Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[insight]

i don't know whether there is God or not in the universe and i don't believe that God created everything. If there is God, He is not a thing, which can't be touched, sensed or felt, but He is only an artificial figure inside your mind and heart.

[Tormod]

You better choose to have faith and trust in Christ as personal Lord and Savior before the rapture, or else you will, be left behind, then after that..you (as a person who heard the gospel, and rejected it, before the rapture) may be lured into the teaching of the anti-christ.

 

To not have made up your mind, is a making up of your mind to not believe.

 

This kind of preaching is not welcome here at Hypography, eMTee. I hope you understand that.

[niviene]

To not have made up your mind, is a making up of your mind to not believe.

 

This is quite a funny statement considering the topic of this thread. I was merely positing my thoughts on the subject. And, FYI, a statement like this to me is a real repellant from believing similarly to the person speaking it. I am personally enjoying reading the many different opinions on the subject - yours included - and, as I stated previously, I'm happy that we are living in a time when we have the right to believe as we wish and express those beliefs. I consider myself "searching"... which I feel is a learning process to find more information to support what I believe. Everyone deserves this right. I do not deny that God exists - I say, like I do to so many other things in this forum, that perhaps she does, perhaps she does not, and that I will keep an open mind to any and all possibilities until I feel convinced one way or the other. If I made my mind up not to believe, I wouldn't bother searching any further. This is what I think.

[eMTee]

(and, provided there is, that the rapture doesn't happen before I make up my mind )

 

the rapture is an event that is claimed to happen in the future by the Bible...and it is only the Bible that claims such an evennt.

 

Will one search his or her whole life for the truth, and die not quite understanding it to have an asurence of truth, thus die not knowing it?

 

The reasons I take the Bible as my answer is because it is a very unique religous book, Christianity (acording to the Bible) is a one-of-a-kind "religion", there is no other like it. The Bible has been proven to be dependable in it's hostorical claims, it has been suprisingly preserved in it's context regardless of translations, tamperings, and other things, it has been written by several diffrent people and kinds of people, in several diffrent environments and places..and does not controdict between books, and it has changed many lives for the better. and other reasons.

 

So regardless of other's views...I will take the Bible

[C1ay]

The Bible has been proven to be dependable in it's hostorical claims...

No it hasn't!

[mojassty]

While many events written in the Bible have historical merit, several historical events in the Bible (a) are not recorded in any other source (such as the seven plagues in Egypt), or (:) conflict with information given by other sources (such as the disposition of Pontious Pilate). And, as any skeptic or non-believer will tell you, the Bible is filled with passages that cannot be easily resolved with one another.

 

This is a science forum, eMTee. You may not agree with other people, but you need to give them a chance to state their views. And if you're going to preach, you'd better have some solid evidence to back yourself up with

[niviene]

Will one search his or her whole life for the truth, and die not quite understanding it to have an asurence of truth, thus die not knowing it?

 

Yes, I will search until I am satisfied. I was not born just believing it - I don't believe that anyone is - I think everyone has their period of wondering what to believe. Regardless - if God exists, I'm not going to offend her by lying (because she would obviously know) and say that I believe, just in case something happens... that doesn't fit in with anything.

 

..and does not controdict between books, and it has changed many lives for the better. and other reasons.

 

IT does contradict - as a matter of fact, the first few pages of Genesis, the very beginning, contradicts itself several times. Therefore, I don't know what to believe, because I see obvious mistakes, which could simply be chalked up to human error, but I just don't know at this point. I'm glad you found what you believe - but don't tell me I'm not free to choose. If you are right, and God exists, she made me with the ability to think and choose freely, and who would you be to deny me what would have been given to me by God?

[Biochemist]

IT does contradict - as a matter of fact, the first few pages of Genesis, the very beginning, contradicts itself several times. ..

You know, Niv, every time I see/hear someone say this, I chuckle.

 

I suspect that the ancient hebrews were not morons, and they probably did not see any contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 when they put them side by side. I probably had read those passages about a dozen time before I heard someone talk about the "obvious" contradiction. Given the normative lack of chronology in Hebrew writing (even the order of the books in the Old Testament, for goodness sake) and even more divergence from chronology in poetry or vision (nearly all examples) I am surprused that folks will talk about this contradiction as if it is a fact.

 

One could certainly construe a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 if you choose to. But this is nothing like the contradictions in, say, quantum physics. Contradictions that happen to be fact.

[eMTee]

I have read the whole book of Genesis, and I have not run into any controdictions in the creation story. in fact, there is nowhere in the Bible that controdicts itself in this claim.

 

Note: I do not believe the Bible controdicts itself, only gives further details.

 

for instence..one of the things that a person would see as a "controdiction" is in the last words Jesus said before he gave up the ghost. Three diffrent passages say three diffrent things; "father, why hast thou forsaken me". Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". "It is finished" these (to the person who does not want to consider) would seem to be controdictions, but they are not.

[Tormod]

One could certainly construe a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 if you choose to. But this is nothing like the contradictions in, say, quantum physics. Contradictions that happen to be fact.

 

Of course there are contradictions in quantum physics - but I ask you to list contradictions in quantum physics that are not due to our interpretation of what we see and things we do not understand. That scientific theories are counter-intuitive is not new.

 

Now, to claim that "there are no contradictions in the bible" is a fairly fundamentalist statement.

 

The standard contradictions found in Genesis 1 and 2 are, basically, that in Genesis 1 God creates the animals first, then Adam. In Genesis 2, he does it the other way round.

 

Secondly, man and woman are created simultaneously in Genesis 1, whereas in Genesis 2 God first makes man, then woman.

 

I have seen these contradictions be explained away in many ways but if the bible is to be taken literally, there is a problem. If it is *not* to be taken literally, then there is no problem, but the book is then open for interpretation of any kind.

 

So please...there are endless amounts of contradictions in the bible, and there is not much you folks can to to wipe them out.

[Biochemist]

Of course there are contradictions in quantum physics - but I ask you to list contradictions in quantum physics that are not due to our interpretation of what we see and things we do not understand. That scientific theories are counter-intuitive is not new.

I think the dual slit experiments reveal true antinomies. They are not only counterintuitive, they are logically impossible. There are numerous examples in mathematics as well (e.g., 3-space shapes with finite surface area and infinite volume). Contradiction per se is not really a problem. It is common in nature.

Now, to claim that "there are no contradictions in the bible" is a fairly fundamentalist statement.

Technically, this would be a conservative statement, not a fundamentalist one. Most fundamentalists are conservatives, but most conservatives are not fundamentalists.

The standard contradictions found in Genesis 1 and 2 are, basically, that in Genesis 1 God creates the animals first, then Adam. In Genesis 2, he does it the other way round....if the bible is to be taken literally, there is a problem. ...

I think we have had this "literal" discussion before on a half dozen occations. NO ONE takes the bible completely literally. Not even ultra conservatives. The issue is whether it is reasonable in normal usage to view the text of Genesis 1 and 2 as reconcilable. My point was that this is a particularly easy one. I think it gets so much air time because it is at the very beginning, and lots of folks have actually read it.

...there are endless amounts of contradictions in the bible, and there is not much you folks can to to wipe them out.

Endless. Hmmm. What is intriguing to me is that I have much more difficulty with the parts of the Bible that I DO understand than the parts that I don't. The issues that appear contradictory are many. God is loving yet a wrathful just judge. He is both temporal and ephemeral. He is omniscient yet responds to real-time decisions as if He got new information. He both leads people and waits for them. He acknowledges evil and yet does not tolerate it. He is omnipotent and yet patiently allows some to contend He does not even exist. THESE are the contradictions that matter, and these are the antinomies that are just like those in quantum physics and mathematics. They are intrinsically unreconcilable.

 

I choose not to reject physics or mathematics because they have unreconcilable facts within them. Wy should we expect the Creator to be less complex than creation?

[Tormod]

I think the dual slit experiments reveal true antinomies. They are not only counterintuitive, they are logically impossible. There are numerous examples in mathematics as well (e.g., 3-space shapes with finite surface area and infinite volume). Contradiction per se is not really a problem. It is common in nature.

 

"Logically impossible" means impossible to human logic. It does not mean that there are real contradictions. It is a matter of perspective.

 

Technically, this would be a conservative statement, not a fundamentalist one. Most fundamentalists are conservatives, but most conservatives are not fundamentalists.

 

Choose your terms - fundamentalists read religious texts literally, believing that they do not interpret it.

 

I think we have had this "literal" discussion before on a half dozen occations. NO ONE takes the bible completely literally. Not even ultra conservatives.

 

Excactly. Although a lot of people think they do, and claim that they do. So when you say there are no inconsistensies, then you are saying that A) my interpretations (ie, there are inconsistencies) are wrong and ;) your interpretations are correct. Isn't that what it boils down to?

 

The issue is whether it is reasonable in normal usage to view the text of Genesis 1 and 2 as reconcilable. My point was that this is a particularly easy one. I think it gets so much air time because it is at the very beginning, and lots of folks have actually read it.

 

The point is that it popped up as an example and you laughed at it, and eMTee flat out rejected it. It is rather amusing - no wonder it gets so much air time.

 

Endless. Hmmm. What is intriguing to me is that I have much more difficulty with the parts of the Bible that I DO understand than the parts that I don't. The issues that appear contradictory are many. God is loving yet a wrathful just judge. He is both temporal and ephemeral. He is omniscient yet responds to real-time decisions as if He got new information. He both leads people and waits for them. He acknowledges evil and yet does not tolerate it. He is omnipotent and yet patiently allows some to contend He does not even exist. THESE are the contradictions that matter, and these are the antinomies that are just like those in quantum physics and mathematics. They are intrinsically unreconcilable.

 

These are contradictions to you because you believe in God. To me they are merely tautologies, which could come from any religion in any period of time. God needs to have all of these qualities - and then some - or else there would be no supreme being to worship. It's simple, really. It boils down to faith, regardless of how many incosistencies we find here or there.

 

I choose not to reject physics or mathematics because they have unreconcilable facts within them. Wy should we expect the Creator to be less complex than creation?

 

Rejection of science is possible, and fine, but rather meaningless. Science is merely a method of interpretation.

 

There are probably many reasons why a creator would be less complex than creation - for example, if the creator is part of the creation then the creator must necessarily have become more complex *after* creation than *before*. Thus the creator was less complex before the world was created.

 

Any powers given to a creator are provided by the faithful (of any religion). Since it is impossible to prove that god exists, and also probably not desirable from a religious point of view (because it would ruin the purpose of faith), all divine powers are defined by human beings. We are not infallible, therefore we make mistakes and produce inconsistencies.

[Biochemist]

"Logically impossible" means impossible to human logic. It does not mean that there are real contradictions. It is a matter of perspective.

It sounds like we are agreeing on this.

Choose your terms - fundamentalists read religious texts literally, believing that they do not interpret it.

I admit that it is hard to define "fundamentalist" but most folks regard fundamentalists as people that preclude specific behaviors. This is the usage when we characterise the Taliban as "Muslin Fundamentalists". "Conservatvie" usually means that folks think the Bibile is "true". This does not mean that it is literal. Most conservatives do not think that "Jesus sitting on the right hand of God" means that Jesus has indents in his gluteus from God's fingers. That would be literal. That view is sort of rare.

...So when you say there are no inconsistensies, then you are saying that A) my interpretations (ie, there are inconsistencies) are wrong and ;) your interpretations are correct.

I didn't say there were no inconsistencies. I said the inconsistencies were analogous to those that we find in nature. I would use exactly the words you used above to describe quantum physics.

The point is that it {the apparent inconsistencies in Genesis 1-2} popped up as an example and you laughed at it, and eMTee flat out rejected it. It is rather amusing - no wonder it gets so much air time.

I frankly don't understand EmTee's position, so I cannot editorialize on that. My point was that the differencies in text in Genesis 1-2 are easliy reconciled in normal usage of English. It does not even require some egregious investigation of Hebrew. If you said things like this in a lecture on tutrle biology, I am not even sure you would get a clarification question. Folks would assume that the second account modified the first. That is why I was chuckling.

These are contradictions to you because you believe in God. To me they are merely tautologies, which could come from any religion in any period of time. God needs to have all of these qualities - and then some - or else there would be no supreme being to worship.

Sounds to me like we are agreeing again.

It's simple, really. It boils down to faith, regardless of how many incosistencies we find here or there.

Perhaps. But I think inconsistencies are worth investigating. Digging into the inexplicable nature of the quantum behavior of the dual slit experiment was/is useful. Digging into the inexplicable nature of the Creator's antinomies is useful as well. At least to some of us.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Tormod.

[eMTee]

The standard contradictions found in Genesis 1 and 2 are, basically, that in Genesis 1 God creates the animals first, then Adam. In Genesis 2, he does it the other way round.

 

Secondly, man and woman are created simultaneously in Genesis 1, whereas in Genesis 2 God first makes man, then woman.

Genesis 1:24-31

 

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

Genesis 2:18-23

 

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 

one thing, in Genesis 2:19 it is explaiing to you what God formed the animals out of, not telling you that he creted them after. and in Genesis 1:26-27 he explains in simple form THAT he created man and woman on the 6th day.

 

The Bible I guess is subject TO all kinds of interpretation, such with many sects of witchcraft (if not all), quote Bible verses in suport of their own desires. The Bible is not subject FOR all kinds of interpretation.

[Guest kyle8921]

Genesis 1:24-31

 

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

Genesis 2:18-23

 

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 

one thing, in Genesis 2:19 it is explaiing to you what God formed the animals out of, not telling you that he creted them after. and in Genesis 1:26-27 he explains in simple form THAT he created man and woman on the 6th day.

 

The Bible I guess is subject TO all kinds of interpretation, such with many sects of witchcraft (if not all), quote Bible verses in suport of their own desires. The Bible is not subject FOR all kinds of interpretation.

 

It's widely accepted that Genesis 1 and 2 had two different authors. Is it really a contradiction, or just written from two different perspectives?

 

"25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

 

Some people even think that that isn't saying that that was the exact moment when God made them, but maybe is suggesting evolution.

 

The Bible is open to limitless interpretations, so no one will ever reach a common agreement.

[Tormod]

Digging into the inexplicable nature of the quantum behavior of the dual slit experiment was/is useful. Digging into the inexplicable nature of the Creator's antinomies is useful as well. At least to some of us.

 

Agreed! ;)

[Tormod]

The Bible I guess is subject TO all kinds of interpretation, such with many sects of witchcraft (if not all), quote Bible verses in suport of their own desires. The Bible is not subject FOR all kinds of interpretation.

 

I think the bible is quoted by anyone who wants to use it as confirmation of whatever they want, just like with any other large body of text. It is as open to intepretation as any other text.

 

If not, what is your rationale for suggesting that it is not open for interpretation?