“portal is delusional” – He’s 25, Paul, that pretty much says it all – let him get another 20 years of life under his belt, and he’ll come after Kathy with a ball bat.
Asking, “where did the universe come from?” does not prove god. it doesnt even argue god.
The entire question is based upon a notion that if something is here, then it must have come from somewhere or something else must have made it.
The problem with any answer to that “where did the universe come from” question, is that regardless of the answer, it always poses at least one new question, “where did that thing that brought about the universe come from?”
God answers the universe origin question no better than spontaneous appearance or eternal matter or anything else.
– If existence means that the thing that exists needs a creator, then either god was created by something(s) or god doesn’t exist.
– if god should be exempted from that reasoning, then couldnt something else also be exempted?
And i dont think this can be tossed aside as easily as saying “you must weigh the evidences…” because
1) it appears that you arent very familiar with all the evidence.
2) arriving at a creator is not the same as arriving at the god of the bible.
most of us here were once believers. Devout believers who taught classes, preached the occasional sermon, studied our bibles and prayed daily. We meditated on the finer points of the scriptures and what it meant to be a true disciple of christ.
We used to overlook the problems of the bible by creating “bridges” or “excuses” for them. we rationalized such cover ups by thinking the ability to do so meant we were becoming wiser and more knowledgeable in god’s word.
so in a very real way, i sympathize with you. You’re standing for what you think is right.
once upon a time I wouldnt have dared to question the bible. It was right; the only thing I was certain of was the bible was god’s complete inspired word and direction for our lives. It took a lot to finally ask, “what if,” but once I did it became clear. It was like waking up out of the matrix – I didnt have to make excuses any more. I didnt have to bridge over any discrepancy or create ways that contradictions werent really contradictions.
But this transition did not begin with asking if the bible was true, but by asking if my denomination was really the one true version. asking my friends to reconsider their position on religion in order to see the truth of mine was only fair if I was willing to do the same thing. These discussions werent about winning an argument, but in discovering the truth and having the courage to part with current beliefs if that’s where the truth led.
Have you ever had religious discussions where you’ve changed your mind, or where you’ve at least questioned your own perspective or understanding?
When I was a christian, I believed baptism was essential for being saved. I believed this based on several passages like 1 pet 3:21 (which says it saves you – doesnt get much clearer), acts 2:38, mk 16:16, gal 3:27, and the 6th chapter of Romans, and others.
If you currently believe that baptism isnt necessary for salvation and you read these verses, would you be as sure? even if you maintain that baptism does not save (even if it’s what puts you into christ, washes away your sins and saves you), can you at least see where some believers would think that?
I am seriously curious as to whether you can have a conversation, where you may not end up agreeing, where you dont resort to assigning negative motivations to the people you disagree with. could you end the conversation with something like, “well, i disagree, but I see what you’re saying. I’ll study it more and hope you do as well.”
William: The problem with any answer to that “where did the universe come from” question, is that regardless of the answer, it always poses at least one new question, “where did that thing that brought about the universe come from?”
This goes along with a theory I’ve had for quite some time.
When we contemplate who we are and why we’re here, we naturally think in terms of cause and effect because this is our experience in life. But who’s to say this is actually what is happening? Maybe it all falls under the saying: “It is what it is.”
Along these same lines is our concept of time. We believe there is a past, present, and future. But Albert Einstein said: ” … the distinction between the past, the present and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
Of course, we all know the “Bible” teaches there is a creator and Kathy stands firm that our existence “proves” this. But in matters of the unknown, I like to think in terms of “what if?”
“But Albert Einstein said: ” … the distinction between the past, the present and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”” – nan
I am curious about time. I tend to think it’s not an illusion but only for the simple reason that once an event has happened or once something has been done – it has happened and it has been done… meaning those things cant be erased from existence.
like, you can turn the TV on, and then decide to turn the TV off, but can you make it to where the TV was never turned on in the first place?
I realize there is more to time than I realize and I am fascinated at how time and space interconnect and how both can be manipulated by gravity and speed – I just dont know enough to comment much more on the subject.
But does time argue a need for perpetual cause and effect in every event? I dont know that either.
… once an event has happened or once something has been done – it has happened and it has been done… meaning those things cant be erased from existence.–William
From the website: “A person who goes to an event but falls asleep would have no recollection of it as if the event did not exist in his past. Unless we are consciously aware of an event it does not seem to enter our past memory.”
The section under “Block Universe” is especially interesting.
” I didnt have to bridge over any discrepancy or create ways that contradictions werent really contradictions.”
What contradictions William? Which ones trouble you the most? (you can give me a long long list, which I expect.. but I dont’ have time to address all of them, so in advance, please choose a few of the most troubling).
And you haven’t read all my comments.. that’s ok, perfectly understandable, but several times
I’ve acknowledge when others have made a good point. I’ve said numerous times
that it’s understandable to question God’s existence when we see the horrible things going on all around us. It seems that you only see one side of me. I don’t make negative accusations against anyone without the reasons accompanying them. This is so I can substantiate my claim and ALSO so you/ they can defend yourselves.. I may be wrong.. and regardless of what you believe, I want to be wrong.. I don’t want to believe you all lack objectivity. I WANT you to have objectivity! That’s pretty much what I’m trying to do here.
Also, I still plan to address your earlier points and Dave’s too..
I could make a long list, why dont we start here on nate’s blog? he has many things he has written about that also trouble me. why dont you peruse his blog list and pick the one you’d like to discuss?
The things currently on my mind would be things like the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7, the differences in the gospel accounts, the issues with Matthew 24 and the book of daniel…
and again, all these issues that I have seen made me realize that a faith in the bible is only faith in man – as it was man who wrote the bible and those men told us about god. if we believe in the god they speak of, it’s only because they spoke of him and not because of god.
but as for us not being objective in your eyes, i guess that’s fair. I think you’re not either, which is not a slight, but my observation and it is also said as to make the point that saying someone is unobjective usually doesnt help the conversation.
You keep using the work liberal too. One, I’m not liberal and two, i dont necessarily thing all liberal thinking is bad,and 3) I’m still not clear on how you use the term, and 4) you’re clearly using the term as a negative – so if you call me something I am not as a way to discount what I say, then i certainly wont be swayed by that.
it would be like me rejecting what you say because I think you belong to a murderous cult member. If you werent in a murderous cult by any stretch of the imagination, then would you think I’m being objective in calling you that, or would you listen to me less because I’m obviously talking about things I really don’t know about?
now, if you say I’m not being objective, you’ll have to point that out to me in detail please.
oh, jeeezzzuuuussss! don’t fall for it, I’ve heard that before, too.
@Kathy I don’t make negative accusations against anyone without the reasons accompanying them.
yes you do, liar, you do it all of the time, it’s right here for all to see. you have accused pretty much every one here of being dishonest, when no one has been dishonest.
everyone here has objectivity Kathy, you’re just too goddamn stupid to see it.
William, even if you give here a short list, she’s not going to answer. but go ahead.
“From the website: “A person who goes to an event but falls asleep would have no recollection of it as if the event did not exist in his past. Unless we are consciously aware of an event it does not seem to enter our past memory.”” – nan
but our memory of an even and the event itself are different, yes?
When we contemplate who we are and why we’re here, we naturally think in terms of cause and effect because this is our experience in life. But who’s to say this is actually what is happening? Maybe it all falls under the saying: “It is what it is.”
I agree with your statement on cause and effect Nan. There are so many unknowns right now in quantum theory, cosmology and physics it really is silly to isolate one of them and claim to know something about it, especially when it’s purely for religious purposes.
Wow, Dave! That’s quite a list! When one looks at it in black and white, it’s pretty mind-boggling how much we don’t know. And I agree that it’s ridiculous for religion (any religion) to try and present themselves as having all the answers.
William, if you’re able to carry on an intelligent conversation with Kathy over the issues you brought up, you will indeed be in line for a Special Award by all of us on Nate’s blog!
I don’t want to believe you all lack objectivity. I WANT you to have objectivity!
I don’t think anyone can be truly objective. If we removed all of our biases we wouldn’t be a human anymore, we’d be a robot. But, that’s just my subjective opinion.
I don’t think anyone can be truly objective. If we removed all of our biases we wouldn’t be a human anymore, we’d be a robot. But, that’s just my subjective opinion.
faith in the bible is only faith in man – as it was man who wrote the bible and those men told us about god. if we believe in the god they speak of, it’s only because they spoke of him and not because of god. – William
I think we need a statement like this going across the top of Nate’s blog – like a stock index ticker or something.
Finding Truth 
This was Nate’s Post on July 2nd. Is this the one you are referring to ?
EZEKIEL’S PROPHECY OF ISRAEL’S RESTORATION
Yes! Thank you, kc.
Good god, have we really been at this this long??? We all need to have our heads examined!
LikeLike
“portal is delusional” – He’s 25, Paul, that pretty much says it all – let him get another 20 years of life under his belt, and he’ll come after Kathy with a ball bat.
LikeLike
Kathy,
Asking, “where did the universe come from?” does not prove god. it doesnt even argue god.
The entire question is based upon a notion that if something is here, then it must have come from somewhere or something else must have made it.
The problem with any answer to that “where did the universe come from” question, is that regardless of the answer, it always poses at least one new question, “where did that thing that brought about the universe come from?”
God answers the universe origin question no better than spontaneous appearance or eternal matter or anything else.
– If existence means that the thing that exists needs a creator, then either god was created by something(s) or god doesn’t exist.
– if god should be exempted from that reasoning, then couldnt something else also be exempted?
And i dont think this can be tossed aside as easily as saying “you must weigh the evidences…” because
1) it appears that you arent very familiar with all the evidence.
2) arriving at a creator is not the same as arriving at the god of the bible.
LikeLike
“Good god, have we really been at this this long???”
I’ve come to think of it as my online Cheers, where everybody knows your name —
OK – all together now – NORM!!
LikeLike
She likely won’t drag herself out of bed for another hour or so, William.
LikeLike
Kathy,
most of us here were once believers. Devout believers who taught classes, preached the occasional sermon, studied our bibles and prayed daily. We meditated on the finer points of the scriptures and what it meant to be a true disciple of christ.
We used to overlook the problems of the bible by creating “bridges” or “excuses” for them. we rationalized such cover ups by thinking the ability to do so meant we were becoming wiser and more knowledgeable in god’s word.
so in a very real way, i sympathize with you. You’re standing for what you think is right.
once upon a time I wouldnt have dared to question the bible. It was right; the only thing I was certain of was the bible was god’s complete inspired word and direction for our lives. It took a lot to finally ask, “what if,” but once I did it became clear. It was like waking up out of the matrix – I didnt have to make excuses any more. I didnt have to bridge over any discrepancy or create ways that contradictions werent really contradictions.
But this transition did not begin with asking if the bible was true, but by asking if my denomination was really the one true version. asking my friends to reconsider their position on religion in order to see the truth of mine was only fair if I was willing to do the same thing. These discussions werent about winning an argument, but in discovering the truth and having the courage to part with current beliefs if that’s where the truth led.
Have you ever had religious discussions where you’ve changed your mind, or where you’ve at least questioned your own perspective or understanding?
When I was a christian, I believed baptism was essential for being saved. I believed this based on several passages like 1 pet 3:21 (which says it saves you – doesnt get much clearer), acts 2:38, mk 16:16, gal 3:27, and the 6th chapter of Romans, and others.
If you currently believe that baptism isnt necessary for salvation and you read these verses, would you be as sure? even if you maintain that baptism does not save (even if it’s what puts you into christ, washes away your sins and saves you), can you at least see where some believers would think that?
I am seriously curious as to whether you can have a conversation, where you may not end up agreeing, where you dont resort to assigning negative motivations to the people you disagree with. could you end the conversation with something like, “well, i disagree, but I see what you’re saying. I’ll study it more and hope you do as well.”
would you mind responding to that?
LikeLike
William: The problem with any answer to that “where did the universe come from” question, is that regardless of the answer, it always poses at least one new question, “where did that thing that brought about the universe come from?”
This goes along with a theory I’ve had for quite some time.
When we contemplate who we are and why we’re here, we naturally think in terms of cause and effect because this is our experience in life. But who’s to say this is actually what is happening? Maybe it all falls under the saying: “It is what it is.”
Along these same lines is our concept of time. We believe there is a past, present, and future. But Albert Einstein said: ” … the distinction between the past, the present and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
Of course, we all know the “Bible” teaches there is a creator and Kathy stands firm that our existence “proves” this. But in matters of the unknown, I like to think in terms of “what if?”
LikeLike
“But Albert Einstein said: ” … the distinction between the past, the present and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”” – nan
I am curious about time. I tend to think it’s not an illusion but only for the simple reason that once an event has happened or once something has been done – it has happened and it has been done… meaning those things cant be erased from existence.
like, you can turn the TV on, and then decide to turn the TV off, but can you make it to where the TV was never turned on in the first place?
I realize there is more to time than I realize and I am fascinated at how time and space interconnect and how both can be manipulated by gravity and speed – I just dont know enough to comment much more on the subject.
But does time argue a need for perpetual cause and effect in every event? I dont know that either.
LikeLike
… once an event has happened or once something has been done – it has happened and it has been done… meaning those things cant be erased from existence.–William
But what is existence?
Here’s an interesting website that talks about time: http://www.timephysics.com/
From the website: “A person who goes to an event but falls asleep would have no recollection of it as if the event did not exist in his past. Unless we are consciously aware of an event it does not seem to enter our past memory.”
The section under “Block Universe” is especially interesting.
LikeLike
William,
” I didnt have to bridge over any discrepancy or create ways that contradictions werent really contradictions.”
What contradictions William? Which ones trouble you the most? (you can give me a long long list, which I expect.. but I dont’ have time to address all of them, so in advance, please choose a few of the most troubling).
And you haven’t read all my comments.. that’s ok, perfectly understandable, but several times
I’ve acknowledge when others have made a good point. I’ve said numerous times
that it’s understandable to question God’s existence when we see the horrible things going on all around us. It seems that you only see one side of me. I don’t make negative accusations against anyone without the reasons accompanying them. This is so I can substantiate my claim and ALSO so you/ they can defend yourselves.. I may be wrong.. and regardless of what you believe, I want to be wrong.. I don’t want to believe you all lack objectivity. I WANT you to have objectivity! That’s pretty much what I’m trying to do here.
Also, I still plan to address your earlier points and Dave’s too..
LikeLike
Kathy, that’s cool.
I could make a long list, why dont we start here on nate’s blog? he has many things he has written about that also trouble me. why dont you peruse his blog list and pick the one you’d like to discuss?
The things currently on my mind would be things like the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7, the differences in the gospel accounts, the issues with Matthew 24 and the book of daniel…
and again, all these issues that I have seen made me realize that a faith in the bible is only faith in man – as it was man who wrote the bible and those men told us about god. if we believe in the god they speak of, it’s only because they spoke of him and not because of god.
but as for us not being objective in your eyes, i guess that’s fair. I think you’re not either, which is not a slight, but my observation and it is also said as to make the point that saying someone is unobjective usually doesnt help the conversation.
You keep using the work liberal too. One, I’m not liberal and two, i dont necessarily thing all liberal thinking is bad,and 3) I’m still not clear on how you use the term, and 4) you’re clearly using the term as a negative – so if you call me something I am not as a way to discount what I say, then i certainly wont be swayed by that.
it would be like me rejecting what you say because I think you belong to a murderous cult member. If you werent in a murderous cult by any stretch of the imagination, then would you think I’m being objective in calling you that, or would you listen to me less because I’m obviously talking about things I really don’t know about?
now, if you say I’m not being objective, you’ll have to point that out to me in detail please.
LikeLike
oh, jeeezzzuuuussss! don’t fall for it, I’ve heard that before, too.
@Kathy I don’t make negative accusations against anyone without the reasons accompanying them.
yes you do, liar, you do it all of the time, it’s right here for all to see. you have accused pretty much every one here of being dishonest, when no one has been dishonest.
everyone here has objectivity Kathy, you’re just too goddamn stupid to see it.
William, even if you give here a short list, she’s not going to answer. but go ahead.
LikeLike
“From the website: “A person who goes to an event but falls asleep would have no recollection of it as if the event did not exist in his past. Unless we are consciously aware of an event it does not seem to enter our past memory.”” – nan
but our memory of an even and the event itself are different, yes?
I’ll checkout your link, thanks.
LikeLike
I agree with your statement on cause and effect Nan. There are so many unknowns right now in quantum theory, cosmology and physics it really is silly to isolate one of them and claim to know something about it, especially when it’s purely for religious purposes.
LikeLike
Wow, Dave! That’s quite a list! When one looks at it in black and white, it’s pretty mind-boggling how much we don’t know. And I agree that it’s ridiculous for religion (any religion) to try and present themselves as having all the answers.
William, if you’re able to carry on an intelligent conversation with Kathy over the issues you brought up, you will indeed be in line for a Special Award by all of us on Nate’s blog!
LikeLike
This website has a neat visual showing contradictions in the Bible. Someone had a lot of time on their hands, more than I would be willing to spend.
LikeLike
“but our memory of an even and the event itself are different, yes? ”
Do events even really exist? 🙂
LikeLike
Dave, I thought of asking the very same question. We must think alike on this topic. 😉
LikeLike
Just for Kathy:
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone can be truly objective. If we removed all of our biases we wouldn’t be a human anymore, we’d be a robot. But, that’s just my subjective opinion.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone can be truly objective. If we removed all of our biases we wouldn’t be a human anymore, we’d be a robot. But, that’s just my subjective opinion.
Opinions about objectivity are subjective.
LikeLike
Right on schedule! Up at the crack of three!
LikeLike
I think we need a statement like this going across the top of Nate’s blog – like a stock index ticker or something.
LikeLike
And your opinion about opinions is subjective 🙂 lol
LikeLike
And your opinion about opinions is subjective
As the old saying goes: opinions are like….
LikeLike