Conquer Club

So the question is sort of, why do people walk away / why doesn't God always convince people who are in church?

I know that some of my more brethren more enamored with Tulips are going to choke on this, (seminary joke, if you don't get it it only means you never sat between a methodist and a presbyterian) but God doesn't MAKE people accept him. Never has been in the business of "making" people accept or reject Him, there is much more responsability on the individual than that.

You guys have both said that your quasi-conversion "experiance" was more for acceptance or selfish reasons than true belief. God's not going to grant you eternity in heaven because you liked cakes and days off. I don't know what sort of church it was that you went to, so I can't say if the people there were living their faith. But I can say that if they were, and you genuinly wanted to have a relationship with God, that you would be on a different path today. Seeking acceptance in a religious community does not get you to heaven, a relationship with Jesus Christ does.

As far as "choosing to pass His power through you" I will say this. If it was genuine for some, they were using it wrong. I'm not a fan of the whole "God's power makes me ______" movement (potential answers for the blank include shake, fall, laugh, bark, speak in incomprehensable language) It's a direct contradiction to 1st Corinthians. Spiritual gifting (if that's how you identify that) is for the edification of others. If they were genuine, and using this gift as a measure of their spirituality, it was wrong. Paul deals with this in 1st Cor. and essentially says that using external signs to decide status in the church is something that only immature Christians do. So, if they were genuine, (which I can't say one way or the other) they were immature. I know that it's sort of a technical answer, but it's what I see in Scripture.

As for God wanting or not wanting you to believe in him, trust me, He does. But He won't make you. You have to want it. I know, I know, you were there, hook line an sinker, but it seems to me that you were more focused on being accepted by a peer group, than on accepting God.

As for God wanting or not wanting you to believe in him, trust me, He does. But He won't make you. You have to want it. I know, I know, you were there, hook line an sinker, but it seems to me that you were more focused on being accepted by a peer group, than on accepting God.

Good post Nate. I hear what you are saying, although in my case i had no choice - i was simply there, in church every day, having had god's existence constantly reinforced to me in my daily life. I did believe, but becasue that was what i had been told. Like believing teh angles in a triangle add up to 360 degrees. It just was. But believers talk abotu 'knowing' god, feeling him - jay talks that way all the time - and it just never happened. I don;t know how much more ready i was supposed ot be. i went from believing to realising that there wasn;t the slightest bit of evidence, either in the world or in my thoughts and feelings, that god existed.

And that side of xianity has always bothered me. Free will is a gift, god can't intervene, etc: but all he has to do is appear and i'll change my mind pronto. It's a classic catch-all:
"god is real, he is omnipresent, omnipotent etc but the ONE THING he can't do is prove he exists. At all. Ever."
Once you can get people to buy that, you can tell them whatever you want (not you, obviously... You know what i mean.)

As heavycola says, good post Nate! It really has made me think! So really it was not God who pushed me away from him, but actually the other people in the church. I guess it takes a certain kind of person to happily pretend something is happening to them to stay with their faith, and I just can't accept that compromise of my integrity. So maybe, just maybe I was unlucky that the people who initially introduced me to Christianity were the wrong kind of Christian for me. Perhaps in other circumstances I may have trod a different path...

Perhaps... but now I think I would still struggle to accept the catch all. Like heavycola just the slightest nod my way would do.

I will never believe any of those people who shake, bark, talk in tongues etc are anything but fakers, short of experiencing that myself, which I think we both agree is pretty unlikely. In fact I find any of the feeling the prescence of or recieving messages from just as hard to believe as well. I absolutely draw the line at 'Knowing' God, given the Old Testamant meaning of 'Know' I think that's a little presumptious on anyone's behalf

Bertros Bertros wrote:I absolutely draw the line at 'Knowing' God, given the Old Testamant meaning of 'Know' I think that's a little presumptious on anyone's behalf

can't argue with you there.

heavycola wrote:And that side of xianity has always bothered me. Free will is a gift, god can't intervene, etc: but all he has to do is appear and i'll change my mind pronto. It's a classic catch-all:
"god is real, he is omnipresent, omnipotent etc but the ONE THING he can't do is prove he exists. At all. Ever."

Bertros Bertros wrote:Perhaps... but now I think I would still struggle to accept the catch all. Like heavycola just the slightest nod my way would do.

I don't understand this tremendous reluctance to accept the existence of God without emprical evidence. On this forum, we moved in the direction of agnosticism. I'll be honest, agnosticism is very comfortable. Given the necessarily transcendent nature of God, there is a lot of debate how we could ever begin to be so presumptuous as to understand the character of an infinite being, if He does indeed exist. And with our comparatively feeble minds, I don't think we could on our own. But there's a lot that we accept without empirical evidence (which I think has also been demonstrated on this forum.)

For me, the greatest evidence of the existence of God is guys like dewey316. They've got impossible problems, and they hand their life over to God, and he changes them, so that they actually care about people. I could tell stories all day of people who have allowed God to come in and change their lives. To me, THAT is what proves the existence of God, not some logical or philisophic formula.

Why is 'god' always refered to as a male?

I want God to be a female. >:l

hey, i always say "it" whenever i refer to God

Wow, I missed a lot!

I would like to pop in here, this is actualy great timing. I had a nice talk with Dr. Donald K. Smith (google it, if you want to know who his is). We were talking about this very subject (about how an all powerful God, can let evil happen, and such). I would be happy to go into a little more depth on it, but it uses a lot of old testement refrences, and goes into God's and plan and such.

I would like to address Bertros.

I will never believe any of those people who shake, bark, talk in tongues etc are anything but fakers, short of experiencing that myself, which I think we both agree is pretty unlikely.

That is a very valid question, and one that many Christians have to answer. For what it is worth, I can't say that I have ever spoken in tongues, or gone into convulsions, or barked. This very subject is one of the reasons that the Christian church has many denominations. The problem with a lot of people in the church, is that they use the Bible to support their view, instead of filtering their view thru the Bible.

I try to read the entire chapter and book on something, so I can read the whole peice in context. The issue of speaking in tongues, and healing, and other "spiritual gifts", is one that I actualy tend to stand more on the side that you probably do. From my reading in Acts, it clearly goes thru the progression of the miraculous gifts (I beleive we all have spiritual gifts, but not in the tongues, or healing type of way). These miraculous gifts were given to the apostles as signs to the early church (Acts 5 for those who are interested). There is a clear progression of these gifts, they were used to establish the church.

Now, I do not say that God can not grant these gifts to people now, God can do what he wants. But, when I see people "performing" some of these gifts that were spoken of in Acts, I have to question, becasue my reading, has shown me, that those gifts are not something that everyone in the church is going to have, and now day's, I would question if anyone would be granted those types of powers.


Cola....

And that side of xianity has always bothered me. Free will is a gift, god can't intervene, etc: but all he has to do is appear and i'll change my mind pronto. It's a classic catch-all:

Now, if he did that, would he be your God, out of fear, or out of love?

MR. Nate wrote:I don't understand this tremendous reluctance to accept the existence of God without emprical evidence.

And likewise, I dont understand the tremendous ease so many have to accept the existence of a god without evidence either.

MR. Nate wrote:For me, the greatest evidence of the existence of God is guys like dewey316. They've got impossible problems, and they hand their life over to God, and he changes them, so that they actually care about people. I could tell stories all day of people who have allowed God to come in and change their lives. To me, THAT is what proves the existence of God, not some logical or philisophic formula.

Why must we assume dewey316 was incapable of doing this on his own and that a god did it do him? People do turn their lives around without gods all the time, why not dewey as well? I could tell stories all day of people who chose to changetheir lives dramatically and did it entirely on their own without religion. But does this prove anything? Not really. Under hypnosis, people do things they thought they were incapable of doing, and upon waking can't believe it and have no explanation for it. Was it a god?

Backglass wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:I don't understand this tremendous reluctance to accept the existence of God without emprical evidence.

And likewise, I dont understand the tremendous ease so many have to accept the existence of a god without evidence either.

The real disconnect here, is that we are both saying the same thing. I am saying to you "if you want to disprove what I beleive, you better have proof", your saying the same. Both groups feel that the burden of proof, falls to the other side. Neither side can really produce proof either for or against.

As for my past. Yes, maybe I would have changed on my own, yes, I have seen lots of people who have changed with no more motivation, than just realising that they were being self destructive, or many that changed because they had children. No religion needed. I attribute the changes in my life to God though. At the time in my life when I was saved, I likely would not have changed my life, without the hope and desire to change, that I got thru God. Again, I am almost sorry I posted a bit about myself. I really only posted that in response to the stereotypical comments about people who follow christianity, only being people who were raised on it.

We have no way of proving that god doesn't exist, but many of the acts we have attributed to him are probably because of some other identifiable phenomenon (ie big bang, the earth going around the sun, genes being passed and reinforced from generation to generation etc.) It also is conceivable that many other things attributed to god will be because of another phenomenon we discover. Not one time has this process gone in reverse, have we said that something is the result of god that we had previously attributed to an identifiable phenomenon.

dewey316 wrote:Both groups feel that the burden of proof, falls to the other side. Neither side can really produce proof either for or against.

Hrm, not sure about that bit, Mr. Dewey. The bottom line is that xianity, and various other organized religions (the more popular ones) assert that a 'God' exists through faith, and/or belief while atheism doesn't necessarily assert that a 'God' doesn't exist. "A lack thereof" does not equate to an assertion that a 'God' does not exist. >_>

<_<

BUT strong atheism (aka positive atheism) DOES assert that belief, so you were only half right/wrong. Mmmmyep! God is a woman, for sure.

OH GOD, STOP TOUCHING ME THERE!!
Actually, dont.

Anony#1 wrote: Mmmmyep! God is a woman, for sure.

Perhaps.....only a woman could give such mixed signals or lack thereof
On the other hand a male God would have too much testosterone to remain hidden from us for too long...therefore if there is a God she is female...all those who believe he is a "he" are prooving he does not exist....unless he is really in touch with his feminine side.....but that's a whole other discussion...

MR. Nate wrote:I don't understand this tremendous reluctance to accept the existence of God without emprical evidence.

Let me try to help you....

Right now there are millions of people converging on the Ganges to spend several weeks there in prayer, meditation and lots of other stuff...to cleanse their souls in the "mother" river, and to worship a wide range of fantastic Gods....

You probably find that difficult to comprehend and would consider them to be misguided and believing in things that you would be reluctant to accept....

Hope that helps you understand how I for one feel about all religions and the existence of God.

I don't presume to have any of the answers to the mystery of the universe but I know when I am hearing a wrong answer...

I don't understand this tremendous reluctance to accept the existence of God without emprical evidence.

Why on earth not? On what basis are we supposed to accept something's existence?
Take the guy in the asylum who believes jesus is sitting beside him telling him to kill people. Would you experience a reluctance to accept his assertions? Because only a few people believe this? Why do numbers matter? 1 in 6 is a xian of some kind or other. That's a low ratio. A definite minority opinion. And taking something as true just because a lot of people believe it is weak thinking. Everyone thought the world was flat at one point.

And as for god refusing to reveal himself, it's still a catch all. You say we cannot understand such a being; Dewey asked whether he would be then be our god out of love or fear.

OK:
First, if god knows love and fear he can't be too different from us. We can empathise. So i don;t see myslef being awestruck and cowering helplessly. (Why he wants us to love him is a completely different question. Why he sends us to hell if we don't is another).

You both speak of a personal rel/ship with god, yet you say that he can't reveal himself to us because we'd be bowled over and unable to handle it. Well, which is it? Why did he reveal himself to you and not us? Were you looking so hard for something that your mind produced a wonderful placebo effect? Mysticism and transcendent states of being certainly exist. Buddhists, for example, call it something other than God, however.


As for burden of proof, i would like to hear a counter to Russell's celestial teapot argument.

I assert that a massive intelligence lives in the sky. I believe that a virgin gave birth to a son who was also this massive being. He came back from the dead after 3 days. His mother did not die, but ascended into heaven.
Prove me wrong.

Why does that burden of proof lie with nonbelievers? There is NO EVIDENCE. You may as well read harry potter 2,000 years from now and decide to believe that broomsticks once flew.
For anyone who lives their lives (as i believe we all do to a great extent) using intuitive reasoning based on empirical facts and experiences, to shake your head in incomprehension when someone asserts they do not believe in something for which there is not ONE SHRED of empirical evidence is astonishing. And this is not a unicorn we are discussing but an omnipotent and benevolent creator.

cowshrptrn wrote:It also is conceivable that many other things attributed to god will be because of another phenomenon we discover. Not one time has this process gone in reverse, have we said that something is the result of god that we had previously attributed to an identifiable phenomenon.

Again, the faith in "the onward march of science." As one who believes that God controls the natural universe, the fact that a physical phenomenon exists does not mean that God does not produce the results. And the reason it has never gone in reverse is because
when it does, no one trumpets it as a victory for God. Whenever a theory that "disproves" God is shown to be false, scientists generally just posit another theory. I'm not criticizing

Anony#1 wrote:atheism doesn't necessarily assert that a 'God' doesn't exist. "A lack thereof" does not equate to an assertion that a 'God' does not exist.

Actually, that is exactly what athiesm assert. A = without, theism= belief in god. If you simply say that there is not enough evidence either way, then you would be called an agnostic.

Mirak wrote:I don't presume to have any of the answers to the mystery of the universe but I know when I am hearing a wrong answer...

Then you believe that no one has come to the correct answers? Anyone can be a universal skeptic, and at the end of the day, it isn't helpful, it simply allows you to be critical.

heavycola wrote:As for burden of proof, i would like to hear a counter to Russell's celestial teapot argument.
Why does that burden of proof lie with nonbelievers? There is NO EVIDENCE. You may as well read harry potter 2,000 years from now and decide to believe that broomsticks once flew.
For anyone who lives their lives (as i believe we all do to a great extent) using intuitive reasoning based on empirical facts and experiences, to shake your head in incomprehension when someone asserts they do not believe in something for which there is not ONE SHRED of empirical evidence is astonishing. And this is not a unicorn we are discussing but an omnipotent and benevolent creator.

The celestial teapot was more of an analogy or a metaphor than a logical argument. Russel seeks to denigrate belief in God by comparing it to something fanciful. As for burden of proof, it generally lies with whoever you're NOT talking too. Christians try to place the burden of proof on athiests, athiests try to place it on Christians. Because neither side can bear the burden of proof, it generally breaks down int "you prove it" "No, you prove it."

As for the "not one shred of empirical evidence" I would consider the existence of anything remotly complex as evidence for God. I believe that in earlier threads, we have discussed several of Aquines' arguments, such as First Cause. While I don't feel that these are proof, per se, they present a problem to the naturalist because a naturalist must eventually assert that either the universe itself is eternal, or something previous to the universe is eternal, both of which sound allarmingly unempirical for a naturalist. When we speak of random chance creating things, I look at the odds. With a lot of really intelligent people, we can't create life in a lab, yet I'm expected to believe that it occured by random luck. I play CC, and empiricle data suggests that random luck is too fickle to result in inordinantly complex creations.

In addition, the closest thing I recieved in answer for the origins of morality was "The same people that invented God." and "We just haven't figured that out yet" Which is at best nebulous, and at worst an answer based entirly on faith.

As for evidence agains the existence of God, you've offered me human suffering, which is actually well accounted for within my system (I can explain it again if you missed it).

There is no attempts to shift the burden of proof. It's the same as a court case. It is upon the ones making the positive claim to prove their case. End of story.

Christians say, "There is a God." It is their responsibility to prove that claim.

Atheists are atheists because, so far, there is no proof for the existence of god.

OK first up a couple of answers for Mr Nate...

In addition, the closest thing I recieved in answer for the origins of morality was "The same people that invented God." and "We just haven't figured that out yet" Which is at best nebulous, and at worst an answer based entirly on faith.

There is plenty of really very obvious examples of morals in the natural world. Or if not our concept of morality at least altruistic behaviour. Bees, ants, termites, meerkats, apes to name but a few all live in 'societies' where siblings and extended family care for, share with, defend each other. Why? In a natural selection sense, because they share the same genes and in doing so increase the chances of those genes survival.

And then there are the myriad of symbiotic relationhsips in the animal kingdom; sharks being cleaned by smaller fish and not eating them, buffaloes and oxpeckers etc etc Once more we see altruistic behaviour in the animal kingdom; once more morality if not in the strictly human sense.

But what of human morality? Ok well in human society we have a clear Darwinian reasoning behind morality and it is really just an extension of the animal kingdoms "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" except now it is dealing also with reputation amongst society. In the early times of humans we lived in small family groups, like our other primate cousins, and would have regularly interacted with the other groups, over and over. These seem the ideal condition for the evolution of reciprocal altruism. Place on top of that the cognitive awareness we have developed as humans and the concept of morality is derived.

Marc Hauser undertook an interesting study on the roots of morality showing that morals are not so much learnt as embedded within the human psyche, and his further study with singer went on to prove that there is no statistical difference between the morality of christians and atheists, naturally. Here's an interview with him if your interested - http://www.americanscientist.org/templa ... d=aaa5LVFO

This is one of the 'arguments' posed for God that I find the most offensive. I have a very strong sense of ethics and morality, that I derive entirely from myself and whilst I know you have not said this Nate, it upsets me to have it suggested that I may have less or no morality because I do not believe in God. Once again a positive attribute of my behaviour is attributed to coming from a deity which, from his own words assuming you believe the Bible is the word of God, has very little himself. Just take the story of Soddom and Gomorrah, which is repeated in different guises more than once in the Bible for an example of a pretty horiffic lack of morality, certainly in comparison to mine.

As for evidence against the existence of God, you've offered me human suffering, which is actually well accounted for within my system (I can explain it again if you missed it).

Well that certainly wasn't me. I believe my exact word to describe this argument that suffering disproves God was 'vacuous'. As many others have pointed out, there is no need for me to disprove God, the burden of proof is on the believer.

One of your main arguments for the existence of God is that nature is far to complex to have arisen by chance therefore there must have been a creator. But then the classic response, who made the maker? Religion asks me to accept that God just exists, before God there was nothing, why should God have a creator, just have faith in God. Here it has been argued that Foundationalist philosophy covers this. The basic foundational belief, for which we require no proof, is that God exists and the regression stops there.

But this argument applies equally well to there not being a God, why not accept that before the universe there was nothing, just have faith the universe is and that is enough, why the need to attribute it to a supernatural diety? The foundational belief that the universe just is, requires no proof and the regression stops there.

Neither are very satisfying arguments. Yet again neither provides a defintive answer. BUT the universe definitely exists. Its all around us every day, hard tangible proof, if not of its origins, at least of existence. No such luck for God, who if not impossible therefore seems at the very least to be the less probable of the two. Nate, you know full well I can't disprove God. Where there is proof posited for God, I can show as above, if it can't be fully refuted it can be shown to be the significantly more improbable option, but I can never disprove something, for which the given proof is the simple faith in its existence.

As for the "not one shred of empirical evidence" I would consider the existence of anything remotly complex as evidence for God. I believe that in earlier threads, we have discussed several of Aquines' arguments, such as First Cause. While I don't feel that these are proof, per se, they present a problem to the naturalist because a naturalist must eventually assert that either the universe itself is eternal, or something previous to the universe is eternal, both of which sound allarmingly unempirical for a naturalist. When we speak of random chance creating things, I look at the odds. With a lot of really intelligent people, we can't create life in a lab, yet I'm expected to believe that it occured by random luck. I play CC, and empiricle data suggests that random luck is too fickle to result in inordinantly complex creations.

In addition, the closest thing I recieved in answer for the origins of morality was "The same people that invented God." and "We just haven't figured that out yet" Which is at best nebulous, and at worst an answer based entirly on faith.

Natural selection accounts for complexity. Evolution is not based on blind chance at all. It also seems to show that complex systems can only occur billions of years into the life of the universe, so positing an even more complex origin for it all just raises more questions.


Stephen Hawking and his quantum cosmololgist robot buddies believe that quantum effects - like subatomic particles apearing to wink in and out of existence - might be able to explain the universe, which was at the point of the big bang a singularity, an object of infinite density and subatomic volume. It is a theory that provides within the universe itself the reasons for its own existence. It is the First Cause. No god necessary. One more gap has been filled in.

And now a post that started with a slightly more lighthearted intent... dewey's response got me thinking more about the spiritual gifts so I typed "speaking in tongues" into the worlds favourite search engine and clicked the first result... I got this http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... cle&sid=83

Seems that both dewey and Nate are missing out. Anyone can do it, in fact according to this God wants you to, and this guy will even teach you, though he does ask for a donation I could pull a dozen amusing one liners from that article, some in, some out of context but this i the one I chose, which is the explanation for the babble which ensues when one does speak in tongues, its worth noting that earlier the caveat that you would speak either a language of men or a language of angels was given.

What you will be speaking is whatever language God chooses to give you. If it is a language of men, someone somewhere on the earth (among the approximately 6000 or so dialects) could understand it. If it’s a language of angels, no one on earth would understand it.

Brilliant, so this guy is really suggesting that somewhere someone has opened their mouth and let God priaise himself through them in a language someone on Earth could comprehend, but to me and you sounds like babbling.

Ok so in a nutshell speaking in tongues is in praise of God. You open your mouth and he gives you the words to praise him in a language you have never spoken before but somewhere, someone, angel or man, would understand. Egotistical, to say the very least.

But hold on, it gets better, I then read this... http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... le&sid=463

So this is apparently another of the nine manifestations of the holy spirit each christain recieves when they are reborn. The interpretation of tongues, is the gift to interpret the speaking of tongues in an understandable language. As I read on to the section about this being misused, and how as speaking in tongues was in praise of God, anyone who was interpreting it as a message from God was in fact being fraudulous I started to warm to the writer a little, perhaps he isnt a complete loony...

But alas he covers for his brethren who are misusing their gift, by assuring the reader that in fact these people aren't actually interpreting tongues, but displaying another manifestation of the spirt, prophesying. Genius, nicely covered indeed.

Towards the end of the article the writer shows how you too can learn to interpret tongues. His suggestion...

One key to developing your ability to utilize the manifestation of interpretation of tongues is to build what you might call a “praise vocabulary.” That is, put in your mind, and begin to use in your prayers and your speech, words of praise, worship, thanksgiving to and about God and the Lord Jesus. OK, where could you find words like that? Hey, how about the book of Psalms?

Aha so where a gift from God requires some inspiration on the part of the gifted we have to learn how to do it, God can't provide the words to us in a language we understand, only one we don't. We have to find our own words now, whats the matter, does God not speak our lanaguage?

But perhaps my favourite part was this (the bolding is mine)...

How does interpretation of tongues work and how do you do it? It works just like speaking in tongues, in that you must open your mouth and speak, and when you do, God gives you the words. When you speak in tongues, the words God gives you are in a language of men or of angels. When you interpret, the words will be in English or whatever is the prevailing language of that particular body of believers.

So if I took the writer, who I am presuming is American and doesn't speak say swahili, to a Christian congregation whose prevailing language was swahili (or for that matter, French or Dutch or Russian or Greek) and asked him to use his gifts of speaking and interpretting in tongues he would then interpret in fluent swahili. That I would love to see.

This stuff is absurd in the very least, why disprove God, when these guys are busy doing it for me? Well perhaps whilst not disproving God, they are invalidating Christianity. And if I'm truly honest thats the part (well not just Christianity, organised religion in general and particularly the Abrahamic variants) I struggle with.

God may exist, he may not, if he does, as I have often been reminded, that is between me and God. But religion most definitely does and day after day my news is full of horrific acts commited in its name. I know, i know, guys like dewey are out there doing great things arguably because of their faith, but deep down you know you could do that anyway with or without your religion, if not without your faith.

Mirak wrote:I don't presume to have any of the answers to the mystery of the universe but I know when I am hearing a wrong answer...

MR. Nate wrote:Then you believe that no one has come to the correct answers? Anyone can be a universal skeptic, and at the end of the day, it isn't helpful, it simply allows you to be critical

Absolutely I believe no one has arrived at the correct or complete answer.

By "universal skeptic" do you mean skeptical about origins of the universe, the whys and wherefores or skeptical about everything?

I plead guilty to the first.

Knowing that you don't know is not helpful?!

It is much more helpful and constructive than to blindly follow with no ration, logic or common sense.

We would still be living on a pancake with everything revolving around us, burning people alive if some people had not been skeptical about the "word of God"

Yes I am universally skeptical about the existence of a supernatural creator, and critical of all organised religions.

No I do not have a better answer but that does not disqualify me or anyone from commenting on answers that others offer or beliefs they claim.

"I never layed an egg, but I am a far better judge of an omellete than any chicken"

Bertros Bertros wrote:This is one of the 'arguments' posed for God that I find the most offensive. I have a very strong sense of ethics and morality, that I derive entirely from myself and whilst I know you have not said this Nate, it upsets me to have it suggested that I may have less or no morality because I do not believe in God. Once again a positive attribute of my behaviour is attributed to coming from a deity which, from his own words assuming you believe the Bible is the word of God, has very little himself. Just take the story of Soddom and Gomorrah, which is repeated in different guises more than once in the Bible for an example of a pretty horiffic lack of morality, certainly in comparison to mine.

Let me respond to a misunderstanding first. That there exists a difference in the adherents of athiesm,Christianity and whoever else is a gross misrepresentation of my argument. I am saying that the source of morality within the Human Race was given by God, not that one particular belife system's practicioners are more moral than another. And while I think that living for God may help you make moral choices, (if you chose to take advantage of the wisdom offered) I don't think that the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians live their lives in a way that is consistent with that claim. My argument stems from the origins of morality for the race as a whole.
As for the morality of God in comparison to you, I think that Scripture makes it fairly clear that in a fallen state, man is: a)impaired in his moral judgemens b)consistently immoral in a thousand diverse ways and c) unable to comprehend the pure holiness of God. These factors merge when we certify our innocence. Sin is grotesque to God, so it is by grace that we are not all immediatly consumed.

Bertros Bertros wrote:Bees, ants, termites, meerkats, apes to name but a few all live in 'societies' where siblings and extended family care for, share with, defend each other. Why? In a natural selection sense, because they share the same genes and in doing so increase the chances of those genes survival.

This issue initially holds weight, but in a broader sense, does not begin to cover the range of human morality. Why should I care about the holocost? It didn't impact my genetic pool. Why should I sacrifice my life for someone else? That enhances someone elses genetic pool at my expense. Why should we value life past childbearing age? Why not use them as test dummies for the advancement of the race as a whole? This is somewhat revolting, but that's where morality by natural selection leaves us.

Bertros Bertros wrote:But this argument applies equally well to there not being a God, why not accept that before the universe there was nothing, just have faith the universe is and that is enough, why the need to attribute it to a supernatural diety? The foundational belief that the universe just is, requires no proof and the regression stops there.

My point is that we both have a foundational epistemology. The difference is that I name the foundation of my epistemology. You think backwards untill you can't come up with anything else, then name that as the foundation, when you're essentially saying either the universe is eternal (not really tenable) or that you're going on faith that "someting was there, but it wasn't God" which seems close-minded.

heavycola wrote:Natural selection accounts for complexity. Evolution is not based on blind chance at all.

Once a mutation exists, natural selection helps solidify it. But how does the mutation begin? Random chance. By the way, what empirical evidence do we have (and by empiracal, I include observable) that macro mutations are beneficiant? I haven't seen anything like that, and I wonder if it exists.

heavycola wrote:Stephen Hawking and his quantum cosmololgist robot buddies believe that quantum effects - like subatomic particles apearing to wink in and out of existence - might be able to explain the universe, which was at the point of the big bang a singularity, an object of infinite density and subatomic volume. It is a theory that provides within the universe itself the reasons for its own existence.

Where did the object of infinite density and subatomic volume come from?

Bertros Bertros wrote:deep down you know you could do that anyway with or without your religion, if not without your faith

I know I COULD do it, but I also know I WOULDN'T do it. And there is a huge difference.

Mirak wrote:Knowing that you don't know is not helpful?!
It is much more helpful and constructive than to blindly follow with no ration, logic or common sense.
We would still be living on a pancake with everything revolving around us, burning people alive if some people had not been skeptical about the "word of God"

I'm not saying an attitude of skepticism isn't helpful, I'm saying an attitude of skepticism unwiling to take a position on anything isn't helpful. You seem content to question other's positions without laying out your own.
As for the belief in God impacting scientific advancement, check out the religious beliefs of scientists that published before 1850. Guess what, the vast majority believe in the existence of God. That includes Newton, Galileo, and Descartes.(vt) So don't give me this "The church opposes scientific progress" hogwash. Know why we stopped burning people alive? It's called the Reformation, and it was based on understanding what the Bible actually said rather than what the church said the bible said. So, read it for yourself!

Where did the object of infinite density and subatomic volume come from?

Where did god come from?

Your question is meaningless - 'coming from' implies movement in time and space. Both came into existence with the universe.

I am not a scientist, but Stephen Hawking is. I do not fully understand his theory, but it suggests that the universe may be its own cause. Occam's razor tells us that such a theory should be considered more reasonable than one that requires the additional existence of a supremely powerful intelligence.

Evolution, by the way, explains the existence of every living thing on this planet. Creationism/ID is not a valid theory in ANY respect at all. I am done arguing about it, jay rather did my nut in with his creationist ravings...

Ok first up... Nate, I was very careful to include that you had not personally attributed higher morals to religous persons than non-believers. I wouldn't expect that of you, but it is inferred by others of faith, which is what rubs me up the wrong way.

The point of highlighting God's morals in the OT was not to compare to my own. There is no need for this, God's behaviour according to OT scripture is off the scale immoral to any reasonable modern person. It was to highlight the high improbablity of us recieving our morals from God as they are so different from his. If the argument is we cannot comprehend God's holiness and therefore what is moral to him appears immoral to me, its seems very strange that the morals instilled in man (made in God's image?) are not the same as his own.

Why should I sacrifice my life for someone else? That enhances someone elses genetic pool at my expense. Why should we value life past childbearing age? Why not use them as test dummies for the advancement of the race as a whole? This is somewhat revolting, but that's where morality by natural selection leaves us.

This is wrong. Firstly the point of symbiosis (or reciprocal altruity in a moral sense) amongst animals is not to further the genes of the other, but rather their own, the benefit to the other person is a side effect they get because the relationship is reciprocal. Its not the case that everything must further only my genes to be due to Darwinian reasons, it must further my genes, but that doesn't mean it can't further others too, as long as it furthers mine.

The key to undserstandsing this in terms of advanced human morals was my last sentence in that the cognitive awareness available to humans allows us to take the raw material of morality from our evolution and develop this into a set of morals. Some of these are inherent in every individual, some are developed as part of individuality, my point is the raw material comes from the simple altruism shown in animals but is far more complicated in humans.

My point is that we both have a foundational epistemology. The difference is that I name the foundation of my epistemology. You think backwards untill you can't come up with anything else, then name that as the foundation, when you're essentially saying either the universe is eternal (not really tenable) or that you're going on faith that "someting was there, but it wasn't God" which seems close-minded

I can't see the difference here. They are the same thing. You work backwards one step further than me, thats all. To be flippant I could say you "came up" with one further step, thats all...

Where did the object of infinite density and subatomic volume come from?

Isn't this just the same old who made the maker argument? Its still an infinite regression. The point is you are taking it a step further. If heavycola needs to answer that you equally need to answer who created God?

heavycola wrote:Where did god come from?

God by definition is eternally existant and entirely self sufficiant. The universe is not, which is why I keep asking the question.

heavycola wrote:I am not a scientist, but Stephen Hawking is. I do not fully understand his theory, but it suggests that the universe may be its own cause. Occam's razor tells us that such a theory should be considered more reasonable than one that requires the additional existence of a supremely powerful intelligence.

Occams razor also tells us that man should have risen complete in an instant from the dust, and you seem to disregard it there, so I feel free to respond in kind.

heavycola wrote: Creationism/ID is not a valid theory in ANY respect at all. I am done arguing about it, jay rather did my nut in with his creationist ravings...

ID isn't a valid theory why? because it's not published in scholarly journals. Why won't they publish it in scholarly journals? it's not a valid theory. I think this means I win by default, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

Bertros Bertros wrote:If the argument is we cannot comprehend God's holiness and therefore what is moral to him appears immoral to me, its seems very strange that the morals instilled in man (made in God's image?) are not the same as his own.

You're forgetting that I believe man is fallen. So at some point after God instilled morality in humanity, man chose a path which warped his view. Man still has a moral sense, it's just warped.

Bertros Bertros wrote:The key to undserstandsing this in terms of advanced human morals was my last sentence in that the cognitive awareness available to humans allows us to take the raw material of morality from our evolution and develop this into a set of morals. Some of these are inherent in every individual,

So complex morality emerges with sentience? I'm asking for the evolutionary advantage of such a complex morality, and you're telling me it's there.

You're forgetting that I believe man is fallen. So at some point after God instilled morality in humanity, man chose a path which warped his view. Man still has a moral sense, it's just warped.

Ok so my, no our, sense of morals is warped? My head hurts trying to get it round that. I got my morals from someone with higher morals than me, that I, and probably most people if they look objectively at it, find unacceptable for themselves, but thats because our morals are warped?

Twisted would be a better word

So complex morality emerges with sentience? I'm asking for the evolutionary advantage of such a complex morality, and you're telling me it's there

Are you being a wee bit obtuse, Mr Nate? Your assuming that to accept natural selection and evolution every characteristic exhibited must be observed as of advantage of the organism in question, otherwise it is entirely invalidated?

Of course not, some characteristics will be misfires in evolution, failed pathways if you like. Maybe religion will turn out to be one of these...

Others will be side effects of other beneficial adaptations. In this instance sentience has definite evolutionary advantages and the development of advanced morality is a realistic side effect. And a wonderful one at that.