.....

Quote:

---

If I had to guess, even though I can’t prove a Creator exists, I know there’s gotta be a Creator, cause I exist.

---

so what created the creator? and what created that and so on....sorry im just trying to follow what you seem to call "logic"??

Quote:

---

Our past and future are captured by our imaginations. Scientists and mathematicians imagine the universe was created 15 billion years ago. And really, given the limitations of the Genesis account, I don’t see any real reason to dispute that. It’s an observable truth. Can it be reproduced in a lab? No. But if they had to guess based on the info they gathered, they’d say it appears about 15 billion years.

---

the reason the bible is in contradiction of that is because......

Quote:

---

Biblical Age of Earth

by David V. Bassett, M.S.

Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.

From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.

From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.

From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.

Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.

From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].

The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.

Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !! Mankind did not evolve 4 million years ago on an Earth which is 4.5 billion years old in a universe which was "big-banged" into existence 18-20 billion years in the distant past. Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate, said He made mankind male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6), and that when the heavens and the earth were commanded into being (Gen 1:1), they "stood up together" (Isa 48:13) not billions of years apart !!

www.creationevidence.org

---

what a joke.

Quote:

---

If I had to guess, I’d say that even though I don’t see the pattern in PI, I know there’s gotta be a pattern there, cause I can draw a circle.

---

that means NOTHING...i told you already, you are not drawing a circle, you are drawing as close as you can come to a perfect circle, and without pi you wont.

and there have been a few experiments in laboratories replicating the origins of life....

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

Quote:

---

How does Science explain the effects of music on the human being?

---

actually music is very much like religion, its a natural phenomenon. something that humans were bound to develop to get along better and it has helped our evolution...both music and religion....but we dont kill over music like we do over religion, and music doesnt claim false truths.

Quote:

---

It tells me God’s got a law written on your heart. Something science cannot yet explain, but the Apostle Paul communicated quite well.

It's the Spirit of Christ.

---

and that is just fuckin pathetically pretentious! i will allow you to assume that there is a god, but out of the millions we have invented, what makes you think, the god depicted in the bible is the right one?

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully...

why would you believe that such a being exists, let alone loves us? and even if it did, why would you worship him? would you praise hitler just because you lived in germany at that time???

so what created the creator? and what created that and so on....sorry im just trying to follow what you seem to call "logic"??


There can only be one Creator of all created things. To observe that… yeah, that’s science.

To say there is no God, well, no offense, is for the unintelligent. They can’t understand, so they just don’t acknowledge it… just kind of mask it over and pretend it (or we) don’t exist. You have no foundations to stand on if you don’t acknowledge the Creator.

Their hearts have become dull, and their ears hard of hearing, and they have closed their eyes, so that they would not see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn, and God would heal them.


what a joke


missed the point entirely. You want to strain gnats over the past, and the future, because it leaves room for image. But Truth is Truth.
What is the authorial intent of the book of Genesis?
Creation?
No.
Judaism?
No.
Jesus?
BINGO!!!


and there have been a few experiments in laboratories replicating the origins of life....

No fair! You gotta create your own dirt to start!

Why is there something rather than nothing?


actually music is very much like religion, its a natural phenomenon. something that humans were bound to develop to get along better and it has helped our evolution...both music and religion....but we dont kill over music like we do over religion, and music doesnt claim false truths.


I’ve always kind of tripped on how music controls the emotions. I’ll admit music doesn’t cause wars like the Faith, But I used to be just kind of all around angry when Rage’s Bombtrack came out.

Here’s a thought; There are many things in life that modern science has yet to explain.

What if one used the Genesis account as a hypothesis. Actually, wait. The Genesis account is just overexploited and just pretty well argued to jots and tittles. I’m tired of it. I need new material. so for the sake of non-argument;

What if one used the John account of creation as a hypothesis? Using scientific method , would the John account of Creation be compatible with the creation account adopted by the non-believing scientific community (big bang, evolution, etc)?


what makes you think, the god depicted in the bible is the right one?


The Bible.

Like the one guy said, I need to grow up and take responsibility for my own destiny.
I can read. I got the scrolls, just like the Preachers do. I don’t want to knock the Preachers, cause I love them all to death (even the just say no junkie ones). There are many well educated theologians whom I hold in high regards.

But the Churches that I attend are so caught up in the details, that they forgot the “circle”, the “big picture”, the first principles of Love, Mercy, and Grace, that our Lord exemplifies. I kinda need to make sure people know Churches aren’t perfect, but we still try to do good. Someday, someday soon, Churches won’t browbeat people for smoking pot.

I saw on that web link you offered me (pretty cool, I like stuff like that it keeps me sharp) that there is a “trial and error” test for prayer. More than the stars, man.

The Bible makes me believe the God of the Bible is True. That’s why it’s put together the way it is. But thinking more about it, life makes me know the God of the Bible is real.

why would you believe that such a being exists, let alone loves us?

Because He didn’t put it on us. He took the form of a man and paid the price Himself. There is no other obvious reason but love.


When you have suffered, you learn to extend mercy. And I don’t mean to be a smart ass, I’m serious.

Just admit it man, your a Christian. You don't have to be ashamed. There's Christian pot smokers who will hang with you if all your Atheist buddys don't want to be seen with you cause your a Christian, you don't have to be ashamed. Pot smokers love Christians, too...

trust me, i dont have "atheist" friends...most people i know dont care either way about religion, but they are smart enough to know the difference between faith and science.

Quote:

---

There can only be one Creator of all created things. To observe that… yeah, that’s science.

---

says who? what is this law based on? that everything has to have a creator, yet that creator never had to be created...that contradicts itself...everything needed a creator except the creator? how convenient.

Quote:

---

To say there is no God, well, no offense, is for the unintelligent. They can’t understand, so they just don’t acknowledge it… just kind of mask it over and pretend it (or we) don’t exist. You have no foundations to stand on if you don’t acknowledge the Creator.

---

...im sorry but your religion does not reflect your intelligence, anymore then your sexual preference. and if you want to get down to it, consider the fact that up until about 1900 no one would ever admit to not believing in a god, and now look at all the atheists or agnostics....

Quote:

---

Abraham Lincoln

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

Albert Einstein

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

-Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist

Aldous Huxley

"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, intelligent enough."

-Aldous Huxley, author "Roots"

Benjamin Franklin

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

Carl Sagan

"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

-Carl Sagan, American astronomer and author

Bertrand Russell

"Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."

"Fear is the parent of cruelty, therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand-in-hand."

"I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."

"I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out."

- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, educator, mathematician, and social critic (1872-1970).

---

here is a whole website of very intelligent successful atheists (http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm)...wait maybe i should get a list of stupid religious people....hmm look at the american prison population...and then all the fundamentalists....the religious will dismiss facts...thats not intelligent.

Quote:

---

missed the point entirely. You want to strain gnats over the past, and the future, because it leaves room for image. But Truth is Truth.
What is the authorial intent of the book of Genesis?

---

.....control?

Quote:

---

Why is there something rather than nothing?

---

Quote:

---

The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", is a good candidate for being philosophy's most profound and disturbing question. Is it not a complete and utter mystery that there should be anything at all? That there should be nothing seems prima facie more plausible than that there should be something in view of the greater simplicity and naturalness of nothingness as compared to somethingness. And yet there is something. In this stimulating and well-written book, Oxford philosopher Bede Rundle tries to make likely that the problem of existence does have a reasonably clear solution and, moreover, that this solution is of a distinctively philosophical, as opposed to a physical or theological, kind.

The first half of the book (chapters 1-4) is an in-depth examination of the theistic belief that the world is because God created it to be. Rundle raises a number of objections to this traditional view, the main point being that it is difficult, if not impossible, to make sense of the notion that God, an immaterial spirit, could cause the world, something material, to exist. Non-theistic views are not seriously considered until section 5.2. There Rundle presents his own positive proposal according to which, although there is no particular being whose existence is necessary, there nonetheless has to be something or other. The suggestion is that it is inconceivable that there should have been literally nothing, a central contention to which I will return in a moment. Once it is conceded that nothingness fails to be a real possibility, the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", obviously ceases to be a living one. In identifying what he takes to be a false presupposition, Rundle claims to have provided a genuinely philosophical answer to the central question of existence.

Rundle proceeds to address the further issue why, given that there must be something, there is what there is. His response is that, if there is anything at all, there must be matter. The alternatives to a material world would be a world of only abstract or only mental entities. Rundle excludes these possibilities for the reason that, in his view, these other entities fail to enjoy sufficient independence of the material world. Hence, not only can we know that there must be something, we can also know that there must be matter. But this is at the same time the place where Rundle sees philosophical speculation coming to an end. The question as to why the material universe is as it is, more specifically, is one which he leaves for physics to answer.

Rundle, to be sure, is not the first philosopher to argue that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", rests on a false presupposition. Peter Van Inwagen (1996) and Derek Parfit (1998a, 1998b, 1998c) have both found reasons to reject the implicit assumption that nothingness, in virtue of its supposed greater simplicity and naturalness, should be considered prima facie more plausible than somethingness. Rather, the novel feature of Rundle's position is that he, more radically, dismisses the notion of nothingness altogether. (are you even reading my whole posts? i doubt that you are!! lol) There is no mention of either Van Inwagen or Parfit in Rundle's book. Other authors who, although they have contributed substantially to the topic, are not addressed include Robert Nozick and Adolf GrŸnbaum.

---

Quote:

---

What if one used the John account of creation as a hypothesis? Using scientific method , would the John account of Creation be compatible with the creation account adopted by the non-believing scientific community (big bang, evolution, etc)?

---

no the bible suggests everything was made the way you see it today, and that it hasnt even been around that long. whereas we know that all living life on this planet evolved through a long changing process of natural selection. read this for a better understanding of what Evolution is.... http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html

Quote:

---

The Bible.

---

but the bible is wrong SOOOOOOO MUCH, and written by man, and it was written thousands of years after the events supposedly took place, and it was all hearsay...why would you take that book serious? there is no logical intelligent reason...the quran says just as much beautiful and accurate stuff as the bible, doesnt make its claims of suupernatural bullshit, and morale dictating any truer.

Quote:

---

Because He didn’t put it on us. He took the form of a man and paid the price Himself. There is no other obvious reason but love.

---

so you do believe that god had himself tortured for all future sins?? why would he go through such an elaborate show? isnt he the perfect being? cant he just say i forgive you? its just so typically human of a story...

Quote:

---

When you have suffered, you learn to extend mercy. And I don’t mean to be a smart ass, I’m serious.

---

so he COULDNT forgive us, until he sent himself down here as a man who only claimed to be his son, then get tortured BY US?

so the paradox "can god make rock so heavy not even he can lift it?" is no longer a paradox, you answered it for us. god is not omnipotent...he cant do whatever he wants...but he can make the earth then destroy it and kill everyhing on it (because he made a mistake mind you) and make his "children" suffer for something called an "eternity" (somehow there is such thing as forever, even though anything after 100 million years would just get redundant and no longer be painfull or too torturous)

come on, grow up and pull the pacifier out of your mouth.

here is another thing completely dedicated to the religious persons favourite false premise....

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘There is nothing’ because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer.

Is there any a priori support for ‘There is nothing’? One might respond with a methodological principle that propels the empty world to the top of the agenda. For instance, many feel that whoever asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof. If an astronomer says there is water at the south pole of the Moon, then it is up to him to provide data in support of the lunar water. If we were not required to have evidence to back our existential claims, then a theorist who fully explained the phenomena with one set of things could gratuitously add an extra entity, say, Atlantis. We recoil from such add-ons. To prevent the intrusion of superfluous entities, one might demand that metaphysicians start with the empty world and admit only those entities that have credentials. This is the regime imposed by Rene Descartes. He clears everything out and then only lets back in what can be proved to exist.

St. Augustine had more conservative counsel: we should not start at the beginning, nor at the end, but where we are, in the middle. We reach a verdict about the existence of controversial things by assessing how well these entities would harmonize with the existence of better established things. If we start from nothing, we lack the bearings needed to navigate forward. Conservatives, coherentists and scientific gradualists all cast a suspicious eye on ‘Why there is something rather than nothing?’.

Most contemporary philosophers feel entitled to postulate whatever entities are indispensable to their best explanations of well accepted phenomena. They feel the presumption of non-existence is only plausible for particular existence claims. Since the presumption only applies on a case by case basis, there is no grand methodological preference for an empty world. Furthermore, there is no burden of proof when everybody concedes the proposition under discussion. Even a solipsist agrees there is at least one thing!

A more popular way to build a presumption in favor of nothingness is to associate nothingness with simplicity and simplicity with likelihood. The first part of this justification is plausible. ‘Nothing exists’ is simple in the sense of being an easy to remember generalization. Consider a test whose questions have the form ‘Does x exist?’. The rule ‘Always answer no!’ is unsurpassably short and comprehensive.

In Les Misérables, Victor Hugo contrasts universal negation with universal affirmation:

All roads are blocked to a philosophy which reduces everything to the word ‘no.’ To ‘no’ there is only one answer and that is ‘yes.’ Nihilism has no substance. There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing. Man lives more by affirmation than by bread. (1862, pt. 2, bk. 7, ch. 6).

As far as simplicity, there is a tie between the nihilistic rule ‘Always answer no!’ and the inflationary rule ‘Always answer yes!’. Neither rule makes for serious metaphysics.

Even if ‘Nothing exists’ were the uniquely simplest possibility (as measured by memorability), why should we expect that possibility to be actual? In a fair lottery, we assign the same probability of winning to the ticket unmemorably designated 6,437,446 as to the ticket memorably labeled 1,111,111.

Indeed, the analogy with a lottery seems to dramatically reverse the presumption of non-existence. If there is only one empty world and many populated worlds, then a random selection would lead us to expect a populated world.

Peter van Inwagen (1996) has nurtured this statistical argument. In an infinite lottery, the chance that a given ticket is the winner is 0. So van Inwagen reasons that since there are infinitely many populated worlds, the probability of a populated world is equal to 1. Although the empty world is not impossible, it is as improbable as anything can be!

For the sake of balanced reporting, van Inwagen should acknowledge that, by his reasoning, the actual world is also as improbable as anything can be. What really counts here is the probability of ‘There is something’ as opposed to ‘There is nothing’.


now hopefully i will stop getting that utterly stupid question.

That’s probably as best as man can do apart from God. So if you believe it, why do you suffer for the righteous cause? Hang with me here a second; Do you see how non-observable and unapplicable it is in life? And it still takes a measure of faith to believe it. Got caught up in the details, didn’t draw the circle. But yeah, that’s about as best that man can do apart from God, and it’s not good enough.


anymore then your sexual preference

I don’t know what that meant, but for the record, I like girls. Christian girls. With dark hair and big breasts. And if I ever find one that smokes pot, I’d probably take her home with me.


cant he just say i forgive you?

That’s what He’s trying to teach us.

Kind of a sidetrack, but; Do you know how all those image Christians want ten commandments posted in front of our courthouses?

There is nothing more non-Christ-like than to put ten commandments in front of a judge. The last place a Christian wants the ten commandments sitting is in front of his judge. The True Christian wants the Cross sitting in front of His Judge. That way He’s thinking on the day Righteousness kissed Mercy.

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. All things were created by Him, and apart from Him was not anything created that has been created. In Him was life, and life is the light of mankind. And that light shines in on the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.


If we start from nothing, we lack the bearings needed to navigate forward.

Even a solipsist agrees there is at least one thing!

Told you you were a Christian!!!

.

Quote:

---

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. All things were created by Him, and apart from Him was not anything created that has been created. In Him was life, and life is the light of mankind. And that light shines in on the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.


If we start from nothing, we lack the bearings needed to navigate forward.

Even a solipsist agrees there is at least one thing!

---

wow...as soon as i flood you with reason and logic, you turn in to a babbling idiot...what you said up there was pure rhetoric...it meant nothing, it was meant to stimulate the mind and sound pretty

Quote:

---

Told you you were a Christian!!!

---

no, just no.

Quote:

---

If we start from nothing, we lack the bearings needed to navigate forward.

---

and what do you even mean here? are you sayong there is no point to do anything if there is no god? are you only good because you are afraid of punishment????

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. All things were created by Him, and apart from Him was not anything created that has been created. In Him was life, and life is the light of mankind. And that light shines in on the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.


That's what the Bible says about Creation. We can observe it in the modern Scientific community.

no, just no

Yes! Yes ! You are!. using your own logic, you must reason that there IS something, and (although you haven't taken us through it yet) the process of elimination will bring you back down to ONE THING.

How the hell scientists can reason it was a piece of matter the size of a dime 15 billion years ago, well,

I can go along with it (and you too), assuming (you too) that the small piece of matter (why do people always try to put God in a box???), that ONE THING, is the WORD. It's God speaking existence into existence.

the assumption that the Bible DENYS evolution is a misguided assumption. We clearly see Man evolve throughout the Old Testament, and also how that ONE THING "Evolved" in His relationship with Man.

We change in our Character, but life, existence... Why do you suffer for the Righteous cause?

how many factors does modern science not include in a simple question like, "do we exist", let alone "why", y'know? ONE THING. It's Jesus. The WORD. The One Creator of all created things.


The assumption that the Bible denys evolution (broadly defined) is a cultural presupposition, not based on faithful study in the Sound Doctrine of the Christian Faith.




It's o.k. man, you don't have to be ashamed that you are a Christian. I won't knock you for it. I kind of believe it too, I'm open minded (until you tell me some big bang crazy shit like all this existence came from nothing, and you can't even reason it to less than ONE THING). It's wierd. It just like, that Chiristian stuff makes sense. I feel like there's ground underneath me, Y'know? these big questions all get answered pretty clearly in the Bible, and in a way that doesn't leave room for doubt. IT's like, the Bible's principles are True, Y'know? Yeah, I can see why you can understand ONE THING. I won't knock you for being a Christian, Potheads love Christians, too.

Yeah man, you shouldn't be ashamed that you are a Christian, it's the power for salvation to everyone who believes

Antipas has got to be the most offensive bigot I've ever seen in these forums. Please Don't bother responding, your boundless effort to convert the uncaring is pathetic, as is your driving need to prove you are right to others, so you can finally believe you KNOW. Boring. Christ is not the "answer", its just another way to keep people from being loving towards OTHER PEOPLE, by giving them "gods" to follow, and distrust, and mistrust, and hatred, and do I really need to go on? Everyone here knows the evil done in "some god's name". As I said, If you understand the philosophical message of the bible, which is CHOOSE FREELY, then you are inherently evil in your intent to be evangelical. You are interfering in skitzo's free choice, whether its to believe or not believe, its NOT YOUR CHOICE< or really, any of your business. Biblically speaking, of course. Personally, I don't care what loons believe. And true followers of yshua ben joseph would embrace cannabis, and cannabis users, because, love, peace, and forgiveness don't have any place for ARROGANCE. Mikey Evans, counting nuts, one, two.. THREE??? hehehe

Like I said, there's a false image in your world view. It's sad really.

but as long as you know why you believe what you believe.

I don't know what the hell your doing on a legal pot forum though,. It clearly contradicts the teachings of YOUR faith.

I know and understand evolutionary theory, I had to get brainwashed in school, too. I know and understand the Gospel message, Which is why I can make the more educated decision about which system of beliefs more accurately represent Truth.

Mikeyzero, you think you know what the Bible teaches, but you don't have a fucking God damned clue. Your own words condemn yourself of the very things you accuse. Nothing but bitterness comes out of you when your forced to challenge your presuppositions. Not only are your beliefs false, but you don't even adhere to them in your life. If you Truly believed Life was Chance, you wouldn't dare smoke weed. Your the Hypocrite, Atheist, not me.