The Smiley Smile Message Board

I'll get back to you guys in a few minutes when I'm done reading this, but for now:

Will Science ever prove what happens after death to the human? Will it prove an existance of God? Could it possibly bring the world into one perfect union through astonishing finds?

It will not convince those who are unwilling to accept the evidence currently provided.


It will not convince those who are unwilling to accept the evidence currently provided.


It will not provide a substitute for God.

Man, I cannot quote properly!  :D

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

I can write words on paper too.

It's everyone elses choice to wonder if my word is The word, or if it is just a word.

I don't believe the Bible is proof.

Look outside at the sunset. That's proof.

That's just a vague answer to my questions.

Of course a sunset is beautiful. Lots of things are beautiful. But why does beauty, our conception of beauty, have to be linked to a God?

http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html

I know it's unfit to quote George Carlin in spiritual crisis but -- eh, he makes me chuckle.

To go with Ian's example -- If I were to accept any supreme being into my life, it'd definitely be just an all prominent being. Something that just is. We just are. No silly stories, no angels, no goblins, just everything as one. I've been trying for so long to "get into God" but he just won't let me in the club. I cannot connect, no matter how hard I try, no matter what emotional state I wind up in.

http://freethought.homestead.com/index.html

No.

C'mon, Luthe!

not proof enough...

Science by definition is not able to provide direct evidence for God.  If God is transcendent and beyond the universe, there will never be direct scientific evidence.  By definition, science is a method of examining the universe in its physical and material manifestataions.God by definition exists beyond it.  Now there will be plenty of indirect indications that taken as a whole may cause someone to believe.  If you study modern astrophysics, there are a TON of these.  More and more astrophysics is pointing to a personal deity in an indirect way.  The Big Bang makes little sense without a God of some kind, as a short example.  But proof?  By definition, no, never.

However, science will never prove God wrong, or the Bible, IF IN FACT God is as the Bible describes.  We may not understand at that moment how to make it all work together, but if God made the universe and made the Bible, they will be consistent.

The fact that simple man is able to make any scientific conclussions and laws using simply the world around him has to make you wonder whether or not a supreme being created us, giving us these tools.  Like, the discovery of Helium through something as unlikely as a solar eclipse for example.

I can find holes in both the atheism arguments and the arguments claiming a personal God and all that. I can stand outside on a day like today, wrapped up in the warmth of the day and the beauty of all the colors -- but how do I know that's the work of God and not just myself being accustomed to enjoy those colors, that heat, etc?  I find it impossibly hard to believe in what I would call ridiculous concepts like Heaven and Hell. The universe is too massive for such little things in our lives to matter one bit. That thought leads me to the, 'all alone in the universe' position. But there, on that thought, I think well perhaps we are the only form of life in our galaxy for that very reason. Perhaps that points to God, putting life on this planet. Of course if they start discovering life on other planets of any kind, people will be doing a lot of re-thinking.

I cannot find it anything but petty to think that our moral system as humans will be judged at the end of our lives. That anything we do counts towards any goal but ultimate death. I could run out in front of a car right now, get killed, and that'd be it. My family would lose a member, the car driver would have to get his car fixed, etc. It seems religion, every single religion, would be the opposite of what God would want, if he ever wanted anything. Why is it that we have to please this God? The creator of all we know in the universe! Why must he demand we follow his words? Religion is used as an obediance trick for a lot of people when growing up. It's hardly any different than sending the dog away to get potty trained. Now, I'm not incriminating anyone here with this phrase, but, there are just so many people who are under blind faith. They haven't given their own faith any serious thought, only followed what they were told to do. These people should be yanked from their homes and have a bucket of cold water splashed over their faces. If they come out of that with their faith as strong as ever, good for them. If they suddenly realise that they've been led astray by their parents, good for them.

Mr. Fogg, if you were to read your own words at a distance, you might be surprised to find that there is a significant amount of confidence in your own thinking and reasoning.  So much so that you have been able to map out what an infinite and transcendent God is like and what He should do without any reference to Him in the real world at all.  I am being a bit sarcastic, but I have a point.  People say what God should be like and base it on their own ideas or preferences.  I can try to do the same thing with my wife, but by saying "She should be X" doesn't make her so.  There are some buried assumptions in there:  Either God is not there, or if He is, He is so irrelevant that I can think anything I want about Him and it doesn't matter. If God were to exist, He shouldn't care about morals because, well, He just shouldn't.  I should be allowed to do anything I want.

All well and good.  But, you see, just because you have been taught without thinking certain assumptions by the culture, just as you say that religious folk are by their parents, doesn't make those assumptions correct.  You have been taught that only empirically provable entities are real, that any existence beyond those is unknowable and we build our reality in that realm by societal contracts and arrangements.  You have never even heard (in this culture) the possibility that there IS an absolute that exists, that it is the frame of reference for all of reality, that if this absolute exists that it might specify a set of boundaries that may or may not coincide with what I want or expect that boundary to be.  It is so foreign that many people just flat out can't conceive of it.

But think for a second.  If God were to exist and have relevance for our lives, He might well have personality and character, and specify what should and should not happen in His moral ways (while still granting the freedom to act for or against that code).  And maybe that code is not arbitrary but rather an extension of His own nature and character.  And as creator, He would have absolute rights over His creation, whether they liked it or not.  If He is evil, this is a horrid situation for the creation.  But if He is good, there is hope.

Rather than trying to prove that God exists, try imagining what it would be like if He did exist and He was Other, Numinous, Awesome and fearful -- and He knew your every action and had the right to judge you.  Then after that read the Gospel of John and ponder why Jesus came to earth.  Not saying you will agree, but it might give you some empathy for those of us who believe (without blind faith, thank you very much....).

To stray away from the negativity for a little bit:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ue3abUbFW14&search=Simpsons%20

^ Is GREAT. Very funny.

........

Jeff, I appreciate your points very much. Check out that video if you like the Simpsons.

http://www.atheistempire.com/mm_dl/video/The%20Simpsons%20-%20Homer%20Proves%20There%20is%20No%20God.mpg

Here's another funny Simpsons clip dealing with God.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't science already proven the Bible wrong? I mean, most of Genesis doesn't fit in with what scientists have determined is the history of Earth.

No, science contradicts most of one particular, overly literal interpretation of Genesis.  Actually, Genesis properly read is in excellent harmony with science.  The key is to be willing to make two shifts of perspective:

1) The words "Day", "Evening" and "Morning" can all refer in Hebrew to indefinite periods of time.

2) Genesis 1 is written from the perspective of a viewer on the surface of the earth watching the changes of 5 billion years of change on earth (that's why, for instance, light is seen before the sun, because the cloud cover obscured the sun for millions of years).

For more information on such an interpretation give this book a read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576832309/sr=8-1/qid=1148295978/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2510325-9760015?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Jeff, I have great respect for your thoughts and opinions on this subject. As it's obvious that you're not simply a misguided fool, and are comfortably absolute in your stance, I'd like to know more about the link between the Bible and science. I can't afford the book right now so I'm wondering if you know of any websites which go in depth into the same topic? If I could somehow manage to bring faith into my life, (simply ignoring all of my doubts will only hinder it in the long run) it'd make a great change for the better of me.

The gent that wrote that book has his own website, and you could spend hours bulldozing through his material:

http://www.reasons.org/

FYI -- he is an astrophysicist first and a theologian second, so his work is all as scientific as the method allows.  He is also unapologetically "Old earth" creationist (as am I), which means that the earth was created over 5 billion years instead of 6 days in his thinking.  This can be extremely controversial in Christian circles by people who hold certain views of hermeneutics (which I would oppose).  I can't imagine that there would be many questions you would have that aren't addressed on this website.  Mr. Ross has a firm conviction that accurate and unbiased science and solid biblical interpretation and application will never contradict due to the character of the GOd who made both the Bible and the laws of the universe.

Anyone who thinks that science and the Scripture cannot co-exist or that one contradicts the other should read a good dose of articles from this website.

Jeff, I don't want to get too much into this debate just now, but I do have a question about the above. I've been told before the exact opposite by Protestant clergy (specifically, both ELS and Missouri Synod Lutherans) who would have to be considered literalists. They have told me that while there ARE words both specific for a 24-hour day, etc., and a less specific period of time, the ones found in the oldest existing texts are indeed the ones for a 24-hour day. Are you sure of the above, specifically that the words used most often are the ones that are less specific?

There pretty much is only one word in Hebrew for "Day" === "YOM".  It is both a literal day and a period of time.  Many people want you to believe, though, that because the phrase (clearly a stylistic set) "and there was evening and there was morning, day X" in Hebrew compels one to mean 24 hour days.  If this is so, how do you explain day 6 and Genesis 2?  Day six has God creating all mammals and birds, and man and woman both.  Yet Genesis 2 has Adam work in the garden, name all of the animals, realize he is lonely, fall asleep and only then have God make a woman.  This happens in less than 24 hours?  I don't think so.  Genesis 2 clearly teaches a bachelorhood that lasts longer than 24 hours, yet according to the young earth creation theory, Adam was able to do all of this and get lonely/need a helper in about 6 to 8 hours or so, one would think.  In addition, those who say that with a number,YOM means a 24 hour day, I say, the construction I list above is unique in Scripture.

It's not really worth fighting over, but it boggles my mind how Christians would rather cling to a specific interpretation and bend the world to fit it when another valid literal interpretation would fit the scientific record like a glove and not alienate skeptics.

Someone should make an internet cartoon of the Bible so that I can follow it better. It's hard to look through my book shevles and actually choose the Bible rather than other books.

http://thebackpew.com/backpew/bible_indexed.htm

http://cartoonworks.gospelcom.net/

www.chick.com has some pretty interesting comics, even though it says Protestant murderers go to Heaven and good Catholics go to Hell.

Great link, thanks.

"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God"

"going to hell" or "going to heaven" is not based upon whether we as people judge a person to be a murderer or a good person.  If that was so, we'd all go to Hell right now.

And I'd be the fodaing tour guide.

I have dealt with fans of the Chick stuff before.  I am ashamed for brethren of mine to put out dreck like that.  Terrible scholarship and lousy theology, with hate at the center.  Don't let that dye your view of Christianity.  Jesus doesn't teach that type of garbage.

When I was a very young church goer...I was well acquainted with Chick publications...my advice...if you read them, dont be easily offended...I did like "The Sissy" and "The Bull"...good stories...but Chick always references his own material on the anti catholic stuff...he over emphasizes things he is against...

Yes, I think some of his early books are OK, but much of it has become hateful and hurtful....

(http://www.chick.com/images/ts.gif)

PS Alberto Rivera was a real person...I saw him speak...

Science is largely faith-based too isn't it?

Some claim the creation story manuscript in Genesis is a hymn, not meant to be "scientific" by the author.

I have said so for a long time, though most people scoff at the notion.

I guess you could say so. Though it's a faith based more on systematic research and  also more concretely substantiated, ideally anyway.

Søren

I was thinking more in the way that people claim to have had experiences and understood things and witnessed things that I take on faith as science.  Is there gravity, I've never seen, felt, tasted or smelled it but I see its effects etc., etc..

I don't see the creation story and Darwin's theory of evolution as incompatable either, they fit very nicely together whether the story was meant as fact or fiction.

Depends upon what is meant by "Darwin's theory":

If you mean that God moved over time and actively changed one species into another via billions of years according to His perfect plan, I could agree.

If you mean what scientists mean today, who say that the process alone is sufficient, and by "process" they mean purposeless random mutations over time creating diversity and life spontaneously coming into existence with no reference or place for any divine activity, then no, they can't go together. Scientists understand this.  That's why so many of them are opposed to religion, because 1) so many creationists cling to the 6 day notion and reject science and 2) the notion that science is unable to explain EVERYTHING is offensive to them.  The theory of evolution (which IS a theory, and one with some serious holes in it) assumes that there is no place for divine interaction and that the universe can be explained without it.  So all attempts to draft evolution today try to show how it all came to be without God and isn't it great that we don't need God to explain it -- maybe God is irrelevant after all!

Of course, this causes them to overlook certain things (often to the point of outright deceit): like, for instance, not providing a proven (i.e. experimentally, not hypothetically) mechanism whereby one species transforms into another.  Like not seeing macroevolution occur in eukaryotic organisms today.  Like not being able to produce any beneficial mutations, even in the lab.  Like explaining how the fossil record is full of gaps and anomalies like the Cambrian explosion which run contrary to all evolutionary predictions.  Like how biochemical reactions required for life are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved in stages but either work or don't work.  And I mean deceit when I say it: most if not all of the standard proofs shown in textbooks -- the moths on trees, the ontogeny argument, the horses argument among others -- have been discredited by more recent scientific work but are still touted as proof of evolution in high school and college textbooks.  In one case a scientist went on the record to say something like "It may not be accurate but it is easy to understand and gets the point across."  Now that is integrity, when you admit that what you teach isn't true but you do it anyway because the ends justify the means.

Sorry, while I am no crazy young earther and love and respect science, sometimes the fact that people refuse to consider valid scientific evidence against random Darwinian evolution gets under my skin.

Well, when you see the effects then it's not really just a matter of faith anymore because you've seen it substantiated. But gravity in itself doesn't really exist, it's a concept made in an effort to try and understand some phenomena like apples falling, why we don't fly away etc. Of course it refers to some natural force or forces, but it represents more of an angle to try and understand things, it's not a sort of concrete entity in itself.  Einstein as far as I know actually did away with the law of gravity, because there were things it couldn't explain and tried to develop new concepts, that could explain the same phenomena more fully.

Søren

Anybody who denies that god exists is a fucking idiot. Just look at the sky at the sea at the lovely pictures in such museums as the lourve, dont tell me that a heathen made those! LOL!  :D COME ON! Jesus is leading the way for us, we all have to start getting together and realise that this world is going down hill, fast! We need to get morals back in schools and in society, the mere fact that gays and sexual deviants are given respect in society is a sign that we as a society have gone astray. Wake up people! If a woman is raped, then there is a reason for that, she has obviously not led a virtuous life, im saying god punishes the bad directly but the devil sure does! A woman who is raped or receives sexual transmitted diseases then she deserves what she gets, AIDS is a sign that these people are not worthy to live. AIDS is the cleanser that god chooses to rain down upon these f*ggots and whores.

So, Brady Bunch or Partridge Family?

In breeding is never funny. :) but the Partridge Family

Second username?

If you're a new member....er....leave?

Why? He fits right in!

Chuck/Billy/Amosario, can we check to see if someone is playing tricks via IP address or something? This is pretty obnoxious.

Faith in action imo.

I'm not saying it is a bad thing, I love science, I'm just pointing out what I see as a matter of faith and the various concepts and theories and dogmas and traditions in either don't change the absolute imo.  Or something like that.

Yeah, I wasn't really arguing with that.

Søren

Goodbye.

Depends on what you mean.

"christfondler" and his posts are obnoxious.

Is that a "this board sucks so much I can't help but post here too" announcement, or something else?

Uh, that's what I meant -- this guy seems to be baiting us.

Don't feed the troll--God told me to say that...

You would be really, really surprised to find out who that person really was.

No, it's a "that post seemed like nothing out of the ordinary for this board, but at least he comes right out and says it without hiding behind an entirely phony passive-aggressive personality" post. But later I found it was just someone who had the same feelings I do.

Well, I'm ready to be surprised. So who is it?

Andy Paley, who else?

Booo. I was hoping it would be someone exciting.

Andy Paley?! WTF?!

Someone's not getting the joke.

The joke's not funny.

Check out this cool band:

http://www.pugwashtheband.com/

Don't feel bad.  You wouldn't be the first person to be passive agressive here.  And I'm not the first one, either.

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of this board, however.

Man, passive-aggressive I ain't. Aggressive-aggressive, to a fault.
I don't have a low opinion of this board. Just a low opinion of some of the opinions on the board. As I am sure others have of mine.

You don't mean mine, do you?  Ian? ...  Ian?  I'm just a dumb white boy you know.

Every root and snort you make is pure gold to mine eyes, O dear one.

Even though your comment may or may not be drenched in sarcasm...

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y196/McDrewit/HappyPig.jpg)

So, Rerun -- what's the scoop with the piggy pix?  My curiosity has reached the critical mass point.  Do you just like pork or is there a cool story?

And could you consider changing the sig?  I thought we had agreed to leave that junk in the past.

Finally, you may want to check the Smile Shop if you haven't already -- I have a CCM thread going there you might like on Jesus music.

It's when pigs don't fly. Am I right? Did I win anything?

My son likes pigs.

I like 'em, too. They're delicious.

Ever been to a house where the wife (usually) is obsessed with collecting pigs? Pig salt shakers, pig oven mitts, pig clocks, pig plates, pig stationery..

I've seen cow collection obsession. 

My mom had frog collection obsession.

My family collects the little animals that come from tea bag boxes. They're displayed on this off-sectioned wall thing which blocks the television. The cat picks them off one by one and grins.

My wife has a frog obsession. In fact her pet name for me is "Froggy". She got a small frog tattooed on her right shoulder right after we got married 5 years ago. We have frog related stuff all throughout our place (mats, toothbrush holders, salt shakers, ect.)

Well, my icon is something I animated in like 10th grade when I was learning how to make a website.  Ironically, it was about a satanic pig named "The Chuck," and you were able to sign your soul to him.  "The Chuck" has been a part of pretty much every web-related thing I've done since...

A demonic pig named after me.  I'm moved, almost to tears.

Can we call you Chuckie?  :lol

Some call it a coincidence, I call it fate.

Well...never mind.

What this man is afraid to say, I am not.  Charles is an evil person and it's time the participants of this board and his family knew that.  I do not envy those that believe themselves to be close to you.

OK, now I am confused.

This topic is so not kosher.

Get it? Kosher? Pigs?















I've had too much to drink, AND got a bad sunburn. Forgive me if my humor mechanism seems to be misfiring...  :lol

This part was funnier than the kosher part.

 :lol

Ian?  Afraid to speak his mind?  Now that would be Hell.

Heaven.