See More #84 - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 5, 2006

RE: See More #84

Date: Apr 5, 2006

Atheist wrote:

Hey, Guardian Eagle. Jump right in, the water is fine. Everyone has been very respectful. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Thanks for the invitation, but StillAnEagle says it quite well. I'll remain in the choir.

Date: Apr 5, 2006

Atheist wrote:

Interesting belief your have there, Coast Resident. Why would atheist want to kill a supernatural being they don't think exists? To me that is like saying they want to kill the Easter Bunny. It just doesn't compute. I guess I really don't understand what you are saying. If you have time, please explain to me what you mean.

The atheist is not trying to kill supernatural beings they don't think exists. The atheist is trying to kill the idea, the belief in a supernatural being or beings. The atheist is trying to kill the believer, perhaps not literally, however I believe Stalin and Mao both killed their share of believers in support of the atheistic doctrine of Marxist communism. And I know that not all atheist are communist (i.e. Ann Ryand).

Date: Apr 5, 2006

Atheist wrote:

Why would atheist want to kill a supernatural being they don't think exists?

Seems like everybody around here (including Atheist) thinks the plural of "atheist" is "atheist" instead of "atheists." Was I absent the day we learned that? Are there no purist

to help me out here?

Date: Apr 5, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

Atheist wrote: Interesting belief your have there, Coast Resident. Why would atheist want to kill a supernatural being they don't think exists? To me that is like saying they want to kill the Easter Bunny. It just doesn't compute. I guess I really don't understand what you are saying. If you have time, please explain to me what you mean.

The atheist is not trying to kill supernatural beings they don't think exists. The atheist is trying to kill the idea, the belief in a supernatural being or beings. The atheist is trying to kill the believer, perhaps not literally, however I believe Stalin and Mao both killed their share of believers in support of the atheistic doctrine of Marxist communism. And I know that not all atheist are communist (i.e. Ann Ryand).

O.K. Coast Resident. You were speaking figuratively and not very precisely. You make it sound bad the way you spin it. I could say whenever we debate an idea we are "trying to kill another's idea". That makes thinking and talking sound evil. Why not just say the atheist is searching for the truth? Just because that sounds good doesn't mean it isn't true.

The actions of Stalin and Mao had little to do with atheism. Why didn't you use Hitler, a theist, as an example? At least some of his actions with the Jews were religiously motivated. But I rather not engage in this "spin" type discussions.

The issue was some theist believe their religion orders them to kill those who don't believe as they do. I showed how this will always be a problem for those who believe in the supernatural. I rather discuss this without spin and figurative speech because it provides a better chance of finding truth.

Date: Apr 5, 2006

Atheist wrote:

You missed the point, StillAnEagle. You are just saying what you believe. In doing so you imply it is legitimate for you to believe in the supernatural. So it is alright for others to believe in the supernatural. But their beliefs are different from yours and for them God can command them to kill, just as he told Abraham to kill his son. So it is necessary that they follow their belief system as you do yours. Even Christians do this, for example, when they bomb abortion clinics, etc. These belief systems are dangerous because some people in any group will be mentally ill and think God is speaking to them. For us atheist all of this is unnecessary nonsense that leads to destruction.

It is hardwired into us by our creator to believe in the supernatural. There is something deep inside us that tells us that we have a supernatural creator. If this were not the case, athiests would be the norm and Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, et al. would be in the minority. Now, we all have the right to believe in a god, because God gave us that right (free will). As for God telling you to kill someone ala abortion clinic bombings, Jim Jones, David Koresh, the freaks who carry God Hates Fags signs, they often are mentally ill and are responsible for their actions, not God. Christians must always test their thoughts about what they think God is leading them to do against His word. If it conflicts with the Bible, it isn't God leading them and this kind of behavior is certainly in conflict with God's Word. So, I agree with you that this is unnecessary nonsense that leads to destruction.

If there was evidence for these belief systems then the true system or existence of God could be discovered. But there is no objective evidence for the supernatural so we have to put up with people killing one another. I don't think everyone has a right to believe, without evidence, anything they chose because it is too dangerous. People must defend their beliefs with evidence.

     A few months ago, my Sunday school class invited a guest speaker to lead us in an 8-week study of apologetics-the practice of defending the Christian faith against those who raise objections to its validity. I certainly couldn’t remember everything that he taught us but I remembered a couple of the websites that he referenced. As a result, I have to preface this post with the admission that these are not my original thoughts or words but paraphrases and direct quotes from sources on apologetics. With that said….There are two basic arguments for God’s existence: The Teleological Argument, and the Cosmological Argument. I will do my best to summarize both. The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern.

     The argument is as follows:

1.      Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.

2.      The universe resembles human artifacts.

3.      Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.

4.      But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.

5.      Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

    The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work there must be many different convergent parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. It is only in the combined total do they exhibit their total function.   This function is by design. Evolutionists have difficulty accounting for apparent design in objects like the eye, the heart, and the brain where many different parts come together to form the whole. These individual parts have no purpose except in the function of the whole. How can evolution account for these detailed congruent occurrences? So far, it can't.

     The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
     The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below.

Things exist.

It is possible for those things to not exist.

Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.

A.     Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical.

There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.

Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.

Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.

Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.

The uncaused cause must be God.

     Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.

Now, I realize that this isn’t proof that God exists. These are only theories or arguments for God’s existence. It is evidence that God exists, but it is not irrefutable. I can’t prove that God exists, yet I believe He exists based on my understanding of the extant evidence. Also, I freely admit that I don’t have all the answers. I have resolved that fact in my heart and mind and accepted it. That is why the term faith is used in reference to religion and belief in God. However, it takes faith to believe in lots of things that the world accepts. Evolution is only a theory. It can’t be proven. There are bits and pieces of evidence and support for the theory that have been pieced together and accepted as truth.

I know this probably opened more cans of worms than there is bandwidth to handle, but I was simply trying to respond to your questions and comments. Take care and God Bless.

Date: Apr 6, 2006

StillAnEagle wrote:

Thanks for responding, StillAnEagle.

It is hardwired into us by our creator to believe in the supernatural. There is something deep inside us that tells us that we have a supernatural creator. If this were not the case, athiests would be the norm and Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, et al. would be in the minority.

I disagree with this statement. We are born into the world atheists, the defrault position. The culture we are born into introduces the belief or nonbelief syetem. It isn't "hardwired" at all. That is an important point that these religions can't all be true, but they can all be wrong. Budhists don't even believe in god and can be considered a philosophy. You believe all religions are wrong except youre. So I just think one more religion is wrong than you do.

Also there is no evidence of the supernatural. In fact it is even difficult to define. Most definitions just lead to "what we don't know yet".

Now, we all have the right to believe in a god, because God gave us that right (free will). As for God telling you to kill someone ala abortion clinic bombings, Jim Jones, David Koresh, the freaks who carry God Hates Fags signs, they often are mentally ill and are responsible for their actions, not God.

But now all you are doing is talking about your beliefs, not facts or reality. I showed how belief in the supernatural is dangerous. For example, how do you know that God didn't tell a Christian to bomb an abortion clinic? I understand it doesn't fit into your belief system, but it does fit into other belief systems. So you are only repeating what your religion tells you, you don't know this as a fact.

Christians must always test their thoughts about what they think God is leading them to do against His word. If it conflicts with the Bible, it isn't God leading them and this kind of behavior is certainly in conflict with God's Word. So, I agree with you that this is unnecessary nonsense that leads to destruction.

Whose's interpretation of the Bible. What about the Koran and other text

With that said….There are two basic arguments for God’s existence: The Teleological Argument, and the Cosmological Argument.

These are old arguments and have been shown by philosophers not to be valid. You admit to this below when you say,

"These are only theories or arguments for God’s existence. It is evidence that God exists, but it is not irrefutable. I can’t prove that God exists, yet I believe He exists based on my understanding of the extant evidence."

An invalid argument is not evidence.

I will do my best to summarize both. The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern. The argument is as follows: 1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. 2. The universe resembles human artifacts. 3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. 4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts. 5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe. The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work there must be many different convergent parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. It is only in the combined total do they exhibit their total function. This function is by design. Evolutionists have difficulty accounting for apparent design in objects like the eye, the heart, and the brain where many different parts come together to form the whole. These individual parts have no purpose except in the function of the whole. How can evolution account for these detailed congruent occurrences? So far, it can't. The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God. The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below. Things exist. It is possible for those things to not exist. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. A. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. The uncaused cause must be God. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God. Now, I realize that this isn’t proof that God exists. These are only theories or arguments for God’s existence. It is evidence that God exists, but it is not irrefutable. I can’t prove that God exists, yet I believe He exists based on my understanding of the extant evidence. Also, I freely admit that I don’t have all the answers. I have resolved that fact in my heart and mind and accepted it. That is why the term faith is used in reference to religion and belief in God. However, it takes faith to believe in lots of things that the world accepts. Evolution is only a theory. It can’t be proven.

I'm too tired to respond to this error, again.

There are bits and pieces of evidence and support for the theory that have been pieced together and accepted as truth. I know this probably opened more cans of worms than there is bandwidth to handle, but I was simply trying to respond to your questions and comments. Take care and God Bless.

Again, you use the word evidence in a nonscientific sense. That is why after all you write you admit you just chose to believe what you local culture told you.

In science you can learn that there are "uncaused" events and particles poping into and out of existence. These are discussed in the field of Quantum Mechanics. The arguments you gave above was from apologetics and only impress those that already believe. These are not the reasons people believe. As I said above people's culture provides that.