From an email I sent to a friend on religion. Any opinions?

mikesguitar
mikesguitar Posts: 55
edited May 2008 in All Encompassing Trip
There's one simple question that
atheists probably hear on a regular basis in one form
or another. If a god didn't 'initially' create matter
and motion, who or what did? In other words, how did
the initial motion and matter begin to exist? That's
the question the arguments all seem to come down to in
the end. Technical arguments about the earth could be made all day by either
side, but unless an atheist at least has an explanation
about the very beginning of matter and motion, then what's the
point in even trying to make a case against creationism?

It seems clear to me that God didn't create a
truth so technically sophisticated that it would take
half a lifetime of text book research to catch a
glimpse of it, even if that was possible. If that was
the case then only the
most scientifically-oriented, intelligent few would be
saved by His gospel (the gospel is the story of
Christ's death and the explanation of it's saving purpose)
and the gospel itself (the thread of the entire
Bible) would be of little importance. Instead, as the
Bible states it, God simply exists and His creation
makes it obvious to all. I believe the Bible teaches
that knowing the truth is only possible by having the
desire to know God (the truth). Being of the Calvinist
persuasion, I believe having this desire is only
possible when God gives it, and gives it only to some.
I can't advocate the Calvinism aspect of the Bible
with total confidence and I could even be wrong about
it. People having this desire to know God and humility
toward God seem to be an intertwining process.
According to the Bible, pride is one of the seven
abominations which God hates, the sin that ushered in
the initial fall (the angelic fall) as well as the
initial fall of man, and is the sin that most often
snared men throughout the Bible. It's no wonder then,
God choosing to unfold a creation story in Genesis
filled with so much wild, almost fantasy-like symbolic
imagery for the proud to scoff at and stumble upon.
I'm not trying to accuse you of being proud. I'm
trying to explain to you a mental pic of God's ways in
relation to mankind and creation.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567…12

Comments

  • BinFrog
    BinFrog MA Posts: 7,314
    Humans are born into a world where everything has a beginning and an end: Day has night. Birth has death. What goes up must come down.

    My view of the universe is that is has no beginning or end, but spreads out in every direction. There is no real 'past' in the universe. What came before the big bang? An infinite series of big bangs that always has and always will exist. If you look at the universe the way we are taught to, then something 'had' to create the big bang. But what if that were not the case? Just because 'we' have to have a beginning and an end, does that mean everything does? To me, the universe makes a TON more sense if viewed this way. It didn't have to be created, it was always here.
    Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
    Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
  • Dissidentman
    Dissidentman Posts: 15,378
    A must read:

    http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    mikesguitar wrote:
    There's one simple question that
    atheists probably hear on a regular basis in one form
    or another. If a god didn't 'initially' create matter
    and motion, who or what did? In other words, how did
    the initial motion and matter begin to exist? That's
    the question the arguments all seem to come down to in
    the end. Technical arguments about the earth could be made all day by either
    side, but unless an atheist at least has an explanation
    about the very beginning of matter and motion, then what's the
    point in even trying to make a case against creationism?

    It seems clear to me that God didn't create a
    truth so technically sophisticated that it would take
    half a lifetime of text book research to catch a
    glimpse of it, even if that was possible. If that was
    the case then only the
    most scientifically-oriented, intelligent few would be
    saved by His gospel (the gospel is the story of
    Christ's death and the explanation of it's saving purpose)
    and the gospel itself (the thread of the entire
    Bible) would be of little importance. Instead, as the
    Bible states it, God simply exists and His creation
    makes it obvious to all. I believe the Bible teaches
    that knowing the truth is only possible by having the
    desire to know God (the truth). Being of the Calvinist
    persuasion, I believe having this desire is only
    possible when God gives it, and gives it only to some.
    I can't advocate the Calvinism aspect of the Bible
    with total confidence and I could even be wrong about
    it. People having this desire to know God and humility
    toward God seem to be an intertwining process.
    According to the Bible, pride is one of the seven
    abominations which God hates, the sin that ushered in
    the initial fall (the angelic fall) as well as the
    initial fall of man, and is the sin that most often
    snared men throughout the Bible. It's no wonder then,
    God choosing to unfold a creation story in Genesis
    filled with so much wild, almost fantasy-like symbolic
    imagery for the proud to scoff at and stumble upon.
    I'm not trying to accuse you of being proud. I'm
    trying to explain to you a mental pic of God's ways in
    relation to mankind and creation.
    ...
    Personal faith is Personal.
    Listen... you have your faith... which I don't have a problem with. Just don't think that your truths (beliefs) apply to me (or anyone else). I'm not going to try to make you doubt your beliefs... as long as you don't try to tell me your Truth.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    We can illustrate infinity through mathematical illustrations so we know it exists.

    Therefore everything was already here.

    It's just what it is.

    something or nothing... on or off...

    voila...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Rhinocerous Surprise
    Rhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    If mankind didn't invent God, then what did?
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • Kilgore_Trout
    Kilgore_Trout Posts: 7,334
    dissidentman wrote:
    A must read:

    http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion
    pfft... dawkins is a piece of shit

    hes as helpful to the creation argument as michael moore is to politics :rolleyes:
    "Senza speme vivemo in disio"

    http://seanbriceart.com/
  • Dissidentman
    Dissidentman Posts: 15,378
    sgossard3 wrote:
    pfft... dawkins is a piece of shit

    hes as helpful to the creation argument as michael moore is to politics :rolleyes:

    Awesome.


    But who is anyone to an argument about a question that doesn't have an answer?
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    I couldn't disagree more. I don't agree with a single thing you wrote.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    sgossard3 wrote:
    pfft... dawkins is a piece of shit

    hes as helpful to the creation argument as michael moore is to politics

    Care to elaborate on why you think Dawkins is a "piece of shit."
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • BinFrog
    BinFrog MA Posts: 7,314
    Collin wrote:
    Care to elaborate on why you think Dawkins is a "piece of shit."


    My guess: they just don't agree w/ Dawkins' stance. It's kinda like saying a band sucks because you don't like them.
    Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
    Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
  • Kilgore_Trout
    Kilgore_Trout Posts: 7,334
    Collin wrote:
    Care to elaborate on why you think Dawkins is a "piece of shit."
    ive just seen a few interviews with him (most recently in that new ben stein movie) and i dont care for how he delivers his opinions... and thats exactly what they are... opinions... theres no answer to what hes theorizing about yet hes so damn closeminded to any other possibilities... i thought my michael moore comparison pretty much summed up my problems with him :D
    "Senza speme vivemo in disio"

    http://seanbriceart.com/
  • Kilgore_Trout
    Kilgore_Trout Posts: 7,334
    BinFrog wrote:
    My guess: they just don't agree w/ Dawkins' stance. It's kinda like saying a band sucks because you don't like them.
    for the record... im a former catholic... definitely far from creationism... but since im not a physicist or theologian i prefer to have no real stance on the matter... at the end of the day what difference does it make how we got here as long as im enjoying the time i spend
    "Senza speme vivemo in disio"

    http://seanbriceart.com/
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    sgossard3 wrote:
    ive just seen a few interviews with him (most recently in that new ben stein movie) and i dont care for how he delivers his opinions... and thats exactly what they are... opinions... theres no answer to what hes theorizing about yet hes so damn closeminded to any other possibilities... i thought my michael moore comparison pretty much summed up my problems with him :D

    I'd say Dawkins is a lot more intelligent than Moore. Anyway, I don't think either of them are "pieces of shit" no matter how much I might dislike the way they put forth their information or opinions.

    You could say, however, that I think religion is a piece of shit for those reasons, though :D
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    dissidentman wrote:
    Awesome.


    But who is anyone to an argument about a question that doesn't have an answer?

    An observation noted on both sides.

    Probabilities in science close the gap on this more than anything man has come up with thus far.

    At a certain point, the law of probabilities becomes substantially more than a guess.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Vedderlution_Baby
    Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    I get a lot more "atheist don't have morals. They don't anything stopping them from killing or stealing"

    Which infuriates me to extremes.
  • Rhinocerous Surprise
    Rhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:
    I get a lot more "atheist don't have morals. They don't anything stopping them from killing or stealing"

    Which infuriates me to extremes.

    Agreed - the whole "all our concepts of right and wrong come from the Bible" routine gets old really fast.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:
    I get a lot more "atheist don't have morals. They don't anything stopping them from killing or stealing"

    Which infuriates me to extremes.
    Yeah, my morality as an atheist is dependent on my conscience. I'm not trying to attain salvation, I just don't like hurting people. My morality is my own, it's not dictated by anyone else.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:
    I get a lot more "atheist don't have morals. They don't anything stopping them from killing or stealing"

    Which infuriates me to extremes.
    I get that too, even though I'm 100% non-religious. I do believe in God but I just don't follow any particular "book" to know Him.

    I set my own laws of morals and life I go by. If I go to Hell for that, then oh well, whatever. :D
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    It is funny to me that people think they can objectively win this argument, regardless of their belief. Our minds our too feeble and finite to grasp this knowledge. This is a question created by the human mind that the human mind could never possibly answer.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Kilgore_Trout
    Kilgore_Trout Posts: 7,334
    LongRd. wrote:
    I get that too, even though I'm 100% non-religious. I do believe in God but I just don't follow any particular "book" to know Him.

    I set my own laws of morals and life I go by. If I go to Hell for that, then oh well, whatever. :D
    seriously... if god is that much of a prick that he would send an all around decent person to hell for a bullshit reason like half the commandments or for believing a different religion because they were raised in the wrong country then i wouldnt wanna spend eternity with him anyway...
    "Senza speme vivemo in disio"

    http://seanbriceart.com/

Categories