3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..."...at this point the Tree of Life is quickly uprooted and hurried away from the bad humans.BTW, who is He talking to in this particular passage?

He is talking to Jesus, his son, and the holy spirit. they all three are the same person, but different entities, like a shamrock.

As you walk up the steps to the Capitol Building, which houses the Supreme
Court, you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers
and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full
frontal view - it is Moses and the Ten Commandments!

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten
Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall right above where the
Supreme Court judges sit a display of the Ten Commandments!

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and
Monuments in Washington, D.C.

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our
Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our
political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the
capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to
sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It
cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was
founded not by religionists but by Christians.not on religions but on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ".

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher.whose
salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the
established orthodox churches in the colonies.

Thomas Jefferson worried about that the Courts would overstep their authority
and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the
rule of few over many.

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should
select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 200
years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Rated PG: interesting. I didn't know that.
Well, given this new information, I think that the US should officially declare itself a Christian country and exile all the non-christians.

Witout God, America will fall apart thanks to the non belivers and those who have no faith and say there is no God. To those souls I feel sorry for you.

Every knee will bow and every tounge confess that jesus is Lord when the time comes...

Maybe then we can put this evolution BS behind us...

that cracks me up, seriously, really really, Rated PG and Kona...

I needed it, thank you

BTW: who was it that said "Let him who without sin cast the first stone?" must have been some homeless person without any import, huh?

Kona, how would it make you feel if everyone told you they felt sorry for you because of your beliefs? I'm guessing you wouldn't like it, so treat others in the same way you'd wish to be treated yourself.

Those of us who don't believe in God don't need your pity. We need your understanding and acceptance that everyone has the individual right to make their own choices about their lives and the world they live in.

To continue to say that you feel sorry for those of us who don't believe is just as offensive as us telling you that you believe in a false God. I don't begrudge you having your beliefs, so don't deny me mine.

hey IP don't look at me, I am a sinner as well. no man is perfect.

Those of us who don't believe in God don't need your pity.

your right. You need prayer.

I just do not see how people can deny God. It does not make me mad, just puzzled.

but I will respect your beliefs and live and let live so to say.

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731). -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, 1789) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- (Treaty of Tripoli) "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." ". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson (stating that the Common Law does not directly inherit from Christianity). "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Danbury Baptists) "We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society." -- John Adams ...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination -- Thomas Jefferson “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” -- James Madison

Here's a link to a rebuttal of the argument about any constitutional legal framework involving the artwork on and in the Supreme court building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm

As for the the clergy appointed to lead the prayer before each session, that appointment (and congressional approval thereof) occurred years before the ratification of the bill of rights (and therefore the first amendment), and Madison argued against it. Not that it isn't necessarily a valid appointment, but it has no bearing on the establishment of religion by the government.

It can be accurately argued that the United States is a primarily Christian nation by composition, but it is also quite clear (both in the Constitution and in the many subsequent rulings that support it), that there is *no* legal ground for any establishment of a national religion.

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

And yet, they pretty much *all* decided that establishing a national religion was a bad idea (most of them also left countries that did have established national religions). Additionally, although they were members of orthodox churches, they were not all the same orthodox church (or affiliation). Part of their decision process was that no particular religious viewpoint (even among those they were a member of) should take precedence over any of the others in the government.

I just do not see how people can deny God. It does not make me mad, just puzzled.

That's strange, just the opposite has always puzzled me. How can anybody, who wishes to be thought of as sane, believe in ghosts and goblins and all other order of silly, spooky things like gods and devils. But, just because it puzzles me doesn't mean I don't have the capacity to tolerate such foolishness. As a species, I believe we are way past the need for such idiotic crutches to lean on like 'supreme beings'. We make our own lot in life. We live with it. We die with it. Then it's done. Nothing else.

The thing organized religions depend on is the gulibility of the majority to believe that if they bow and grovel to some 'higher power' then there will be something for them after they die. That's what gives these religions their power. Well get used to it people, there's nothing. When it's over, it's over. Period. Finito.

Motion: then explain to me why cancer completely heals itself WITHOUT doctors but with prayer?

I have seen things like that and more by the power of prayer. I will not deny that there is a God. To do so would undermine my whole life and beliefs.

I'm a fatalist Kona. If the cancer healed itself then it was going to anyway. Nothing or no One interfered to make it heal itself, it did so because it did so. No other explanation needed.

motion:
Explain These then:

Broken bones healing themselves after a serious fracture WITHOUT a cast or splint

Brain tumors shrinking and dissappearing WITHOUT doctors help

Smoking addictions stopped dead in their trcks just with prayer

Paralyzed people becoming whole again without doctors help

Blind people seeing again!

David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear!

Penn driving an articulated truck over Teller!

Roy getting bitten by a white tiger live on stage!

Oh wait... that last one actually happened...

Broken bones healing themselves after a serious fracture WITHOUT a cast or splintBrain tumors shrinking and dissappearing WITHOUT doctors helpSmoking addictions stopped dead in their trcks just with prayerParalyzed people becoming whole again without doctors helpBlind people seeing again!

I refer you to my answer in post #638


Oh, and I stopped smoking cold turkey. It was a result of a heart attack and my own willpower.

And please don't tell me the heart attack was a sign from God. The only thing it was a sign for was that I was smoking too many cigarettes and eating too much fatty foods.

Kona,

Even as one might agree that such things happen, they are not a prima facie argument for the existence of God. They could simply be due to a mechanism we haven't detected yet.

*I* believe that God has a hand in them, but that isn't proof.

Even if we could actually *prove* (to everyone's satisfaction) that God does indeed exist, that would still not justify imposing any default or defacto religion upon everyone (especially at the level of government).

Oh ye all of little or NO faith... I give up on you all but I will still pray for ya!

Oh ye all of little or NO faith... I give up on you all but I will still pray for ya!

Motion said: "How can anybody, who wishes to be thought of as sane, believe in ghosts and goblins and all other order of silly, spooky things like gods and devils."


For the same reason Leucippus of Miletus theorized the atom in 440 BC, before there was any reasonable way of proving the idea. A black hole, what a silly idea, right? Nothing but a bit of fuzzy math and imagination? I'm sure children in the early-mid 20th century got stern talking-to by mature people like Motion for all their alien/outer space/death ray nonsense. We can all be grateful to the Soviets for scaring some imagination into the staid western hemisphere. We are too mature for such, so lets just put it out of our mind until someone else does it first and waggles their Sputnik in our face.

Thank God people don't always 'outgrow' the ability to imagine things that are possible, however improbable ( Doyle is your friend...). Anyone who claims to have any clue about philosophy and science should know, to a profound degree, that you can't *disprove* the existence of anything. Unless you have a model of the entire Universe, complete to the finest point, you can't say there isn't a God. By doing so you are making the same sort of assumption as someone who says he is a tall guy with a big white beard. You assume that somehow your experience is definitive on the subject.

Atheism isn't a science, it is a belief, no different than anything else. It relies on faith, and hides behind a veil of 'science'. You have the faith that there will never be any evidence of a God, either uncovered from the past or developed in the future... unless you can see into the future? This is something that you can't *know*, any more than you can know if there is life on other planets.

The most any honest anyone can be is that they don't know if there is a God or not, since their experience doesn't disprove the existence of such. They can, of course, say that they BELIEVE that their isn't a God, but I find that atheists don't like to bandy about with that sort of word, and much prefer to expound their ideals as though they were somehow scientific fact.

Don't fall into the trap that the Amazing Randy's of the world find themselves in, or you will find yourself poo-pooing anything that takes imagination and faith to achieve. I am acquainted with hard-core Skeptics; fraternal ones, even, and I don't envy them. Most everything we touch and use these days can be traced back to an innovation made by someone who was laughed at for what they were trying to do.

I would much rather be a sheepish unbeliever that helps Noah pack for his trip and stays behind to drown than the guy that stood around laughing at him. At least you drown with a little self-respect.

Here's a thought....

It's quite 'logical' to contend that God is a creation of man...an entity or concept to help man comprehend his being/role/existence.

If there were no 'Man' it would follow there was no 'God'.

Worse still to ponder.....does Man actually have the capacity to create/construct/materialize something through sheer thought/emotion/desire?

It is not a case of 'I think, therefore I am'....but actually 'I think, therefore God IS'.

My issue with established, organized Religions is that the 'God' created by/for them was another's interpretation/imagination, not mine, with an 'RTFM' of ambiguous jibberish and a theology too closely linked with the justification of war, segregation and discrimination.

I'll stick wiff me own God that I thunk up to help me through the daze....

I've always been a proponent of logical thought rather than fantastical thought. That does not mean I do not encourage and applaude progressive and creative thought. I just can't reconcile God or religion as either progressive or creative.

Being more a logical than an emotional person I tend to believe in logical philosophies such as Occam's razor. Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, morality and existence, which is self containing and in itself has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, morality, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world.

Bakerstreet, nice to see take part of our conversations again.

Having said that, I've said it before and repeat it: although I don't think that there is a God, I don't totally reject the fact that I may be wrong. There may be a God, but I don't think there is one. Or worse, there may HAVE BEEN one, and maybe he left by now or is dead.  Or maybe there WILL BE a God and he sometimes travel in time to pay us a vist. I don't know.

But, what I am am very much against, is any organised religion. I disagree with blind faith. I urge every believer to think by himself and not follow the words of somebody who's trying to manipulate him. Have faith, but have your OWN faith.

I would like to state further that although I do not believe there is a god that does not mean I don't respect many of the beliefs of Christians. Having been unwillingly baptized one myself and having been made to attend Catholic schools and sunday church services until I was in my teens I did learn quite a bit about it. I've read the bible cover to cover at least ten times, which is probably at least eleven times more than most people disussing this here.

The person from which Christians take their name gets all of my respect. I can't think of a life more worth emulating. I can't think of anyone else I'd rather learn many of life's lessons from. But that doesn't mean I think that he was the son of God, or is in any way a god himself. A great teacher and thinker, yes, but I can't raise him to the stature of god.

No. That is a misuse of Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor implies a working understanding of the reality of something. If the curtains move, and I know there is a draft, then trying to explain it as a ghost is counter to the practice. If I have no knowledge of 'draft' then the razor is no help. The draft explanation does not, however, disprove the existence of ghosts, only that particular instance of the belief. If you try to make such a blanket statement, you have discarded Occam's Razor yourself.

William of Occam, I might add, believed in God " by authority and reason." His 'razor' will cut differently depending on the common sense of who is holding it, so it is *not* an objective tool. A Creationist will accuse a Evolutionist of jumping through hoops to make his point, when there is a more simple explanation ( to him ). The personal knowledge of the wielder is what Occam's razor uses to debunk, and knowledge is subjective, if for no other reason than our inability to see what will be known in the future.

If Occam's Razor was the gold standard, then anything outside our understanding would never be investigated beyond assumption. Assumption is not science.

Motion said:

"Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?"

It would be unwise to cite Occam's Razor and Physics in the same breath, considering 99.9% of all modern physics flew in the face of the 'most simple explanation' at the time it was theorized. Wanna talk about the readily apparent sensibility of quantum mechanics? Even basic Physics flies in the face of what a average person would consider 'common sense'. Newton's first law of motion as an example:

"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

Would that have been "the most simple explanation with a few explanatory premises" to someone in 1687, especially coming from someone who had recently suffered a mental breakdown? . Hell no, I roll something, it eventually stops. Occam's Razor is one tool in a kit, and completely at the mercy of the understanding of the wielder. Fortunately, people look beyond the simplest explanation, and expect to find things that defy what we NOW call 'common sense'. In this way 'common sense' is revised over time. Bring your razor and go ask a physicist what came before the big bang.

God is one of these things that some people completely, irresponsibly, disavow the possibility of, based only on the small wedge of understanding they have. Doesn't matter that their model of the universe is impossibly incomplete, they still somehow *know* that there isn't a God in there anywhere. Pretty illogical, if you ask me.