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

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 20 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.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 20 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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 20 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.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 20 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.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 20 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 20 months ago from Texas

      Will do

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 20 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 20 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 20 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 20 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 20 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 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.

    • 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

      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

      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

      "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 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

      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

      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,

      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

      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,

      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 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

    • 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!

    • 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?

    • 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

      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

      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,

      "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.

      ----------------------------------------------------------

    • 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,

      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.

      ----------------------------------------------------

    • 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.

    • 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

      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.

    • 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.

    • 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

      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.

    • 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

    • 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 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

    • 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

      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

      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

      "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.

      --------------------------------------

    • 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!

    • 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.

    • 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!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........................................(cough)..............ZZZZ

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      zzzzzzzzzzz...(cough, splutter).....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......(ffft!).....zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    • 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

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      LMAO!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...............

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      zzzzzzzzzzzz..............

    • 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

      what's that mumbling I hear? o well........yawn.

    • 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

      HINDUISM - What the world's greatest THINKERS had to say?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L71FAhl7Yfo

    • profile image

      oztinato 3 years ago

      (yawn)

    • 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

      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

      ...Or lose interest. Ha-ha!

    • 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!

    • profile image

      Oztinato 3 years ago

      (yawn)

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I thought it was funny... Ha-ha!

    • 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 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

      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

      @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

      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.

    • 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.

    • 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..

    • 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.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      Anti-atheist thought = burning them at the stake presumably. I forgive you.

    • 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).

    • 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 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 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.

    • 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.

    • Mark Knowles profile image

      Mark Knowles 3 years ago

      OK, OK - I forgive you, troll. All better now? Self evident truth huh?

    • 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.

    • 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!

    • 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

      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!

    • 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.

    • 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

      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

      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

      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 ?

    • 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!

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

      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

      We are all apart of this thing we call God, dear numbnuts! We are all atomically connected to the universe, if you will... LMAO!

    • 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

      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!

    • 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

      @Oztinato: "Logical points." That deserves the double "laugh out loud" award. Dear gentle reader.... This is not HIS website, by the way... LOL!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      LMAO!