Hey i know how Jesus was able to walk on water

[Undone]

Hammerhead, I actually like that post you just made. Even though we're on opposite ends of agreement, I like that you stated that just maybe there's an explanation for it that you haven't yet heard.

I'm curious how much time the average "non-believer" spends thinking about the origins of matter, space, and time if they don't believe in God. That's a serious question I've been asking for about the last five years of my life. Because for me, even though I do believe in God, I still ponder the question, literally all the time: What does the "unbeliever" believe to be true about origins? Because science hasn't come even close to being able to answer that (and in my opinion, it never will - partly because it can't, and partly because the correct answer is not the one that secular scientists are looking for).

 

[Hammerhead]

Hammerhead, I actually like that post you just made. Even though we're on opposite ends of agreement, I like that you stated that just maybe there's an explanation for it that you haven't yet heard.

I'm curious how much time the average "non-believer" spends thinking about the origins of matter, space, and time if they don't believe in God. That's a serious question I've been asking for about the last five years of my life. Because for me, even though I do believe in God, I still ponder the question, literally all the time: What does the "unbeliever" believe to be true about origins? Because science hasn't come even close to being able to answer that (and in my opinion, it never will - partly because it can't, and partly because the correct answer is not the one that secular scientists are looking for).

To be honest, my best answer is "I don't know".

I think you're right about science. It's ironic that the biggest question humanity has ever collectively asked will likely never have an adequate answer, but I think it's true. Whether it really was due to a sentient creator, or it was the result of some cosmic force and a once-in-a-trillion-years occurence, I think it's too far beyond the scope of our understanding.

I probably came across above sounding as though I believe that religious people are ignorant. That wasn't exactly how I meant it, though it's easy for me to see how it could be taken that way, because I worded it rather poorly. What I mean to say is that considering our knowledge on the subject, I don't think it's fair for either side to call the other ignorant.

 

[Undone]

No, you didn't come off sounding condescending - I knew what you meant.

But again, and this is not a rhetorical question...I truly am extremely curious as to what "non-believing" people believe in general about origin. And also how much time they spend thinking about it. Because as you stated, it's the most important question humanity can ponder.

For me personally, saying that the universe exists solely inside of itself, that matter and space merely "are what they are," that the universe is self-sustaining or infinitely old or any other materialist suggestion is not good enough for me. To me, and obviously admitting that it's merely an opinion, that is illogical. And I mean that sincerely.

 

[Landlord]

Glad all these stories only found themselves in a single book. You would think a man walking on water would have spread like wild fire and been written in many scrolls...nah a few hundred years later it shows up in a story book

You get my vote for ignorant post of the day.

Any more ignorant than believing, despite having no solid evidence whatsoever, that there's a magical being in some other universe who created us for no apparent reason and loves us deeply but would condemn us to an eternity of suffering for not worshipping him?

Maybe there's a good explanation for it all, but I just haven't heard it yet. To me, it's totally illogical.

I'm of the opinion that there is plenty of good solid evidence that can be the basis of faith. The rest of that is hyperbole, so I won't approach it, but I would encourage you to check out William Lane Craig. He's one of the pioneering Christian philosophers and debaters of the last few decades, and while he isn't infallible, he certainly holds his own against all his atheistic and agnostic counterparts.

I think maybe the reason you believe it is completely illogical is because you actually believe your hyperbole? That if God existed, He really is a being in some other universe that created us all for no real reason and is interested in condemning us. That is an entirely different illustration than the one revealed in the Bible, and I just don't really think it's that huge of a jump of logic to believe in a Creator. If you take that small step, I also don't think it's that huge of a jump of logic to believe that if a Creator is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, that I am probably not going to have any logical grounds to question what it or He does, even when it doesn't make sense to me

 

[Whistlebritches]

If you take that small step, I also don't think it's that huge of a jump of logic to believe that if a Creator is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, that I am probably not going to have any logical grounds to question what it or He does, even when it doesn't make sense to me

I've always kind of wondered how someone who believes that god is "omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent" deals with things like Sandy Hook. Saying that god works in mysterious ways shouldn't be an acceptable answer.

 

[Landlord]

If you take that small step, I also don't think it's that huge of a jump of logic to believe that if a Creator is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, that I am probably not going to have any logical grounds to question what it or He does, even when it doesn't make sense to me

I've always kind of wondered how someone who believes that god is "omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent" deals with things like Sandy Hook. Saying that god works in mysterious ways shouldn't be an acceptable answer.

Whistlebritches, how would you have preferred such a God to be involved and acting in a situation such as that?

The simple, easy answer is to intervene. Makes sense, as we probably would if we had the power. But why is He intervening? Because evil is afoot, but what is evil? It's anything against God. Therefore, we have a problem, because you and I commit and think evil things as well. Should we be intervened on, eliminated, stopped in our action? Well that takes away free will of creation, doesn't it? If we want God to intervene when evil will happen, the world would not be consistent and stable enough to truly be lived in in the first place, and if we want God to eliminate evil, we need to be consistent - where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, the thinking level?

Maybe that's not what you would expect of God, but I am interested to hear your thoughts on what such a God should do.

 

[bennychico11]

If you take that small step, I also don't think it's that huge of a jump of logic to believe that if a Creator is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, that I am probably not going to have any logical grounds to question what it or He does, even when it doesn't make sense to me

I've always kind of wondered how someone who believes that god is "omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent" deals with things like Sandy Hook. Saying that god works in mysterious ways shouldn't be an acceptable answer.

Whistlebritches, how would you have preferred such a God to be involved and acting in a situation such as that?

The simple, easy answer is to intervene. Makes sense, as we probably would if we had the power. But why is He intervening? Because evil is afoot, but what is evil? It's anything against God. Therefore, we have a problem, because you and I commit and think evil things as well. Should we be intervened on, eliminated, stopped in our action? Well that takes away free will of creation, doesn't it? If we want God to intervene when evil will happen, the world would not be consistent and stable enough to truly be lived in in the first place, and if we want God to eliminate evil, we need to be consistent - where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, the thinking level?

Maybe that's not what you would expect of God, but I am interested to hear your thoughts on what such a God should do.

So does god intervene EVER in our lives? Or is he purely someone who sits by and watches?

If you say he can't intervene when we need him to...in order to save lives of children...then he also doesn't intervene in times of good either, correct? So when my friends on Facebook post "My son survived the car wreck, thank god!" or "My mom's surgery went well and she's recovering. Thank you for all the prayers, we're putting our trust in the Lord to heal her." Is god the one we should be thanking...or is it just the way life is? There doesn't seem to be a consistency when I hear Christians say "don't blame god for the bad...just for the good."

Of course, in the Bible god seemed to always intervene in human affairs.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Hammerhead, I actually like that post you just made. Even though we're on opposite ends of agreement, I like that you stated that just maybe there's an explanation for it that you haven't yet heard.

I'm curious how much time the average "non-believer" spends thinking about the origins of matter, space, and time if they don't believe in God. That's a serious question I've been asking for about the last five years of my life. Because for me, even though I do believe in God, I still ponder the question, literally all the time: What does the "unbeliever" believe to be true about origins? Because science hasn't come even close to being able to answer that (and in my opinion, it never will - partly because it can't, and partly because the correct answer is not the one that secular scientists are looking for).

Interesting question. I believe in God. But, I have gone through a process of trying to figure out what to believe. And, I think about it all the time.

To me, I needed to strip away all "religious" stuff. Meaning, I needed to not think of it in a Christian aspect. So, I had to look at what we know and don't know. We know the earth was made a very long time ago and ever since, it has been changing. So, I had to go back to that very instant and ask myself, where did that little speck of something come from that exploded and started the "chemical" reaction that eventually made us? If you are only looking for "logic" and that is your reasoning as to there is no God, then there i no logic as to where that little spec of material came from. Something had to create it. It had to come from somewhere.

Also, If there were no God, then all we are is one big chemical reaction. NOTHING more....nothing less. So, if there is no God and spirit within us, then things like Sandy Hook are meaningless and we really shouldn't be all that worked up about them. After all, all those people were, were chemical reactions that were stopped. THAT makes no sense to me. So, I have to believe there is a spirit within us that came from the power that created that enitial speck fo material that exploded to create the universe.

AND, if there then is this higher power that created this world, he then has more power over us than what we can imagine.

Also, I believe that religion and science can coexist. Science is simply uncovering the work of God. They are discovering the evidence of his power.

 

[Whistlebritches]

If you take that small step, I also don't think it's that huge of a jump of logic to believe that if a Creator is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, that I am probably not going to have any logical grounds to question what it or He does, even when it doesn't make sense to me

I've always kind of wondered how someone who believes that god is "omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent" deals with things like Sandy Hook. Saying that god works in mysterious ways shouldn't be an acceptable answer.

Whistlebritches, how would you have preferred such a God to be involved and acting in a situation such as that?

The simple, easy answer is to intervene. Makes sense, as we probably would if we had the power. But why is He intervening? Because evil is afoot, but what is evil? It's anything against God. Therefore, we have a problem, because you and I commit and think evil things as well. Should we be intervened on, eliminated, stopped in our action? Well that takes away free will of creation, doesn't it? If we want God to intervene when evil will happen, the world would not be consistent and stable enough to truly be lived in in the first place, and if we want God to eliminate evil, we need to be consistent - where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, the thinking level?

Maybe that's not what you would expect of God, but I am interested to hear your thoughts on what such a God should do.

Have the shooters car mysteriously catch on fire and veer off the road into a ditch? I don't know. But I see and agree with your point of where do you draw the line. I guess if I believed in God then I'd have to put more energy into trying to understand it.

It's been a long time since I've asked myself these kinds of questions but the answer is still same to me. I'm simply not a believer.

 

[Hammerhead]

Hammerhead, I actually like that post you just made. Even though we're on opposite ends of agreement, I like that you stated that just maybe there's an explanation for it that you haven't yet heard.

I'm curious how much time the average "non-believer" spends thinking about the origins of matter, space, and time if they don't believe in God. That's a serious question I've been asking for about the last five years of my life. Because for me, even though I do believe in God, I still ponder the question, literally all the time: What does the "unbeliever" believe to be true about origins? Because science hasn't come even close to being able to answer that (and in my opinion, it never will - partly because it can't, and partly because the correct answer is not the one that secular scientists are looking for).

Interesting question. I believe in God. But, I have gone through a process of trying to figure out what to believe. And, I think about it all the time.

To me, I needed to strip away all "religious" stuff. Meaning, I needed to not think of it in a Christian aspect. So, I had to look at what we know and don't know. We know the earth was made a very long time ago and ever since, it has been changing. So, I had to go back to that very instant and ask myself, where did that little speck of something come from that exploded and started the "chemical" reaction that eventually made us? If you are only looking for "logic" and that is your reasoning as to there is no God, then there i no logic as to where that little spec of material came from. Something had to create it. It had to come from somewhere.

The problem is, then you create a slippery slope. If God created it, who created God? After all, if that spec of material had to come from somewhere, God did too.

Also, If there were no God, then all we are is one big chemical reaction. NOTHING more....nothing less. So, if there is no God and spirit within us, then things like Sandy Hook are meaningless and we really shouldn't be all that worked up about them. After all, all those people were, were chemical reactions that were stopped. THAT makes no sense to me. So, I have to believe there is a spirit within us that came from the power that created that enitial speck fo material that exploded to create the universe.

I don't think it's necessary to believe in a higher power to explain why we are the way we are. Life on this planet has been around for billions of years. It's not hard to believe that in those billions of years, evolution has led to the existence of sentient beings (namely, us). Simply put, what you describe is sentience.

Also, I believe that religion and science can coexist. Science is simply uncovering the work of God. They are discovering the evidence of his power.

I agree with the first part, not so much the second. In the abscence of reasonable proof, there's no reason why a scientist is required to dismiss all religious belief, he or she simply can't apply it directly to his or her work. Science has to keep an open mind, but it can't posit otherworldly explanations for worldy observations without exhausting every possible worldly explanation first.

 

[Undone]

I agree with the first part, not so much the second. In the abscence of reasonable proof, there's no reason why a scientist is required to dismiss all religious belief, he or she simply can't apply it directly to his or her work. Science has to keep an open mind, but it can't posit otherworldly explanations for worldy observations without exhausting every possible worldly explanation first.

This is a great synopsis, and one of my biggest qualms with atheist materialists that guide the current field of...well, everything.

 

[BigRedBuster]

First of all, I would like to say I don't judge anyone who doesn't believe until they are condescending to me for beleiving. You haven't been and this is a great discussion. So, please don't take any of my comments as disrespect for your positions. This is a deeply personal issue and everyone has their right to their beleifs.

The problem is, then you create a slippery slope. If God created it, who created God? After all, if that spec of material had to come from somewhere, God did too.

I don't believe it's a slippery slope at all. Both of us seem to agree that at this point, there is a fact that we all have some type of "faith" in where that came from. Either you have faith that this speck of dust has always existed, or you have faith that a higher power has always existed and created it. For me, the later is easier to believe.

I don't think it's necessary to believe in a higher power to explain why we are the way we are. Life on this planet has been around for billions of years. It's not hard to believe that in those billions of years, evolution has led to the existence of sentient beings (namely, us). Simply put, what you describe is sentience.

Again, then why do you care? The answer I recieved before was because of a chemical reaction in our brains that tells us to. So....then.....if we are smart enough to realize that it is nothing more than a chemical reaction in our brain, then wouldn't the logical next step be to ignor it and convince ourselves that these events are totally meaningless and we shouldn't care?

I agree with the first part, not so much the second. In the abscence of reasonable proof, there's no reason why a scientist is required to dismiss all religious belief, he or she simply can't apply it directly to his or her work. Science has to keep an open mind, but it can't posit otherworldly explanations for worldy observations without exhausting every possible worldly explanation first.

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't expect scientists to pay attention to religion and point in any direction because of it. I don't care if the scientist i Atheist, Jewish Hindu, Muslim or Christian. I don't care if he believes in a higher power or not. What I believe is that when they have theories of say the Big Bang Theory, that isn't just a scientific action. I believe a higher power had their hand in that and science is simply discovering the evidence of his actions.

 

[carlfense]

". . . down by the creek, walkin' on water . . ."

 

[rawhide]

:yeah wait, neither of those dOOd's did. Although, Wyatt did wade across the creek.

 

[husker_99]

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

Ah, so you know for a fact that the original autograph wasn't written by someone at the time it happened?

you do know they can date the pages right?

Did you intentionally dodge the point I made?

Edit: "Date the pages?" Maybe it's just the way that you phrased that, but it sounds pretty elementary. Yes, I'm aware that organic material can be dated, using semi-accurate methods. Generally though, with documents that are roughly 2000 years old & newer, they aren't carbon dated. The method of "dating" that is used is more contextual in nature. In other words, it's more on the side of literary/historical investigation in nature, rather than putting the "paper" (as you phrased it) under a microscope, so to speak. Secondly, the age of the medium is inconclusive; what if that paper was "50 years old" before it was written on...or reused?

That was also what I referred to with my comment about the original autograph. That's the term given to the original, first document. And that's the point about oral tradition, as well: It's hard to say who wrote the original autograph and exactly when it was written. But if the accounts are oral, it makes no difference. Also, no biblicist makes the claim that anyone is holding the original autograph in some museum that we can walk up to and carbon date. Nobody is making that claim. Where are the original autographs? Who knows. But just because an archaeologist doesn't have it in his hand, doesn't mean it wasn't written down earlier than the first "copy." That's the thing with copies; they're copies.

Point was that they can tell if someone is trying to pull a fast one on them. Of course no one has originals. Oral tradition will always be based on who you ask. While the main point would be the same the story itself would not be the same. We all know that the ancients liked to make things much bigger than they really were. Outside of the bible and a couple of writers jesus is practically unknown.