Thread: An issue with non-believers

http://thelessromanticside.blogspot....ss-though.html

In the above entry in my blog I show some irrefutable arguments that evidently swing the argument in favor of God's existence and show the inherent paradoxical behaviour of scientists who challenge the existence of God.

If you agree with me it is fine.

If you don't then please provide counter arguments.

I have edited the post to make it moderate and left out offensive words. I am also keeping the excerpts which are logically relevant to the debate while highlighting the strong argument part in it.
------------------------------------

For your convenience I am copying the excerpts blog entry as well:

"The wonderful arrangement and harmony of the cosmos would only originate in the plan of an almighty omniscient being; this is and remains my greatest comprehension." - Isaac Newton

I have an issue with so called atheists. They want proof that God exists. Well, the very fact that God cannot be seen means that God exists. If God could be seen as a material object, then of course we would not be seeing God. A point missed by all so called atheists. They demand for proof, but if they get it, they will not accept it.

Secondly, suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws. As a result, that person, if logical enough will not believe in science (because science is looking for laws and so assumes that laws do exist) and so his/her logic will fall back upon itself. Hence a scientist has no choice but to believe in God.

A seeker that reality by discarding all that is unreal. An atheist on the other hand embraces all that is unreal while in fact believing the opposite.

We may go on finding one law after another in all branches of science, but whence did these laws come? A scientist claiming that God does not exist is an especially stupid exponent of his profession.

People will go saying a thousand things. But first they must answer the questions: "From where did I come? Who is this 'I' that making all these theories about God and everything? What is this 'God' that I am trying to prove or disprove?" Without answering these questions the claims on God and Reality and Philosophy and Truth will be highly superficial.

When Richard Dawkins claims that God and religion are superfluous in today's time, it is important to realise that he is talking about a very general, populist view that the general public has about religion. It is important to prevent suicide bombings by fanatics, but equating religion to just that means taking a highly limited view of the subject and addressing it without delving into it deeply.

God is something self evident, the very reason of one's existence, the very reason of one's being. Unfortunately, people are so far removed from themselves, from their very beings, that of course doubt and shallowness result. And it is this shallowness which they ascribe to themselves, to this world, and to the idea of God. And these atheists try with all their might to prove that God that does not exist, which is very easy for them to prove with their superficial arguments because the God they are trying to disprove is equally superficial.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

so called atheists
so called atheists
so called atheists
so called atheists
and so called rationalists.

OK we get the message that you're feeling frustrated & hostile.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

it is of course pointless to even raise this issue with such people, it is pointless to get caught up in stupid arguments, because they will be totally impervious to your words, because they do not want to listen to you in the first place, because they just want to put across their point.

...and you wish to "take on all non-believers and prove them wrong"?

You want a fight. What in you wants this? Gimme a real answer.



Equally hostile atheists will attend to you shortly...

The reasons I have deleted this post is due to malicious activity from another user on this and several other forums,

here is an example -

http://z8.invisionfree.com/DYK/index.php?showtopic=645

This forum is run by Jane Bennet and she also poses as admin and other members under pseudonyms.
She abused her position as admin by changing the content of my posts when i first joined and then proceeded on a personal vendetta of malice after a disagreement on this forum, which amounted to threatening & abusive e-mails and posts on forums.

Her research and activity i can only describe as being 'stalker' like.

Many apologies for having to do this, but this person has behaved very threateningly in a way i can only describe as worrying!

Here are some of the pseudonyms she uses -

Jane Bennet

Athene_noctua

JaneFairfax

And no doubt other names...

BEWARE - She appears to be NOT of sound mind.

Every second day or so i come to this site and i click the button "View posts since last visit" and then i scan down the list of things that might interest me.
It is usually then that at least once that i wished this "Science" forum did not even have a religion section.
The funny thing is though that in their desire to prove their religious beliefs to be true, people just seem to make the whole thing they worship and follow look even more crazy and blind to any reasonable sense of FACT. And the harder they try to convince people that they are "stupid" for not believing, the less appealing any venture to religion becomes. So, keep selling it guys, the atheists (no i'm not one) must just love it.

Ok let us not get into a fight but more of a debate. So just consider the argument part of my post which brings out the hypocrisy of if a scientist does not believe in an intelligent God and yet looks for laws, symmetries and mathematical harmony in Nature. I quote myself again:
"Suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws. As a result, that person, if logical enough will not believe in science (because science is looking for laws and so assumes that laws do exist) and so his/her logic will fall back upon itself. Hence a scientist has no choice but to believe in God.

A seeker that reality by discarding all that is unreal. An atheist on the other hand embraces all that is unreal while in fact believing the opposite.

We may go on finding one law after another in all branches of science, but whence did these laws come? A scientist claiming that God does not exist is an especially stupid exponent of his profession. "

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

Ok let us not get into a fight but more of a debate. So just consider the argument part of my post which brings out the hypocrisy of if a scientist does not believe in an intelligent God and yet looks for laws, symmetries and mathematical harmony in Nature. I quote myself again:
"Suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws. As a result, that person, if logical enough will not believe in science (because science is looking for laws and so assumes that laws do exist) and so his/her logic will fall back upon itself. Hence a scientist has no choice but to believe in God.

A seeker that reality by discarding all that is unreal. An atheist on the other hand embraces all that is unreal while in fact believing the opposite.

We may go on finding one law after another in all branches of science, but whence did these laws come? A scientist claiming that God does not exist is an especially stupid exponent of his profession. "

If anything, i thought science showed that things DON'T happen by chance OR by divine intervention but instead there is a logical and rational explanation for almost anything. Well, at least almost anything that is in the bible under "miracle" or "wrath of God". Earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, plagues, droughts and so on can be explained by science and the explanations given by religion for just the things i have mentioned are dubious at best.
However, it is the title of your post that reeks of nothing but blind faith and your ridicule of anything that does not believe, how did you put it, "Stupid", shows me that debate is the last thing on your mind.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

Well, the very fact that God cannot be seen means that God exists.

Oh dear

so then

aliens
pink unicorns
fairies


and all other mythical creatures exist too, PROVEN bay the fact we cannot see them.

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you write nonsense like this? This is a science board, not 'kids r us' board.

I believe in God, and you are NOT doing me any favors posting crap like this.

Originally Posted by GrowlingDog

If anything, i thought science showed that things DON'T happen by chance OR by divine intervention but instead there is a logical and rational explanation for almost anything. Well, at least almost anything that is in the bible under "miracle" or "wrath of God". Earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, plagues, droughts and so on can be explained by science and the explanations given by religion for just the things i have mentioned are dubious at best.
However, it is the title of your post that reeks of nothing but blind faith and your ridicule of anything that does not believe, how did you put it, "Stupid", shows me that debate is the last thing on your mind.

I have edited my post to leave out offensive words like stupidity. Now back to arguments.

We were not kmowledgable enough at earlier times to interprete the laws of Nature which have existed as long as Nature itself. My argument is like Newton - such great underlying mathematical harmony shows strong evidence of a highly intelligent creator. It adds weight to the belief that Nature is created by God and the patterns and mathematical forms bear God's imprint. Some scientist even believe in the theory of everything - in doing that they implicitly assume the existence of a creator who controls the universe by a single law. Are not such scientists and others who look for mathematical forms in Nature hypocritical when they deny God's existence yet search for his signatures in Nature? Why else would Nature follow such laws if an intelligent creator did not impose it? Without such intelligence it is highly likely to be completely inhomogeneous and disarrayed with no laws.
Mathematical harmony in Nature makes the existence of God much more plausible whereas absence of laws would hint towards no controller.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

"Suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws."
. "

Wow, so your god is the master of micromanagement caring about how the grains of sand in a dune in the Sahara form this very dune rather than the adhesion between the grains of sand, the surface roughness as well as a lot of other factors. What a boring job for some all-knowing omnipotent beeing. Mmmhmmmmmm. So a god is the prerequisite for all laws? Sheesh, you are insulting the intelligence of this omnipotent devine entity.

Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

"Suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws."
. "

Wow, so your god is the master of micromanagement caring about how the grains of sand in a dune in the Sahara form this very dune rather than the adhesion between the grains of sand, the surface roughness as well as a lot of other factors. What a boring job for some all-knowing omnipotent beeing. Mmmhmmmmmm. So a god is the prerequisite for all laws? Sheesh, you are insulting the intelligence of this omnipotent devine entity.

yes if he would do some chosen recreational mathematics then he would be like an ordinary human mathematician not the extraordinary complex superbeing called God. Boredom is a feeling felt by humans and is relative to the person and circumstance. Surely an argument like boredom and insult to intelligence is not convincing enough to rule out what was also Newton's greatest comprehension.

by the way my argument was based on the mathematical harmony in nature which bears the signature of an intelligent creator. the adhesive forces are understood from fundamental forces which reaffirm the mathematical consistency which particles obey in their interaction and we do not see new unique forces for every other situation. The same laws explain everything.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

by the way my argument was based on the mathematical harmony in nature which bears the signature of an intelligent creator. the adhesive forces are understood from fundamental forces which reaffirm the mathematical consistency which particles obey in their interaction and we do not see new unique forces for every other situation. The same laws explain everything.

So you want to see some creator at work?? Well, your choice but this is the same old tired stuff........we need a creator to start everything......recursive argument with arbitrary end point. You believe, I rather like to KNOW.

Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

by the way my argument was based on the mathematical harmony in nature which bears the signature of an intelligent creator. the adhesive forces are understood from fundamental forces which reaffirm the mathematical consistency which particles obey in their interaction and we do not see new unique forces for every other situation. The same laws explain everything.

So you want to see some creator at work?? Well, your choice but this is the same old tired stuff........we need a creator to start everything......recursive argument with arbitrary end point. You believe, I rather like to KNOW.

1) I don't want to see. I am arguing the laws of nature are strongly suggestive of an intelligent creator.
2) I am pointing out the hypocrisy of scientists who do not accept God yet look for these signatures (mathematical forms) thereby implicitly assuming God's existence.

if you think you see harmony in nature and the universe, then you haven't been looking close enough

Originally Posted by marnixR

if you think you see harmony in nature and the universe, then you haven't been looking close enough

If you mean the quantum world and its upredictability then also you see the unpredictability is determinable and strictly obeys the Schroedinger equation and the probability density of any complicated system would in principle be a mathematical function. There are no exceptions to the Schroedinger equation and in the classical limit gives us the classical mathematical relations. So mathematical harmony is true at all levels - small and big. A handful of fundamental mathematical laws dictates the whole big universe - too big a coincidence without intelligent design. Isn't God the most plausible answer if you logically probe this question?

Everyone who can see the perfection of our universe but still deny god is a fool. /A.Einstein

In all honesty, in no favour of religion or atheism, this link explains why religious can never proove God, nor can try, and why atheists have their proof of the non-existence of God. Take this seriously.

Babel Fish.

What about the anthropic principle? How do you know that this is not the 10^10000000th universe and the only one that had the right laws to be able to exist into infinity (accelerated expansion)? Also, mathematics is nothing more than a descriptive tool used by humans and it does not imply that some being is sitting somewhere frantically calculating everything. The laws are there and are as they are because of the initial conditions during big bang, period. You are falling prey to the human tendency to relate everything in terms of human experience and awareness.

Because they live in the world that a perfect human created everything remember? QED.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Because they live in the world that a perfect human created everything remember? QED.

Yes, lol. That is a pretty dubious premise if I have ever seen one. 13,7 BLY in each direction of space existing for one "superior" species on an obscure planet? Sure.....

You don't understand me. Do you think a blind man from birth can comprehend sight? No, its the same thing. You have to understand the mind of religious people to make sense of what they think. See you can't see what I mean becaue you are in the atheist premise. They are in the religious. I live nowhere in this matter. I see your argument and I see their's, and yes I fully understand yours, it makes perfect sense KALSTER, but your missing the point. To a religious person they don't see it that way. Thats why I said QED, because there is no furthur point to make in this discussion, because that is all it bottles down to.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

Isn't God the most plausible answer if you logically probe this question?

No. Just because science can't currently provide a complete explanation for why the universe seems to follow mathematical laws, it doesn't mean that "it's magic" is a valid explanation. Sure, it's a explanation, but it isn't a particularly good one in my opinion.

Actually I did get what you meant, 425CR. Remember I used to be a theist as well? I still remember my own views on the subject and how I had seen God's hand in the universe. I had never scrutinised my religious views through a naturalistic and scientific filter at that point and had similar views to the OP and your point. I replied to your point with some of the realisations I had regarding the subject after I had seriously and bravely looked at my beliefs using what I knew about the nature of people and the scientific process. I know that I would never have come to what I consider the truth without a pragmatic scientific viewpoint of the universe and sincerely feel sorry for people that suffer as a result their inability to do the same (not trying to be condescending).

I just wanna tell all the atheists out there to read the book : Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
It's an amazing book. Really! Try it, and try to understand every sentence. It's profitable!

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

I have an issue with so called atheists. They want proof that God exists. Well, the very fact that God cannot be seen means that God exists. If God could be seen as a material object, then of course we would not be seeing God. A point missed by all so called atheists.

Here's yet another missed point. Do leprechauns and unicorns exist due to the very fact they cannot be seen?

They demand for proof, but if they get it, they will not accept it.

The line of gods purported to exist extends many city blocks long. How much evidence would therefore be available based on the sheer numbers of gods and how much has been made available to date?

Secondly,[b] suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws.

Incorrect. Everything is not random or happen by chance. Natural selection, for example is exacting and specific in it's process.

As a result, that person, if logical enough will not believe in science (because science is looking for laws and so assumes that laws do exist) and so his/her logic will fall back upon itself. Hence a scientist has no choice but to believe in God.

Fallacious logic. Choice B is not the only alternative when choice A is false. Of course, in your example, choice A was not false.

A seeker that reality by discarding all that is unreal. An atheist on the other hand embraces all that is unreal while in fact believing the opposite.

Gibberish.

We may go on finding one law after another in all branches of science, but whence did these laws come? A scientist claiming that God does not exist is an especially stupid exponent of his profession.

Whilst a scientist diligently goes on about his profession, he most like ignores the claims of theists and they're myriad of fantastic and magical tales.

People will go saying a thousand things. But first they must answer the questions: "From where did I come? Who is this 'I' that making all these theories about God and everything? What is this 'God' that I am trying to prove or disprove?" Without answering these questions the claims on God and Reality and Philosophy and Truth will be highly superficial.

The questions are being answered, and yes, the claims ARE highly superficial, yours included.

When Richard Dawkins claims that God and religion are superfluous in today's time, it is important to realise that he is talking about a very general, populist view that the general public has about religion. It is important to prevent suicide bombings by fanatics, but equating religion to just that means taking a highly limited view of the subject and addressing it without delving into it deeply.

You probably haven't read any of his books where he does in fact delve deeply into addressing the subject of gods and religion, far beyond what you or I will ever delve.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

Originally Posted by marnixR

if you think you see harmony in nature and the universe, then you haven't been looking close enough

If you mean the quantum world and its upredictability then also you see the unpredictability is determinable and strictly obeys the Schroedinger equation and the probability density of any complicated system would in principle be a mathematical function. There are no exceptions to the Schroedinger equation and in the classical limit gives us the classical mathematical relations. So mathematical harmony is true at all levels - small and big. A handful of fundamental mathematical laws dictates the whole big universe - too big a coincidence without intelligent design. Isn't God the most plausible answer if you logically probe this question?

no i don't mean the quantum world - i mean the macroscopic world all around us
Darwin was right when he wrote "What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature !"

as for the universe, where's the harmony in black holes, meteorite bombardments and cannibal galaxies ? (and that's only a few of the less harmonious aspects of the universe)

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

"Suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws. As a result, that person, if logical enough will not believe in science (because science is looking for laws and so assumes that laws do exist) and so his/her logic will fall back upon itself. Hence a scientist has no choice but to believe in God.

A seeker that reality by discarding all that is unreal. An atheist on the other hand embraces all that is unreal while in fact believing the opposite.

We may go on finding one law after another in all branches of science, but whence did these laws come? A scientist claiming that God does not exist is an especially stupid exponent of his profession. "

In order to save me the trouble of writing too much, I'll quote something I said somewhere else:

Originally Posted by Obviously

The laws aren't necessarily perfect, but they might seem perfect.

The way I see it, the forces or laws of nature are simply a product of matter and energy, and that seems to be the case. For example natural selection is a force which is dependent upon enviroment, and the strenght of gravity depends upon mass.

I think that is an important point to realize.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

In the above entry in my blog I show some irrefutable arguments that evidently swing the argument in favor of God's existence and show the inherent paradoxical behaviour of scientists who challenge the existence of God.

If you agree with me it is fine.

If you don't then please provide counter arguments.

I believe in God, but I don't believe in your "irrefutable" arguments, so I am on the side of the atheists in this thread.

Here is why your whole blog is just plain stupid even from a theist point of view. If God exists and wanted to prove His existence to atheists, then He could. But He doesn't prove to them that He exists and therefore if He exists then He doesn't want to. If God doesn't want to prove that He exists to atheists, then why would you, believing in God, think that you should do this? Don't you trust His judgement?

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

I have an issue with so called atheists. They want proof that God exists. Well, the very fact that God cannot be seen means that God exists. If God could be seen as a material object, then of course we would not be seeing God. A point missed by all so called atheists. They demand for proof, but if they get it, they will not accept it.

I have an issue with so called theists. They say that they believe in God and yet they seem to think that they have to speak for God. If an atheist tries to say that science supports what they are saying then perhaps they are stealing the glory and respect of science. But if a theist tries to say that God supports what they are saying then aren't they stealing the glory and respect of God?

Your argument that God could only exist if He could not be seen is interesting, but not for its insight but for its inconsistency with everything you are doing. Would not the same that you say about being able to see God also apply to being able to prove that He exists. Therefore I suggest that you yourself do not believe in God. What you believe in and trust in is your own powers of reason which you think are greater and better than God Himself.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

Secondly, suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws. As a result, that person, if logical enough will not believe in science (because science is looking for laws and so assumes that laws do exist) and so his/her logic will fall back upon itself. Hence a scientist has no choice but to believe in God.

The proper term for someone who does not believe in God is an atheist, NOT scientist. If a high school teacher is in bed with his wife, he isn't teaching high school and what he is doing has nothing to do with high school teaching. If a scientist is says something about God then he isn't doing science but theology or philosophy whether theist or atheist, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with his being a scientist.

I believe in God. But I see absolutely NO REASON why not believing in God would necessarily mean that you must believe that everything is random and chance, or not governed by laws. However much you may assume that everything we call a law must be created by someone powerful, that is your assumption. The scientist sees the mathematical "laws" of nature as nothing more that the geometrical structure of space-time itself. These are not laws in the sense of legislation and a judicial system that punishes anyone who dares to violate them. These "laws" are simply an encoding of how science has observed that things happen in a mathematical nature that we can use to calculate what will happen in particular situations.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

A seeker that reality by discarding all that is unreal. An atheist on the other hand embraces all that is unreal while in fact believing the opposite.

Pure baloney. Everyone seeks to understand what is real. Just because atheists come up with a different answer than you does not change this fact.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

We may go on finding one law after another in all branches of science, but whence did these laws come? A scientist claiming that God does not exist is an especially stupid exponent of his profession.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

More baloney. The real idiocy is the confusion between science and the theological or philosophical opinions of a scientist when that person is dabbling outside of science. The real idiocy are atheists and theists like you who make these silly comments about how a scientist's theological opinions make them a good or bad scientist. This simply displays a complete ignorance about science in which theological opinions play no role whatsoever.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

People will go saying a thousand things. But first they must answer the questions: "From where did I come? Who is this 'I' that making all these theories about God and everything? What is this 'God' that I am trying to prove or disprove?" Without answering these questions the claims on God and Reality and Philosophy and Truth will be highly superficial.

Yes and a model train enthusiast might say the same thing about questions regarding the history of model trains. All this opinion of yours says is that you are interested in such questions with such a myopia that you have made yourself blind to everything else. I congratulate you on your passion for these questions because such passions are a part what make life rich and interesting but another part of what makes life rich and interesting is the incredible diversity in what people are passionate about.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

When Richard Dawkins claims that God and religion are superfluous in today's time, it is important to realise that he is talking about a very general, populist view that the general public has about religion. It is important to prevent suicide bombings by fanatics, but equating religion to just that means taking a highly limited view of the subject and addressing it without delving into it deeply.

Dawkins is frankly talking about himself and no more. God and religion is superfluous in his life. But when speaking about humanity as a whole, Dawkins is far more superfluous than God and religion. In the post communist era it is utterly absurd to suppose that the evils of the world are due to religion, instead the common thread is something else: hatred of those who think differently than you do, irrationally blaiming them for all evils of the world and deciding that they should be destroyed. These Islamic fundamentalists are only the latest in a long line of such groups which are in fact pretty tiny and insignificant compared to the communists and their irrational hatred of religion and capitalism.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

God is something self evident, the very reason of one's existence, the very reason of one's being. Unfortunately, people are so far removed from themselves, from their very beings, that of course doubt and shallowness result. And it is this shallowness which they ascribe to themselves, to this world, and to the idea of God. And these atheists try with all their might to prove that God that does not exist, which is very easy for them to prove with their superficial arguments because the God they are trying to disprove is equally superficial.

It is rather funny when someone says that something is "self-evident" or "obvious" because what is "self-evident" and "obvious" that what this means is that they haven't one shred of evidence for what they believe, that will stand the test of objective scrutiny. In other words, it is a purely subjective observation, judgement, feeling, experience or whatever that no one else can corroborate. There are only those who have a similar subjective observation, judgement, feeling, experience or whatever and those who do not.

There are as many kinds of shallowness as there are people. We are all finite beings who have had a small time on this earth to learn from others (standing on their shoulders) and all our proud displays of knowledge whether of religion or science is 99% imitating what others have done. Therefore we are all shallow without exception. Your suggestion to atheists that they ought to trade their shallowness for your shallowness is "obviously" going to be offensive and ridiculous. You would do a lot better to shut up and sit at their feet to learn from them, not of course as a blank slate or with an mind so open your brains fall out, but just to see what you can learn from them. That way you can overcome the shallowness that I see in you just as clearly as you see shallowness in them.

Originally Posted by Carbon

I just wanna tell all the atheists out there to read the book : Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
It's an amazing book. Really! Try it, and try to understand every sentence. It's profitable!

Are you kidding? The book where Lewis seriously tries to argue that the fact that all societies have some kind of moral code is proof that god exists, because there's no conceivable other reason why most societies would be against murder, theft, and lying? Much of that book is laughable. I mean that literally; you are likely to laugh when you read his arguments.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Here is why your whole blog is just plain stupid even from a theist point of view. If God exists and wanted to prove His existence to atheists, then He could. But He doesn't prove to them that He exists and therefore if He exists then He doesn't want to. If God doesn't want to prove that He exists to atheists, then why would you, believing in God, think that you should do this? Don't you trust His judgement?

Brilliant! An excellently contrived explanation to "trust" the non-existent, if it exists, from any point of view.

But if a theist tries to say that God supports what they are saying then aren't they stealing the glory and respect of God?

That would depend on which god is supporting what, contradictorily to what other gods support and what is said.

What you believe in and trust in is your own powers of reason which you think are greater and better than God Himself.

In the story of Noah, god saw fit to slowly drown most of mankind, including many of the (blameless) animals, too. To Mitchell, we are beneath this type of "reasoning."

But when speaking about humanity as a whole, Dawkins is far more superfluous than God and religion.

Claiming to be superfluous to the invisible and undetectable; non-existent, is far more stupid a comment than anything 'Sir Grey Matter' has come up with. Your indifference to mankind in favor of a contrived fantasy is the mindset that will be the downfall of mankind.

These Islamic fundamentalists are only the latest in a long line of such groups which are in fact pretty tiny and insignificant compared to the communists and their irrational hatred of religion and capitalism.

"I requested further that religion should be criticised in the framework of criticism of political conditions rather than that political conditions should be criticised in the framework of religion, since this is more in accord with the nature of a newspaper and the educational level of the reading public; for religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself. Finally, I desired that, if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label “atheismâ€� (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people. VoilÃ* tout."

http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/ma...s/42_11_30.htm

"When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/cl...manifesto.html

and all our proud displays of knowledge whether of religion or science

What proud displays of religious knowledge?

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by Carbon

I just wanna tell all the atheists out there to read the book : Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
It's an amazing book. Really! Try it, and try to understand every sentence. It's profitable!

Are you kidding? The book where Lewis seriously tries to argue that the fact that all societies have some kind of moral code is proof that god exists, because there's no conceivable other reason why most societies would be against murder, theft, and lying? Much of that book is laughable. I mean that literally; you are likely to laugh when you read his arguments.

well, if you read the book you woun't have any arguments against him and his thoughts. and with read i don't mean to just browse in it. i mean that you understand every sentence in the book. If there is a sentence you don't understand, stay at it, read it again and try to anderstand it. It takes a long time to really read it.

(sry for the mistakes, english is just my 3.Language)

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Are you kidding? The book where Lewis seriously tries to argue that the fact that all societies have some kind of moral code is proof that god exists, because there's no conceivable other reason why most societies would be against murder, theft, and lying? Much of that book is laughable. I mean that literally; you are likely to laugh when you read his arguments.

It depends on your level of "sophistication" (or whatever you want to call it). When I read it first more than 15 years ago it seems pretty good to me, but when I read it more recently it seem rather thin and even felt that parts of it could be rather insulting to the intellegence (and other things) of the reader.

However if you haven't read it and you are interested in that sort of thing (i.e. how Christians might rationalize what they believe) then it is a pretty good example of its type and it is well read and upheld by a great many Christians. So it is even valuable for the atheist who wants to pounce on little Christians. LOL

Dear Brahmanand

Here are some logical/philospphical considerations for you.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

I have an issue with so called atheists. They want proof that God exists. Well, the very fact that God cannot be seen means that God exists.

This makes no sense unless you define what you mean to be god. And then tell us why you think it is that particular notion that the atheist is talking about.

For many Hindus god can certainly be seen, and has been seen, and if they haven't seen him/her yet, it is simply because they haven't prayed hard enough or done enough penance. After all, didn't Shiva eventually appear to Vishwamitra?

Did not Jesus appear to Simon?

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

If God could be seen as a material object, then of course we would not be seeing God. A point missed by all so called atheists. They demand for proof, but if they get it, they will not accept it.

As above, your statement is a logical contradiction, and unless you explain how a conception of god takes on the idea that if god is real then god is necessarily unseen, then there is nothing but paradox in your statement. There is no argument or 'proof' here.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

Secondly, suppose a scientist believes that God does not exist. Then it implies that everything is random and happens by chance, rather than governed by laws.

How does it imply this?

I know what your response will be, because it is below, or in some of your others responses here: because you cannot conceive of an orderly universe without it having been created by an orderly mind. This is an ancient notion which was trashed by philosophers from Hume onwards and can no longer be used as a serious philosophical argument.

It is, of course, still put forward regularly by demagogues to the philosophical laity because it is difficult for them to see the logical non sequitur it involves.

If, however, you are claiming proofs and logical arguments, it would behove you to familiarise yourself with the history of these thoughts, and with the basic structures of logic so that you do not fall into the trap of committing fallacy after fallacy.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

As a result, that person, if logical enough will not believe in science (because science is looking for laws and so assumes that laws do exist) and so his/her logic will fall back upon itself. Hence a scientist has no choice but to believe in God.

See my previous paragraph for why this conclusion does not obtain.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

A seeker that reality by discarding all that is unreal. An atheist on the other hand embraces all that is unreal while in fact believing the opposite.

Your conclusion based upon an earlier erroneous argument and, in any case, inviting the question: what do you mean by real and unreal?

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

We may go on finding one law after another in all branches of science, but whence did these laws come? A scientist claiming that God does not exist is an especially stupid exponent of his profession.

A-ha! I knew we'd come to one of the traditional arguments! "From where did we come."

I strongly recommend reading Hume's classic Dialogues Concerning the Natural Religions to see why this argument won't fly.

Hume's was the classic statement in English of the objections to this argument, but he is not the only one. Any student level philosophy text addresses it.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

People will go saying a thousand things. But first they must answer the questions: "From where did I come? Who is this 'I' that making all these theories about God and everything? What is this 'God' that I am trying to prove or disprove?" Without answering these questions the claims on God and Reality and Philosophy and Truth will be highly superficial.

No. People don't have to ask those questions first. In any case, 2,500 years ago or thereabouts, the Buddha addressed them to the satisfaction of about a billion modern humans, without needing to invoke the notion of a deity.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

When Richard Dawkins claims that God and religion are superfluous in today's time, it is important to realise that he is talking about a very general, populist view that the general public has about religion. It is important to prevent suicide bombings by fanatics, but equating religion to just that means taking a highly limited view of the subject and addressing it without delving into it deeply.

I appreciate the point you are making here. Have you considered, however, that there is a great deal of difference between faith and faith-clubs? Attacking the faith-clubs of religion can be achieved even without denying the existence of any putative deity.

As for delving into it deeply, I strongly recommend Philosophy 101 to you, so that your blog is informed not just by your deep desire to understand and appreciate your universe, but also by enough erudition to allow you to know what has already been done and what is still available as grounds for debating this issue.

Yes, us stupid atheists have had to deal with questions like yours throughout our lives and, if for no other reason than self-preservation, have had to learn about these issues. So I hope you will pardon us if, from time to time, when yet another person comes along with the same tired arguments, having only just discovered them himself or herself, if we say "Been there, done that, try again."

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

God is something self evident, the very reason of one's existence, the very reason of one's being.

I'm sure it seems that way to you, but how do you convert this intuition of yours into a universal argument or claim apart from saying: "Believe me because I have access to the truth that none other has"?

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

Unfortunately, people are so far removed from themselves, from their very beings, that of course doubt and shallowness result.

An entirely meaningless statement except to mystics and psychoanalysts. This is not even a claim that can be examined or verified.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

And it is this shallowness which they ascribe to themselves, to this world, and to the idea of God. And these atheists try with all their might to prove that God that does not exist, which is very easy for them to prove with their superficial arguments because the God they are trying to disprove is equally superficial.

Kant pointed out that existence is not a predicate. Existence itself, therefore, is not the issue. The first question any reasonable person should ask about god is not "What difference does god make to me?" but, "If my notion of god is not just my delusion, then in what way would it be evident to anybody else?" Instead of excoriating the atheists, consider what evidence is available regarding the properties of this deity you espouse.

Ideally after having read and rejected the traditional 'Proofs' of the existence of god:

1. First Cause
2. Design
3. Ontological
4. Pascal's Wager

Your argument, for what it's worth, appears to be a classic case pf number 2. Just wait until you discover number 3 - more blogworthy (albeit not philo worthy) stuff for you.

Welcome to the board.

cheer

shanks

Thanks for all the inputs. My visit to this forum has been fruitful. I think I have to read more and think more about this grand topic.

Originally Posted by brahmanandji

Thanks for all the inputs. My visit to this forum has been fruitful. I think I have to read more and think more about this grand topic.

http://www.literature.org/authors/da...in-of-species/

Ok, so if God created everything there is, then i have some questions:

1. Who created God? If you think that our universe has to have a creator, then it's only logical to assume that the creator should have been created as well.

2. If there is a god that God was able to create everything and monitor it afterwards, then God must be a very complex entity. Maybe more complex than we can grasp. If these was something that created God, then that something must have been even more complex than God (One can not create something that is more complex than themselves).

The fact that everything "fits" in our universe does not mean that there is a creator or designer. Like someone else said: Our universe could be one of an neverending amount of universes. In that case it's only logical that there would be one universe with the configuarion like ours and the chance that an universe like ours could exist is not one in a few billion, but 100%.

The 'harmony' of the universe can be explained by extremely large mathematical systems. SO large in fact that it may not be readily understood.



And you sir are an extremist not taking into account the possibilities of alternative philosophies.

Originally Posted by BalkanPower

The fact that everything "fits" in our universe does not mean that there is a creator or designer. Like someone else said: Our universe could be one of an neverending amount of universes. In that case it's only logical that there would be one universe with the configuarion like ours and the chance that an universe like ours could exist is not one in a few billion, but 100%.

That, and we can ask the question if it could at all be any different.

All that our mathematical models do is to simply describe how the universe works; the universe isn't run by the math. Things may seem to be "tuned" in perfectly, but that might as well be an illusion. Everything is merely reacting to its enviroment in such a way that it creates somewhat of an equilibrium, giving the illusion of design where there is none. These processes are described by our math.

Another thing to consider is that we're adapted to our enviroment, not vice versa. In another completely different universe there might be a different form of life, intelligent, pondering the same question of why everything seems to be designed when in fact the question in itself is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Schizo

And you sir are an extremist not taking into account the possibilities of alternative philosophies.

So everyone who speaks their mind and ask questions are automatically extremist? Isn't it a bit excessive to jump to such a conclusion? Wasn't BalkanPower's observations logically sound in any way? Why can't you point out the flaws in his/her logic?

Is there anything wrong with being an extremist; it is merely a state of human condition. Is it not an extremist stance.

Originally Posted by Schizo

Is there anything wrong with being an extremist; it is merely a state of human condition. Is it not an extremist stance.

I'm just questioning your reasoning:

Originally Posted by Dictionary

Extremist:

–noun
1. a person who goes to extremes, esp. in political matters.
2. a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.

–adjective
3. belonging or pertaining to extremists.

You see, BalkanPower seems to be an atheist, but he might as well be an agnostic. Clearly the problem here is that he hasn't shown nor advocated any philosophies, he's just shown his skepticism to the claim that God created everything. Thus concluding if he holds an extremist position is impossible.

I was just curious as to how you made the conclusion of extremism when there wasn't any evidence to confirm such behaviour, that's all. :wink:

Originally Posted by Carbon

Everyone who can see the perfection of our universe but still deny god is a fool. /A.Einstein

I'm new and it looks like there is a mix of unbelievers and believers here. That's good, so I have company as a believer. :-D

I read through this and found a lot of stuff with which I would disagree from the presentation brahmanandji's reasons for belief to some of Mitchell's repudiation.

But I think I was most offended by was what I originally thought was a made up quote from Einstein, which said:

Everyone who can see the perfection of our universe but still deny god is a fool. /A.Einstein

The somewhat mis-quote apparently is from this, the actual quote:

He is reported to have said in a conversation with Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

It does not appear to me that Einstein said everyone could see nor that he called them fools, but said he did not understand why they could not see God's presence in that harmony. What torqued him, according to this quote, was people using him as support for their disbelief in God.

brahmanandji seems to fall prey to the idea that belief in God is the result of some intellectual persuasion. The truth is that even believers are not always intellectually convinced of God's existence, but it is through our intellectual doubt that we are able to confirm our heartfelt belief.

People do not come to believe in God because they have made some intellectual evaluation of the data and concluded that God exists. When left to the intellect alone, men will always choose not to believe in God. Belief in God is the result of God revealing Himself to the person on a spiritual level. There is nothing a person can do to will himself to believe in God or to intellectually convince himself that God exists. It is just not an intellectual process.

The non-believer operates from a position that seeing is believing. The believer operates from the position that believing is seeing.

Mitchell spoke about the futility of people speaking for God. I am not exactly sure in what capacity he meant. My understanding is that all Christians have been invited by God to participate in the sharing of God's message of the availability of forgiveness which is contained in the Gospel. I can only assume this is done mostly by word of mouth which is, in a way, speaking for God. Now, if Mitchell is saying Christians should not be trying to reveal "new truths" or "special revelations" from God, I am in complete agreement with him. I do not think I attempt to speak for God other than to repeat or explain that which I think he has said in the Bible. That is the only weapon God has given us -- His written word.

Originally Posted by BalkanPower

Ok, so if God created everything there is, then i have some questions:

1. Who created God? If you think that our universe has to have a creator, then it's only logical to assume that the creator should have been created as well.

2. If there is a god that God was able to create everything and monitor it afterwards, then God must be a very complex entity. Maybe more complex than we can grasp. If these was something that created God, then that something must have been even more complex than God (One can not create something that is more complex than themselves).

The fact that everything "fits" in our universe does not mean that there is a creator or designer. Like someone else said: Our universe could be one of an neverending amount of universes. In that case it's only logical that there would be one universe with the configuarion like ours and the chance that an universe like ours could exist is not one in a few billion, but 100%.

If god created time then he can't live within time. The need for creation is related to a timeline. If God lives outside of time then why does he need creation?

I'm not a theist myself. I'm actually pretty close to atheist but I've seen this same argument on every forum I've been in.

This idea may be completely off topic, but I have an idea why believers have a issue with non-believers.

As you all know, everything in our world goes through the circle of creation, rising, peak and decline. People constantly want change. From the rise of Christianity to the Protestants and now atheist each new belief (I guess you can call atheism a belief) has given the general public something they want and something that the older religion could not provide. When a new belief is first accepted it always comes to mass criticism from the older religion because the older religion does not want to lose its power. Which is why I think so many articles like the ones in the beginning of the thread are created. the reason why believers can't come up with the evidence to prove they are right is because religion was not designed to be proven right. through out its history, the religions in power are rarely questioned and anyone who does question it is killed. However, with the modern world and the invention of free speech, religion cannot just kill people in order to maintain legit, but needs come up with hard evidence to back up their claims. Unfortunatly, believers have to find this evidence from a book that was written when the earth was flat, when the earth was the centre of the universe, when women were inferior to men and when slavery was acceptable. Now believers are scratching their head trying to find any sort of arguement to please a general public that is slowly losing faith to them.

(This is my first post, please don't kill me)

BumFluff said:

If god created time then he can't live within time. The need for creation is related to a timeline. If God lives outside of time then why does he need creation?

My goodness, what is this world coming to? A non-believer who sort of understands the concept of eternity and an existence which is not limited by time, space or matter.

I realize bum did not say he believed in this concept, but at least he understands it from an if...then standpoint.

Peradus said:

This idea may be completely off topic, but I have an idea why believers have a issue with non-believers.
and
Unfortunatly, believers have to find this evidence from a book that was written when the earth was flat, when the earth was the centre of the universe, when women were inferior to men and when slavery was acceptable. Now believers are scratching their head trying to find any sort of arguement to please a general public that is slowly losing faith to them.

Actually, this is indirectly related to the previous quote. The world is looking for a worldly explanation of God. Unfortunately, a worldly explanation does not sufficiently explain or fit God.

The only issue believers have with non-believers is where they are going to spend eternity. It is not our job to "prove" God exists, God does that for himself. We merely tell people about God's grace and forgiveness and the consequences of neglecting to receive them. Those who recognize their need for forgiveness and accept it from God need no further proof of his existence.

One and all whom understands truth must ask themselves within true thought;

Do i know 'God', without using any words to describe it?

If in silence there is 'God' within mind and thought then;

If one does know 'God' then why are you here?

If one only understands 'God' as a bundle of words then one must look deeper, not deeper for 'God' but rather deeper for the truth about God.

Why fight an argument for something you cannot proove?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Peradus said:

As you all know, everything in our world goes through the circle of creation, rising, peak and decline. People constantly want change. From the rise of Christianity to the Protestants and now atheist each new belief (I guess you can call atheism a belief) has given the general public something they want and something that the older religion could not provide. When a new belief is first accepted it always comes to mass criticism from the older religion because the older religion does not want to lose its power. Which is why I think so many articles like the ones in the beginning of the thread are created. the reason why believers can't come up with the evidence to prove they are right is because religion was not designed to be proven right. through out its history, the religions in power are rarely questioned and anyone who does question it is killed. However, with the modern world and the invention of free speech, religion cannot just kill people in order to maintain legit, but needs come up with hard evidence to back up their claims. Unfortunatly, believers have to find this evidence from a book that was written when the earth was flat, when the earth was the centre of the universe, when women were inferior to men and when slavery was acceptable. Now believers are scratching their head trying to find any sort of arguement to please a general public that is slowly losing faith to them.

Actually, this is indirectly related to the previous quote. The world is looking for a worldly explanation of God. Unfortunately, a worldly explanation does not sufficiently explain or fit God.

The only issue believers have with non-believers is where they are going to spend eternity. It is not our job to "prove" God exists, God does that for himself. We merely tell people about God's grace and forgiveness and the consequences of neglecting to receive them. Those who recognize their need for forgiveness and accept it from God need no further proof of his existence.

(Fully quoted Peradus because I think it's a better whole.)

Where are we going to spend eternity? The Bible answers this concretely in terms perfectly sensible to our dumb ancestors. However, the terms have changed. 2000 years! We have come a long way. "We" are not the same "we" and we understand "eternity" differently too. Besides the concepts of man, belief, will, nature, life, etc. having progressed dramatically, a lot is simply absent from the Book. Now Christians try to extrapolate the oftentimes ridiculously quaint handbook to fit our present understanding. Even God with his strenuous limbs and flashing sword must be taken metaphorically, though it was not metaphorical when written. According to the Bible eternal life is limited to human souls in heaven. To a modern view this seems sadly ignorant of our greater existence.

Surely we know better than that, and want spiritual terms and consensus appropriate to our times. In other words a modern religion.

...Brahmanandam...

Have you ever read the bible, the whole thing and i mean the ORIGINAL bible of coarse, not the one you can get at the local church or library or find in a hotel room that's been mass produced and re written more times than Cinderella...

I'm gonna guess that the answer to that would be NO...
I'm gonna guess that because "almost" nobody has, it's had big sections taken out over time as well as being re written and is a shadow of it's original self...

The bible was made up (yes made up) by a number of educated and /or powerful individuals over time, originally as a way to CONTROL people through FEAR of what might happen if they didn't comply...

Also which God do you refer to, IF religion is correct then what makes you think your God and religion is the correct one, Why would this greatness be the work of only one God and not Many God's...

Your so called God and Religion is a complete contradiction of itself, lets be honest...

Come on, you can't actually keep a straight face look me in the eye and tell me seriously that you believe Mary was actually a "virgin", what a crock, she got herself pregnant out of wedlock and couldn't tell anyone that because they'd have studied her for being a whore...
Good cover story though, not sure it'd work today...

If the world started off with Adam and Eve as the only two human beings, and together they bore two son's, how the hell did we get here without the son's having sex with their own mother, and then lets say that girls were later born, well now they are all brothers and sisters sleeping together...?
I thought according to the Bible that incest was a sin...?

Also Your so called son of God is perceived as a tall white guy with mousy blond hair isn't he...?
Well if i'm not mistaken, wasn't he born in Jerusalem...?
And that would make him Israeli, with dark hair and dark skin wouldn't it...?
Also i thought Jesus was named King of the Jews, NOT king of the Christians...?
And was it the Christians or the catholics that nailed him to the cross but now preach that the sun does actually shine out his ass, i can never remember...!!

Is not saying religion is or is not correct, but i DO think everyone is entitled to their OWN opinions and it's people like you that just piss everyone off trying to force YOUR views on us as being correct and we are all wrong...

Ignorance is not admitting even for a second that there is the slightest possibility that you might be wrong, or refusing to take on board the opinions of others...
And you my friend are about as IGNORANT as they come...

IGNORANCE... Also a sin i think...

Slubella 83 said:

And you my friend are about as IGNORANT as they come...

But easily surpassed by the ignorance you show in your knowledge of the Bible.

The Bible we have today has not been rewritten. No other document today more closely follows its extent original texts than the Bible. There are fewer textual errors in a modern Bible than there are in a copy of any one of Shakespeare's plays.

You ignorance on this topic is abysmal which make your comments ridiculous. I suggest you do some of your own research on this topic before you go around quoting the idiotic statements of other ignoramuses. A good place to start on the literary credentials of the Bible is with Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He was a college student who believed as you do but decided to see what real scholars had to say about the Bible and became a believer as probably would anyone who actually studied this topic.

Originally Posted by Sulabell83

The bible was made up...

Your so called God and Religion is a complete contradiction of itself, lets be honest...

Right Sulabell83 yet there is also good in those religions we should not discount by association. Theology brims with good stuff, IMHO. Church is good too.

Ha, Sulabella 85 also said:

Is not saying religion is or is not correct, but i DO think everyone is entitled to their OWN opinions and it's people like you that just piss everyone off trying to force YOUR views on us as being correct and we are all wrong...

Pardon me, but isn't that exactly what you are trying to do here. Talk about hypocracy.

Originally Posted by Sulabell83

Have you ever read the bible, the whole thing and i mean the ORIGINAL bible of coarse, not the one you can get at the local church or library or find in a hotel room that's been mass produced and re written more times than Cinderella...

I'm gonna guess that the answer to that would be NO...
I'm gonna guess that because "almost" nobody has, it's had big sections taken out over time as well as being re written and is a shadow of it's original self...

Great! Now its not just, "only I understand the Bible correctly", but "only I know what the Bible originally said". Brother!

Originally Posted by Sulabell83

The bible was made up (yes made up) by a number of educated and /or powerful individuals over time, originally as a way to CONTROL people through FEAR of what might happen if they didn't comply...

Oh people do certainly make their own Bible and rewrite it so its all about authority so that they can indeed turn it into a tool of control. The Mormons did that. But one learns to detect the kind of rhetoric that leads up to that kind of thing and it all begins with someone saying something like this, "you gotta read the ORIGINAL Bible because yours has had big sections taken out over time as well as being rewritten and is a shadow of it's original self, so let me show you what it ORIGINALLY said".

Originally Posted by Sulabell83

If the world started off with Adam and Eve as the only two human beings, and together they bore two son's, how the hell did we get here without the son's having sex with their own mother, and then lets say that girls were later born, well now they are all brothers and sisters sleeping together...?
I thought according to the Bible that incest was a sin...?

... more mindless ranting ...

I was going to respond to this but then realized that you have no interest in any answers. You might as well just come to the point and say, "I'm not going to believe in the Bible and you can't make me". Then we can say, "no we can't". And I would say that I don't even want to. Please, believe what you want. Please.

Daytonturner said:

Actually, this is indirectly related to the previous quote. The world is looking for a worldly explanation of God. Unfortunately, a worldly explanation does not sufficiently explain or fit God.
The only issue believers have with non-believers is where they are going to spend eternity. It is not our job to "prove" God exists, God does that for himself. We merely tell people about God's grace and forgiveness and the consequences of neglecting to receive them. Those who recognize their need for forgiveness and accept it from God need no further proof of his existence.

My post was more pointing in the direction of politics and power, which is why I thought it was off topic. Yes, god probably can't be explained in our words, but to attract new believers they need to convince people that god does exist and explain using logic and evidence why. Also it is not the job of the society of believers to prove that god exists, however like I said before the power that religious groups has in the world is shrinking. Centuries before, religion influenced all of the decision made and now it is not even a mandatory course in public school in most states as well as Canada, while science is mandatory in from grade 1-8 in most developed countries (I think). Believers of religion do not believe in their religion as strongly as before. Most of my Christian friends do not like going to church and if the number of people going to church goes dwells so does the money from the donations which will force some churches to close.

Daytonturner said:

The Bible we have today has not been rewritten. No other document today more closely follows its extent original texts than the Bible. There are fewer textual errors in a modern Bible than there are in a copy of any one of Shakespeare's plays.

Yes, in reality, the reason why the bible is rewritten is because many people do not understand it as it was first written in Hebrew in around 900BC (If the facts are wrong you can correct me). Much like newly written Shakespeare books, the rewritten bible uses more modern terms to help people this time and age to better understand it. Also like Shakespeare, the bible has many metaphorical meanings and these meanings can be translated differently according to which point of view you see it from. The people who rewrite the bible would obviously translate this meanings in a manner that is from a believer's standpoint. A person of neutral status would read the original bible and the newly rewritten one and see that all of the translations of the metaphorical meanings make sense and because the person can see the direct connection between the metaphorical meaning and the translated meaning and make sense, the person does not consider the other ways the metaphorical meaning could be translated. The person is then converted into a believer even though the person has only seen one side of the argument. So simply telling someone to read the original bible is not enough, you also need to tell the person what the translations that you have made in getting to your arguement.

Man this is a long post!

Oh, I also aware that my grammar sucks and I have talked about other posts then the ones that are quoted.

[/quote]
Great! Now its not just, "only I understand the Bible correctly but "only
I know what the Bible originally said". Brother!


I Never said once that had read the original text, you managed to pull that out your own ass...

[/quote]
I was going to respond to this but then realized that you have no
interest in any answers. You might as well just come to the point
and say, "I'm not going to believe in the Bible and you can't make
me". Then we can say, "no we can't". And I would say that I don't
even want to. Please, believe what you want. Please

I thought this was a debate and so expressed my view on how i understand it and interpret what i know, i will of course I'll believe what i wish and not what is forced upon me, although i am always willing to listen and take on board the views of others, that is the whole point of debate, this isn't meant to be a row, so please correct me where you feel it wrong...? 8)

I also never said i believed in religion one way or the other, i simply want to know why you are so adamant that your religion is the correct one of all the religions out their...? :P

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Ha, Sulabella 85 also said:

First of all It's 83 not 85...

Is not saying religion is or is not correct, but i DO think everyone is entitled to their OWN opinions and it's people like you that just piss everyone off trying to force YOUR views on us as being correct and we are all wrong...

Pardon me, but isn't that exactly what you are trying to do here. Talk about hypocracy.

Did you even read the section of mine that you quoted...?
I'm pretty sure it says i don't believe either way an we should all be free to have our own view...
So tell me what am i forcing upon you...? Freedom of speech and your your own ideas...?

And we can all quote Einstein...
Eg...
"A mans ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs.
NO religious basis is necessary.
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." (Einstein on religion and science)

Einstein was a Scientist and is poor defence for spiritual religion, he also states that if he HAD to pick a religion, it would be Buddhism, as he feels it is the only religion that can cope with the combination of modern science, so using him to help you preach Christianity is never gonna help you...

And if the fact that i believe the bible to have been re-written, is your only other Whole pick in my statement, then you have so far no response for my views on the stories and the fact i don't for a second believe Jesus could have been a white man...?
How many white, mousy blond, blue eyed Israeli's have you ever seen...?

Plus just to add controversy, I probably would go to church if our British churches were more like the Black Gospel Churches of America, but our British churches are dull and boring and make no effort to attract a new generation of church goers...
This is not to say i would necessarily become a believer but i would possibly be more open to the idea of attending...

Slub said:

First of all It's 83 not 85...

Oops, sorry. I erroneously attempted to increase your IQ by two points.

Slub said:

I'm pretty sure it says i don't believe either way an we should all be free to have our own view...
So tell me what am i forcing upon you...? Freedom of speech and your your own ideas...?

OK, well, lets look at this. It is my belief that God has asked me to tell others about his plan of salvation and that, upon dying, people face the risk of facing God's wrath instead of receiving his mercy. Freedom of speech does permit me to tell others. What you are suggesting is that your freedom not to have to listen trumps my freedom to say it. You then turn around and express your views on the topic, suggesting that you have freedom of speech while I have only the freedom to keep my mouth (or keyboard) silent.

Slub also said:

And if the fact that i believe the bible to have been re-written, is your only other Whole pick in my statement, then you have so far no response for my views on the stories and the fact i don't for a second believe Jesus could have been a white man...?
How many white, mousy blond, blue eyed Israeli's have you ever seen...?

I did not comment on this because it is another of your misinformed opinions on a non-issue about what somebody else may or may not think. I, myself, have not seen that many depictions of Jesus showing him to be a blonde, blue-eyed Scandinavian type. Most of the depictions I have ever seen of Him depict Him as a dark haired, dark eyed Semite. Personally, I think this is a non-issue that you are using as a lame-brain excuse to rail against religion.

I would agree it is highly unlikely that Jesus would have been blond haired and blue eyed and also object to such a depictions. However, I just do not see those depictions all that much. In fact, in most Protestant churches in America, you will find no attempted depictions of Jesus. This seems to be something that is more concentrated on the liturgical churches which includes the Church of England.

It is also possible that some Renaissance artists may have painted more white depictions, but I do not see why you would hold this against modern-day Christians. Some churches may have icons which are hundreds of years old and highly regard their historical value. It may also be that in different cultures, church icons were developed to look somewhat like local populations in an effort to make them more palatable to that population.

It remains to me that this is a non-issue which has no relationship to belief.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Slub said:

First of all It's 83 not 85...

Oops, sorry. I erroneously attempted to increase your IQ by two points.

Slub said:

I'm pretty sure it says i don't believe either way an we should all be free to have our own view...
So tell me what am i forcing upon you...? Freedom of speech and your your own ideas...?

OK, well, lets look at this. It is my belief that God has asked me to tell others about his plan of salvation and that, upon dying, people face the risk of facing God's wrath instead of receiving his mercy. Freedom of speech does permit me to tell others. What you are suggesting is that your freedom not to have to listen trumps my freedom to say it. You then turn around and express your views on the topic, suggesting that you have freedom of speech while I have only the freedom to keep my mouth (or keyboard) silent.

Slub also said:

And if the fact that i believe the bible to have been re-written, is your only other Whole pick in my statement, then you have so far no response for my views on the stories and the fact i don't for a second believe Jesus could have been a white man...?
How many white, mousy blond, blue eyed Israeli's have you ever seen...?

I did not comment on this because it is another of your misinformed opinions on a non-issue about what somebody else may or may not think. I, myself, have not seen that many depictions of Jesus showing him to be a blonde, blue-eyed Scandinavian type. Most of the depictions I have ever seen of Him depict Him as a dark haired, dark eyed Semite. Personally, I think this is a non-issue that you are using as a lame-brain excuse to rail against religion.

I would agree it is highly unlikely that Jesus would have been blond haired and blue eyed and also object to such a depictions. However, I just do not see those depictions all that much. In fact, in most Protestant churches in America, you will find no attempted depictions of Jesus. This seems to be something that is more concentrated on the liturgical churches which includes the Church of England.

It is also possible that some Renaissance artists may have painted more white depictions, but I do not see why you would hold this against modern-day Christians. Some churches may have icons which are hundreds of years old and highly regard their historical value. It may also be that in different cultures, church icons were developed to look somewhat like local populations in an effort to make them more palatable to that population.

It remains to me that this is a non-issue which has no relationship to belief.

Actually 83 is the year of my birth, not my IQ but thanx anyway...

And as for the rest of your speech....
Thank you, finally an actual answer, to my debate, this is what i was looking for, i am well aware that i can occasionally been seen as aggressive, and i accept that, but finally a real intellectual response that i can take on board and understand better...
To believe in something first you must understand it, i obviously don't have a complete understanding of the religion or why you believe so strongly and their for do not fully believe myself, to explain to me why YOU believe instead of just TELLING me I'm stupid not to, gives me a better understanding and so I'm more likely to take on the possibility as a whole...
Obviously i have also only seen depictions of Jesus as said by the Church of England where he is ALWAYS a tall, white, blond haired guy in white robes, so i apologize for my mistake of thinking that this is how he is seen by everyone...

Also i thought this was a debate of views on religion , a throwing of ideas back and forth, not an argument about whose right or wrong, although i do so love a good debate i really HATE arguments where people usually fall out instead of trying to understand each others views and i am well aware that i am as guilty of this as anyone...

So how about i apologize for my aggressive behavior, prompting an aggressive response, and we start this again with full intention of understanding and explaining rather than arguing and attacking.... :wink:

I find it strange how often the fastest to insult with a sly toung are often the most religiously blind and truth ignorant. Also the most insecure about the reality before their senses and what is really behind it, if anything or nothing..

Do you really understand God?

Originally Posted by Dlrow

I find it strange how often the fastest to insult with a sly toung are often the most religiously blind and truth ignorant. Also the most insecure about the reality before their senses and what is really behind it, if anything or nothing..

Do you really understand God?

OK before you jump all over me on the basis of my last comment, maybe you should have read them all first...
Their is no insults here, only debate and an exchange of views, at least i'm willing to admit that i COULD be wrong, which you are obviously NOT, that makes you the ignorant and not i....

Your comment makes no sense to me at all, and the question "Do you really understand God?" has been repeatedly answered by me, if you only took the time to READ...
NO i blatantly don't understand do i, hence the reason i don't fully believe, how many different ways would you like me to put this for you...

Don't come at me with crap reasons why I'm the fool for not believing, help me UNDERSTAND why you do, then maybe I'll be more open to the possibilities...

I'm happy to tell you the reasons i see flaws in religion and in return should be helped to see where i have been misinformed, and how you see it to be, don't attack me with rubbish because then i just don't want to listen to you...
And In future if you ARE going to just attack me, at least think about what your going to say...

As this is only my second post on this forum, I will not be seeking to attack anyone. Nonetheless, being once a Christian, I do feel rather strongly about this discussion. And currently being more correctly aligned as an 'anti-religionist', tends to double my interest.

Sulabell83 Wrote

To believe in something first you must understand it

Millions of people the world over believe that 'Jesus' was born on December 25, but have zero understanding in TRUTH. They have surely been sold this pseudo-fact from the time of their first breath, however; that it is a lie matters not to them, for they will continue to 'believe' and prove it by acting in accordance – and teach their young to do likewise - for they actively and consciously disregard the truth in order to cling to their fluffy pseudo alternative.

Therefore, we understand what we choose to understand, we accept what we choose to accept, we believe what we choose to believe - all through the fine filter of personally preconceived concepts - and sadly for the vast majority of us, despite the proclamations from our tongue - TRUTH or FACT really has very little to do with any of it.

It would seem to me that, as a result; we are mostly reduced to argument based upon supposition and logic based upon innuendo, and for the sake of fear; we refuse to let go any ground, but sadly would rather look for cracks in such as the grammar of the opposition to prove our point.

May I ask – is there anyone left who seeks for TRUTH, based upon nought else, than it being at the very least based upon undeniable fact as it’s resource?

Actually, Slub, I think Dlrow was referring to my comments. He is one of those people who thinks it is perfectly OK for non believers to be unreasonable and throw out insults but is shocked when believers are even better at it that they are.

We have learned a lot while being on the receiving end of insults and slurs. It was kind of cute that Slub did not even understand that I had insulted him.

Slub said (in part):

i'm willing to admit that i COULD be wrong, which you are obviously NOT, that makes you the ignorant and not i.... Evil or Very Mad.

Not sure you present your ideas in such a way that you appear to have any doubts as to your positions.

Your comment makes no sense to me at all, and the question "Do you really understand God?" has been repeatedly answered by me, if you only took the time to READ...

The reason you did not understand Dlrow on this is because it was not written to you. But sometimes I think that is the reason non-believers do not understand the Bible -- it was not written to them. The Bible is sort of like a letter from God to believers and if one is a not believer and does not understand it, that's what they get for reading someone else's mail.

Don't come at me with crap reasons why I'm the fool for not believing, help me UNDERSTAND why you do, then maybe I'll be more open to the possibilities... Evil or Very Mad

I don't think I did that. I tried to answer your misunderstanding to the best of my knowledge or speculation, though somewhat sarcastically. However, it is obvious that you have very limited knowledge on the way the Bible was written and how it was transmitted to modern times in very close to it's original form. Your earlier statement that the Bible has been "rewritten" is not only totally inaccurate, but virtually impossible, since the copies we have of original texts come from numerous unrelated sources. Any changes would be obvious and easily detected.

Remember, it was not until the mid 1400s that the Gutenberg press permitted mass production of manuscripts. Prior to that time, all copies of manuscripts were hand copied and it was not like one person working from one manuscript. There were many people who did this work using different copies, so if one person made any error or change, it would not have effected the many other copies and if you had 10 copies, one of which was different, you could reasonable assume it was incorrect and toss it.

There are more copies and fragments of texts of Bible writings than any other document from that period. They have been compared and studied for years to the point that scholars are very sure of more than 99 percent of the text and the places where questions remain as to what the original text might have said have little or no significance as to the message of the Bible. Many such questions involve spelling errors and some are quantity errors. Reliable modern translations and paraphrases of the Bible are made from exact copies of these ancient manuscripts. The only non original-language texts which have played a role in current reliable Bible versions are the Greek Septuagint found in Egypt and the Latin Codex which was part of the text used in translating to the King James version.

I'm happy to tell you the reasons i see flaws in religion and in return should be helped to see where i have been misinformed, and how you see it to be, don't attack me with rubbish because then i just don't want to listen to you...

Again, I don't know that you expressed the reasons you believed these things to be flaws. You expressed them as absolute flaws from which you justified your position. If you perception of these things is what is actually flawed, then the result of that mis-perception is also possibly flawed. It is, of course, possible to be correct for the wrong reason, but when that it the case, it is not long until one is wrong for the wrong reason.

I really do recommend that a good book on reliability of Bible text is Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. This is a compilation of the research materials and notes he collected when he set out to prove the Bible was a bunch of malarkey and ended up realizing that the Bible provides and intellectual basis for confirming one's belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God. It is not a narrative book of argument and counter argument so much as it is copious notes and comments compiled topically.

I regret that I may have been a little harsh on you at the beginning. But there are so many non-believers on this forum whose only goal is to see how outrageous they can be in insulting believers and seem to specialize in spreading asinine misinformation and disinformation. A person truly seeking information here is rare, indeed.

Apopo said:

Millions of people the world over believe that 'Jesus' was born on December 25

I think you are making an assumption here that because we celebrate the birth of Christ on Dec. 25, almost all Christians believe he must have been born on that date. While I am sure most people never question this, those who are interested at such trivialities decide that Jesus was more likely born in February or March at the same time other lambs were being born. This time frame seems more likely in view of the Lamb of God analogy. It would have been fitting for him to be born when other lambs were being born. The Bible does not actually give a date of birth and, although I have heard why, I do not exactly recall off the top of my head why Dec. 25 was chosen as the day to celebrate his birth. I think it was established to coincide with some pagan celebration.

But it does raise the question as to why this unrevealed detail would be of such importance to you. If Christ's date of birth was an essential piece of information or some element of belief, it would have been included. If you are suggesting that you reject Christianity because some Christians may think Jesus was actually born on Dec. 25, it is a pretty stupid reason.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

why this unrevealed detail would be of such importance to you

Everybody got it but you dude. How a Bible-reading Christian can be so chronically dumb to analogy or even explicit example is beyond me. Maybe place a warning in your sig?

Originally Posted by Carbon

Everyone who can see the perfection of our universe but still deny god is a fool. /A.Einstein

This is not a quote from Albert Einstein, it is discusting that you would posit such blatently false statements and claim they are by a famous person such as Einstein.

This is the actual quote: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. " Please note the last line.
Quote mining is extremely offensive.

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by Carbon

Everyone who can see the perfection of our universe but still deny god is a fool. /A.Einstein

This is not a quote from Albert Einstein, it is discusting that you would posit such blatently false statements and claim they are by a famous person such as Einstein.

This is the actual quote: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. " Please note the last line.
Quote mining is extremely offensive.

Perhaps Carbon wasn't aware he was mis-quoting?

Good to point it out and correct that of course,

But is it necessary to scratch his eyes out as well?

....daytonturner...

Sorry i didn't realise, as Dlow's reply was directly above me and touched on non believers and a harsh tongue, i automatically assumed it was for me...Haha!!
Oh well never mind, i think i i defended myself well anyway... :wink:

Let me just state that i wouldn't say i am definitely without doubt a NON believer, i kind of like the idea of a higher power, it's just that i don't get it and I'm not convinced, that's all...
I'm also baffled that even if religion is proved to be true, how do you know which one to believe and that yours is the right one...

I'm glad we can go back and start again with an adult exchange of views and responses...
I realise looking back that my post's seem to suggest my mind is made up and this is my fact, in truth i feel I'm a fairly well balanced person and although maybe my mind has been manipulated from birth to swing more towards the critical view of religion (as you stated may be the case) I'm still willing to at-least listen to the views in favor of religion, and so far from what you have explained to me (post row) i am beginning to understand a little better....
Even if i'm not reformed to a hard core believer at least I'll be able to understand religion better and surely that's better than just being ignorant and believing its all just B.S...

Here are some of the things drummed into me from an early age concerning religion... Obviously feel free to reinterpret and explain why this is misinformation.... (no attacks from anyone else please... )

* Jesus depiction as a white man considering his origin... (you did respond to this)
*The Virgin Mary story, i have been led to believe that she got pregnant out of wedlock and possibly due to an affair or even a really early type of whore, obviously not being able to tell people this due to the fear of punishment the story was invented and could even be the real reason she left her home town and traveled north, in the direction of a bright star, of which was surely the North Star which has been their since the beginning of time and didn't just appear for some random woman and her lover to follow...?
*The Adam and Eve story really does need some explanation because surely incest had to be a factor if we all came from just the two people...?
*The Mary Magdalene conspiracy and that she was cut out of her true role within the church and re-depicted as a common whore because people couldn't accept a woman having any kind of power, and please no da vinci code references as i have been well aware of The Priory of Sion, The Knights Templar and The Masons long before the film and never read any of the books, also i have done my research on The Black Books and Satanism (even owning a copy of the Black Book and satanic ritual and law)...
See i do, do my homework from all angles in order to try and gain a level understanding of all ...
The only problem has been that any believers i have spoken to in the past only want to preach AT me rather than explain and when that happens (with any subject) i tend to just shut down...
*Also even if a blood line was proved , that only confirms that Jesus did in fact exist and not that God dose also, or that Jesus was anything more than a clever Con Man and Magician...

I'll leave this for explanation at the moment ...

To anyone else wishing to respond,Please to aggressive attacks as I'm not interested in listening to them...
Thanx...
:P

Only the individual knows when an insult is passed on to another - as sometimes insults are hidden by a sly toung.

Anything other than the essence of the point one is making in relation to the subject is often an emotional expression.

It is these out bursts of 'besides the point' remarks that one can learn the most about one's self. But you must be true, try to cut them out, they do no use, more often than not you will only get the same back to you, leading to misty arguments lacking in clarity.

Can anyone proove anything about God here?

No book can proove the existence of God.

God does not exist until one has experienced it

Pong wrote:

daytonturner wrote:

why this unrevealed detail would be of such importance to you

Everybody got it but you dude. How a Bible-reading Christian can be so chronically dumb to analogy or even explicit example is beyond me. Maybe place a warning in your sig?

I guess I am still stupid because I saw no analogy or explicit example being used in the introduction of this objection by Dlrow. His point was to insidiously condemn Christianity because the world celebrates the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25. This date is observed by the entire world, not just the approximately 1/3 of us who are Christians. It may not be celebrated by all people, but it is recognized by all.

Dlrow was making an illogical mountain out of a molehill somehow expecting the normal world to kow-tow to his demented view of things.

Since birth records of the first century are non-existent, we do not know on what day of what month Jesus was actually born and because of the differences among the calendars which were used then and have been used at times between then and our current calender, even if we had a Biblically recorded date, we would find it difficult to pinpoint it on our calendar. We do not even know for sure what year in our calender system Jesus would have been born, even though we use that as the difference between B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini). Or, if you prefer, B.C.E. (Before Christian Era) and C.E. (Christian Era). It is actually believed that Jesus was more likely born in what we would place as 3 or 4 B.C., meaning this should actually be 2011 or 2012.

So anyone who uses the year 2008 to represent this year is operating on a greater fiction than the use of Dec. 25 to honor Jesus birth. With our Julian calendar based on the supposed year of the birth of Jesus, it means the entirety of the population of the world is operating on that fiction. Dec. 25 happens only once a year. Using the year 2008 is happening 366 days this year by billions of people.

My point here is that objecting to the use of Dec. 25 as a day to commemorate the birth of Jesus is insignificant as compared to ignoring it because we do not know what day of the year he was born on. And using that as an example of Christian error is grasping at straws for something to complain about.

And such an objectio shows just what petty, narrow minded, contemptible people we Christians must deal with.

Wait, i have not mentioned Jesus..

I do not doubt he was born, i do not care for when..

What part of my last post is 'demented'? Please quote and i will try further to explain..

I am trying to figure things out man, im not here to inflict anything upon christians, i speak my mind..

Please quote the things i have said that appear 'demented'.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I guess I am still stupid because I saw no analogy or explicit example being used in the introduction of this objection by Dlrow. His point was to insidiously condemn Christianity because the world celebrates the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25.

OK first of all the words belong to Apopohis Reject not Dlrow. If you would quit that cutesy quoting style and quit assigning people demeaning little nicknames you may appear stupid less often (I kinda like the cutesy quoting style though ).


Secondly, Apopohis Reject's words were in direct, explicit response to this:

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Sulabell83

To believe in something first you must understand it

He opened with this illustration:

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Millions of people the world over believe that 'Jesus' was born on December 25...

And concluded, to the point:

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Therefore, we understand what we choose to understand, we accept what we choose to accept, we believe what we choose to believe...

Rather than shoot everything that moves, Daytonturner, you might consider the point he is making. Who knows, you may even agree with Apopohis Reject after all.

As might be expected of a post-modernist, Pong, you have somehow taken what Apopo said and interpreted it in your own way, without paying any attention to the meanings of the words Apopo used.

What Apopo said was:

Millions of people the world over believe that 'Jesus' was born on December 25, but have zero understanding in TRUTH." They have surely been sold this pseudo-fact from the time of their first breath, however; that it is a lie matters not to them, for they will continue to 'believe' and prove it by acting in accordance – and teach their young to do likewise - for they actively and consciously disregard the truth in order to cling to their fluffy pseudo alternative.

Here Apopo, without any documented proof, says millions believe that Jesus was “born on December 25 without understanding the TRUTH. So far as I would know, there has never been a study or poll which tested this concept. Nor does he offer any "truth" to replace what he calls a pseudo-fact. If Apopo knows what day of what month in what year Jesus was born, he know a lot more than any of the rest of us. Just saying that Jesus was not born on Dec. 25 gives him odds of 364.25 to one of being right.

While millions could be an accurate count, I do know that a huge number of Christians also realize that Jesus was probably not born on Dec. 25. My suspicion is that Apopo has no idea why Jesus birthday is celebrated on Dec. 25, and I doubt he is interested in TRUTH enough to go look it up. He continues his rail on disregarding the truth, but does still not so much as offer any suggestion as to what the TRUTH might be. I, in fact, suggested that the TRUTH is probably that Jesus was more likely born in early spring. It would seem to me that one does not need to interpret in Apopo’s intent to malign Christianity for celebrating Jesus’ birthday on Dec. 25. One can add some interpretation to think that Apopo is suggesting, by inuendo, that Christianity is probably wrong on many other things, too.

He adds:

Therefore, we understand what we choose to understand, we accept what we choose to accept, we believe what we choose to believe - all through the fine filter of personally preconceived concepts - and sadly for the vast majority of us, despite the proclamations from our tongue - TRUTH or FACT really has very little to do with any of it.

I have no way to know the basis of the understandings, acceptances and beliefs of others and I doubt Apopo can either. I would not agree that truth and fact has very little to do with it. I believe men went to the moon, not because of any preconceived concepts, but because of the truth and fact which has been recorded. I believe Abraham Lincoln existed because of historical references to him. I would say just the opposite here. Most of what we believe, accept and understand is based on facts, logic and observed realities.


And more:

It would seem to me that, as a result; we are mostly reduced to argument based upon supposition and logic based upon innuendo, and for the sake of fear; we refuse to let go any ground, but sadly would rather look for cracks in such as the grammar of the opposition to prove our point.

Well, here, I think he is talking about a style of argument rather than a specific argument. And, actually, I think he is talking (knowingly or unknowingly) about a post-modernist style of argument which supposition and innuendo can somehow trump logic if it suits their purpose. Perhaps the reason we sometimes attack grammar is because it means something. I try to make room for those who write here with English as a second language. It is confusing in any language to use the wrong tenses or the wrong forms of words or the wrong words because all those things have meaning and significance in communicating thoughts and ideas.

And he concludes:

May I ask – is there anyone left who seeks for TRUTH, based upon nought else, than it being at the very least based upon undeniable fact as it’s resource?

This is sort of a rhetorical question to which one could easily reply, “Well, yeah.” But on second glance I don’t think we seek truth just for the sake of finding truth. We seek truth for the purpose of finding meaning. I could say, “The car is red,” and fulfil Apopo’s search for truth based on undeniable fact. But without more information, it is pretty much a useless statement of truth.

Pong suggested:

Rather than shoot everything that moves, Daytonturner, you might consider the point he is making. Who knows, you may even agree with Apopohis Reject after all.

In view of the fact that I don’t think he made any valid observations, points or conclusions, I think it unlikely that I am going to agree with much in that post. I do agree that Jesus was probably not born on Dec. 25. And while I suppose there may be some people who do believe that Jesus was born on that date, I just do not see that as the jumping off point to a general overall condemnation of Christians or humanity as people who prefer to accept fictions over truth.

This is something non-Christians delight in doing – taking some innocuous, insignificant factoid and blowing it out of proportion in an attempt to cast aspersions on Christianity. But what is worse, is that they then become upset when a Christian steps up to expose their error and defend Christianity.

Congratulations to those who waded through this entire post.

Dude, it's OK. You're safe. Christianity is secure.

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.


Love your enemies. Be kind to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who insult you. If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other cheek as well. If someone takes your coat, don't stop him from taking your shirt. Give to everyone who asks you for something. If someone takes what is yours, don't insist on getting it back.


Stop judging, and you will not be judged. Stop condemning, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and you will receive. A large quantity, pressed together, shaken down, and running over will be put into your pocket. The standards you use for others will be applied to you.


I may be able to speak the languages of human beings and even of angels, but if I have no love, my speech is no more than a noisy gong or a clanging bell. I may have the gift of inspired preaching; I may have all knowledge and understand all secrets; I may have the faith needed to move mountains-but if I have no love, I am nothing. I may give away everything I have, and even give up my body to be burned-but if I have no love, this does me no good.

OK?

daytonturner.. You blabber so much and most of it is just knowledge and blind opinions..

Knowledge and interlect being 2 different things..

Thats what i think about your post.

You simply dont know the truth about jesus

Actually my point was that too many of us seek to have our personal belief system accepted by others as ‘TRUTH’, when it truly is nothing more than the way we perceive the few things that are important to us – for whatever reason. Yes, they may appear to make perfect sense to ‘me’, but that really is a long way from being ‘TRUTH’. So I would do myself and everyone else a great favor by admitting that anything I might seek to promote, as nothing more than my personal opinion – of the moment.

For instance, I personally disagree with daytonturner - that man has visited the moon, yet I cannot prove my expectation any more than he can his more popular stance. There exists a TRUTH for sure, but (I expect) we are both out of the loop on the facts right now.

On the other point, I was not at all seeking to attack Christianity per-se, however you have to admit; as an overall observation, this ‘discipline’ leaves itself wide open to a great many observations that will generally feel like attack.

This December 25 thing is a case in point, being an obvious misrepresentation, which amazingly comes directly from the very source that seeks for us to accept it’s encampment on the ‘highest ground’ in regards such things as truth and honesty and righteousness. So why would such a ‘righteous’ conclave push such an error as if all eternity depends upon it, and how many other pseudo-truths have they been working on to have the rest of us blithely accept – as TRUTH?

The actual date, as daytonturner states, is fundamentally immaterial and I wouldn’t care in any case. However for a great many reasons, it simply could not have even been close to the date of the generally accepted celebration, yet the religious world would have us all act as if it did. So again, the real question is – Why is it so important for them?

As for the details regarding December 25; there is more than enough information around to piece together the origins for anyone interested in why this particular date is so essential to the mélange that is the religion of Christianity. For instance we may delve into why it was originally based on the winter solstice (on the Julian calendar), and the vast array of mythical god-human pagan ‘guys’ who also shared this birthday, including the Twins (Heru and Bast), Mithra, Frey, Dionysus, Cernunnos, Demeter, Kore Persephone, the Yule Child, the sun, and various Goddesses.

We might also like to peek into the pagan Roman celebrations of Saturnalia, Consualia and Opalia, leading up to the Feast of Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) – on December 25, and how these have all been absorbed one way or another into the fuzzy and puerile religious festival we now observe.

The anniversary predated ‘Jesus’ by thousands of years, but was never associated with anything other than religious pagan structures dating back to Babylon and Ancient Egypt. Then for universal (catholic) purposes, Dec. 25 was absorbed into Christianity around the year 350CE, and we have adhered to it ever since as if we have no cause to ask any questions.

For all the above reasons and more, the past four years have seen me refusing to have anything whatsoever to do with ‘Christmas’ - which is entirely according to my personal opinion. Admittedly it makes me look a lot like Scrooge, but really; I would rather be him promoting unsavory truth, than further passing on ‘sweet’ deceptions.

And then there was 'Easter'.

Dlrow said:

You simply dont know the truth about jesus

OK, so what is the truth about Jesus? You have been babbling along here for several posts without enlightening us as to what is the "truth" about Jesus that we are unaware of.

daytonturner wrote;

Dlrow said:

You simply dont know the truth about jesus

OK, so what is the truth about Jesus?

Here is a truth (as I understand it) about 'Jesus' - even though I really don't wish to burst anyone's comfy-bubble so soon after joining.

Jesus never actually existed, but is a mythical Roman construct that came out of the first Council of Nicea in 325CE, and is based somewhat loosely upon a Jew who actually did walk the streets of Jerusalem around 2000 years ago - named Yahshua.

Apopo said:

For instance, I personally disagree with daytonturner - that man has visited the moon, yet I cannot prove my expectation any more than he can his more popular stance. There exists a TRUTH for sure, but (I expect) we are both out of the loop on the facts right now.

I'm sorry, but you don't disagree with just me on this. You also disagree with NASA and who knows how many other "millions" of people. You have probably lost the ears of most of the readers of this forum with that little outburst of ignorant foolishness.

What you have done on the other thing is establish your own "fact" that millions of people "believe" Jesus was born on Dec. 25th and used that as the jumping off point to condemn just about everyone else in existence of substituting fiction for fact.

First of all, you cannot substantiate your claim that "millions" believe Jesus was born on Dec. 25th. Have you conducted a study or taken a poll on this? Do you have access to some such study? The thing is, you are just guessing. You do not know as a "fact" that this is the belief of hundreds, 10's of thousands, millions or billions. And then you turn around and castigate others for not seeking truth.

You, yourself, do NOT KNOW how many people or what percentage of people believe Jesus was born on Dec. 25. Your hypothesis being unsubstantiated, your conclusion is unsubstantiated.

As to your claim that Jesus never even existed, I can only respond that there is no historical person from that time period, including Julius Caesar, whose existence has been more documented.

Actually, in the final analysis, I think you are employing the tactic of transference in which you charge others with your own errors. It is you who has made up your own facts and ignored facts to construct your own world which has no resemblance to the real world.

I just hate to shock you this way, but Jesus was an historical figure and man has set foot on the moon. Your rejection of just those two things indicates you are a nut case who has created his own separate reality.

Wasn't it Constantine who decided the date of December 25 as the birth date of Christ?

I am not trying to lighten you about the existence of Jesus daytonturner.

I am trying to lighten you to the fact that you fight arguments and believe in things which you yourself cannot proove to yourself, let alone anyone here.

The above.. another example of how words and opinions are made up of 'non absolutes'..

One cannot make any thing absolute, as it is that everything physical is always in a state of change constantly moving into none existence.. for example, Jesus

Originally Posted by Dlrow

One cannot make any thing absolute, as it is that everything physical is always in a state of change constantly moving into none existence.. for example, Jesus

Well, then change is absolute

Everything can't be absolute, but some things definitely are.

It is true that change is motion.

Motion in itself does not exist, motion is substance in a changing form.

As motion in itself does not exist and the motion of substance is always differing, we cannot accept that all motion is absolute, as one object under change/motion will be differently under motion/change from another object's motion/change.

Change is true to substance, what we observe.

Change in itself is not absolute as it never stays the same - defying the point of it being absolute.

My point however in my last post was that in response to daytonturner's post which asked if i would enlighten people about the truth of Jesus (found the the page before this one).

My answer is that i am not trying to enlighten anyone to the truth about Jesus.

Not matter how much evidence or logical reasoning, there are no absolute answers about Jesus, as Jesus no longer exists.. So why fight a point as if it is absolute within your own mind?

It being impossible to proove to even one's self the true date of birth, impossible to proove to one's self Jesus's existence, impossible to proove to one's self the existence of anything which has come to pass.. as it no longer exists.

daytonturner wrote;

What you have done on the other thing is establish your own "fact" that millions of people "believe" Jesus was born on Dec. 25th and used that as the jumping off point to condemn just about everyone else in existence of substituting fiction for TRUTH.

My friend - if you don't believe my words, at least believe in the significant event in which almost everyone indulges on that particular day each year. This is not condemning anyone of anything - unless it is being deceived by a mountain of well orchestrated lies.

I just hate to shock you this way, but Jesus was an historical figure and man has set foot on the moon. Your rejection of just those two things indicates you are a nut case who has created his own separate reality.

It is true that a great deal of words have been written about a 'man' named 'Jesus', that the vast majority of people in the world believe him to be an factual historical figure, and indeed that many even worship him - as 'god'. However I do not accept that any of this makes it TRUTH. You may continue to be derogatory, yet I have many good reasons for my stance - none of which you understand or are likely to accept, apparently.

For instance, how do you account for the fact that 'Jesus' is a name of obvious Greek origin, yet the man was reportedly a Jew? Or that in the original King James Bible, of which a few still exist - this name does not appear, but is referred to via an even more profoundly Greek 'Iesus'?

You seem to be turning yourself inside out in the mistaken assumption that I am making some kind of statement that there was no outstanding Jewish historical figure of 2000 years ago, yet you might do yourself a favor by letting go of your religious anxiety a little and open your eyes, for the few facts speak for themselves - once you commence an appreciation of them in favor of the many deceptions.

Again, this is an observation of nothing more than; we would do well to awaken from out of a well entrenched slumber as founded in religion - warm and fuzzy though it may well feel. After all, doesn't your Bible refer to dangers for the ten virgins - in falling asleep and missing their appointment?

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on the moon thing for now, yet try as I might, I cannot get my mind around how it took just 2 or 3 years to get there (apparently 3 times) starting in 1969, when we had zero background to call upon and the most powerful computer available was on a par with today's digital wrist watch; yet it will take another 12 years (from the announcement) to return - via today's technology and experience. For mine, the math simply does not add up.

Dlrow wrote

It being impossible to proove to even one's self the true date of birth, impossible to proove to one's self Jesus's existence, impossible to proove to one's self the existence of anything which has come to pass.. as it no longer exists.

Whilst it is true there exists no physical evidence that any Jewish 'Messiah' walked the earth 2000 years ago, much less the date of his birth; even so I believe it is safe to assume that a relatively outstanding man did eventuate upon the world scene around that time.

For mine, the real question is why has religion opted to alter his identity so, and then promote him into 'god' status - for the rest of us to worship; which by default, amazingly opens the doors of our pockets and reverence - towards them (religion).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm - I wonder - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm


(Q) wrote;

Wasn't it Constantine who decided the date of December 25 as the birth date of Christ?

Constantine was little more than a confused aristocrat who somehow came up with an astounding plan to unite his crumbling empire behind a religious adherence almost entirely founded in ancient Egyptian theology.

From his position as head over a decrepit population who had withered away their worldly gains over a long period of excesses, and in a moment of brilliance, Constantine decided to unite his profoundly pagan people under a new banner 'Christianity' in an attempt to seduce the ever-growing legion of believers/followers of the newish Judaic faith. But rather than outlawing anything pagan, he opted to stick with the status quo team - with only the letterhead being changed.

The result was perfectly acceptable for the pagan majority, who happily continued without diversion, but did not at all satisfy the followers of the emerging Jewish faith, who were subsequently deemed 'heretics' - and persecuted mercilessly, until they either fell into line or were martyred.

Therefore Dec 25, which was previously well entrenched in the pagan theology of the place, subsequently received a new identity, and hopefully no-one would ever ask the question again. The account of 'Easter' is similarly explained.

Interestingly, you might notice that this is basically in direct opposition to the usually presented sanitized account of Roman history. For it was indeed the 'Christians' who for centuries persecuted their opposition - until they were subdued; rather than the other way around.

Apopo said:

For instance, how do you account for the fact that 'Jesus' is a name of obvious Greek origin, yet the man was reportedly a Jew? Or that in the original King James Bible, of which a few still exist - the name does not appear, but is referred to via an even more profoundly Greek 'Iesus'?

I am sorry, but my patience is wearing thin. I do not know if you are just plain ignorant and have never been exposed to the reasons for the things you somehow think are anomalies. Or if you are a stupid ignoramus who is unable to put these things together on your own even though you have adequate information to do so.

The problem you are having is that you have the facts correct but you are drawing stupid implications from them.

Jesus is, indeed, the English version of the Greek form of the Hebrew name, Yeshua which is more commonly translated Joshua (sometimes Jeshua) in English. But why would you expect a Greek text to use the Jewish form of the name. If you know anyone whose name is John in English, it would be Jean in French or Ian in Gaelic. In our days, we often give deference to the native spelling of someone's name, but in those days they seldom did.

People writing in Greek, which was the main language of communication in the 1st Century, used Greek words -- not Latin words, not Egyptian words, not Jewish words. When translated into English, we took on a translation of the Greek form of such names.

The next thing which you don't seem to understand is that when the original King James version of the Bible was printed, the English language did not commonly use the letter J but used, instead, the letter I. This, in fact would also have been true of ancient Latin where Julius Caesar would have been Iulius. Have you ever seen copies of materials printed in the early days of the printing press.

You seem to operate under the mistaken belief that the world has always been as it is now. You must be very young (15? 16?) because you do not seem to have any concept of world history or historical change or how today is different from yesteryear. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe anyone could have become as confused as you are in such a short time.

A good entomology of the name Jesus as it appears in English can be found at ( http://jesusisajew.org/YESHUA.php ). I think it behooves you to attempt to understand that the use of a different form of a name does not change the person nor is it disrepectful or misleading.

Just as a minor lesson on this: Jesus is the English spelling of the Greek word. I do not know how to present the actual Greek letters here, but they are iota, eta, sigma, omicron, upsilon, sigma which can be represented by the current English alphabet symbols i, e, s, o, u, s or iesous. Greek, by the way, did not have a separate letter for the sound of j either. If they even had such a sound I don't know.

Meanwhile the Hebrew word for Jesus is more commonly translated Joshua or Jeshua. But, if you have gone to the link above, you will note the name started with the Hebrew letter yod, which perhaps would be better represented by the English Alphabet letter y.

Just as in English, some letters in Hebrew, Greek and Latin had multiple sounds. This is especially true of vowels (Hebrew had no vowels) but can also occur in consonants such as we would see in the word garage or the difference between sole and sugar.

John, Jean, Ian, Ion are all the same name in different languages. So how would it possibly make any difference which form of the name you used. John Adams would be the same person if you called him Jean Adams or Ian Adams so long as it was clear you were referencing the second president of the U.S.

Whether one uses Iesus, Jesus or Yeshua, so long as it is clear they are talking about the religious figure historically known as Jesus of Nazareth, what's in a name.

As Juliet mulls over the problem of Romeo's family name, she says, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet. . ."

You seem to be such a stickler for absolute accuracy on issues, I wonder what your stance would be when someone said the earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun. Such a statement would be accurate for only a few moments of the year. Would you insist that someone pull out a chart and say the earth right now is 92,999,207 miles, 246 yards, two feet and 9 inches from the sun? By the time they got it out, the figure would be inaccurate.

Or are you just this way on religious matters?

apopo said:

Interestingly, you might notice that this is basically in direct opposition to the usually presented sanitized account of Roman history. For it was indeed the 'Christians' who for centuries persecuted their opposition - until they were subdued; rather than the other way around.

Of course, it would never occur to you that the accepted "sanitized" accounts may more accurately reflect the historical facts than your secret special revelations from -- where?

Hey my friend, you do NOT need to explain that my observations are well outside the 'norm'. I was profoundly aware of this fact at least a couple of years before you ever had the opportunity to read word one from my keyboard. Relax - for I am comfortable with this detail, even if your patience is aggravated by it. Even so, I will take your observations on board, as from an obviously determined religious brother.

You refer to the change in spelling of the name 'Jesus' and then continue to argue, apparently without noticing that it was an 'example' - only. I have many more up my sleeve - for anyone with a little more to bring to the table than religious intolerance and an ability to google. You might need to understand that; as for your copy/pate lesson on historical phonetics - English is NOT the leader, but is quite a poor Johnny-come-lately.

'Jesus' is NOT an English version of any name, unless it is your contention that, with the introduction around 400 years ago of the letter (and sound) 'J' into the English language, and it's subsequent inclusion here suddenly makes the name 'English', but you may notice - that was around 1300 years too late. It was and remains a Greek name - with an added twist of 'J' - to sweeten the palette.

In any case - why was it not 'Romanized' by them in between - before being further translated - which it clearly was not? And furthermore, if it had to be anglicised, which is arguable to say the least - why was it not translated 'Joshua'?

You might also be further interested to learn that it was originally translated into the Greek 'Iesous', according it's deference to Zeus - the head mythical pagan 'god' of the time, and supposed father of many other 'gods' - some to natural human virginal 'Madonnas', no less.

It was then pronounced 'Hey-Zeus' or 'Hail Zeus', and was an obvious salutation in that direction. It is still today pronounced in most languages as - 'Hey-Zeus' - English being (by my reckoning) about the only exception.

My 'secret special revelations' as you call them are from all around, are available to all, and are the result of many years of intense and painful personal study and research, which is apparently antonymous to yours - coming from the usual comfy generalized source of regular religious indoctrination - by others.

daytonturner.

There is no nice way to put it.

You insult people more than any of the people who you say are ignorant to religion.

On a basis of peace, self control and ability to humilitate one's self in order to pursue a higher truth, you are the least religious poster in this forum, despite your apparent knowledge of certain areas of history.

daytonturner is not religious? Where did that come from?

I disagree entirely, for it would appear to me that he is an obviously well indoctrinated believer into whatever sect of his favored adherence. Even if he has never been to church in his life, he has no problem in standing to deliver for the well known team - 'Popular Religious Myth'.

This depends on our defination of a religious man.

There are actually no absolute definations of this word as one man may be very peacefull and call himself a religious man while over the other side of the world you have another man called Bush face idiot load of shyt wrapped up in a human skin whom also calls himself a religious man.

So religious man is really non existent.

Its just a bunch of individuals who tag themselves religious for their own self's point of view.

If someone says to me - 'i am religious'.. that means nothing to me, that person may follow the same religion as the man over the other side of the road whom also calls him self religious but the difference being that one man says prayers, eats meat, has rough sex and insults people without renunciation, while the other man says prayers, makes love, and compliments people..

Religion is an illusion.

Nature is a reality where our role in it is so small we can bearly understand the point of ourselves even.

Well in my opinion, the entire world is profoundly religious in one way or another. Our modern day society is drenched in religion to the extent that we take most of it for granted, and the rest is designed by religion - to look and feel fuzzy and delicious.

You know that many people will say that they are non-religious, but still commemorate Christmas and Easter in the usual fashion, which are entirely religious festivals. Other people will dogmatically adhere in a religious manner to their wealth, possessions or some favored fanaticism such as sport - based upon nothing more than their faith that their security at whatever level depends upon their doing so.

For mine, this makes all the above actions religious, even if their words are not. So what are we to believe - a man's words or his actions?

Brahmandji has put it very nicely. Atheist does not believe in God despite knowing well that there is something more to his vision than what he is trying to deny.

I found the Big Bang theory akin to a goat tied to a tree saying that it can go anywhere it likes to eat grass. The theory is a vain attempt to unravel the marvel of Universe's origin.

If the universe started with the BB then who made it possible by creating enough space to help the bang to spread? Had there been no space for the bang then no universe.

Even if something has to happen at random there must be His clear cut order. We are individual souls and there is a Supreme soul that know past, present and future.

From one freshman to another - WELCOME JOSEPH!

You said;

If the universe started with the BB then who made it possible by creating enough space to help the bang to spread?

The way I see it, space is nothing, therefore it cannot be created nor destroyed. If you could create space, then it has already ceased to be nothing, for it has become something. Or is that the other way around?

Anywayz - WELCOME!

I agree Joseph, big bang or any theory which attemps to create an explanation of their being a start of the universe is not plausable, for that simple reason - space.

Space must have existed, filled or empty (seemingly empty), for anything to expand into it.. Also space must be infinite. I consider that matter is a part of space and therefore the universe is infinite. Totally immeasurable to its ends as it has no ends, or start .. and we create the mant inbetweens (through measurement).

From reading the above posts I can only assume that the persons who wrote them know nothing of spacetime, big bang or the current understanding of it; nor the evidence confirming it.

Originally Posted by Obviously

From reading the above posts I can only assume that the persons who wrote them know nothing of spacetime, big bang or the current understanding of it; nor the evidence confirming it.

It is the religion sub-forum.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It is the religion sub-forum.

That must be very frustrating for you I presume... :P

Space is infinite. It must be. Think about it. Even if you think that you will travel around and around in circles ask yourself, whats outside the circle? Where is the circles perameters being held?

Originally Posted by Dlrow

Space is infinite. It must be. Think about it. Even if you think that you will travel around and around in circles ask yourself, whats outside the circle? Where is the circles perameters being held?

Originally Posted by Timeline of The Universe

10^-43 seconds

Known as the Planck Era, this is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time. At this moment, the universe is thought to be incredibly hot, dense and turbulent, with the very fabric of space and time turned into a roiling morass. All the fundamental forces currently at work in the universe - gravity, electromagnetism and the so-called strong and weak nuclear forces - are thought to have been unified during this stage into a single "superforce".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...iverse.physics

Outside our universe there might be more universes or there might be nothing (meaning absolutely nothing, not even space). I'm not sure we've come far enough in research to be sure though.

''There might be nothing'' How can there be nothing?

There is no such thing as nothing, space is infinite. The concept of Infinity exists, it can be applyed to numbers for example, what is the highest number?

Space is the same, it has no boundries.

Originally Posted by Dlrow

''There might be nothing'' How can there be nothing?

Trouble comprehending the concept of nothing are we? It doesn't matter how I frase it, you should be able to understand what I mean. Especially when I clarified with:

Originally Posted by Me

(meaning absolutely nothing, not even space)

I understand what your getting at but actually it is impossible to comprehend nothingness.