And a God's Concerned About THIS?

[orangeatheist]

"... Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every 'superstar,' every 'supreme leader,' every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. "

And, for some reason, people think this is the pinnacle of a god's creation. Just can't fathom that!

[W*GS]

Yup.

"..and Man created God in His own image..."

[Kaylore]

Yes he is. Even you, Orangeatheist.

[Captain_Poncho]

And, for some reason, people think this is the pinnacle of a god's creation. Just can't fathom that!

So, your big and meaningful point is that, since the planet is very very small, we're insignificant?

Big= important and small= unimportant?

Given any thought to how gigantic one human hair is compared to a single cell? Do their relative sizes equate to significance?

[Hotrod]

THUMP THUMP THUMP SLAM. The noises you just heard were Hotrod running out the door of this thread.

[Mile High Shack]

yeah amazingly enough...he gave us free will to even doubt him as you do...and ulitimately reject him if that being so chooses

crazy as it sounds, God knows us and loves and cares for us all

[Hotrod]

Ok I came back just to say I watched that show last night with Jim Carey when God gives him all this powers. rofl that was good stuff.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

So, your big and meaningful point is that, since the planet is very very small, we're insignificant?

Big= important and small= unimportant?

Given any thought to how gigantic one human hair is compared to a single cell? Do their relative sizes equate to significance?

No. That's not my point. As a tiny dot in a vast universe how can people think that their lives, their choice of a god, has any signifigance? How arrogant! What is the rest of the universe there for? Why make this unimaginable expanse and then only be concerned about a dust fleck floating around in that incomprehensable void? It reminds me of our ancestors who thought the earth was the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it because the earth and humankind in particular were the pinnacle of some god's omnipotent creation (just read the Bible; you'll get the message).

Now, to respond directly to your analogy: do you concern yourself with the hairs that fall off your head in the shower?

A better analogy would be: Do you care about the molecules that fall off with the dead skin you sluff off every day?

Do you care about the ant colony under your home when you water your lawn? Do you care if when you water you drown out thousands upon thousands of lives? Or, are the deaths of all those creatures simply the result of natural actions? Is there something more significant about the lives of ants that allows them to survive the deluge from your sprinkler system? Afterall, ants also have the "Breath of Life" do they not? If their physical bodies perish in the course of events, does something of that Breath of Life continue to exist because they are "important" inspite of their small size? Or, are the deaths of ants simply part of a cycle that operates in the universe and such deaths have no real signifigance or meaning other than to other ants who may have the capacity to reason their own mortality?

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

No. That's not my point. As a tiny dot in a vast universe how can people think that their lives, their choice of a god, has any signifigance? How arrogant! What is the rest of the universe there for? Why make this unimaginable expanse and then only be concerned about a dust fleck floating around in that incomprehensable void? It reminds me of our ancestors who thought the earth was the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it because the earth and humankind in particular were the pinnacle of some god's omnipotent creation (just read the Bible; you'll get the message).

Now, to respond directly to your analogy: do you concern yourself with the hairs that fall off your head in the shower?

A better analogy would be: Do you care about the molecules that fall off with the dead skin you sluff off every day?

Do you care about the ant colony under your home when you water your lawn? Do you care if when you water you drown out thousands upon thousands of lives? Or, are the deaths of all those creatures simply the result of natural actions? Is there something more significant about the lives of ants that allows them to survive the deluge from your sprinkler system? Afterall, ants also have the "Breath of Life" do they not? If their physical bodies perish in the course of events, does something of that Breath of Life continue to exist because they are "important" inspite of their small size? Or, are the deaths of ants simply part of a cycle that operates in the universe and such deaths have no real signifigance or meaning other than to other ants who may have the capacity to reason their own mortality?

ants don't have a soul that will last after death though...that's a bad analogy

it's more fathomable to believe that a loving God.....one being created this world than to believe that by fate and hapenstance, a world with a order and univeral rules was created.......like I've said, if you think this world could be created by chance, then you should also believe that an explosion at a print shop could create a dictionary.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

yeah amazingly enough...he gave us free will to even doubt him as you do...and ulitimately reject him if that being so chooses

crazy as it sounds, God knows us and loves and cares for us all

With all due respect, Shack (and I do mean ALL due RESPECT), how do you know any of this? You haven't been able to defend the error of Jesus misquoting the Old Testament regarding David and the showbread. If Jesus was wrong about what what written in a text he supposedly inspired (as part of the trinity and a member of the council that began the universe) how can you trust anything attributed to him?

Have you found the answer to the discrepancy I proposed months ago? Believe me, I have plenty of others. And this isn't meant to put you on the spot. I realize that believers can continue to believe regardless of the troubles thier holy text presents to them. Sometimes they attribute these errors to copyists. They don't believe the entire text was divinely inspired. They believe the text was inspired but individual authors were allowed some "poetic license" and thus "errors" were introduced into a text that otherwise is a literal text. I know, I know...I've read all the excuses before and realize that folks will do whatever dance allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

My point is only to question why a god who created such an unimaginably vast universe would concern him/herself with the painfully finite lives of a certain species of mammals on a relatively insignificant speck of rock spinning no where special in that unimaginably vast universe. Is this speck the hallmark of such an omnipotent being? If so.......

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

With all due respect, Shack (and I do mean ALL due RESPECT), how do you know any of this? You haven't been able to defend the error of Jesus misquoting the Old Testament regarding David and the showbread. If Jesus was wrong about what what written in a text he supposedly inspired (as part of the trinity and a member of the council that began the universe) how can you trust anything attributed to him?

Have you found the answer to the discrepancy I proposed months ago? Believe me, I have plenty of others. And this isn't meant to put you on the spot. I realize that believers can continue to believe regardless of the troubles thier holy text presents to them. Sometimes they attribute these errors to copyists. They don't believe the entire text was divinely inspired. They believe the text was inspired but individual authors were allowed some "poetic license" and thus "errors" were introduced into a text that otherwise is a literal text. I know, I know...I've read all the excuses before and realize that folks will do whatever dance allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

My point is only to question why a god who created such an unimaginably vast universe would concern him/herself with the painfully finite lives of a certain species of mammals on a relatively insignificant speck of rock spinning no where special in that unimaginably vast universe. Is this speck the hallmark of such an omnipotent being? If so.......

well here is my response...as responded to by a guy who has his doctorate from Oxford, I emailed him and asked him...here was his response

As far at the apparent contradiction between Mark 2:26 and I Sam. 21:1-6, I’m not sure there is much you can do beyond what you have probably already done. The fact is that there are lots of apparent contradictions in the Bible, and if you want to see them as actual contradictions, you can. What you have probably already said to this person is that, normally, when dealing with any ancient texts, we have things that are difficult or even impossible to reconcile. Our ordinary approach is to try to reconcile them (we try to make them both true), but if the explanation is too far fetched, then we say they contradict one another. We have to do this with accounts of Alexander the Great, with stories about Julius Caesar. In fact, most of ancient history requires us to do some detective work like this. And we treat the Bible in the same way. We see if there is a reasonable way to reconcile the apparent contradictions before we just accept them at face value.



In the case of Mark 2:26 and I Sam. 21:1-6, as you may have already said, Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, and when Saul has the priest’s killed, Abiathar becomes the high priest. This is very key to the I Samuel story, because, Abiathar is with David, not Saul, from then on. In other words, it is David who has contact with God. David can actually inquire of God using the sacred lots – Saul is cut off. It is just one more way in which God is raising up David as King throughout I Samuel. So, while Ahimelech was actually serving as High Priest at the moment David asked for bread, Abiathar is the more important High Priest in the story. The typical Christian explanation would be that that is what Jesus was talking about when he mentioned Abiathar and not Ahimelech. Abiathar was probably there at the event. As one person illustrated it, if you talked about “President Abraham Lincoln splitting logs” everyone who knew the story well would know that you didn’t mean that Abraham Lincoln ever split logs while he was President. Only people who were very unfamiliar with the person might think there was a contradiction.



To me, and to most Christians, that seems to be a pretty reasonable way to deal with the problem. But if you are wanting to find contradictions, it may not seem that way to you. I’m not sure there is a way to settle the issue beyond that.



as far as the insignificant aspect of it....no human being is insignificant to God....even you who reject him.

[Spider]

I knew a person once that believed that we was an experiment gone wrong on a more advanced planet and we was dropped off here .... According to him , we are in the crappy part of the solar system .........Basicaly we was kicked off a good Planet

[enjolras]

ants don't have a soul that will last after death though...that's a bad analogy

Prove it

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Prove it

no...I don't have to

ants aren't intelligent enough to understand the concept of God......humans are the only being on the planent to have the capacity for that since we were created in God's image.

if you know of any animal that is smart enough to comprehend the plan of salvation, you know a lot smarter animals than I know of.

[Captain_Poncho]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

No. That's not my point. As a tiny dot in a vast universe how can people think that their lives, their choice of a god, has any signifigance? How arrogant!

That seems to be exactly your point. Since we're confined to a tiny fraction of God's creation, He must not care about us. After all, if He did, we'd have access to more of the universe? Or what?

What is the rest of the universe there for?

Beats me. I'm not all-knowing. I don't have to know why the rest of the universe is there for to believe I'm significant.

Why make this unimaginable expanse and then only be concerned about a dust fleck floating around in that incomprehensable void?

Who says we're the only ones He's created or is concerned with? I've always thought God's created far too large a canvas to just have created life on Earth. I'd like to know why you make this presuppostion.

It reminds me of our ancestors who thought the earth was the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it because the earth and humankind in particular were the pinnacle of some god's omnipotent creation (just read the Bible; you'll get the message).

Who said we're the exclusive pinnacle? In the bible, it says men are just below angels in "rank" so to speak. So does that mean God loves us more than His angels, who also are His creation?

Now, to respond directly to your analogy: do you concern yourself with the hairs that fall off your head in the shower?

HELL YES! I gotta hold onto as many of those puppies as I can!

A better analogy would be: Do you care about the molecules that fall off with the dead skin you sluff off every day?

The analogy is only appropriate if I'm omnipotent. A God with enough power to create an intricately balanced universe, all its physical and quatum laws, its life forms, etc., has far more capacity to concern Himself with things that we, as limited beings, don't have the time/ability/inclination to. You seem to be equating God's ability to love and pay attention to His creation with a human's ability to do the same. As in every circumstance, God has the ability to do things we cannot.

Personally, I don't think your photo example goes quite far enough. There seems to be evidences that God has created much more than our observable universe, as is displayed by some quantum theory, which would mean that the enormous universe we can see is a fraction of a fraction of what is really out there. Does that mean that, since we're so very very little that we're insignificant? In the eyes of humanity itself, probably. But not to our Creator.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

ants don't have a soul that will last after death though...that's a bad analogy

Why don't ants have a soul? How do you know? The same word used in Genesis 2:7 to represent what gave man his life (Hebrew: Nashamah) is the same word used in Genesis 7:22 to describe what would die in the Great Deluge.

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed (Nashamah) into his nostrils the breath of life (Nashamah); and man became a living being.

Genesis 7:22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath (Nashamah) of the spirit of life (Nashamah), died.

Now, have you ever drowned an ant before? If you haven't, I can tell you from experience that they die. They don't come back to life after they drown. They die. They die just the way Genesis 7:22 describes. They aren't crushed when they drown. They aren't dismembered. They cease breathing. If what made man alive in Genesis 2:7 was the "breath of life" (Nashamah) and if that "breath of life" left men as in Genesis 7:22 causing them to die, then ants who also can die by drowning must also have this "breath of life."

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

it's more fathomable to believe that a loving God.....one being created this world than to believe that by fate and hapenstance, a world with a order and univeral rules was created.......like I've said, if you think this world could be created by chance, then you should also believe that an explosion at a print shop could create a dictionary.

A loving god? Have you read the Old Testament lately? Don't want to derail this thread too much but I think I can without much difficulty find instances of Yahweh not acting very lovingly in some of those Old Testament stories. Want me to try?

What is loving about "order and universal rules," by the way? Hurricanes follow a set and rules but I could hardly think of them as stemming from a "loving" order.

And the world was not "created" by chance, Shack. It came into existence by the same rules and order that brings into existence other such natural phenomena as hurricanes, avalanches and tornados. Nothing "loving" about it: just nature.

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Why don't ants have a soul? How do you know? The same word used in Genesis 2:7 to represent what gave man his life (Hebrew: Nashamah) is the same word used in Genesis 7:22 to describe what would die in the Great Deluge.



Now, have you ever drowned an ant before? If you haven't, I can tell you from experience that they die. They don't come back to life after they drown. They die. They die just the way Genesis 7:22 describes. They aren't crushed when they drown. They aren't dismembered. They cease breathing. If what made man alive in Genesis 2:7 was the "breath of life" (Nashamah) and if that "breath of life" left men as in Genesis 7:22 causing them to die, then ants who also can die by drowning must also have this "breath of life."




A loving god? Have you read the Old Testament lately? Don't want to derail this thread too much but I think I can without much difficulty find instances of Yahweh not acting very lovingly in some of those Old Testament stories. Want me to try?

What is loving about "order and universal rules," by the way? Hurricanes follow a set and rules but I could hardly think of them as stemming from a "loving" order.

And the world was not "created" by chance, Shack. It came into existence by the same rules and order that brings into existence other such natural phenomena as hurricanes, avalanches and tornados. Nothing "loving" about it: just nature.

i'd love to argue with you but it really is pointless, who are you trying to convince?

God is a loving God, with how much people have turned against him, he could easily just wipe us all out and start over.......BUT he had a plan in mind from the beginning and those that are loyal and loving to him get rewarded.

sure there are cases were God's wrath was brutal, but man, you mess with the bull you get the horns.

breath of life is the breath of life, like I said, if you think animals have a soul, you know a lot more intelligent animals than I know of that can grasp the plan of salvation.

how can chaos (which is what the universe was before God created it) stem order? that goes against every law of nature.

[Rascal]

I'd love to hear how Orange accounts for all this (earth, humans, animals, etc). it came from a big bang and through evolution we came about? Where did all the stuff to create us come from? I find it highly more likely that their is a superior being, call it God if you wish as I do, that created everything.

[Rascal]

Here is an article/paper that I wrote with a professor several years ago (it was Dr. Stafford North):
The Existence of God
First, we must agree on a definition of God.
Before we can know whether there is a God, we must first define what such a being would be like? What characteristics do you think a divine being would have to possess? In my opinion a God is a spirit being, who is eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere. I will use this definition as the beginning point on the following discussion.
Next, we need to discuss the methods of proof.
There are two types of proof. The first is proof by observation. It comes through the physical senses. Thus we can know that a dog is in our yard because we see him and hear him bark. Our physical senses have told us that the dog is there.
Whether God exists, of course, cannot be proved in this way because, by definition, He is spirit and, thus, cannot be seen or touched by the physical senses. As non-material, He cannot be proved by physical observation. A Russian cosmonaut said he had been through outer space and could testify there was no God because he had not seen him. He was thinking of God’s existence in the wrong realm.
There is also, however, proof by reasoning. By reasoning we prove many things we cannot observe by our physical senses. Back to the dog. Maybe you don’t see the dog in the yard but you see footprints from a dog, and you see something the dog left in your yard and you reason to the conclusion that the dog was there. If you observe what only dogs can cause, then you reason that a dog has been in your yard. By reasoning this way we may not reach certainty, but we draw the conclusion that is most likely.
So we cannot prove by observation that God exists, but we can reason from observable effects for which only God, as we have defined Him, could be the cause. Since God, by definition, is something that cannot be observed by physical senses, we must reason to the best possible conclusion about whether God exists. The key question, then, is this: "Is it more reasonable that a spirit being exists who is eternal, knows all, sees all, is all powerful and is everywhere, or is it more reasonable that such a being does not exist?" This type of reasoning is called "effect to cause."
Now we need to find a common point of agreement from which to begin.
My method for approaching the answer to the question of God's existence is to start with something virtually all can agree on--something all can observe: The universe exists. Except for those who doubt any existence at all, we can use the universe as a common starting point. The earth and stars, and the sun and moon, and human beings exist. We know this from physical observation. So we use the existence of the universe as a point of beginning.
This approach is, in fact, what the Bible itself recommends. In Romans 1:19-20, Paul writes that "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." So God expected people to look at what exists and to ask, "Where did this come from?"
So the world, the universe and we (human beings) are here. Something brought these into existence. Their presence asks, "Where did we come from?" These are effects. What is their cause?
I will now ask a series of questions about the universe, each of which has two and only two alternatives (yes or no). We will examine both alternatives to each question to show which answer has the strongest possibility of being correct.
Question 1: Did the universe have a beginning?
There are only two alternatives to answer this question--yes, the universe had a beginning or no, it has always existed. Which alternative has the most support from observation? There is strong agreement among scientists that the universe has not always been here. Such proposals as the "steady state" theory or the oscillating model have been made in an attempt to show that the universe is eternal. These, however, have generally been discarded as impossible. Dr. William L. Craig, in his book, The Existence of God, stated, "Both the steady state and oscillating models of the universe fail to fit the facts of observational cosmology. Therefore we can conclude once more that the universe began to exist" (pp. 59-60).
Dr. Edwin Hubble has plotted the speeds of the galaxies and says they are moving apart at enormous speeds. From this observation, scientists conclude that there was a point of beginning when these galaxies came into existence and started their journeys.
Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies, has written in God and the Astronomers, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy" (p. 11).
Look at these points which suggest that the universe has not always been here. Energy is being changed from a useful to a non-useful state. If everything had always been here, there would be no useful energy left.
Also, since, according to the second law of thermodynamics, unattended systems tend toward chaos, had the earth always existed with no intervention, it would by now be in chaos. Your car, your TV set, your camera, your yard--all these as well as your body, confirm this law that everything tends toward disorder.
So the evidence is quite clear that the universe had a beginning. It has not always been here. All but a few scientists have drawn this conclusion.
Question 2: Did the universe begin with a plan?
The universe had a beginning but was that beginning accidental and spontaneous, that is, by chance, or was the beginning with a plan? Let’s look at both possibilities.
From observation we find that the solar system, our universe, the sun, the moon, the earth and human beings have many features that are systematic, orderly, and precise. The universe works like a giant clock. It has moving parts. It has order, system, and design. The earth, for example, is exactly the right distance from the sun: closer and we would burn up, further away and we would freeze. The tilt of the earth on its axis provides the seasons we need. Gravity is exactly the strength we need to hold us on a rotating earth. Plants and animals are balanced to provide an exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Our air has in it exactly the elements needed to sustain life. Plants, animals, and human beings have within themselves the power to reproduce. Cut yourself and the damaged cells replace themselves. These and hundreds more similar observations declare the systematic, orderly, and precise nature of life and of our solar system.
Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph. D. in astronomy, states, "Astronomers and physicists widely acknowledge that the only reasonable explanation for the intricately harmonious features of the universe, our solar system, our planet--all ingeniously focused on the requirements for life--is the action and ongoing involvement of a personal, intelligent Creator." (William Dembski (ed.) Mere Creation, p. 371. Ross lists twenty-nine characteristics of the universe and forty-five characteristics of the solar system that must be just as they are for life to exist on earth. He calculates the possibility of these happening by chance on even one planet in the universe at one in "one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion" (p. 381)
Now the critical question. Can we find an example of anything that has order, system, function, and design that got that way by accident rather than by plan? Can we imagine a camera, for example, appearing by accident? Could, then, the far superior human eye have come by accident? A car by self-generation? A computer without a plan? a TV set rising spontaneously out of a pile of electronic parts? the Empire State Building without blueprints? Could any of these things come into existence purely by chance, by accident?
If none of these lesser things could have come into existence without a plan, then how could the great universe or the beings that live on the earth have come with no plan, entirely by accident? If everything we know of with order and design was planned, is it conceivable that the greatest of all things would come purely by accident? Nothing in our experience allows such a conclusion. Can you stand at the Royal Gorge in Colorado and imagine that the bridge spanning the canyon came by accident? Then can you imagine that the immeasurably more magnificent river, mountains, trees, and sky surrounding that bridge came by accident?
Of course we have discovered by accident some things that already existed or by accident someone might pour together substances to make something useful. But is there anything that functions systematically and with order that got that way by accident?
Sir Fred Hoyle, in his book The Intelligent Universe, used this analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off?" He also computes that for a blindfolded person to solve a Rubik’s Cube, he would have to make one move every second for 1.35 trillion years. If it stretches your imagination to think of that, imagine what it would take to get the 200,000 amino acids required for each human cell by chance and, still by chance, that they all accidentally appeared at exactly the same time so they could work together in a single cell.
Hoyle concludes, "As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance." (pp. 11-12, 19, 251).
The greatest chess player in the world, Gary Kasparov, was defeated at chess by a highly sophisticated computer. Would anyone seriously consider that this computer came into existence by accident? That someone turned up on a deserted island where there were mineral deposits and frequent lightning, and there sat "Big Blue." Yet, some ask us to believe that the even greater human brains that built and programmed this computer resulted from an accumulation of chance events. Biological discoveries now demonstrate that each cell not only contains matter but contains information as well. In fact, the nucleus of each human cell contains more information that all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. For what exists to have come from accident, then, not only must matter have sprung into being in a functioning form but so must the information coded within it. So we reason that if everything in our experience with order and design came from a plan, then the universe with its order and design on the greatest scale of all, must also have come from a plan. Some who deny the existence of God propose a "big bang." This explanation suggests that all existing matter began from a very small but powerful substance the size of a geometric point with no dimensions which exploded to give us all thast now exists. Their initial substance, they say, came into existence by accident and its accidental explosion gave us all we have. This explanation falls short in two ways: (1) it provides no explanation for the origin of the beginning substance and (2) evidence does not support the proposition that all things came from the same substance.
Which explanation, then, is more in harmony with what we know? Plan or accident? Which is more reasonable?
Remember our approach. Each of our four questions has only two possible answers --yes or no. We are not asking which answer can be proved beyond all doubt. We are, rather, asking, "Which of the two possible alternatives is the more likely?" Did our universe come by accident or by plan? Our experience clearly suggests that "by plan" is the more likely alternative.
Question 3: Did the plan have a planner?
Obviously, if there is a plan, there must have been a planner: no blueprints without an architect, no shop drawings without a designer, no specifications from which to build a car without an engineer. If an object’s order requires that it came from a design, that design requires a designer. Certainly our experience can provide no case of a plan without a planner. Since there is no support for a plan without a planner, then if there is a plan, there must be a planner.
Question 4: What must the planner of the universe be like?
This planner of the universe designed and brought all material things into existence, set them in order, gave them the ability to reproduce, and sustains their existence. Since He existed outside of matter, He must be non-material or spirit. Since He created time, he must be eternal. Since He created space, He must be outside of space and thus is everywhere. He must have unlimited knowledge to know how to create life, reproduction, and order. He must have tremendous power to bring all these things into. Again we take the "yes" alternative. We cannot conceive of the planner of the universe without such qualities.
So where have we come? This planner must have had the attributes we said must define God (non-material or spirit and everywhere).
We are back to our definition of God--a spirit being who is eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere. We began with what we can observe--that the universe exists, and have looked at the evidence to select the more reasonable of two answers to four basic questions about where it came from. This approach to answering the question about God’s existence is called the cosmological argument--that is, an argument based on the existence of the cosmos or world.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

well here is my response...as responded to by a guy who has his doctorate from Oxford, I emailed him and asked him...here was his response

As far at the apparent contradiction between Mark 2:26 and I Sam. 21:1-6, I’m not sure there is much you can do beyond what you have probably already done. The fact is that there are lots of apparent contradictions in the Bible, and if you want to see them as actual contradictions, you can. What you have probably already said to this person is that, normally, when dealing with any ancient texts, we have things that are difficult or even impossible to reconcile. Our ordinary approach is to try to reconcile them (we try to make them both true), but if the explanation is too far fetched, then we say they contradict one another. We have to do this with accounts of Alexander the Great, with stories about Julius Caesar. In fact, most of ancient history requires us to do some detective work like this. And we treat the Bible in the same way. We see if there is a reasonable way to reconcile the apparent contradictions before we just accept them at face value.

He's dead on! And that's my point, Shack. People believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I can't remember the exact qoute from you that got me to write that thread way back when in the first place, but it must have been something along the lines that there are no errors in the Bible. That's why I posted the Showbread problem: to show you that there are indeed errors in the Bible and your Oxford professor backs me up. He speaks of accounts of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar and compares them with the Bible and other ancient literature and that has been my stance all along: The Bible isn't a special work, inspired by an omnipotent, omniscient being; the Bible is simply another piece of ancient literature to be approached and appreciated as such. To defend it as the "Word of God" is absurd.

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

In the case of Mark 2:26 and I Sam. 21:1-6, as you may have already said, Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, and when Saul has the priest’s killed, Abiathar becomes the high priest. This is very key to the I Samuel story, because, Abiathar is with David, not Saul, from then on. In other words, it is David who has contact with God. David can actually inquire of God using the sacred lots – Saul is cut off. It is just one more way in which God is raising up David as King throughout I Samuel. So, while Ahimelech was actually serving as High Priest at the moment David asked for bread, Abiathar is the more important High Priest in the story.

That's right. So Jesus has it wrong when he misnames the priest who was with David when he (David) asks for the bread! The Oxford professor and I agree!

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

The typical Christian explanation would be

Whoa! Who cares what the "typical Christian explanation would be? The explanation is simply that the writer of Mark who put these words in Jesus' mouth got it wrong!

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

that that is what Jesus was talking about when he mentioned Abiathar and not Ahimelech. Abiathar was probably there at the event.

"Probably" there? Probably? What textual evidence does he have to support this? Oh, that's right, he doesn't have any. He's simply proposing a "typical Christian" apologetic that tries to smooth over the discrepancy but really doesn't remove the disprepancy at all.

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

As one person illustrated it, if you talked about “President Abraham Lincoln splitting logs” everyone who knew the story well would know that you didn’t mean that Abraham Lincoln ever split logs while he was President. Only people who were very unfamiliar with the person might think there was a contradiction.

And even if true, we're discussing the Bible --and this story-- as stemming from an ominscient god who would have known that there would have been readers who precisely were "very unfamiliar with the person" and thus would see a contradiction (actually more a discrepancy) and doubt the divine inspiration of the book and thus place their salvation in jeapordy. Why run that risk? Why not inspire the book to be written plainly and accurately? For an omniscient and ominpotent being this is a task not beyond his abilities!

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

To me, and to most Christians, that seems to be a pretty reasonable way to deal with the problem.

Of course it is. But it doesn't remove the discrepancy and it only deals with one aspect of the problem. What about Jesus' mention of "the other men with David"? It isnt' just that he gets the name of the High Priest wrong, its the fact that Jesus seems to have believed David's lie that he had men with him in need of the showbread.

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

But if you are wanting to find contradictions, it may not seem that way to you. I’m not sure there is a way to settle the issue beyond that.

There probably isn't. A discrepancy exists. That brings a shadow upon the claim that the Bible is an inspired, literal representation of the Word of God, the word of an omniscient, omnipotent being.

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

as far as the insignificant aspect of it....no human being is insignificant to God....even you who reject him.

So you say. I am utterly unconvinced; in large part by the erroneous nature of the supposed divine text and my own experience.

[Mile High Shack]

and that is your choice

you chose to come at it from a point of doubt......and there you go

you better start doubting history as a whole though my friend, b/c you are going to find a lot of things that people "could" say are discrepancies

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by rascal

I'd love to hear how Orange accounts for all this (earth, humans, animals, etc). it came from a big bang and through evolution we came about? Where did all the stuff to create us come from? I find it highly more likely that their is a superior being, call it God if you wish as I do, that created everything.

I account for "all this" the same way I account for Hurricane Hugo. It happened and is still happening.

We, as human beings, are the result of biological forces, namely evolution. Where did all the stuff come from? Do you mean the molecules and atoms that make up human beings? Some of it came from exploding stars. I can't remember the element off the top of my head, but it only is created when a star explodes. We contain some of that element. Now, you might ask, where did the star come from and so forth and so on. You are trying to reach for a "first cause" and discover where the basic building blocks of the universe came from originally if, originally, all there was was a "singularity" that "banged" and started the known universe. I don't know. No one knows. But I refuse to speculate on what was that "first cause" because it's useless.

You say that you choose to believe that a god created it all. Fine. But you are no more "right" about your assumption than someone proposing an opposing opinion. You claim that there was a god: which god? A personal god? An impersonal god? A god like Vishnu or a god like Yahweh? Why is your choice more accurate than any other? Is your god concerned with humankind or is your god simply the prime mover of the universe?

Why a god at all? Does a god cause other mysterious phenomena? Does god cause the earth to turn? Does god cause the hurricanes to blow? Does god make electricity flash across a stormy sky? How do you know? When you place food in a microwave does a god make the food hot?

Speculate all you want...

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

I account for "all this" the same way I account for Hurricane Hugo. It happened and is still happening.

We, as human beings, are the result of biological forces, namely evolution. Where did all the stuff come from? Do you mean the molecules and atoms that make up human beings? Some of it came from exploding stars. I can't remember the element off the top of my head, but it only is created when a star explodes. We contain some of that element. Now, you might ask, where did the star come from and so forth and so on. You are trying to reach for a "first cause" and discover where the basic building blocks of the universe came from originally if, originally, all there was was a "singularity" that "banged" and started the known universe. I don't know. No one knows. But I refuse to speculate on what was that "first cause" because it's useless.

You say that you choose to believe that a god created it all. Fine. But you are no more "right" about your assumption than someone proposing an opposing opinion. You claim that there was a god: which god? A personal god? An impersonal god? A god like Vishnu or a god like Yahweh? Why is your choice more accurate than any other? Is your god concerned with humankind or is your god simply the prime mover of the universe?

Why a god at all? Does a god cause other mysterious phenomena? Does god cause the earth to turn? Does god cause the hurricanes to blow? Does god make electricity flash across a stormy sky? How do you know? When you place food in a microwave does a god make the food hot?

Speculate all you want...

now you are just arguing for the sake of an argument

c'mon, I don't pray every time my food does heat up in the microwave correctly.......I know God doesn't MAKE that happen, but he did create the human being and gave him the knowledge and ability to invent the microwave though.

and my God is the only God, the God that is written in the bible......read it (which you claim to of) and chose to believe or not believe

free will is great huh? You DO in fact have EVERY right to doubt, but so do we have every right to BELIEVE....see unlike the muslim religion, you can chose to accept it or not and I won't kill you for it

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by rascal

Question 1: Did the universe have a beginning?
There are only two alternatives to answer this question--yes, the universe had a beginning or no, it has always existed.

No, there's a third alternative: We don't know. How arrogant of this writer to claim so emphatically that there are only two answers to this question! He knows no more about the origins of the universe than anyone else. But it could be theorized that the universe we currently live in had a "beginning" but that it is merely one in a series of infinite universes that exist one after the next and/or side by side. There are a multitude of theories each with their own merits. The truth of the matter, for believers and non-believers alike, is that no one knows the origins of the universe.

Originally Posted by rascal

Question 2: Did the universe begin with a plan?
The universe had a beginning but was that beginning accidental and spontaneous, that is, by chance, or was the beginning with a plan?

Is a hurricane accidental? Does it simply pop into existence or does it have a plan? Are there really only two choices here? Or did the universe come into existence following a natural law much the same way as hurricanes come into existence? There is no "plan" to a hurricane. No "plan" like a set of blueprints that force the hurricane to spawn at a certain locale in the Atlantic, follow a predetermined course at a predetermined speed for the Florida gulf coast. The hurricane (and the universe) exist because certain conditions exist that bring it into being. No mind behind these conditions: they just are.

This guy your quoting is "leading the witness" and just be dismissed from the case! For example:

Can you stand at the Royal Gorge in Colorado and imagine that the bridge spanning the canyon came by accident?

No, because I can read the plaque on the bridge that tells me who built it. I can imagine, however, that the gorge the bridge spans came about "by accident" in the sense that it wasn't "planned." The gorge is the result of natural forces following certain natural laws. It wasn't "designed" to be there but conditions were right and forces were present for such a gorge to be formed there. No need to propose a "planner."

Originally Posted by rascal

Question 3: Did the plan have a planner?

Bzzzttt! Assuming there was a plan. An unestablished assumption!

Originally Posted by rascal

Question 4: What must the planner of the universe be like?

Unsupported assumption. It remains unestablished that there really is a "planner."

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

No, there's a third alternative: We don't know. How arrogant of this writer to claim so emphatically that there are only two answers to this question! He knows no more about the origins of the universe than anyone else. But it could be theorized that the universe we currently live in had a "beginning" but that it is merely one in a series of infinite universes that exist one after the next and/or side by side. There are a multitude of theories each with their own merits. The truth of the matter, for believers and non-believers alike, is that no one knows the origins of the universe.

Arrogance, I don't think so. Simple logic...yes. Does it matter if we know or not? No, because our knowledge doesn't change the answer, as it will still be the same. Either it has a beginning or it doesn't. Which is it?