truly drastic action here and there.

      I do think our thoughts and actions have consequences far beyond what we can grasp, which I think is why I find your way of seeing things so intriguing. Every thought we conceive becomes part of that collective consciousness. Good or bad. We can and do poison the well. And I agree that the mind is very much universe-like. Or, the universe is very much mind-like, if you prefer. But I do think there are absolute rules, though I don't think it all fits in the box our feeble little minds are always trying to jam it all into.

      Where i get lost in your view is in conception. If we are all a part of God, if we create the universe, then in what way was this whole thing conceived? Is it all in the mind? A product of the mind? Are we simply defining our own selves and our own minds in our exploration of the outer world? I think I might just be a little too dumb to really get it.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Headly,

      Like a burning star before it explodes, the thoughts of God went into what we now call a universe. Birth is upon us, much like death. It is all the same, really, since both are infinite and eternal. I am because I have consciousness. Even the plants have a limited form of such. The divine is omnipresent, as we all are in the end... Conception is the one, which is the only math that ultimately matters... 1 divided by anything equates to the dividends of life. You don't have to understand, as it JUST IS!

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Yup - I am intolerant and disrespectful of condescending cunts who cause nothing but conflict and ill will. Go on - tell me it is a flaw. LOL I guarantee you would never speak to me in person as you do online.

      And I see we are back to a loving god incapable of seeing the future and needing to do mass murder to keep his creations in line. Funniest god concept ever! LAWL!

      I think I prefer the troll's concept - a theoretical one that does not exist in reality. Well done troll - now tell us why you need to use the word "god" as you agree it does not exist in reality? Just for the argument ?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Mark,

      Why would I have a problem speaking to you in person as I do online? Are my statements inaccurate? Would you say you're tolerant and respectful? Would you say so with a straight face? Your disposition isn't something I see a flaw in. That's subjective and is simply a matter of taste. I personally prefer your straight-forwardness, whether I agree with you or not. No, the flaws I speak of are of the logical variety. Demonstrable flaws and inaccuracies in your statements and reasonings. Flaws that are perfectly in bounds discussion wise as they have an impact on the discussion itself.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      I don't think you speak to me as you do here. And - No - I have no tolerance or respect for you. I have explained why on multiple occasions, Mr Christian. LAWL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well, I assure you I would, Mr. Knowles from somewhere in the vague location of "Europe". If you spoke to me the same way you do here, which I seriously doubt, then I'd respond in the exact same manner. It's no wonder you're so vague about your location.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Bet you wouldn't, "Tex" LOLOLOLOLOL Never done found but 3 Christians that would - and they all had 2 friends with them........ Kansas city if'n I recollekt.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Maybe y'all should just get into a "cage match." I'd pay to watch. If the beer is cheap and there is plenty of it, I might get into the ring, as well. LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane,

      This reminds me of one of my favorite lines from Big Trouble in Little China ...

      Jack Burton: I don't get this at all. I thought Lo Pan...

      Lo Pan: Shut up, Mr. Burton! You are not brought upon this world to get it!

      So are you saying we are all a part of this thing we call God, which is infinite, and we each only exist in this finite place divided into individuals before expiring back to the infinite/collective source? So, there's no conception of the infinite, only conception of the finite/divided? I don't know if it's true, but I can't really argue against it. And it's not too far from what I suspect to be the case.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Headly,

      Ha! Big Trouble in Little China was a good movie. Mr. Burton did talk too much, though. LOL! As for the other: Close enough... It would be sort of like a baby contemplating life in the outer 3D world while it was still inside of the womb. Anyway, I think the cage match described above, sounds like even more fun than all of this science/religion drivel... Ha-ha!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      HEADLY,

      An atheist philosophy can and will work if it has an inbuilt high ethical standard that protects the weak. Its the modern mix of "all rights and no responsibilities" that begins to undermine modern atheism; this is then quickly followed by the desire for fame and using modern marketing techniques of saying outrageous things to sell books and get advertising etc; and then hey presto we have the aberration of modern atheism. I have said this many time here on this site and elsewhere so I don't think I should have to repeat it again.

      I don't see any conflict at all between Religion and Science.

      God is sentient infinite energy (as the dictionary definition of "existence", and self evident truth, both imply sentience).

      I note that Hawking has now stated publicly recently there are "other dimensions" that have all sprung up, like our own universe, from nothing! ie magically.

      As for MARK: I haven't received my sincere written apology from him so it would be unethical of me to respond to any of his questions.

      However I look forward to fresh member comments and discussions.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      OK, OK - I forgive you, troll. All better now? Self evident truth huh?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM,

      I like your baby in the womb analogy. As for the cage match, I'm in! I agree that would be way more fun than having this pointless argument over and over again. At some point we have to find another way to reach a resolution. A cage match might just be the best option. That or maybe a round of mini-golf.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      I can definitely see and understand your point about atheism in these modern times in regards to a general lack of taking personal responsibility and the bit about using modern marketing and shock value to sell books and such. But to go from that to full-blown immorality throughout the general atheist population or even to the point that new laws are drawn up to legalize immoral practices is a bit much. What you're talking about is that same fringe, highly vocal subgroup that exists in all groups. These are the exceptions, not the standard.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      HEADLY,

      I appreciate your comments but I haven't exactly said that ALL atheists have a full blown immorality at any stage.

      The majority of atheists I meet online are undeniably clone like foul mouthed mocking types of very low standards who freely joke about infanticide and beastiality HOWEVER I do not believe this extreme low level is typical of all atheists everywhere.

      I can say unequivocally that Modern Atheism has tended to dull and dumb down ethics in general.

      Atheism is quite acceptable if its joined with high ethical standards and defends the weak. Darwinist atheism just doesn't do that.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      I guess what I'm trying to get across is that there's nowhere to go from here. No matter our beliefs we all have to coexist. If I were an atheist and I read your statements, I would be left thinking people who hold your views don't understand me, and likely never will. These sweeping generalizations make is seem as though there's no chance of reaching mutual understanding. I would feel as though my whole philosophy was being wrongfully characterized as destructive and immoral, with the only acceptable alternative in the eyes of those who see it that way being to adopt their viewpoint. and abandon my own. And in doing so I would also have to see others who hold my same view as you do. This makes it seem as though there's no hope of ever finding resolution.

      The lashing out and speaking out of atheists I feel is warranted, and must be allowed and understood. There are charged emotions and feelings of being wronged or being oppressed that must be vented. They're people who care about their loved ones just as we do and want for something better just as we do. There's common ground here that doesn't require a complete change in philosophy, as long as it's demonstrated that there's understanding and empathy. If there's to be any hope that this can ever be anything more than two opposing viewpoints with no resolution to be had then the impact of our contributions to the conversation must be considered. Does that make sense?

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      HEADLY,

      I don't understand how you have reached this conclusion by my comments. Perhaps you need to read them more carefully: I generalized only about Modern Atheist Philosophy, and the majority of types who seem to haunt the internet on regualr atheist sites; not ALL atheist people. This is a far cry from saying ALL atheists are the same. That would be as ridiculous as racism.

      Of course I sense your personal benevolence towards even the more clone-like types as we have again seen here with MARK. As far as INSANE goes the dichotomy of his unhealthy thought is extremely wide, and it is my personal opinon that he is playing you as the fool. If I am proved wrong I will be the first to offer my apologies to you and to Insane.

      For the final time: I believe there is plenty of room for both religious and atheist thought in the world, provided the weak are protected, including animals.

      I am happy to wait for more erudite atheists to reply.

      If you have time please read my comments regarding the movie "Life of Pi" on the site Cinema Autopsy (run by an atheist who has refused to tolerate anti-atheist thought).

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Anti-atheist thought = burning them at the stake presumably. I forgive you.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      I know you've made the distinction that you don't believe all atheists are as you're describing. But you have to recognize that when you put a label on it, like 'new atheist', and attribute this kind of thing to it, like the stuff about infanticide and bestiality, then attribute specific people, like those 'types' who 'haunt the internet' to this category, that you're basically drawing a line between them and this worst case scenario. Stereotyping, in a sense. It's something we humans do. It's how the brain works. We try to categorize things and organize it. But in doing so we end up pidgeon-holing people into holes they don't necessarily fit into so squarely. That's, at least, how it comes across when I read it.

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      Von Noggin,

      No I am not stereotyping.

      I know the difference between this and giving an impartial appraisal due to my wide experience dealing with the Majority, not all, of online vicious anti-religious atheists. It is undeniable the Majority, not all, have a dulled reaction to these worst case scenarios. eg there are numnerous online "dead baby" jokes on athest websites that attract no reprimand or penalty from moderators. Likewise profanity and insults are tolerted as legitimate forms of expression. This is in keeping with the Dawkins adage "ridicule them"; yet they generally can't take any ridicule themselves..

      We have agreed the New Modern Athesim dulls standards. The prominet leaders of atheism today are at the very forefront of these worst case scenarios and are certainly affecting the standards of the follwers who want to be "hip", if I can use an old 60's expression..

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Silly boy. I have been ridiculing religious believers for many, many years. The Internet just makes it easier. Still - there is an easy fix for this problem. You know what you need to do.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      To be clear, I think materialism dulls standards, not specifically 'New Modern Atheism'. I do think the materialism mindset has become a kind of dogma that many that fall into that 'new atheist' category subscribe to, but they're not necessarily one and the same.

      As for 'dead baby' jokes, profanity, and insults, I cannot condone reprimanding or penalizing these things. Free speech is free speech and it's there for a reason. These are simply matters of taste. Once you cross that line in deeming one thing okay to say and another thing not, when there's no clear/objective line of separation, well that's a slippery slope we should all avoid. Though I tend to not get quite so colorful in these discussions, in life I am as foul-mouthed as they come. I've said things many would deem in bad taste for a laugh. Maybe this is why I'm so reluctant to get on board. I can't fault someone else for something I do as well.

      My main issue with 'new atheists' in conversations I've had has to do with this materialism viewpoint in general. I think it's damaging to the cause of establishing real truth. Much in the same way traditional religion is often criticized as being a hindrance to learning and progressing forward in knowledge, I see the materialist viewpoint as doing much the same thing. It's defining prematurely what is and isn't possible.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato: You'll be waiting a long time, as not everybody has a fetish for Zoophilia and Bestiality like you continue to speak about, you freakin' sicko. By the way, nobody is falling for that feign zone of Hinduism you try to portray. When you get ready to show some intelligence, by all means, display it here.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      In the interest of factual accuracy, it was the black knight, not the knights of ni, who was left limbless.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I liked the movie called the "Black Knight," that was played by Martin Lawrence. LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Uhhh.. Even mentioning that Martin Lawrence movie in the same conversation as The Holy Grail is ... uh ... I don't even have the words.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I thought it was funny... Ha-ha!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      (yawn)

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato - Yeah, anything that doesn't involve atheists, Zoophilia and Bestiality, will cause you to loose interest - which is a good thing! C-Ya!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      ...Or lose interest. Ha-ha!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      Still waiting for intelligent commentary from OTHERS on the topic: are God and science incompatible?

      Ah the peace of the cyber world!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato - God concepts and Science have been adjusting to one another since the beginning of time, dear idiot. It is like comparing psychology with biology and chemistry and astronomy all at the same time. I'd hate to know that any of those things or anything for that matter, is "not compatible" with humanity. Maybe you are the one that is incompatible, as your intolerance for life is amazingly non-hindu-like!

    • profile image

      oztinato 3 years ago

      (yawn)

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      HINDUISM - What the world's greatest THINKERS had to say?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L71FAhl7Yfo

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato - I don't even have to watch the video, as I probably know more about Hinduism than you do, unfortunately. There is a reason why I called you a wanna-be, you see? Anyway, the same can be applied to Buddhism, as they are often linked to quantum entanglement and the like. Hell, they even try to link certain aspects of the Kabbalah to the String Theory, nowadays. Seriously...

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      what's that mumbling I hear? o well........yawn.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Oztinato can't face the facts, as usual. The poor fellow needs to go back to playing Bingo again...

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      zzzzzzzzzzzz..............

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...............

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      LMAO!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Oztinato: Are you at a loss for words? Are you mad that your religion has the same consistencies as many of the other religions out there? Are you feeling alone in the fact that you are not a great Math~Magician after all? Does the New Age belief system scare you? LOL!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      zzzzzzzzzzz...(cough, splutter).....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......(ffft!).....zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........................................(cough)..............ZZZZ

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      This Hub is entitled "In Science We Trust?: Are God and Science Incompatible?" when it should have been called: "In Ignorance We Trust? : Are Imbeciles and Doltish Beings compatible?" LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Oztinato,

      Please with the zzzzz's. I feel it probably shouldn't even have to be said, but, your taunts to attempt to goad people into responding isn't very much in keeping with your hindu-like philosophy. Rather than haunt this comment section I suggest you sign up on Hubpages or something similar and write an article, or articles, detailing your arguments and point of view. Then you can 'zzzzz' in the comment section of your own hubs to your heart's content. I don't generally disapprove comments no matter what anybody says, but if your contributions to the discussion aren't going to be anymore than what they've been lately then I just might have to start.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

      headly

      good to see the hub back.

      I was new to hub once and had no idea of the rules. its your hub and a hubber is free to delete posts.

      Certain hubbers don't deserve respect if they use gross insults so I don't feel bad about zzzing!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      "God and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very much interrelated. And when understood as such, one can inform the other, and vice versa."

      Faith and the Scientific Method are mutually exclusive.

      ----------------

      "Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge" - St. Augustine

      That is backwards, the bible should have been the knowledge then, and not that we had to find it through science two thousand years later. The bible should have been science, not passages that needed a decoder ring to master. Two thousand years later humans are opining on what these passages really mean. The bibles actually took the place of and became God, because anyway that interprets the bible must be God.

      -------------------------

      Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      What invisible qualities

      ---- God was described with Human Emotions

      He was vengeful, he failed a lot

      He was invisible because no human ever saw him.

      Actions that were attributed to him were small and unimpressive for a God that created the world.

      He pretty much disappears in the New Testament, apparently he can't be bothered with his creation.

      -------------------------------------

      “By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”

      - Ken Miller, Cell Biologist/Brown University Professor/Christian, from his book 'Finding Darwin's God'

      Neither the Earth nor the universe is a good design. Chaos is not a design, and that is the general rule for the universe. Our solar system alone has space garbage bouncing around hitting planets over and over again for billions of years. This can't be considered reasonable for a design. We are one space junk away from total disaster from these pieces of garbage.

      What the Earth has gone through in its existence was not a human friendly world. Yes, the conditions that we have since recorded human history has allowed life to exist, but not safely or comfortably. Yes, humans and the other creatures adapt to their environment but that is not design.

      As far as humans, what we do know is that they haven't changed since the beginning of human history. They were evil in the beginning and they are evil today. No one has to be taught to be evil, but they do have to be encouraged to be good.

      As an experiment humans are past their expiration date. They haven't changed for the better, and there is no indication that they have any real incentive to change.

      -----------------------

      Miracles documented in the bible were only ever for the purpose of illustrating to free willed humans His control over the natural world. Everything else has progressed just as He designed it to. Only through the combination of scientific discovery and scripture can we even begin to grasp just how powerful and perfect He truly is.

      Once again, the Earth can hardly be an example of design. Science has postulated that the current current haven for life on the Earth came from the displacement by a large object colliding with the Earth, and forming the moon. Without that occurrence life on Earth would be tenuous to exist as we do today.

      There is no account for this in Genesis.

      ---------------------------

      As for your conclusions, there is no connection between the bibles and scientific knowledge. The bible should be the encyclopedia, or the user manual of how to exist on Earth, but as it turns out, it is more about how people lived before we knew a lot about our world.

      The fact that two bibles were written, and none of them with divine inspiration says that the original bible failed.

      According to the Old Testament God failed with his Angels.

      Then he failed with Adam and Eve, and Cain killing Abel was another failure. The whole concept of the Garden of Eden failed. Who puts evil in paradise. Apparently, God is not any more powerful than his Angels, much like a human King and his subjects.

      The protestants didn't get the divine go ahead to change the religion to suit them, but they did it anyway. Only one third of the world today believe in the bible, and they are declining.

      With seven billion people in the world, and the continued prevalence of evil by the humans is a failure.

      The concept of free will is as false as All Men Are Created Equal.

      The Garden of Eden was going to be paradise for eternity, and with no one dying, the population would be filling all the land. The tree of life must have limitations. The tree of knowledge was incorrectly named, as their was no knowledge to be gained from it, yet it was prominent in the garden. It was actually the tree of evil, and the all seeing but never seen God didn't have a clue what Adam and Eve were doing there.

      Science moves on but the bible is misinterpreted for thousands of years

      Man shouldn't be interpreting what is supposed to be the word of God.

      The concept of Heaven is supposed to bring souls into his presence, even though when the plan was paradise on Earth no one saw him.

      A person is not an atheist if they don't believe in the biblical God, they can still believe in a creator, they just don't believe it is the biblical God.

      --------------------------------------

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Wow Brad, alright, it's been a little while since someone has challenged this to this extent. That's what I like to see. Prepare to have your mind blown....

      "Faith and the Scientific Method are mutually exclusive."

      Yes, faith is the belief in something you can't 'know' empirically. But faith and God are not one and the same. God and science are not mutually exclusive.

      "That is backwards, the bible should have been the knowledge then, and not that we had to find it through science two thousand years later."

      The bible was and is knowledge. And it only makes sense that the more we learn scientifically the more we find that it's right. For example, for centuries scientific thought maintained that the universe is infinite. Then we find out, centuries after the fact, that like the bible said all along, the universe did indeed have a beginning. It's to be expected that what's learned through science not only will not contradict the bible, it will offer context and clarity. Science is simply facts about the natural world that these stories are set against.

      "God was described with Human Emotions. He was vengeful, he failed a lot"

      I'll elaborate a little further along, but what you perceive as failures are not. But yes, He is described as having human emotions. We're a reflection of Him.

      "He was invisible because no human ever saw him."

      Moses did, in a rather fascinating sequence in Exodus 33:19-23. It's passages like this one that go well beyond being some fabricated fictional story dreamt up by desert dwelling Israelites.

      "He pretty much disappears in the New Testament, apparently he can't be bothered with his creation."

      This is deliberate. Once Jesus comes, rather that requiring animal sacrifices and such, salvation requires nothing more than belief. Faith. If God is front and center as He was in the OT then belief doesn't require faith. This is consistent with the story being told.

      "Neither the Earth nor the universe is a good design. Chaos is not a design, and that is the general rule for the universe."

      That's bunk. The fact that we exist here, that life is capable of existing here for millions of years, means it's a good design. It provides a consistent environment. Besides, I wouldn't say chaos is the general rule of the universe. What makes the universe what it is is the fact that order consistently comes from chaos. In this environment, chaos becomes order.

      "Yes, humans and the other creatures adapt to their environment but that is not design."

      How is adaptation not design?

      "As far as humans, what we do know is that they haven't changed since the beginning of human history. They were evil in the beginning and they are evil today. No one has to be taught to be evil, but they do have to be encouraged to be good."

      This is not true at all. Look into a couple of books....

      - Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DeMeo

      - The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor

      These books document a rather dramatic behavioral change that began right where/when the Genesis stories are set. This is the introduction of free will into the world. There is hard evidence to show it is a reality. Not to mention multiple cultures wrote about it as well. The Adam/Eve story, for example, in its speaking of them becoming aware of their nakedness and its mention of women being subjugated by males. That really happened as a direct result of this change. In fact, the roman poet Ovid spoke of it directly as well ... "There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines."

      "the great change - a change so great, indeed, that nothing in all we know of human cultural evolution is comparable in magnitude." - Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian

      This is one of the stronger indicators that what's being described in Genesis really happened. It's this behavior change that caused the birth of the first civilizations. Humans developed a free will, or a more enhanced ego, and began to take interest in things like personal possessions, ownership of land, that kind of thing. This is the primary difference between modern humans and humans of indigenous cultures.

      "Science has postulated that the current current haven for life on the Earth came from the displacement by a large object colliding with the Earth, and forming the moon. Without that occurrence life on Earth would be tenuous to exist as we do today.

      There is no account for this in Genesis."

      Actually, this would be included in the 'heavens' portion at the beginning. When people of that age spoke of the 'heavens', they were referring to the sun/moon/stars. By the time the Earth matched how it's described in Gen1:2 (covered in oceans and shrouded in darkness), the moon was already there. But the moon is a prime example of design. It's a secondary light source made of a highly reflective material that provides light on the other side of the earth, and stirs the tides as well. A strong indicator of design.

      "As for your conclusions, there is no connection between the bibles and scientific knowledge. The bible should be the encyclopedia, or the user manual of how to exist on Earth, but as it turns out, it is more about how people lived before we knew a lot about our world."

      Don't rule out the bible based on your assumptions of "what it should be". It's exactly what it needs to be. The purpose of life is free will. The challenges of life teach us and prepare us. The point of life isn't to live problem free and have all of our problems solved for us. The point of life is the face problems and obstacles and learn to deal with them. There is plenty of connections between the bible and scientific knowledge. I can show you to a great extent. But yes, you're right, it's authors didn't have the level of knowledge we do now. Nor did those from that age who read and comprehended it.

      "According to the Old Testament God failed with his Angels."

      That's a misconception. It's assumed by many that the "Nephilim" in Genesis 6 are angels, or giants. This is not the case. The Nephilim are said to be "heroes of old, MEN of renown". I'll elaborate on them a bit more here in a minute.

      "Then he failed with Adam and Eve, and Cain killing Abel was another failure. The whole concept of the Garden of Eden failed. Who puts evil in paradise. Apparently, God is not any more powerful than his Angels, much like a human King and his subjects."

      Not a failure. Adam/Eve were the introduction of free will. Up until their existence, everything in the natural world behaved exactly as God willed it. God gave Adam/Eve the capability to behave according to their own individual wills. See, free will is the whole point to this whole thing. And it's a vital element in the overall story. It's important to understand it to properly understand the story being told. The fact that Adam/Eve could behave in direct conflict of God's will is significant. Once free will was introduced, from that point on there was an element at play on the Earth not in God's control.

      "The Garden of Eden was going to be paradise for eternity, and with no one dying, the population would be filling all the land."

      Adam and Eve were only told they'd have to procreate after the fall. The fall made procreation necessary as it made Jesus necessary.

      "With seven billion people in the world, and the continued prevalence of evil by the humans is a failure."

      Nope, that's exactly what was intended. Without the capability of evil there is no free will apart from God's.

      "The tree of knowledge was incorrectly named"

      It was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is exactly what they gained.

      "Science moves on but the bible is misinterpreted for thousands of years"

      Which is to be ex

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      Ok, here we go

      you wrote

      "Faith and the Scientific Method are mutually exclusive."

      Yes, faith is the belief in something you can't 'know' empirically. But faith and God are not one and the same. God and science are not mutually exclusive.

      bmOC--------------------

      Faith as applied to Religion is Faith in God, and as such Faith = God and therefore Faith and Science are mutually exclusive.

      The other kind of faith relates to one with personal knowledge, where we base our faith on our relationship. We have faith in our parents, siblings, friends etc. because we believe in them, and many times we know what they are capable of doing. But, there is only hearsay about God and a religion. The bible is not self authenticated. It has about the same credibility as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

      -----------------------------------------

      You wrote

      "That is backwards, the bible should have been the knowledge then, and not that we had to find it through science two thousand years later."

      The bible was and is knowledge. And it only makes sense that the more we learn scientifically the more we find that it's right. For example, for centuries scientific thought maintained that the universe is infinite. Then we find out, centuries after the fact, that like the bible said all along, the universe did indeed have a beginning. It's to be expected that what's learned through science not only will not contradict the bible, it will offer context and clarity. Science is simply facts about the natural world that these stories are set against.

      bmOC---------------------------

      That still is backwards, we don't need science to validate the bible, we needed a bible that would give us the answers. What is written in Genesis attempts to do that, but it is ambiguous, and vague in its descriptions. The bible should be like the owners manual, it is not.

      --------------------------------

      you wrote

      "God was described with Human Emotions. He was vengeful, he failed a lot"

      I'll elaborate a little further along, but what you perceive as failures are not. But yes, He is described as having human emotions. We're a reflection of Him.

      bmOC

      He purportedly created the Earth for humans, and he created the Garden of Eden for ADAM, not Adam and Eve. It was created as a paradise. That failed and that is God's failure, one of many.

      -----------------------------

      you wrote

      "He was invisible because no human ever saw him."

      Moses did, in a rather fascinating sequence in Exodus 33:19-23. It's passages like this one that go well beyond being some fabricated fictional story dreamt up by desert dwelling Israelites.

      bmOC

      This was not a sighting of God.

      God has to help Moses with the enemies of Israel. That alone is a failure. In the end, even with the help of God, Moses failed, and therefore God Failed. Forty Years in the desert, really more human than divine.

      ---------------------

      you wrote

      -----------------------------------

      "He pretty much disappears in the New Testament, apparently he can't be bothered with his creation."

      This is deliberate. Once Jesus comes, rather that requiring animal sacrifices and such, salvation requires nothing more than belief. Faith. If God is front and center as He was in the OT then belief doesn't require faith. This is consistent with the story being told.

      bmOC

      And then Jesus disappears. Consistent with the Story, and it is a brilliant story, and not much more than that. The Old and the New Testaments were written only hundreds of years apart. And as you mention in your hub, it was hobbled together over a period of time by different people.

      This is also more human than divine. The New Testament was not adopted by the Jews, and they were their when the alleged life of Jesus unfolded. Like the one third of the Angels, God failed once again.

      -------------------------------------

      you wrote

      "Neither the Earth nor the universe is a good design. Chaos is not a design, and that is the general rule for the universe."

      That's bunk. The fact that we exist here, that life is capable of existing here for millions of years, means it's a good design. It provides a consistent environment.

      bmOC

      I suppose that the ICE age and the suspected reason for the demise of the dinosaurs was a consistent environment. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes, Solar Sun Spots, and other hazards are not a designed environment.

      Just because we exist on Earth doesn't mean that it was a design, and even if it was a design, it was a bad one. It is like that saying, with an infinite number of monkeys, and typewriters the literary works of man could be reproduces. We are talking billions of years. Although that wouldn't be long for a government project, it is long for a God.

      -----------------------------

      you wrote

      Besides, I wouldn't say chaos is the general rule of the universe. What makes the universe what it is is the fact that order consistently comes from chaos. In this environment, chaos becomes order.

      bmOC-----------------------

      Then being in a toilet when it starts to flush is order, and that is similar to the black holes.

      -----------------------

      The comments were too long for hp so this is the end of part 1

      Thanks

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      brad,

      "Faith as applied to Religion is Faith in God, and as such Faith = God and therefore Faith and Science are mutually exclusive."

      That's missing the point. Belief through faith kind of calibrates us. It connects us to God spiritually, rather than through physical senses. It's a means to an end. But God Himself, not one and the same as faith. He can be detected, if you're smart about it. Faith cannot be detected.

      "The bible is not self authenticated. It has about the same credibility as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny."

      Not true. For one thing, the point of the bible isn't to prove itself or prove the existence of God. If the bible accomplished that, then it would nullify the need for faith, thus undermining the whole thing. However, history matches up exactly with what one should expect to see if the events of Genesis actually played out in the specified time frame and the specified location. Therefore, credible.

      "He purportedly created the Earth for humans, and he created the Garden of Eden for ADAM, not Adam and Eve. It was created as a paradise. That failed and that is God's failure, one of many."

      Think about it. Why create an environment with a tree and then create a rule that says don't eat it? It's setup to illustrate what is significant about Adam/Eve. And it did so perfectly. They did exactly what was expected. Through free will they decided for themselves to override God's rule and eat the fruit. This is not a failure. This is illustrating to us the events that set everything else in motion.

      "This was not a sighting of God."

      But it is... "And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22 and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.”"

      "God has to help Moses with the enemies of Israel. That alone is a failure. In the end, even with the help of God, Moses failed, and therefore God Failed. Forty Years in the desert, really more human than divine."

      This is why I said it's important to understand the impact of free will on the story. God accomplished exactly what needed to happen. Through their free will the Israelites asked to be freed from slavery. He gave them that. In order to accomplish that, He'd have to provide for literally a population in the hundreds of thousands in the wilderness. They didn't have a water supply and protected soil to farm. But the whole intent of the Israelites was to breed through them, to fulfill His promise to Abraham to make his descendants many. Adam's actions made Jesus necessary. The interactions between God and the Israelites was to breed Jesus. It's God creating Jesus in an environment not in His control. Maintaining the Israelites in the wilderness for 40 years accomplished what it needed to. It kept them from intermingling with other bloodlines. Remember, this environment their now having to survive is an environment created by free willed humans. In that age, if you didn't do what the Israelites did, what the Sumerians, Egyptians, etc did, you didn't survive. The Israelites did, without mixing with other bloodlines and diluting what would ultimately realize Jesus. Mission accomplished.

      "This is also more human than divine. The New Testament was not adopted by the Jews, and they were their when the alleged life of Jesus unfolded. Like the one third of the Angels, God failed once again."

      As for the angels, it's hard to say. These events didn't take place on earth, so there's no verifying. But, if this did happen, it means the angels were given free will, and termoil like what's described is a natural bi-product of that. However, the Jewish people, by their own free will, rejected Jesus as being someone who was making himself out to be the prothesized "chosen one". Again, free will is allowed to prevail. Not a failure on God's part.

      "I suppose that the ICE age and the suspected reason for the demise of the dinosaurs was a consistent environment. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes, Solar Sun Spots, and other hazards are not a designed environment."

      You just pointed out how chaos is the name of the game of the universe. Yet we're here now because within that chaos came about an environment that remained consistent long enough for life to flourish. Days, nights, temperature, weather, food/sustenance, etc. Not bad for coming about in an environment that should have been pure chaos.

      "Just because we exist on Earth doesn't mean that it was a design, and even if it was a design, it was a bad one. It is like that saying, with an infinite number of monkeys, and typewriters the literary works of man could be reproduces. We are talking billions of years. Although that wouldn't be long for a government project, it is long for a God."

      The Earth's exactly what it needs to be. It's the perfect environment to bring about something like free will. Free will is a dangerous element not within God's control, by design. So the Earth needs to be temporary. Everything needs to be temporary. And, much in the same way the above passages about Moses 'seeing' God illustrates, free will disconnects us from God and makes even coming into contact with Him a dangerous thing. With free will we are like a cancer, or a virus, that must exist totally separated from God. This physical world, coming about as it did, not molded by hand by God, but more grown, creates the exact kind of environment needed for the task at hand.

      "Then being in a toilet when it starts to flush is order, and that is similar to the black holes."

      Again, this environment being temporary, constantly recycling itself, is exactly what it needs to be because of what it was designed for.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      part 2

      you wrote

      "Yes, humans and the other creatures adapt to their environment but that is not design."

      How is adaptation not design?

      bmOC-------------------------------

      Stuff happens is not a design, the human body has not adapted to the environment since recorded history of man. There are still very primitive people around the world.

      Today, are biggest disease is when our own immune system attacks us to death.

      -----------------------------

      you wrote

      "As far as humans, what we do know is that they haven't changed since the beginning of human history. They were evil in the beginning and they are evil today. No one has to be taught to be evil, but they do have to be encouraged to be good."

      This is not true at all. Look into a couple of books....

      - Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DeMeo

      - The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor

      These books document a rather dramatic behavioral change that began right where/when the Genesis stories are set. This is the introduction of free will into the world. There is hard evidence to show it is a reality. Not to mention multiple cultures wrote about it as well.

      bmOC

      Genesis was a depiction of mans idea based on the knowledge and imagination of the time. That is why it is so vague and ambiguous.

      What cultures write is not necessarily facts or evidence.

      Free will is an abstract an ideology, but in reality there is no free will that will not be challenged, or forced into submission by another. That is why we have Religion, and Government and they constrain free will.

      ------------------------------------

      you wrote

      The Adam/Eve story, for example, in its speaking of them becoming aware of their nakedness and its mention of women being subjugated by males. That really happened as a direct result of this change. In fact, the roman poet Ovid spoke of it directly as well ... "There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines."

      "the great change - a change so great, indeed, that nothing in all we know of human cultural evolution is comparable in magnitude." - Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian

      This is one of the stronger indicators that what's being described in Genesis really happened. It's this behavior change that caused the birth of the first civilizations. Humans developed a free will, or a more enhanced ego, and began to take interest in things like personal possessions, ownership of land, that kind of thing. This is the primary difference between modern humans and humans of indigenous cultures.

      bmOC=====================

      The beginning, Adam is created, but Eve is not, she is the sexual compliment for man. Of course they were naked, and their was no reference to even care they were naked.

      Those writers neglected that according to the bible, Cain killed Abel. Certainly and act of free will, but so was Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. So from the beginning free will was not a good thing. To follow God, free will is not allowed. To follow society, free will is constrained.

      ------------------------------

      you wrote

      "Science has postulated that the current current haven for life on the Earth came from the displacement by a large object colliding with the Earth, and forming the moon. Without that occurrence life on Earth would be tenuous to exist as we do today.

      There is no account for this in Genesis."

      Actually, this would be included in the 'heavens' portion at the beginning. When people of that age spoke of the 'heavens', they were referring to the sun/moon/stars. By the time the Earth matched how it's described in Gen1:2 (covered in oceans and shrouded in darkness), the moon was already there. But the moon is a prime example of design.

      bmOC---------------------------------

      Well design is at the time of creating, and science is talking after the Earth was formed. Now, Genesis was written by smart men of the time, who could already see the Sun, Monn and the Stars. So this is a description by them rather than a sighting at creation.

      Also, what Copernicus theorized was not mentioned at all in Genesis, and it needed to be made explicitly clear that the Sun and planets didn't revolve around the Earth. So much for the divne inspiration, and knowledge of God in Genesis.

      The bible would have been more impressive if it was written by God. But God had a problem just writing the Ten Commandments.

      You know where a good place to write them would have been on the Moon.

      =============================

      you wrote

      It's a secondary light source made of a highly reflective material that provides light on the other side of the earth, and stirs the tides as well. A strong indicator of design.

      bmOC--------------------------

      Not if it happened by accident from space garbage.

      ----------------------------

      you wrote

      "As for your conclusions, there is no connection between the bibles and scientific knowledge. The bible should be the encyclopedia, or the user manual of how to exist on Earth, but as it turns out, it is more about how people lived before we knew a lot about our world."

      Don't rule out the bible based on your assumptions of "what it should be". It's exactly what it needs to be. The purpose of life is free will.

      bmOC-----

      Not if you follow God, or if you live in society.

      -------------------------

      you wrote

      The challenges of life teach us and prepare us. The point of life isn't to live problem free and have all of our problems solved for us. The point of life is the face problems and obstacles and learn to deal with them. There is plenty of connections between the bible and scientific knowledge. I can show you to a great extent. But yes, you're right, it's authors didn't have the level of knowledge we do now. Nor did those from that age who read and comprehended

      bmOC-----------

      Well it is a lesson that is still unsolved, we have the same problems today as yesterday

      ---

      end of part 2

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      part 3

      you wrote

      "According to the Old Testament God failed with his Angels."

      That's a misconception. It's assumed by many that the "Nephilim" in Genesis 6 are angels, or giants. This is not the case. The Nephilim are said to be "heroes of old, MEN of renown". I'll elaborate on them a bit more here in a minute.

      bmOC----------

      A third of his Angels left, and the battle began.

      This is the seed for the Heaven and Hell

      ---------------------------------------

      you wrote

      "Then he failed with Adam and Eve, and Cain killing Abel was another failure. The whole concept of the Garden of Eden failed. Who puts evil in paradise. Apparently, God is not any more powerful than his Angels, much like a human King and his subjects."

      Not a failure. Adam/Eve were the introduction of free will.

      bmOC

      There is nothing at the point in the bible that gives any indication of free will. God created Adam, and when Adam fails so does God. We have no idea from the bible as to the intelligence of Adam and Eve, were they child like, or fully mature. They had no training, and no experience, much like a puppy that you are trying potty train. Any expectation that Adam and Eve would not fail in eternity is nill, just based on human nature.

      ------------------------------

      you wrote

      Up until their existence, everything in the natural world behaved exactly as God willed it. God gave Adam/Eve the capability to behave according to their own individual wills. See, free will is the whole point to this whole thing. And it's a vital element in the overall story.

      bmOC ---------

      There is no basis in fact for your argument. There was also no plan for paradise on earth.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      you wrote

      It's important to understand it to properly understand the story being told. The fact that Adam/Eve could behave in direct conflict of God's will is significant. Once free will was introduced, from that point on there was an element at play on the Earth not in God's control.

      bmOC-----------------------

      Your supposition has no foundation, and once again it is a story like Santa Claus, written by men, not man, men.

      ------------------------------

      you wrote

      "The Garden of Eden was going to be paradise for eternity, and with no one dying, the population would be filling all the land."

      Adam and Eve were only told they'd have to procreate after the fall. The fall made procreation necessary as it made Jesus necessary.

      bmOC

      Another failure by God, and a suggestive reading on your part. Assuming you are correct, the story of Adam and Eve as the total inhabitants in the Garden of Eden makes no sense. They are stuck in the finite land of the Garden of Eden with the Tree of life, and a Tree ofKnowledge, that doesn't have the alleged good, but it does have the evild. Locked in Eden, the Oceans, and the views from around the rest of the world would never be seen or experienced by them, no more than we can visit another galaxy. There is no real benefit of living eternity toiling the land, and the tree of life is an overkill for two people. There was no reason for Eve to have sexual organs if they would have stayed in Eden.

      And after tens of billions of people that have been born and died, people are still the same. Their primitive emotional brains have directed them to repeat the same kinds of evils over and over again.

      If that was the plan, it worked. If that wasn't the plan, than the plan failed.

      Any intelligence would have figured out that free will and humans is the recipe for failure, and it wouldn't change. The plan should have been terminated after Cain killed Abel.

      -----------------------------------------------

      you wrote

      "With seven billion people in the world, and the continued prevalence of evil by the humans is a failure."

      Nope, that's exactly what was intended. Without the capability of evil there is no free will apart from God's.

      bmOC-------

      Then God is Evil.

      ---------------------------------------

      you wrote

      "The tree of knowledge was incorrectly named"

      It was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is exactly what they gained.

      bmOC--------

      Once again God is Evil. In the human contest between Good and Evil tbe winner is Evil. Look at the world today, the biggest evil is religion, and followers that kill for their God.

      To follow God there is no Free Will, it is puppy dog loyalty.

      -----------------------------

      you wrote

      "Science moves on but the bible is misinterpreted for thousands of years"

      Which is to be ex

      bmOC

      No it is not to be expected, when you have the New Testament follow the bible. Only several hundred years apart, and both bibles have failed to change the people, so the expectation is another bible or an end to the expeeriment.

      If the bibles were self authenticating that would give citing from it some credibility but as it stands, it is just another story, not unlike Santa Clause.

      An indication that the bibles are just the work of men and not God is that there is no female deities. They are all men, or males. In addition, the story makes Eve subservient to Adam. So the creation of hubmans according the bible starts out with a male, and his companies. Not as two equals. A God could have createed humans without the need for reproductive organs. The design if there was one, is flawed.

      HVN, I really tried to go into you comments and hub with an open mind, but I didn't see any compelling arguments for me to change my position.

      The difference between us and the rest of the creatures is our intelligence. Being intelligent means making decisions on intelligence rather than instinct. And intelligence is the flip side of Faith. Faith doesn't require intelligence it requires obedience, and obediene is not a form of free will.

      Science does require intelligence.

      Thanks for the effort.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      part 1 response

      You wrote

      "Faith as applied to Religion is Faith in God, and as such Faith = God and therefore Faith and Science are mutually exclusive."

      That's missing the point. Belief through faith kind of calibrates us. It connects us to God spiritually, rather than through physical senses. It's a means to an end. But God Himself, not one and the same as faith. He can be detected, if you're smart about it. Faith cannot be detected.

      bmOC------

      That is just your opinion, there is no evidence of God, nor is there any reason to believe the opinions deritved from reading the bibles.

      You wrote

      "The bible is not self authenticated. It has about the same credibility as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny."

      Not true. For one thing, the point of the bible isn't to prove itself or prove the existence of God. If the bible accomplished that, then it would nullify the need for faith, thus undermining the whole thing. However, history matches up exactly with what one should expect to see if the events of Genesis actually played out in the specified time frame and the specified location. Therefore, credible.

      bmOC

      Then there is no need for a bible, and there is no basis for faith. Today, people are running religions, and they make up their own rules based on what they want the bible to mean. Even the Muslims cannot agree on what their Mohammed meant. As a prophet, Mohammed couldn’t see his own death, or the need to have named his successor when he died. This is the killing difference between the Shites, and the Sunnis.

      You wrote

      "He purportedly created the Earth for humans, and he created the Garden of Eden for ADAM, not Adam and Eve. It was created as a paradise. That failed and that is God's failure, one of many."

      Think about it. Why create an environment with a tree and then create a rule that says don't eat it? It's setup to illustrate what is significant about Adam/Eve. And it did so perfectly. They did exactly what was expected. Through free will they decided for themselves to override God's rule and eat the fruit. This is not a failure. This is illustrating to us the events that set everything else in motion.

      bmOC

      Any one that has trained a puppy knows that this plan would fail.

      You wrote

      "This was not a sighting of God."

      But it is... "And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22 and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.”"

      bmOC

      said, is auditory.

      You wrote

      "God has to help Moses with the enemies of Israel. That alone is a failure. In the end, even with the help of God, Moses failed, and therefore God Failed. Forty Years in the desert, really more human than divine."

      This is why I said it's important to understand the impact of free will on the story. God accomplished exactly what needed to happen. Through their free will the Israelites asked to be freed from slavery. He gave them that. In order to accomplish that, He'd have to provide for literally a population in the hundreds of thousands in the wilderness. They didn't have a water supply and protected soil to farm. But the whole intent of the Israelites was to breed through them, to fulfill His promise to Abraham to make his descendants many. Adam's actions made Jesus necessary. The interactions between God and the Israelites was to breed Jesus. It's God creating Jesus in an environment not in His control. Maintaining the Israelites in the wilderness for 40 years accomplished what it needed to. It kept them from intermingling with other bloodlines. Remember, this environment their now having to survive is an environment created by free willed humans. In that age, if you didn't do what the Israelites did, what the Sumerians, Egyptians, etc did, you didn't survive. The Israelites did, without mixing with other bloodlines and diluting what would ultimately realize Jesus. Mission accomplished.

      bmOC---------

      I guess I don’t understand the definition of failure, because that is failure, and the failure continues today.

      You wrote

      "This is also more human than divine. The New Testament was not adopted by the Jews, and they were their when the alleged life of Jesus unfolded. Like the one third of the Angels, God failed once again."

      As for the angels, it's hard to say. These events didn't take place on earth, so there's no verifying. But, if this did happen, it means the angels were given free will, and termoil like what's described is a natural bi-product of that. However, the Jewish people, by their own free will, rejected Jesus as being someone who was making himself out to be the prothesized "chosen one". Again, free will is allowed to prevail. Not a failure on God's part.

      bmOC--------------------------

      God failed with the Angels, and decided to downgrade his followers to mere flesh and blood and even that didn’t work out. Unless your view of the world today is different, score another failure.

      You wrote

      "I suppose that the ICE age and the suspected reason for the demise of the dinosaurs was a consistent environment. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes, Solar Sun Spots, and other hazards are not a designed environment."

      You just pointed out how chaos is the name of the game of the universe. Yet we're here now because within that chaos came about an environment that remained consistent long enough for life to flourish. Days, nights, temperature, weather, food/sustenance, etc. Not bad for coming about in an environment that should have been pure chaos.

      bmOC----------------

      Really, Chaos is not a plan, but it doesn’t rule out stuff coming together that is beneficial, and it also put out stuff that is dangerous.

      You wrote

      "Just because we exist on Earth doesn't mean that it was a design, and even if it was a design, it was a bad one. It is like that saying, with an infinite number of monkeys, and typewriters the literary works of man could be reproduces. We are talking billions of years. Although that wouldn't be long for a government project, it is long for a God."

      The Earth's exactly what it needs to be. It's the perfect environment to bring about something like free will. Free will is a dangerous element not within God's control, by design. So the Earth needs to be temporary. Everything needs to be temporary. And, much in the same way the above passages about Moses 'seeing' God illustrates, free will disconnects us from God and makes even coming into contact with Him a dangerous thing. With free will we are like a cancer, or a virus, that must exist totally separated from God. This physical world, coming about as it did, not molded by hand by God, but more grown, creates the exact kind of environment needed for the task at hand.

      "Then being in a toilet when it starts to flush is order, and that is similar to the black holes."

      Again, this environment being temporary, constantly recycling itself, is exactly what it needs to be because of what it was designed for.

      bmOC----------------

      The Earth is more cesspool than it is livable. Don’t judge the United States as the picture of the world, take a look at the whole world.

      HVN

      Sad to say, I don’t find any compelling arguments to support your version.

      The Star Trek movie where the Voyager is found but it says Vger is an example of how the bible appears to us. In that story Vger was the bible for the aliens, but Vger didn’t give any new information so the aliens didn’t know how to relate to the humans.

      The same is true for the bible, it is two thousand years with stories that are older than that. While human nature hasn’t changed neither has the ambiguity of the writng been updated by the only source that knows what it should say is silent.

      The writers of the bibles are all dead, and that accounts for why there is nothing new. If the bibles were all that was needed for humans to follow it, there wouldn’t be two thousand years of people, and religions trying to interpret it, and reinterpret it. These are simply people with no divine inspriration, they just keep guessing, and misinterpreting it.

      Part 1 response ended

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      brad,

      In Response to part 2 ...

      This is way too complete an idea. Don't be so quick to dismiss. Just give it time. Hopefully we'll cover enough here to give you a strong jist. But basically you're going to have to recalibrate how you view it. Open your mind to a much more dynamic and complex story. It'll require a bit of a paradigm shift in perspective. It's truly fascinating. You should give it some serious consideration. Viewing it as " a story like Santa Claus" then you're not going to be able to truly appreciate it's complexity. Seriously, it's like a nuanced, well thought out, sci-fi movie. Give it a chance.

      "Stuff happens is not a design, the human body has not adapted to the environment since recorded history of man. There are still very primitive people around the world.

      Today, are biggest disease is when our own immune system attacks us to death."

      That's a rather short-sited view. Just because these processes haven't yet realized some sort of picture of perfection doesn't mean the design isn't working. Remember, the whole point is free will. Free will is a dangerous and volatile element that is out of God's control. Our bodies are temporary and die for a reason. The universe falls apart for a reason. Free will is kind of like a cancer. In an environment designed to last forever, it could be a real problem. Here there's a fail-safe. The universe ends. The world ends. We die. We can only do so much damage. It's by design. Our skin adapting, allowing us to do exactly what God willed humans to do (fill/subdue the earth, be fruitful and multiply, etc.). We can travel long distances and do everything we need to do to accomplish those commands. It all works as designed.

      "Genesis was a depiction of mans idea based on the knowledge and imagination of the time. That is why it is so vague and ambiguous.

      What cultures write is not necessarily facts or evidence."

      Careful, you're making sweeping assumptions that don't line up with the evidence. You can't actually know that. Keep an open mind and consider the evidence first. Then rethink it. Don't be so quick to make up your mind that you know exactly what Genesis is. Be patient and I'll show you the evidence. I'll show you where in history it plays out. It's a very real story. Try to consider it that way.

      "Free will is an abstract an ideology, but in reality there is no free will that will not be challenged, or forced into submission by another. That is why we have Religion, and Government and they constrain free will."

      Free will, as in free will vs. determinism, yeah I agree. But free will in this context, an independent will that is our own and apart from the will of God, what sets us apart from the animals and indigenous humans, is a very concrete, very observable thing. I strongly recommend looking into those books. The first one by Steve Taylor would be a good start. The one by DeMeo is basically a huge catalog of evidence and reads like a Sears catalog.

      Think about it this way. No matter where you go in the world, a horse is a horse, a cow is a cow. Well up until roughly 5500BC a human was a human. Look at indigenous cultures the world over. They all live very similar lifestyles and have a very similar demeanor. Then there's modern humans. Big difference.

      "The beginning, Adam is created, but Eve is not, she is the sexual compliment for man. Of course they were naked, and their was no reference to even care they were naked."

      Originially Eve was created as a companion because animal life had populated the world through procreation, they all had mates. God created Eve as a companion. It's only after the fall that Eve was told she'd have to bare the pains of childbirth.

      "Those writers neglected that according to the bible, Cain killed Abel. Certainly and act of free will, but so was Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. So from the beginning free will was not a good thing. To follow God, free will is not allowed. To follow society, free will is constrained."

      Yes, free will is what makes it possible for us to even be crossed with God. But that's the whole point. Free will is why there are commandments and judgement and all of that. It's about choosing willfully to adhere to God's will. That way you have a free will, a mind of your own, you're just choosing willfully to adhere to the system. Think of it like cells in a body. Free will would be the equivalent of cells in your body having the choice whether or not to adhere to the DNA code of your body. They're capable of behaving outside of the DNA code and outside of the needs of the system. Behaving free of God's will/DNA, is like a cancer. It's potentially a determent.

      The story is clear. The writers don't have to just come out and say it. Think about it. It begins with creation. All the natural world just adheres to the will of this God. Animate or inanimate, from the land to the fish to the grass to the light, it just becomes what He wills it to be. Then comes Adam whose given one rule by this same powerful being and breaks it. In fact, from that point forward it's pretty clear that human behavior is in contrast to God's will. That's free will.

      "Well design is at the time of creating, and science is talking after the Earth was formed."

      You seem to have a lot of objections like this one. You have this very specific idea of how you think something should be, an because it isn't specifically what you think it should be, that's your basis for it being wrong. Like this one, based on what do you get the idea that design is at the time of creating? Besides, the design is done. The natural laws are set and the way in which matter/energy behaves is already set. With those two elements in place the rest just ... happens. It becomes.

      "Now, Genesis was written by smart men of the time, who could already see the Sun, Monn and the Stars. So this is a description by them rather than a sighting at creation."

      I invite you to read my hub on the creation account. What it actually does, quite accurately, is describe what you would actually see if you were able to stand on the surface of the planet and watch it form.

      "Also, what Copernicus theorized was not mentioned at all in Genesis, and it needed to be made explicitly clear that the Sun and planets didn't revolve around the Earth. So much for the divne inspiration, and knowledge of God in Genesis."

      What would it really matter to the people of that time?

      "The bible would have been more impressive if it was written by God. But God had a problem just writing the Ten Commandments.

      You know where a good place to write them would have been on the Moon."

      Again, it's about free will. Something like a message written by God on the moon would undermine that. Faith and belief without the certainty of a moon message is a willful choice. You're choosing of your own will, without being forced, to adhere.

      "Not if it happened by accident from space garbage."

      There are no accidents in creation. What happens, what results, was intended. The only exception are those things born of free will. A will free of God' means the possibility of outcomes He cannot forsee. Like in the way God tested Abraham. God actually had to create the situation that made Abraham make a decision so He would then know what He'd do.

      "Not if you follow God, or if you live in society."

      It's still free will whether or not you willingly choose to adhere to whatever necessary to 'fit in' or whatever. It's still your choice.

      "Well it is a lesson that is still unsolved, we have the same problems today as yesterday"

      For good reason. Our actions and decisions actually matter. If we don't solve our problems, or properly address them, then they stay problems.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Reply to part 3...

      "A third of his Angels left, and the battle began.

      This is the seed for the Heaven and Hell"

      This would only be possible if the angels were given free will, and if so then a natural result of that would be that inevitably a certain number would rebel.

      "There is nothing at the point in the bible that gives any indication of free will. God created Adam, and when Adam fails so does God. We have no idea from the bible as to the intelligence of Adam and Eve, were they child like, or fully mature. They had no training, and no experience, much like a puppy that you are trying potty train. Any expectation that Adam and Eve would not fail in eternity is nill, just based on human nature."

      The story makes it pretty clear. Chapter one makes it clear that all of the natural world adheres to God's will. Then, in direct contrast of that, the story immediately shows how this same God's will is not adhered to by Adam/Eve, or Cain. God has not failed. He set out to create beings with free will. As for their intelligence, think of them like animals. Animals know instinctively what to do, how to behave, etc. Human nature as you mean it is only human nature because of free will.

      "There is no basis in fact for your argument. There was also no plan for paradise on earth."

      I think it's pretty clear. Like I pointed out above, the layout of Genesis makes the free will element obvious. Then, after the fall, what changed gives the indication of how it would have been if they had not "failed". They were to live forever, they were not to procreate, they were just to be.

      "Your supposition has no foundation, and once again it is a story like Santa Claus, written by men, not man, men."

      It has plenty of foundation, grounded in plenty of evidence. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. This is a carefully crafted thing. Yes, you're right in that it's written by men. Now ask yourself, why would these men take the time to write this BS "Santa Claus" story? If it's "just" that kind of story?

      "Another failure by God, and a suggestive reading on your part. Assuming you are correct, the story of Adam and Eve as the total inhabitants in the Garden of Eden makes no sense. They are stuck in the finite land of the Garden of Eden with the Tree of life, and a Tree ofKnowledge, that doesn't have the alleged good, but it does have the evild. Locked in Eden, the Oceans, and the views from around the rest of the world would never be seen or experienced by them, no more than we can visit another galaxy. There is no real benefit of living eternity toiling the land, and the tree of life is an overkill for two people. There was no reason for Eve to have sexual organs if they would have stayed in Eden.

      And after tens of billions of people that have been born and died, people are still the same. Their primitive emotional brains have directed them to repeat the same kinds of evils over and over again.

      If that was the plan, it worked. If that wasn't the plan, than the plan failed.

      Any intelligence would have figured out that free will and humans is the recipe for failure, and it wouldn't change. The plan should have been terminated after Cain killed Abel."

      I don't think you're really considering this. Free will is worth all the fuss. The whole reason we have our own minds and can choose whether or not we accept this is because of free will. Blaise Pascal once said, “All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” That's free will. Humans before free will, like indigenous humans, would simply be content in the garden. No will eating away at them to venture out, discover, find more, etc. They'd have no wants of their own that wasn't God's will. They would just 'be'.

      "Then God is Evil."

      Come on now. Without the ability to behave in any way according to your own will means being able to behave outside of God's. Meaning evil in that regard is necessary.

      "Once again God is Evil. In the human contest between Good and Evil tbe winner is Evil. Look at the world today, the biggest evil is religion, and followers that kill for their God.

      To follow God there is no Free Will, it is puppy dog loyalty."

      Nope, that's still the result of free will. Free will is a heavy responsibility. Wield it irresponsibly and you get what we see around the world today. Free will is a huge responsibility that requires wisdom to wield.

      "No it is not to be expected, when you have the New Testament follow the bible. Only several hundred years apart, and both bibles have failed to change the people, so the expectation is another bible or an end to the expeeriment."

      You're speaking as if things aren't going as they're supposed to. You seem to have this particular idea in mind that things should be a certain way. The new testament exists because Jesus changed things. Now, rather than having to sacrifice a clean animal, all you have to do is believe. If you expect people to change then you're expectations are off. Free will is free will. People will choose to misuse religion just like anything else. People will justify ways to do what they want to do. Like you were saying earlier, human nature. The point of the bible isn't to change people. It's not failing if people don't change. The bible has accomplished exactly what it needed to.

      "An indication that the bibles are just the work of men and not God is that there is no female deities. They are all men, or males. In addition, the story makes Eve subservient to Adam. So the creation of hubmans according the bible starts out with a male, and his companies. Not as two equals. A God could have createed humans without the need for reproductive organs. The design if there was one, is flawed."

      Yes the bible is written by men, and not by God. It's not the story that makes women subservient. That's a direct result of free will. Those books I cited talk about that. An enhanced ego, or stronger sense of individuality, results psychologically to women being subjugated.

      "HVN, I really tried to go into you comments and hub with an open mind, but I didn't see any compelling arguments for me to change my position."

      I've had this conversation many times. You, like many others, already have formed opinions, and like anyone else, it's difficult to see it any other way. It's possible, but not easy.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      In response to part 1....

      "That is just your opinion, there is no evidence of God, nor is there any reason to believe the opinions deritved from reading the bibles."

      Yes there is. I can show you where exactly the events of Genesis 2-11 really happened. You can see not only the flood and the story of Babel. You can also see the impact that these events had. The change in human behavior. Everything you would expect to see is there. Genesis says Adam and Eve and everyone born of them lived for centuries. Well, funny thing is, every culture that existed in that part of the world during that time, claim there were these god-like beings that lived among them. The Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, etc. It's all there. It's just a matter of time before more people start to see this.

      "Then there is no need for a bible, and there is no basis for faith. Today, people are running religions, and they make up their own rules based on what they want the bible to mean."

      Of course. That's free will. People twisting the bible and their religion around to serve their own wants and needs is exactly what should be expected.

      "Any one that has trained a puppy knows that this plan would fail."

      But it didn't fail. God created beings with free will and they then turned around and acted according to their own will and not God's. Just as intended.

      "said, is auditory."

      Did you read past that? ... "Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen."

      "I guess I don’t understand the definition of failure, because that is failure, and the failure continues today."

      No, you just define failure based on how you think the story should be. You have a very particular idea of how it should be if it were "right". There is a finite existence that allows us all to live and experience life and interact with one another with free will. That was the intention and it's working.

      "Really, Chaos is not a plan, but it doesn’t rule out stuff coming together that is beneficial, and it also put out stuff that is dangerous."

      What does it matter to have your own mind and make your own choices if there is no danger? If there is no potential consequence to decisions and actions. Is a choice between chocolate or vanilla really a choice? Both are good. But a choice between life or death, kill or don't, these decisions have weight. They matter. Without danger there's no weight to what we do.

      "The Earth is more cesspool than it is livable. Don’t judge the United States as the picture of the world, take a look at the whole world."

      And that is largely the fault of humans. What we do has an impact on the world around us and those who live in it.

      "Sad to say, I don’t find any compelling arguments to support your version."

      When viewed in the context of human history it becomes pretty obvious. This isn't just my 'version'. This is read in the context of real history. You can see it in the impact it had on humanity.

      "The writers of the bibles are all dead, and that accounts for why there is nothing new. If the bibles were all that was needed for humans to follow it, there wouldn’t be two thousand years of people, and religions trying to interpret it, and reinterpret it. These are simply people with no divine inspriration, they just keep guessing, and misinterpreting it."

      Of course. That's all part of it. What people choose to do with the information. I chose to use modern knowledge not available to humanity throughout most of history to better understand. I never expected it to line up the way it did. I'm surprised it isn't more widely recognized and undestood. But in having these conversations it make sense. Most people, believers and non-believers, already have their mind made up, already have very particular ideas in mind, that cloud their ability to see this as it really is.

      Think about it this way. Given our modern scientific understanding of the natural world, it's all about behavior. Because matter/energy behaves as it does in the environment the natural laws create, reality exists as it does. But we choose our actions and make our own decisions based on our own intellect. We choose our own actions. Which means we're the only bundles of matter in all the known universe whose behaviors/actions are not in some way governed by laws/rules. It's a huge responsibility and privilege. It's exactly what a God as described by the bible would be interested in. The fact that we can choose for ourselves whether to be destructive, whether to be rude, or mean, or whatever. That's a big deal. We're a real rarity in this natural world. And that's hugely significant.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      11 hours ago from TexasHub Author

      You wrote

      brad,

      In Response to part 2 ...

      This is way too complete an idea. Don't be so quick to dismiss. Just give it time. Hopefully we'll cover enough here to give you a strong jist. But basically you're going to have to recalibrate how you view it. Open your mind to a much more dynamic and complex story. It'll require a bit of a paradigm shift in perspective. It's truly fascinating. You should give it some serious consideration. Viewing it as " a story like Santa Claus" then you're not going to be able to truly appreciate it's complexity. Seriously, it's like a nuanced, well thought out, sci-fi movie. Give it a chance.

      bmOC-----------

      This shouldn’t be Shakespeare. It is either something from God, or it isn’t. There isn’t any more facts in the bibles, than there is in Santa. In addition, there has been no updates to it. There is no indication that there is any connection to a deity, creator, or any other divine entity.

      You wrote

      "Stuff happens is not a design, the human body has not adapted to the environment since recorded history of man. There are still very primitive people around the world.

      Today, are biggest disease is when our own immune system attacks us to death."

      That's a rather short-sited view. Just because these processes haven't yet realized some sort of picture of perfection doesn't mean the design isn't working. Remember, the whole point is free will. Free will is a dangerous and volatile element that is out of God's control. Our bodies are temporary and die for a reason. The universe falls apart for a reason. Free will is kind of like a cancer. In an environment designed to last forever, it could be a real problem. Here there's a fail-safe. The universe ends. The world ends. We die. We can only do so much damage. It's by design. Our skin adapting, allowing us to do exactly what God willed humans to do (fill/subdue the earth, be fruitful and multiply, etc.). We can travel long distances and do everything we need to do to accomplish those commands. It all works as designed.

      bmOC--------------------

      If you call that a design, it is pretty pathetic. And having the human immune system turn on us, is a really bad design. I think the time we have been here should have been enough. The humans have been repeating the same bad things since recorded history. By any definition that is failure.

      You wrote

      "Genesis was a depiction of mans idea based on the knowledge and imagination of the time. That is why it is so vague and ambiguous.

      What cultures write is not necessarily facts or evidence."

      Careful, you're making sweeping assumptions that don't line up with the evidence. You can't actually know that. Keep an open mind and consider the evidence first. Then rethink it. Don't be so quick to make up your mind that you know exactly what Genesis is. Be patient and I'll show you the evidence. I'll show you where in history it plays out. It's a very real story. Try to consider it that way

      bmOC-----------

      I am sorry, there is no Evidence, and anything you say are also assumptions.

      You wrote.

      "Free will is an abstract an ideology, but in reality there is no free will that will not be challenged, or forced into submission by another. That is why we have Religion, and Government and they constrain free will."

      Free will, as in free will vs. determinism, yeah I agree. But free will in this context, an independent will that is our own and apart from the will of God, what sets us apart from the animals and indigenous humans, is a very concrete, very observable thing. I strongly recommend looking into those books. The first one by Steve Taylor would be a good start. The one by DeMeo is basically a huge catalog of evidence and reads like a Sears catalog.

      bmOC-------------------------

      I have given my opinion on free will and its absurdity. And if God can’t control it, then he has failed once again.

      You write

      Think about it this way. No matter where you go in the world, a horse is a horse, a cow is a cow. Well up until roughly 5500BC a human was a human. Look at indigenous cultures the world over. They all live very similar lifestyles and have a very similar demeanor. Then there's modern humans. Big difference.

      bmOC-------------------------

      This has no foundation, and humans have been around a lot longer than recorded history. There is no difference in recorded history for the demeanor of humans, they are as evil today as they were yesterday.

      You wrote

      "The beginning, Adam is created, but Eve is not, she is the sexual compliment for man. Of course they were naked, and their was no reference to even care they were naked."

      Originially Eve was created as a companion because animal life had populated the world through procreation, they all had mates. God created Eve as a companion. It's only after the fall that Eve was told she'd have to bare the pains of childbirth.

      bcOC---------------------

      That doesn’t mean that she wasn’t going to procreate if they had stayed in Eden. It just means that now childbirth will be painful. I don’t see anything divine here.

      You wrote

      "Those writers neglected that according to the bible, Cain killed Abel. Certainly and act of free will, but so was Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. So from the beginning free will was not a good thing. To follow God, free will is not allowed. To follow society, free will is constrained."

      Yes, free will is what makes it possible for us to even be crossed with God. But that's the whole point. Free will is why there are commandments and judgement and all of that. It's about choosing willfully to adhere to God's will. That way you have a free will, a mind of your own, you're just choosing willfully to adhere to the system. Think of it like cells in a body. Free will would be the equivalent of cells in your body having the choice whether or not to adhere to the DNA code of your body. They're capable of behaving outside of the DNA code and outside of the needs of the system. Behaving free of God's will/DNA, is like a cancer. It's potentially a determent.

      bmOC------------------------

      God fails in his own story, and then he has failed with the new plan. Free will is what God failed with his Angels. So he dumbs down his humans so they will be more likely to be trained to heal. Apparently according to the bible, the Angels were like God, as people are like human Kings.

      You wrote

      The story is clear. The writers don't have to just come out and say it. Think about it. It begins with creation. All the natural world just adheres to the will of this God. Animate or inanimate, from the land to the fish to the grass to the light, it just becomes what He wills it to be. Then comes Adam whose given one rule by this same powerful being and breaks it. In fact, from that point forward it's pretty clear that human behavior is in contrast to God's will. That's free will.

      "Well design is at the time of creating, and science is talking after the Earth was formed."

      You seem to have a lot of objections like this one. You have this very specific idea of how you think something should be, an because it isn't specifically what you think it should be, that's your basis for it being wrong. Like this one, based on what do you get the idea that design is at the time of creating? Besides, the design is done. The natural laws are set and the way in which matter/energy behaves is already set. With those two elements in place the rest just ... happens. It becomes.

      bmOC--------------------

      I work on computers, software, firmware, and I know design when it is there, and when it is just a kludge. This is not a design. Natural laws show no indication of a good design. Even a lemon car works after a fashion, but it is not a good design, if too many of them are like that. Quality control and mass production require a certain level of being defect free. This is the six sigma level which is 99.99999999999. Anything less than this is not worth building.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      You wrote

      "Now, Genesis was written by smart men of the time, who could already see the Sun, Monn and the Stars. So this is a description by them rather than a sighting at creation."

      I invite you to read my hub on the creation account. What it actually does, quite accurately, is describe what you would actually see if you were able to stand on the surface of the planet and watch it form.

      "Also, what Copernicus theorized was not mentioned at all in Genesis, and it needed to be made explicitly clear that the Sun and planets didn't revolve around the Earth. So much for the divne inspiration, and knowledge of God in Genesis."

      What would it really matter to the people of that time?

      bcOC--------------------

      Your train just left the tracks with that one.

      You wrote

      "The bible would have been more impressive if it was written by God. But God had a problem just writing the Ten Commandments.

      You know where a good place to write them would have been on the Moon."

      Again, it's about free will. Something like a message written by God on the moon would undermine that. Faith and belief without the certainty of a moon message is a willful choice. You're choosing of your own will, without being forced, to adhere.

      bmOC-----------------------

      Faith and belief is for dogs, and even cats don’t possess it.

      You wrote

      "Not if it happened by accident from space garbage."

      There are no accidents in creation. What happens, what results, was intended. The only exception are those things born of free will. A will free of God' means the possibility of outcomes He cannot forsee. Like in the way God tested Abraham. God actually had to create the situation that made Abraham make a decision so He would then know what He'd do.

      bcOC--------------------

      Asked and answered numerous times on free will.

      You wrote

      "Not if you follow God, or if you live in society."

      It's still free will whether or not you willingly choose to adhere to whatever necessary to 'fit in' or whatever. It's still your choice.

      bmOC-----------------------

      You don’t have free will, you may have will, but it is not free, it comes with penalties, And follow him where? There has been no contact whatever.

      bmOC---------------------------

      "Well it is a lesson that is still unsolved, we have the same problems today as yesterday"

      For good reason. Our actions and decisions actually matter. If we don't solve our problems, or properly address them, then they stay problems.

      bmOC-----------------------------

      I think that boat has sailed ten thousand years ago, because nothing has changed in that time. Humans are the same evil creatures.

      ------------------------------------------

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      I think that I have seen all the arguments that you have on the subject, and they are not compelling, but repetitious. I don't mean this in a nasty way, just that I have no reason to change my position.

      The bible are ancient history, and they should be equal to the works of Shakespeare, and other historical writers that write about human nature.

      Take away both bibles and where is your God. He only exists in the minds of those that read the bible. He has no presence outside of the bible.

      I really did try here, but it is the same arguments that everyone has been using since the invention of the printing press.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad,

      In Response to part 2 .....

      ----------------------------------------------------

      "This shouldn’t be Shakespeare. It is either something from God, or it isn’t. There isn’t any more facts in the bibles, than there is in Santa. In addition, there has been no updates to it. There is no indication that there is any connection to a deity, creator, or any other divine entity."

      I find it interesting that I've stated I have evidence, that I can show you where in history these events took place, yet here you make the statement that "there isn't any facts in the bible", without having ever seen the evidence for yourself.

      There's no indication these texts are from God. That's what religions say in an attempt to attribute authority to the texts. I'm not looking at them that way. These are just ancient human accounts recording actual events where they claim this God interacted with humans. There are facts, listed below. There's no need for updates because what's there already is legitimate.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      "I am sorry, there is no Evidence, and anything you say are also assumptions."

      Oh, but there is evidence, and these are not assumptions. They're observations based on factually accurate events. I haven't gotten into it yet, but there's overwhelming evidence that shows these events really happened as described. Here's a starting point ...

      First, there's an actual culture located in the same specific region that lasted the same length of time as described and then ended abruptly, most likely due to a flood, and reflects the expected behavior changes that the introduction of free will would bring about ....

      - Preflood Genesis = Ubaid Culture (6500-4000BC) "The Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarized social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_..

      - The Flood (4000BC) = "Woolley was one of the first archaeologists to propose that the flood described in the Book of Genesis was local after identifying a flood-stratum at Ur: "...400 miles long and 100 miles wide; but for the occupants of the valley that was the whole world". - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonar..

      * This is the same flood spoken about by the Sumerians that brought an abrupt end to the Ubaid culture, noted in the Sumerian King's List and spoken about in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

      - The Babel Story (3900BC) - "The 5.9 kiloyear event was one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene Epoch. It occurred around 3900 BC (5,900 years BP), ending the Neolithic Subpluvial and probably initiated the most recent desiccation of the Sahara desert.

      Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organized, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_ki..

      Multiple civilizations sprang up within centuries of one another, in Sumer (3500BC), in Egypt (3400BC), in the Indus Valley (3300BC). Each with their own unique language. This is unprecedented as nothing like it happened elsewhere in any age since. And that same observable/detectable behavior change that first began in the Ubaid followed to each of these, and later spread throughout the world. In the context of what's being described here, that means that direct descendants of Adam, each of them carrying with them that behavior change, spread throughout the world.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      "If you call that a design, it is pretty pathetic. And having the human immune system turn on us, is a really bad design. I think the time we have been here should have been enough. The humans have been repeating the same bad things since recorded history. By any definition that is failure."

      If you're looking for perfection, you're not going to find it. Life is supposed to be temporary, lasting just a century or less. Nature kills us all eventually. As it's supposed to. And that's exactly what it does. The design delivers exactly what it's supposed to. Temporary life.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      "I have given my opinion on free will and its absurdity. And if God can’t control it, then he has failed once again."

      If God could control it, it wouldn't truly be a free will. Then that would be a failure. It's a will apart from His. A will of our own. You have your own mind and are actually capable of criticizing God and the bible because of free will. God respects us enough to give us our own will and to respect the choices we make. He doesn't override or alter our actions. It's not a failure. If you were a robot not capable of carrying out your own will, but rather only behaved according to what God wanted, then you would be within God's control and would not have free will. That would be a failure.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      "This has no foundation, and humans have been around a lot longer than recorded history. There is no difference in recorded history for the demeanor of humans, they are as evil today as they were yesterday."

      That is factually wrong, and I've given you the references to back it up. Anatomically modern humans have been around for 200,000 years. Up until roughly 5500BC humans were consistently the same across the board. They all behaved much like indigenous cultures do. They treated land as belonging to all the living. They didn't put stock in personal possessions. There's a reason why civilization only dawned once in one particular place. There's a direct tie between the dawning of civilizations and this behavior change.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      "That doesn’t mean that she wasn’t going to procreate if they had stayed in Eden. It just means that now childbirth will be painful. I don’t see anything divine here."

      How does that make sense that childbirth wouldn't be painful? Or that, as a punishment of some sort I presume, it was changed to then hurt? No, procreation is made necessary because of death. Before the fall they weren't supposed to die, therefore procreation wouldn't be necessary.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      "God fails in his own story, and then he has failed with the new plan. Free will is what God failed with his Angels. So he dumbs down his humans so they will be more likely to be trained to heal. Apparently according to the bible, the Angels were like God, as people are like human Kings."

      If you think God failed, then you're failing to understand what free will is.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      "I work on computers, software, firmware, and I know design when it is there, and when it is just a kludge. This is not a design. Natural laws show no indication of a good design. Even a lemon car works after a fashion, but it is not a good design, if too many of them are like that. Quality control and mass production require a certain level of being defect free. This is the six sigma level which is 99.99999999999. Anything less than this is not worth building."

      I do too. I design and write automated scripts to test software. If you write software then you should know, for example, adaptation, and how difficult that would be. To adapt to changes programmatically. Or to set parameters at the very beginning (the natural laws), and have it all work by that alone. To setup a scenario where you create an environment through establishing rules, then simply introduce matter/energy into that environment and have it result in existence. It's pretty impressive if you think about it.

      ----------------------------------------------------

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad,

      "Your train just left the tracks with that one."

      You're picking and choosing here. Specific details that if the bible had mentioned, you claim would have made it more legitimate. Yet there are things they couldn't have known in that age, that it does specifically say, that we've only recently learned to be true, that you don't consider. Like the universe having a beginning, for example. Or the description of the Earth in Gen1, verse 2 matching up with the state of the earth at the end of the Hadean Eon. Or the fact that it correctly lists fish coming first, then mammals, then humans. Or any of the other things it does in fact specifically say that turns out to be true. Why are these less significant than Copernicus' sun-centric planetary system?

      -------------------------------------------------------

      "You don’t have free will, you may have will, but it is not free, it comes with penalties, And follow him where? There has been no contact whatever."

      Just think about that statement for a minute. What would be the point of penalities if there were no free will? The fact that there are laws that forbid specific actions or penalties means its possible to do those things. Free will would be like matter being able to decide for itself whether or not to adhere to gravity.

      -------------------------------------------------------

      "I think that boat has sailed ten thousand years ago, because nothing has changed in that time. Humans are the same evil creatures."

      I have provided evidence that shows that this statement is false, yet you choose to ignore it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad,

      "I think that I have seen all the arguments that you have on the subject, and they are not compelling, but repetitious. I don't mean this in a nasty way, just that I have no reason to change my position."

      I find it interesting that you're making the proclamation that my arguments are not compelling without having actually seen or asked for any of the evidence that I've stated multiple times that I have.

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      "The bible are ancient history, and they should be equal to the works of Shakespeare, and other historical writers that write about human nature."

      I disagree. They should be equal to the historical writings of the Egyptians, maybe. You're deeming them works of fiction without having seen and considered the evidence.

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      "Take away both bibles and where is your God. He only exists in the minds of those that read the bible. He has no presence outside of the bible."

      What God was able to accomplish through Jesus is salvation through simply believing. By choosing willfully to believe, you and I can acknowledge God as the creator and powerful God of the universe by simply believing He was able to do something unnatural and beyond the capability of any man. In this way, belief alone is an acknowledgement that grants you access to eternity. If God were present in some way as you're suggesting, if God were looming largely over all of us on the horizon, his watchful eye watching everything we do, that in itself would undermine our free will and our ability to willfully choose Him. His obvious presence would coerce us.

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      "I really did try here, but it is the same arguments that everyone has been using since the invention of the printing press."

      Not true. The crux of my argument was not possible to make just a few short decades ago. Much of the knowledge that this is based on has only recently been learned. You really should consider the evidence before making your final decision. If you're truly interested in the truth, then you should reconsider.

      ----------------------------------------------------------

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      Brad,

      "I think that I have seen all the arguments that you have on the subject, and they are not compelling, but repetitious. I don't mean this in a nasty way, just that I have no reason to change my position."

      I find it interesting that you're making the proclamation that my arguments are not compelling without having actually seen or asked for any of the evidence that I've stated multiple times that I have.

      bmOC----------

      The information is self serving. As I stated, is there any evidence apart from the words in the bibles?

      -------------------

      "The bible are ancient history, and they should be equal to the works of Shakespeare, and other historical writers that write about human nature."

      I disagree. They should be equal to the historical writings of the Egyptians, maybe. You're deeming them works of fiction without having seen and considered the evidence.

      -bmOC----------------------

      There isn't even historical information on who and how built the pyramids.

      ---------------------------------

      "Take away both bibles and where is your God. He only exists in the minds of those that read the bible. He has no presence outside of the bible."

      What God was able to accomplish through Jesus is salvation through simply believing. By choosing willfully to believe, you and I can acknowledge God as the creator and powerful God of the universe by simply believing He was able to do something unnatural and beyond the capability of any man. In this way, belief alone is an acknowledgement that grants you access to eternity. If God were present in some way as you're suggesting, if God were looming largely over all of us on the horizon, his watchful eye watching everything we do, that in itself would undermine our free will and our ability to willfully choose Him. His obvious presence would coerce us.

      bmOC

      Once again the free will argument is not evidence, and it really doesn't even fit into the stories in the bible.

      Where has your biblical God, Jesus and the HG been in the last two thousand years.

      --------------------------------

      -------------------

      "I really did try here, but it is the same arguments that everyone has been using since the invention of the printing press."

      Not true. The crux of my argument was not possible to make just a few short decades ago. Much of the knowledge that this is based on has only recently been learned. You really should consider the evidence before making your final decision. If you're truly interested in the truth, then you should reconsider.

      bmOC------

      What you call evidence is hearsay, and supposition. I was looking for evidence, but I found none.

      ----------------------

      There is more evidence to prove ET and UFOs than there is for God, Jesus, and HG.

      Thanks

      ----------------------------------------------------------

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad,

      "The information is self serving. As I stated, is there any evidence apart from the words in the bibles?"

      Yes, of course. Like I said I can show where exactly in history these events took place. Not just events that line up with the specific timeline given in the specific region as stated, but where the impact of these events happening can be seen as well. These aren't just some cherry-picked events that kind of sound right, these are pivotal events in human history that shaped the modern world, that dramatically changed humanity, as you would expect.

      -----------------------------------------------------

      "There isn't even historical information on who and how built the pyramids."

      Are you speaking of Egyptian historical records here? No, that specific information isn't there, but quite a bit of information that informs us as to timelines when particular rulers were in charge, and things like their population being joined by immigrants coming from a growing desert are there. Very useful information, even if it doesn't give the specific information you wish it did

      -----------------------------------------------------

      "Once again the free will argument is not evidence, and it really doesn't even fit into the stories in the bible.

      Where has your biblical God, Jesus and the HG been in the last two thousand years."

      This statement here makes it clear where the disconnect is. The fact that you can say free will doesn't fit into the stories of the bible is telling. Just because you don't see it specifically called "free will" doesn't make it any less of a central theme to the whole story. Just think about what's being described. Gen1 describes a God in total control of all the natural world. Animate or inanimate, be it animals or mountains, conforms to His will. Then, the very next chapters setup a very specific scenario where this all-powerful God creates an environment where just one rule exists, and it shows how these two beings He created different than all the rest were able to break that rule. In fact, the whole rest of the story has everything to do with humans behaviorally being out of sync with the creator.

      Your dismissive attitude towards the bible, your lack of concern for paying it any real mind, makes it difficult to have this discuss. You're convinced it's just fairy tales and deserves no real consideration. Yet, here I am giving it real consideration. So there's a lack of respect for both the material and me. This was the crux of my whole complaint about Dawkins and Krauss. This is one of the most divisive topics we as humanity face. Yet the side of the conversation that claims to be the 'more rational', 'more intelligent', yada yada can't seem to see the problem with their whole approach and how it basically just equates to a huge waste of time for all parties who choose to approach the table and have a real discussion. Therefore, there's no real hope for resolution.

      God, Jesus, and the HG are right where they should be given the context of the story being told. You have to be able to doubt their existence for the whole faith concept to have any real merit. It's done this way so that anyone and everyone, by simply choosing to believe, can gain access. I'm sorry if that's not acceptable to you, but it really is the best approach for all involved.

      --------------------------------------------------

      "What you call evidence is hearsay, and supposition. I was looking for evidence, but I found none."

      You say you were looking for it, but I see no evidence of that. You haven't yet asked about it, though I've claimed multiple times to have it. I began to give some in a recent post that you maybe just haven't read yet. But again here's that lack of respect for me. You're dismissing "what I call evidence" as hearsay and supposition, without having actually seen anything. Why spend so much time engaged in a discussion with someone you think so little of? Why bother? What do you get out of this? I personally enjoy having these discussions with obviously intelligent, well informed people as you seem to be.

      --------------------------------------------------

      "There is more evidence to prove ET and UFOs than there is for God, Jesus, and HG."

      I guarantee you that isn't true.

      -----------------------------------------------------

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      Salvation to what?

      Heaven, praising God for eternity, something that even the Angels didn't like.

      How do you get into Heaven, on the curve, C or above, first come first serve?

      You didn't provide any evidence, much less compelling arguments.

      I don't reject the possibility of a creator, just not the biblical ones.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      I guess you think it's mean or not fair or something, but not everyone gains access. Do you think it should just be an open door policy for anyone and everyone, no matter how they lived their life?

      It's that free will thing again. You have to willfully acknowledge God as the rightful authority, like acknowledging the DNA code of the body as the authority in how to function. Makes sense doesn't it? Would you let someone stay in yiur house who refused to respect you or your home?

      It's still about free will. If you don't willfully acknowledge God as the rightful authority, and agree to follow the rules of the house, you're not getting in. Makes sense to me. Would you let someone stay in your house who openly said they wouldn't follow your rules or respect your house?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 2 years ago from Earth

      Absolutely. We are all apart of the divine unity divided by endless dividends of a divinity, so therefore all the stops must have been previously pulled out before any of the atomically connected particles of the inverted universe decided to blindly pass Go and collect 200 dollars within this deranged Monopoly-like game of life; ha-ha!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      you missed the point.

      Going to Heaven should be like receiving an A, yet if everybody with a C or above gets in then, why should you try for an A. And if you didn't make a C but were real close and tried hard why did you bother at all.

      When there are no standards or measuring stick there is no way to get the goal.

      The bible itself tells about the many failures of God, starting with the Angels, Adam, Eve, and Cain. Just from these failures we can infer the God is not almighty. Tied to the child like emotions evoked in just those stories, we see the biblical God as a person and not a deity.

      Free will even if it existed, has failed, and it continues to fail.

      Don't judge free will with our ways in the US, look around the world in the third world lives. We are only three hundred million in a world of seven billion.

      It is your opinion, and your life, and you can free will it any way that you want, but I have been around your circular track too many times without seeing any reason for me to join your opinions.

      Seven billion people in this world alone have proven that people are still as evil today as they were before, during and after the bibles. So, the bibles and their stories have not changed human nature.

      This is evidence of how religion and God have failed humans. This is expecially true when religion, and God have resulted in its followers killing people in the name of their biblical God.

      Have a great life

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad,

      There's not a grade scale. There's either A or B, either you accept the necessary terms or you don't. Think of it in terms of cells in the body. To accept the terms means you acknowledge that the DNA code of the body must be followed for the system to work. Those who do not adhere are like cancer cells who behave in ways contrary to the DNA code, therefore contrary to the interest of the body, therefore they are potentially a detriment to everyone involved.

      "people are still as evil today as they were before, during and after the bibles. So, the bibles and their stories have not changed human nature."

      You keep making statements like this, though they are inaccurate. Here, you don't have to take my word for it. I'll defer to some experts ...

      [i]"it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - WJ Perry, Archaeologist

      "For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began, there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Richard Gabriel, Anthropologist

      "the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution...despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic." -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian

      "There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era

      "The Fall, then, refers to a change which occurred in the psyche of certain human groups around 6,000 years ago. It was the point in history when these peoples developed a strong and sharp sense of ego. The Fall was, and is, the intensification of the human sense of "I" or individuality." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era

      "the great change - a change so great, indeed, that nothing in all we know of human cultural evolution is comparable in magnitude." - Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian[/i]

      Evil in humanity began when free will was introduced about 5500BC in Southern Mesopotamia. It can be tracked and seen in the evidence. Free will is both good and bad. Free will gives us art and architecture and creativity and music and poetry. But it also gives us war and weapons and such. People using religion, and doing evil things in the name of religion, isn't relgion's fault. That's what people do. That's a human characteristic, which is of course another characteristic of free will. Religion just happens to be the means. If it wasn't carried out in the name of religion, then it would be carried out in the name of something else.

      The entirety of human history is evidence to show that exactly what God set out to do, exactly what Genesis is describing, is exactly what happened. Everything in the universe behaves according to rules and laws. All behavior, with the exception of humans, is governed in some way. It only makes sense that the God described in the Genesis would have to address this specifically just as the story is describing. No failure here. Everything is going exactly as it's supposed to. We're all baring witness to just how dangerous free will is and just how important it is to wield it responsibly. All the evil we see in the world is what can happen when it is not.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      You don't seem to understand my points.

      On Heaven.

      As for Home Sapiens the bible is devoid of any details other than Adam and Even and those that came from them.

      The stories in the bible are just stories, like Santa Clause.

      To prove it, imagine that you know nothing of the bibles, either one of them.

      Now tell me about God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

      No references to any of the bibles.

      While you are at it, tell me where the writing of the creators of the pyramids around the world described when and how they built them.

      Thanks

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad,

      It's not that I don't understand your points. I think it's that this is yet another example of you having a very particular idea in mind of what you think about the whole heaven concept. You seem to think of it as some kind of reward system. It isn't. You know that "better" design you keep expecting, where the body doesn't decay or destroy itself? Where there's no trash floating around endangering all that come in it's path? That's heaven. Heaven, an eternal existence where free will is possible, is the end goal. That's existence as it's meant to be. However, eternal life with free will is not possible unless all who are involved first willfully accept God as the authority. Because it's a free will, it takes willful acknowledgement. That's what this life is. An opportunity to live life with free will and choose to accept God's terms to participate in the next life. It's not a reward, it's not God being judgmental or mean or angry or whatever, it's simply what's necessary. A means to an end. To have that perfect life, that perfect design, all the ideal things you think we should see in this life, because of free will, this is how it must be done. Without free will, then all could be like that already. There'd be no conflict, co competing wills. All would be harmonious because all would work according to God's will. But we'd all be drones who just exist. There'd really be no point without free will. Free will makes all the rest of it worth it. A chance to exist with our own minds and our own wills, eternally eventually. This is what's necessary to get there.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      Even the Bibles don't really mention heaven in detail, and the concept wouldn't be an extension of life, it would be totally different, and that wouldn't be worth it.

      Once again, take away the bibles and where is your God?

      We have a brain, and the brain wants more than to be a puppy dog.

      When a dog, like the humans that follow their master, no longer have free will

      There is no need for intelligence when like the dog, you only have to repsond, and not think.

      When Orson Wells read the story of the HG Wells book of the War of the Worlds, the people listening to that radio show believed that the Earth was being invaded by beings from Mars.

      BTW, even the Muslims don't believe that Jesus was God, only a prophet like their Mohammad.

      And the majority of the people in the world don't follow or believe in the bibles.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad,

      I'm not sure what you're getting at. True, the Muslims don't accept Jesus as God, the Jews don't either. But all three of the major Abrahamic religions are built on the Books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Just amongst the Muslims (23.2%) and Christians (31.5%), that makes up over half the world's population (54.7%).

      And on top of that you've got hard evidence that shows the events of Genesis to be true. You've got a first civilization unlike any other that came before it that lasted the same length of time as pre-flood Genesis, in the exact location Genesis specifies, and ended abruptly at least partially due to a flood. You've got a climate change that really did cause a mass migration of the humans of the Mesopotamian valley to river valleys and such around the area, followed almost immediately by multiple civilizations cropping up in each place they went, just as Genesis says happened to the descendants of Noah. All of that along the exact same timeline as given, plus on top of that you've got a dramatic human behavior change that started right where Genesis says, and spread throughout the world just as Genesis says. Plus, you've got that region of the world being in constant upheaval since and you've got the fact that the three major religions of the world are all based on this same series of texts. Exactly what you should expect to see if the events these texts claim happened actually happened.

      And actually, the NT talks about heaven quite a bit. It speaks of it being an eternal life. It says people don't pair up to mate and have children. It says a home has been prepared for us. It's meant to be everything you seem to think we should see in this life. It's the perfect design. It's the one meant to last forever. Not this temporary place. This place has a temporary purpose and isn't meant to last. The whole purpose to the whole thing is free will and eternal life in heaven with free will is the end goal. It's the whole reason we exist, why this planet exists, why any of it is here. Without that end game, there'd be no point to any of it.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      you wrote

      I'm not sure what you're getting at. True, the Muslims don't accept Jesus as God, the Jews don't either. But all three of the major Abrahamic religions are built on the Books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Just amongst the Muslims (23.2%) and Christians (31.5%), that makes up over half the world's population (54.7%)

      bmOC

      That means over three billion people don't believe.

      It also means that Christianity is based on Jesus, and it forms the Holy Trinity, and without it, there is just God. But it is the conflict that indicates it is just a story.

      ---------------------

      you wrote

      And on top of that you've got hard evidence that shows the events of Genesis to be true. You've got a first civilization unlike any other that came before it that lasted the same length of time as pre-flood Genesis, in the exact location Genesis specifies, and ended abruptly at least partially due to a flood. You've got a climate change that really did cause a mass migration of the humans of the Mesopotamian valley to river valleys and such around the area, followed almost immediately by multiple civilizations cropping up in each place they went, just as Genesis says happened to the descendants of Noah. All of that along the exact same timeline as given, plus on top of that you've got a dramatic human behavior change that started right where Genesis says, and spread throughout the world just as Genesis says. Plus, you've got that region of the world being in constant upheaval since and you've got the fact that the three major religions of the world are all based on this same series of texts. Exactly what you should expect to see if the events these texts claim happened actually happened.

      bmOC----------------------------------

      Genesis is not a contemporaneous writing, it is written about four hundred years earlier than Jesus was supposed to be born.

      So if in 1990, I write that man has landed on the moon, it is not impressive. But, if I wrote about it 400bc it would be impressive.

      Genesis is a history book of the knowledge of man at the time it was written. And science is reporting what happened for millions of years, out of billions of years they say the Earth has been in existence.

      Not 6 days and people and animals are living large on Earth.

      --------------------------------------

      you wrote

      And actually, the NT talks about heaven quite a bit. It speaks of it being an eternal life. It says people don't pair up to mate and have children. It says a home has been prepared for us. It's meant to be everything you seem to think we should see in this life. It's the perfect design. It's the one meant to last forever. Not this temporary place.

      bmOC-------------------

      The Earth was to be the eternal home of Adam and Eve, not Heaven. And the Garden of Eden was supposed to beparadise. Then God calls an audible. I don't think so.

      You are going all around trying to get these stories to fly. I think that seven billion people today should be evidence enough that people have failed the test. It actually failed when Cain killed Abel, and this is a story. NO one has had any updates of God, and the bibles. Several humans have declared they are the messengers of God, but they are just being human and taking advantage of the lull.

      ----------------------

      you wrote

      This place has a temporary purpose and isn't meant to last. The whole purpose to the whole thing is free will and eternal life in heaven with free will is the end goal. It's the whole reason we exist, why this planet exists, why any of it is here. Without that end game, there'd be no point to any of it.

      bmIOC---------------

      I have already told you why free will doesn't exist. And it certainly won;t exist in Heaven because any humans that make it there will be serving God's will for eternity. Sounds kind of boring.

      The whole thing about life is that we cherish what we have, and going to Heaven without the people we care about is not an extension, it is reincarnation.

      --------------------------------------

      There is no evidence and you keep avoiding my request.

      Where is your God without using the bibles?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "It also means that Christianity is based on Jesus, and it forms the Holy Trinity, and without it, there is just God. But it is the conflict that indicates it is just a story."

      So only if everyone agreed could it be true? I think you know as well as I do people being in agreement isn't a very strong indicator. However, now that science has provided the correct context and clarified the story, it's also revealed that the whole Jesus component makes sense. In fact, the entirety of God's interactions with humans in the OT following the fall in the garden had everything to do with creating Jesus. It completes the story and makes it one cohesive coherent thing.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      "Not 6 days and people and animals are living large on Earth."

      Come on, Brad. Let's not by so quick to dismiss and use just a touch of logic here. For example, during the day 4 and 5 portion of creation the animals are told to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the earth". It doesn't say God waved a magic wand and miracled a planet full of animals. They were to fill it through procreation. As ignorant of the natural world the authors of Genesis may have been, it's pretty safe to assume they understood populating the earth with animals through procreation would take a bit longer than a day.

      The 'day' motif is simply a literary device. The word translated as 'day' in Hebrew could mean a 24 hour day, the daylight portion of a day, or a long period of time. It could be these were days where God created new "rules" or "laws" that then went into effect for everyday from that day forward, so that it's 6 days, just not 6 consecutive days. The important thing to realize about the creation account is that it accurately describes what you would see if you were able to watch the formation of the earth from the surface. Feel free to read my hub on creation for detail.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      "The Earth was to be the eternal home of Adam and Eve, not Heaven. And the Garden of Eden was supposed to beparadise. Then God calls an audible. I don't think so."

      All throughout the OT God is clearly testing an element that's not within His control. He tests Abraham, He tests Adam/Eve. He then chooses His actions based on what He finds. The earth was created as an safe environment to create free will. Free will is dangerous, but can only be so dangerous in an inherently temporary place.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      "You are going all around trying to get these stories to fly. I think that seven billion people today should be evidence enough that people have failed the test. It actually failed when Cain killed Abel, and this is a story. NO one has had any updates of God, and the bibles. Several humans have declared they are the messengers of God, but they are just being human and taking advantage of the lull."

      The test is done. The point now is letting free will play out so we can learn. Free will takes wisdom to wield. The entirety of human history is the kind of knowledge base one would need to give the wisdom necessary. We get to witness for ourselves how and why free will can be dangerous and destructive. We see it happening all around us.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      "I have already told you why free will doesn't exist. And it certainly won;t exist in Heaven because any humans that make it there will be serving God's will for eternity. Sounds kind of boring.

      The whole thing about life is that we cherish what we have, and going to Heaven without the people we care about is not an extension, it is reincarnation."

      So if free will doesn't exist then you think our actions and decisions are wholly determined by the physical matter of our brains. Which means we have no real say in anything we do. All of human history is simply physical brains behaving in the only way they could have. We can't make our own choices, it's only an illusion that we have any sort of control, when in actuality we are simply passive observers unable to change what happens.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      "There is no evidence and you keep avoiding my request.

      Where is your God without using the bibles?"

      You remember when I said that definite confirmation of God's existence would undermine our free will? It would undermine the whole faith aspect. The evidence is reality. A reality that by all appearances seems to have formed itself. Order and purpose out of chaos. The bible is the one record that tells the story of the time when this God interacted with humans. And the story it tells is all we need to know.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      You have failed to give any information outside of the bibles and they are thousand years plus, and all the writers are dead, and no evidence to support them.

      Your free will argument which is incredibly weak is not outside the bibles, so what else do you have to offer.

      Even the bibles show nothing but failure, and without the bibles there is nothing to show the presence of your God.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Are you wanting me to prove God's existence to you? I'm simply sharing with you what I know, what I think, and why. I'm not interested in convincing you or converting you or "winning souls" or whatever. I can show that the events of Genesis actually happened. I think it's important for humanity to realize this is a real part of our history. Genesis makes some pretty outlandish claims that may turn out to be not so outlandish. For example, it says Adam and all of those born of Adam/Eve lived lives that lasted centuries. Well it turns out that what we should expect to see if that were true is there. Every culture that existed in that part of the world during that time tells very similar stories. The Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Indus Valley culture. According to each of them the god-like beings lived among them. If people that lived as long as Adam/Eve lived among us they'd seem god-like to us. And in many cases, especially with the Sumerians, the impact that these beings are said to have had on them can be seen to have actually happened. According to the Sumerians these gods taught them civilization. We have no other explanation for all the things the Sumerians were able to accomplish. They claim they were taught, and they certainly did seem to be leaps and bounds beyond others. There's a staggering list of things they did first. The evidence is there. What you should expect to see if these events are real is there. A culture that matches up with what's described. A city like Genesis says Cain built. That culture was the first in the world to exhibit that behavior change, which is what should be expected considering that's what Genesis says happened to Adam/Eve and everyone after. It's all there. The Genesis stories are our modern human origin story. These are the events that set the modern human world in motion.

      Just about everything I have is outside the bible. It's our archaeological record. It's our history. I understand you're resistant to accept it, but that doesn't change it's accuracy. What should be there if true is there. Everything. It all lines up.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      HVN

      I am asking you for the evidence you claim, but anything from the bibles are not evidence, they are stories.

      Broad sweeping statements with your opinion as the alleged evidence is not evidence. Science says that the Earth is four and a half billion years, and Genesis has no timeline. So other than science where do I find the history of those billions of years. And where do I find the first homo sapiens?

      The other science fact is that the Bin Bang happened 13.7 billion years aga. So was it six days of billions of years?

      There is nothing but science in the last two thousand years Unless you call the Quran the third bible, and even then there is nothing after it.

      It is Humans, year after year reinterpreting the scriptures. And who are they that know the correct interpretation.

      Two thousand tear without a new update from God, reminds me of the Japanese soldier during WWII who didn't get the word that the war was over for thirty years.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad,

      "Genesis has no timeline"

      It does have a timeline. Not for creation, but from Adam forward. By using Gen5 you can determine that Cain was banished within a century of Adam's creation, you can determined that the flood happened 1656 years after Adam's creation, and that the Babel story happened about a century later. So, you've got a 1500 year old culture that includes a city being established, that is brought to an end by a flood, then the Babel story a century after the flood.

      Ubaid Culture (5500-4000BC) - The Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarised social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period

      The Flood (4000BC) - The level of the great flood at Ur was sandwiched between remains of the Al Ubaid cultural phase, the last purely prehistoric period of southern Mesopotamia, and a layer of debris from the early Protoliterate period. - http://ncse.com/cej/8/2/flood-mesopotamian-archaeo...

      Babel (3900BC) - Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organized, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC.

      "So was it six days of billions of years?"

      Covered this already. Feel free to read my hub on creation - "God Created Evolution: Genesis Creation Story is Scientifically Accurate". I cover it in great detail there.

      "And where do I find the first homo sapiens?"

      Genesis makes it clear that Adam/Eve were not the first humans. Like the 'others' that Cain voiced concern about when he was banished. The humans created in Gen1 were the homo sapiens. They already populated the earth by the time Adam/Eve were created. Please refer to my hub "God Created Evolution: Adam Was Not the First Human, for the Bible Tells Us So" for more detail on this.

      "And who are they that know the correct interpretation."

      Those whose interpretation doesn't conflict with actual history.

      I'm not sure what your motivation is to be so reluctant to accept the facts. The evidence speaks for itself. If you're interested in the actual truth, this is the truth. The evidence lines up and supports it. I'm simply following the evidence to determine what the real truth is. This is the real truth. Not only does the timeline line up, not only do the events show up in the evidence along that same timeline, but you also have the impact of these events clearly shown in the evidence as well. You've got a dramatic behavior change that began in Southern Mesopotamia, showing up in that same culture that lines up with pre-flood Genesis, and spreading from there. Everything you should expect to see is there. Once you line it up everything we see in our history, you find that not only does history line up with Genesis, but those events prove to be the pivotal events that set the modern human world in motion.

      I took a scientific approach and proved it. I formed a hypothesis using Genesis to build a framework of events and a timeline. I then tested that hypothesis by making predictions based on that hypothesis. Every one of those predictions proved true. Down the line. That's how you know you're onto something. That's how it's done. You an keep trying to say that I'm making broad sweeping statements of opinion or claiming my evidence isn't evidence, but that doesn't change anything. My statements can't make the evidence line up. I have no control over that.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Headley

      Really enjoyed this hub. Ok the spoiler told me it was going to agree with me but it didn't detract in any way.

      When I started writing here I fit the mold of a pretty strong 'young earth creationist' and still have some of their tendencies but now I'd say I fit the 'intelligent design' mold better!

      One of the big arguments for Intelligent design is that while the evolutionary process works within a species to move from one species to another there needs to be an input of 'information' into DNA and so far no satisfactory explanation of how it happened naturally has been founf!

      This is a great hub on the subject.

      Before I go I've just read Brad's comment about when the big bang occured and I've got a hub that might help with explaining it. The hub is called 'Young earth, distant starlight'. The premise is that while the speed of light can't be exceeded it hasn't always been constant! I've got links to two theories proposed and to experiments done that actually changed lightspeed under laboratory conditions, if that's true then the universe itself could be much younger than we think (by the way the science behind the experiment is recognized by both sides of the debate)

      Hope that helps

      Lawrence

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 18 months ago from Texas

      I appreciate it, Lawrence. I really have no issue with the timeline and fail to see how it's even really relevant. The whole concept, as far as I can tell, is entirely based on the English translation of Genesis using the term 'days', which does not necessarily mean what 'day' means in english. The animals in the creation account are told to populate the Earth through procreation. Clearly something that even people of the bronze age understand doesn't and can't happen during the course of a day.

      I'd definitely be interested in any research that shows a constant not being so consistently constant, but constants being constant allows us to determine the age of things. If they're not constant then there's really no telling.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Headley

      You're right about the phrase (Yom in Hebrew) but recently I also heard that the terms for 'Evening' (Erev) and 'Morning' (Boka) can also mean 'slipping into darkness (Chaos) and 'emerging from the darkness (Order) which is what you get in transitional stages. Kind of how you'd expect ancient man to understand a process spanning a significant timespan yet with God still in charge!

      Just a thought.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 18 months ago from Texas

      Yeah, you're exactly right. I mean, I get the confusion. It first specifies the light of day and dark of night, which signifies a 24 hour period. But then it says then came 'evening' and 'morning', then the next 'day'. So just beyond the word it would appear it's talking about a day. But, like you said, the words used for 'evening' and 'morning' can also mean the ending phase and beginning phase of an extended period of time. Just one coming to a close and the other beginning. Again, I refer to the animals procreating to populate the Earth. It doesn't say God just "miracled" the planet full of life. It says to "be fruitful and multiply". This does not happen during the course of a 24 hour day.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      I'd also take a look at the 'Distant starlight' hub as both creationists and big bang proponents agree on the science, their only disagreement us where to 'draw the line' in how fast light used to be!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 18 months ago from Texas

      Will do

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 18 months ago from Orange County California

      Lawrence

      Making assumptions and then concluding on them without any proof is not the same thing as proving something. Your assertion of the word, FACTS is self serving and false. What you described as the Scientific Method is also false.

      Genesis is vague, and ambiguous and it has no real fact, only alleged stories. These stories may have some basis in fact, at least as to some of the events, but nothing that can be used as a proof of God.

      The bibles were written by MEN, over thousands of years, and the stories within it had no knowledge of the world, or the universe beyond what Man knew at the time.

      Today, not even a majority of the world population believes or even follows the Bible(S).

      The people and evil has not changed for the better since the first recording of history. This nullifies any useful divine inspiration of the bibles.

      The bibles are just stories, like Aesop's Fables, Greek Mythology, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny. We humans have been intelligent enough to class these stories as fantasy, or fiction, but many people haven't made that connection to the bibles.

      Even the Catholic Church didn't have a clue that the Sun didn't rotate around the earth, so much for the factual information in the bibles.

      Another example of the vagueness of the bible is why use one third of the angels? One third is not a number and it could mean anything from one Angel, to a large number. In addition there were many stories that preceded the bibles, and they contained similar but different aspects of the stories.

      People agreeing on something is also not a proof of the facts. It is their opinion of what they think. We still don't know much about gravity. And the Big Bang is not proof of the truth, it is a scientific opinion, and there are any number of other theories that could be applied.

      The BBT doesn't answer the multitude of questions about what happened before the event, or even why the event occurred.

      There is a big difference between scientific proof, and faith, so that makes the story of God, and science very different.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 18 months ago from Texas

      Brad,

      You are right in that the biblical books were written by men, and that those men were not imbued in any way with any kind of advanced acknowledge of the world. And Genesis is vague, with one very notable exception. To say Genesis has no real fact is demonstrably wrong. Please see my 'God Created Evolution' hubs for more on that. There's a timeline that can be pieced together using the ages given in Genesis 5 and 12. And along those timelines the events being described can be charted. And that time framework can then be matched up to an actual series of events that actually happened in the specified region of the world. And these aren't just events of little consequence. These are the events that led to the emergence of modern humanity in the ancient world. The story Genesis is telling isn't just factual, it's telling a very much relevant story that's central to who we are as humans and how we became what we became.

      And the evil that exists is consistent with the story it's telling. It's an expected result for evil to not be better, but to still very much play a role in our lives to this day.

      People nowadays have gotten way too quick to just try to dismiss the bible as fable. It's not going to happen. It's not widely recognized yet, but it soon will be. The bible isn't going anywhere.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 18 months ago from Texas

      One other notable exception, Brad, to my previous statement...

      The creation account, while it was not written by anyone who had any kind of enhanced knowledge of the natural world, they were in fact conveying a story from a source who did clearly know what happened, and they described it from a surface of the planet perspective that very much lines up with what actually happened. This too is consistent with the story as God personally interacted with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Enoch at the least. So this could have been described to them. I have a hub covering this in detail as well that I invite you to check out.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Brad

      You've got some good observations with your points, however the way you answer my comment leads me to think you didn't visit my hub (fair enough).

      You refer to a way I use the term 'facts' when as far as I remember I don't use it as I'm talking about three working scientific theories

      The main one I talk about by John Moffatt has some startling calculations that if they hold up would leave us with a universe a few thousand years old. Evolutionists say light was up to four times faster at the beginning but Moffatt says up to six hundred times faster!

      The fact that light speed can be changed was proved in Edinborough in 2013 when they did under laboratory conditions!

      Personally I don't know the age of the universe, but the science is fascinating!

      Lawrence

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Brad

      One correction to my comment, in the comment above I said Moffatt said light speed could have been 600 times faster but in the hub I said 60 the info in the hub is correct and sorry for any confusion.

    Click to Rate This Article