Lost Data

[MMI]

Great! So where did the light come from before the sun and stars were created? Just a generalized glow throughout the universe?

Actually, Thorne, that might be about right. After all, scientists talk about seeing traces of the Big Bang in background radiation, which is the same in every direction you look.

Of course, proof of the Big Bang would just about be the end for God.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually, Thorne, that might be about right. After all, scientists talk about seeing traces of the Big Bang in background radiation, which is the same in every direction you look.

Of course, proof of the Big Bang would just about be the end for God.

Proof of the Big Bang would do nothing to make an end for God!

[Thorne]

Actually, Thorne, that might be about right. After all, scientists talk about seeing traces of the Big Bang in background radiation, which is the same in every direction you look.

True, but it is not visible radiation. Therefore it is not light.

Of course, proof of the Big Bang would just about be the end for God.

No, you can't really say that. There is always the possibility, however remote, that some god started the whole shebang. But it would kill the myth of the biblical creation (as though that needs any more killing) and would relegate the Judeo/Christian/Islamic version of God to the fairy tale scrap heap where he belongs.

[MMI]

I don't know about you Thorne, but I can't see ultra violet light, nor infra-red ...

... and it was the biblical God I was referring to.

If the Big Bang was caused by some other uncreated instigator, it does not fit the usual understanding of a god, which, most of all, requires to be praised, lauded and worshipped. One would have thought that any Supreme Being worth His salt would know He was pretty damned good without having to be told.

[denuseri]

Well you all have fun making fun in this thread of everyone who believes in anything that you dont. Peace.

[MMI]

Well you all have fun making fun in this thread of everyone who believes in anything that you dont. Peace.

There's no need to be so sensitive, den. People here are derided for holding all sorts of opinions. People with socialist sympathies and people who are pure capitalists; supporters of Bush, Obama fans; gun abolitionists, people who believe in the right to own firerms; Catholics, Protestants, Jews ... if we can all take it, then so can God.

Otherwise, he'd be better off not reading this thread at all.

[Thorne]

Well you all have fun making fun in this thread of everyone who believes in anything that you dont. Peace.

I'm not making fun of anyone. It's always been my stance that people can believe what they want to believe, as long as they don't try to force those beliefs upon others.

And anyone here who would like to make fun of my disbelief, they're welcome to do so. Just provide some evidence, that's all I ask.

[Bren122]

The biggest influence, and this is true of anywhere in the world, will be the US. Too much has to go too right for too long for China to propel itself past the US in the timeframes most people envisage. The US will be THE major power for some time to come.

Russia is looking to regain its Soviet former glory, but it is facing a demographic crisis (Islamification), a population crisis and an economic crisis. Further, there is no guarantee and very little hardware to stop China turning much of Siberia into a defacto part of China.

If the Ukraine can gain access to energy from any source other than Russia it may assume a larger role in Europe, but until that time it will rely on the interests Poland, Germany and Russia to maintain their independence. Roughly the size of France and with a similar population it could be the breadbasket of Europe with the right investment.

Poland is the only Eastern European nation likely to challenge for a leadership role in Europe. It has to get past a generation of political, economic and criminal corruption before that will happen.

Spain and Italy are too backward politically to offer the stability required for a European-wide role. No other nation has the size, population or political/diplomatic establishment to come close to Germany, France and Britain.

Britain gains far too much from its roles as No1 US ally and head of the Commonwealth to ever seriously contemplate a full share of Europe. Because it can't/ won't take that full share it must ensure that neither of its rivals gain too much from a position of leadership. It may support common military and foreign policy goals but British Military thinking is very different to France/Germany and European Foreign Policy is much too soft for British interests.

France gains far too much economically from the current arrangements which prop up its inefficient economy and helps its governments to avoid implementing long overdue reforms. Its attempts to form a French version of the Commonwealth or a Mediterranean league are nothing more than attempting to shore up French political influence in the face of continued German economic expansion. The French military desperately needs updated tanks, small arms and artillery, and none of its home made systems comes close to matching German or British equipment but neither can they simply 'buy foreign' so the military keeps falling behind.

Germany's needs would be better met by casting off the old EU and the drain of the Common Agricultural Policy and create a Mitteleuropa. France uses the historical memory of German policies in WW1 and WW2 to remind the rest of Europe of the dangers of allowing a strong Germany go its own way. it also has an imbalance, politically and economically, with the integrated East Germans. But the biggest break on German power is the strength of the Greens and Socialists and their ideological commitment to peace at all costs.

There is no threat now or likely that will ever draw these three away from their separate foreign policy commitments and ideals to form a tripartite government of Europe. Without all three committed, any one can create enough doubt in the smaller nations to stymie any effort at closer integration.

[steelish]

If the Big Bang was caused by some other uncreated instigator, it does not fit the usual understanding of a god, which, most of all, requires to be praised, lauded and worshipped. One would have thought that any Supreme Being worth His salt would know He was pretty damned good without having to be told.

God does not REQUIRE praise, laudation, or worship. People are the ones who believe that. My belief is that God requires each one of us to live as purely good as we can with our thoughts and actions towards our fellow man. God wants us to emulate his goodness as much as each of us are capable of doing. I do not believe we need to attend church and throw money in the coffers to be believers. God is all around us and within us. Some people simply choose to denounce him, rather than have a quiet and unabiding faith in him.

[Thorne]

God does not REQUIRE praise, laudation, or worship. People are the ones who believe that. My belief is that God requires each one of us to live as purely good as we can with our thoughts and actions towards our fellow man. God wants us to emulate his goodness as much as each of us are capable of doing. I do not believe we need to attend church and throw money in the coffers to be believers. God is all around us and within us. Some people simply choose to denounce him, rather than have a quiet and unabiding faith in him.

I must say that your version of God is much more tolerant than the traditional version. In fact, it's completely at odds with the biblical version of Yahweh/Jehovah. Throughout the Old Testament God smites those who fail to worship or praise him, and even some of those who do.

As for denouncing, I have no wish to do that to those who believe in gods of any kind. I will denounce those who try to force others, through legislation or threat of bodily harm or any other means, to abide by their beliefs.

[steelish]

Throughout the Old Testament God smites those who fail to worship or praise him, and even some of those who do.

No doubt. However, the bible was not written by God himself but by people.

I once had a debate with my father over God and faith. He is of the mind that ONLY Christians go to heaven. I argued that my belief is God does not turn away someone simply because they are ignorant of a specific faith. How can he condemn someone who is born as a Buddhist? Someone who only knows one way of life? However, I do believe that people intrinsically know right from wrong and/or evil from good and choose to live life one way or another.

Do I think God punishes a little boy for being born a Jihad and who has killed by the time he is 10? That is not something I know the answer to. Maybe he shows the child the truth of goodness and gives him a chance, maybe he doesn't. All I know is that only God can pass judgement, and based upon the 10 commandments and the knowledge that they are rules that are designed to keep us good and pure (as good and pure as a human can be), then I find it difficult to believe that God cannot see true goodness in the heart of one who stands before him in judgement.

As for denouncing, I have no wish to do that to those who believe in gods of any kind. I will denounce those who try to force others, through legislation or threat of bodily harm or any other means, to abide by their beliefs.

I also abhor those who knowingly do bad things and think that by "confessing their sins" they are completely cleansed and can go to heaven. I'm sorry, but I truly believe God can see right through that tactic.

[Thorne]

No doubt. However, the bible was not written by God himself but by people.

I agree, but again, our point of view is in marked contradiction to many who believe that the bible is the actual Word of God, and woe unto those who would disagree!

All I know is that only God can pass judgement, and based upon the 10 commandments and the knowledge that they are rules that are designed to keep us good and pure (as good and pure as a human can be), then I find it difficult to believe that God cannot see true goodness in the heart of one who stands before him in judgement.

But didn't we get the ten commandments from the bible? If so, then by your own words, they were written by men, and not by God.

The truth is that people can and do behave properly even without a belief in God or gods. It has been shown that morality is a survival mechanism for people, allowing large groups to live together more or less smoothly. There's no reason to believe that people are only good because of God. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that those areas of the US, at least, which are most religious also have higher crime rates than areas which are less religious.

I also abhor those who knowingly do bad things and think that by "confessing their sins" they are completely cleansed and can go to heaven. I'm sorry, but I truly believe God can see right through that tactic.

If there were an omniscient God then yes, I would expect he could see through that. But Yahweh, of the Bible, doesn't seem to care how his worshippers come to him, only that they do.

[MMI]

All I know is that only God can pass judgement, and based upon the 10 commandments and the knowledge that they are rules that are designed to keep us good and pure (as good and pure as a human can be), then I find it difficult to believe that God cannot see true goodness in the heart of one who stands before him in judgement.



I also abhor those who knowingly do bad things and think that by "confessing their sins" they are completely cleansed and can go to heaven. I'm sorry, but I truly believe God can see right through that tactic.

In passing judgement, God is passing judgement on Himself. If a man does evil, it's because God gave him the freedom to do so, but insufficient discrimination to avoid doing it.

[DuncanONeil]

True, but it is not visible radiation. Therefore it is not light.


No, you can't really say that. There is always the possibility, however remote, that some god started the whole shebang. But it would kill the myth of the biblical creation (as though that needs any more killing) and would relegate the Judeo/Christian/Islamic version of God to the fairy tale scrap heap where he belongs.

Sorry can't quite accept that the referenced discovery would "kill the myth of the biblical creation". Being as a "Supreme Being" is by definition unknowable, their skills and abilities are also unknowable.

[DuncanONeil]

I'm not making fun of anyone. It's always been my stance that people can believe what they want to believe, as long as they don't try to force those beliefs upon others.

And anyone here who would like to make fun of my disbelief, they're welcome to do so. Just provide some evidence, that's all I ask.

Making fun does not require evidence. Convincing does!

[DuncanONeil]

God does not REQUIRE praise, laudation, or worship. People are the ones who believe that. My belief is that God requires each one of us to live as purely good as we can with our thoughts and actions towards our fellow man. God wants us to emulate his goodness as much as each of us are capable of doing. I do not believe we need to attend church and throw money in the coffers to be believers. God is all around us and within us. Some people simply choose to denounce him, rather than have a quiet and unabiding faith in him.

Should one be accepting of Jesus of Nazareth. There are two Great Commandments. All either of those requires is "love" and nothing else!

[DuncanONeil]

I must say that your version of God is much more tolerant than the traditional version. In fact, it's completely at odds with the biblical version of Yahweh/Jehovah. Throughout the Old Testament God smites those who fail to worship or praise him, and even some of those who do.

As for denouncing, I have no wish to do that to those who believe in gods of any kind. I will denounce those who try to force others, through legislation or threat of bodily harm or any other means, to abide by their beliefs.

Were Yahweh were truly a venial God Abraham's son would not have survived!

[DuncanONeil]

No doubt. However, the bible was not written by God himself but by people.

I once had a debate with my father over God and faith. He is of the mind that ONLY Christians go to heaven. I argued that my belief is God does not turn away someone simply because they are ignorant of a specific faith. How can he condemn someone who is born as a Buddhist? Someone who only knows one way of life? However, I do believe that people intrinsically know right from wrong and/or evil from good and choose to live life one way or another.

I was born and raised Roman Catholic, spent 13 years in a Catholic school. And I was taught that a faithful following of YOUR religion is sufficient for God's mercy.
In addition, at a time when it was common belief, that I could not enter another Church. As part of my religion class we were to go out in the community and interview priests and ministers of other faiths and report the interview to the rest of the class. The result, I can only speak for my understanding, was a revelation that in the basic tenets of all religions wer precisely the same.

[Thorne]

Sorry can't quite accept that the referenced discovery would "kill the myth of the biblical creation". Being as a "Supreme Being" is by definition unknowable, their skills and abilities are also unknowable.

But somehow all those religious leaders seem to know about them? That would be a contradiction, wouldn't it?

But perhaps what they claim to "know" is really just speculation, based on a lack of understanding of the real world. Like how a bronze-age nomad would have viewed the world.

[Thorne]

Were Yahweh were truly a venial God Abraham's son would not have survived!

I think you meant "venal", as in corrupt?

And if he were not venal, he wouldn't condemn a sinner's innocent children. (2 Samuel 12:13-18)

[DuncanONeil]

But somehow all those religious leaders seem to know about them? That would be a contradiction, wouldn't it?

But perhaps what they claim to "know" is really just speculation, based on a lack of understanding of the real world. Like how a bronze-age nomad would have viewed the world.

Basically all I was told was; God was all seeing, all powerful, and all knowing.

[DuncanONeil]

I think you meant "venal", as in corrupt?

And if he were not venal, he wouldn't condemn a sinner's innocent children. (2 Samuel 12:13-18)

Venial - venal, I never claim to be a typist. And being human I can make mistakes. But venial is most correct.

As for the reference. I read it. I have never been one to be very comfortable reading and using small parts of anything that is parsed as many verse quotes in the Bible. Anyway I also am not one that claims the Bible is word for word the only criteria, nor that God concerned himself with day to day operations of humanity. Kind goes against the concept of free will! I did have a number of concerns with the reference, too short, and divorced from the situation at hand. Reading more of Samuel raised additional concerns.

[Thorne]

Basically all I was told was; God was all seeing, all powerful, and all knowing.

Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here, but far too many people base their beliefs only upon what they've been told, and not upon rational thought.

I was taught, through 12 years of Catholic schooling, that God was all good, all knowing and all powerful. (This is, of course, the standard Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.) It was also accepted that God was eternal, unchanging. Yet the only evidence we have for these statements are religious texts written by men about a being they cannot possibly begin to understand, by their own admission. So my question must be, how do we know just what, or who, this God is? Or if he even exists? We have no evidence for anything said in any texts, whether Bible, Torah or Quran. Hell, one of the greatest stories in the Old Testament, the story of Moses and the Exodus, may be nothing but a fairy tale! There is no evidence to suggest that anything written about this ever actually happened, in any manner. How can we trust anything else written there, then?

[Thorne]

Venial - venal, I never claim to be a typist. And being human I can make mistakes. But venial is most correct.

It wasn't my intention to correct your spelling or typing. I'm just trying to understand your meaning. By my dictionary, venial means, "Easily excused or forgiven; pardonable", which did not appear to apply to what I thought your were saying. Venal, meaning, "characterized by corruption" seemed more accurate. I'm sorry if I was wrong.

As for the reference. I read it. I have never been one to be very comfortable reading and using small parts of anything that is parsed as many verse quotes in the Bible.

I don't much care for it either, but this tactic is frequently used by those who wish to use the Bible to support their own positions.

Anyway I also am not one that claims the Bible is word for word the only criteria, nor that God concerned himself with day to day operations of humanity. Kind goes against the concept of free will! I did have a number of concerns with the reference, too short, and divorced from the situation at hand. Reading more of Samuel raised additional concerns.

Everything I was ever taught about the biblical God raised concerns for me. A God who is all good and all loving should not allow evil to exist, or allow innocents to be punished along with the guilty. A God who is all knowing contradicts the concept of free will, too. And if He knows something will happen, how can He become angry when it does?

No, everything I have learned tells me that, IF a god or gods created the universe, they did it for reasons we poor mortals cannot possibly comprehend, and believing that they did it just for us is a level of pride which would make one worthy of the biblical hell. As near as we can tell, our existence in this universe is the result of a nearly infinite series of cosmic accidents and random occurrences. One tiny change in that sequence eliminates humanity, as we know it, from the universe. And believe me, the universe would not miss us.

[DuncanONeil]

"(T)hrough 12 years of Catholic schooling, that God was all good, all knowing and all powerful. (This is, of course, the standard Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.) It was also accepted that God was eternal, unchanging"

You can not be trying to say that any being that can accomplish creation is not outside the understanding of mankind. Any "culture" sufficiently advanced will appear to operate as if by magic to a "primitive" culture.

12 years, huh, got you beat by one. Have you already forgotten one of the primary God questions we all asked? "Can God make a rock so big he can not pick it up?"

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
As for the reference. I read it. I have never been one to be very comfortable reading and using small parts of anything that is parsed as many verse quotes in the Bible.

I don't much care for it either, but this tactic is frequently used by those who wish to use the Bible to support their own positions."

In my early teens a pair of Witnesses came to the door. Made a quote and presented the Book to show me. It was part of a sentence. Did not make much sense, read the whole sentence, did not make much sense either. Ended up reading the whole paragraph. At that point the mean was a bit clear but my understanding was the opposite of what they cited.
I began to discuss that with them but did not get very far.
Not for that reason. ----
My mom came to the front of the house and made me come in and shut the door!

[Thorne]

You can not be trying to say that any being that can accomplish creation is not outside the understanding of mankind. Any "culture" sufficiently advanced will appear to operate as if by magic to a "primitive" culture.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that, if such a being existed, such that it's very being is outside the understanding of mankind, then no one, especially those self-proclaimed religious leaders, would be able to claim an understanding of that being. And to decide, without any evidence to confirm it, that all of the universe was built just for us smacks of a pride which those same leaders would condemn as sinful.

[Thorne]

Not for that reason. ----
My mom came to the front of the house and made me come in and shut the door!

An obviously intelligent woman!

[denuseri]

BTW the consept of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscientient, or even omnibenevolent deity does not preclude or negate free will in anyway whatsoever.

From each creatures personal perspective the theory of consepual awarness of ones fate or destiny if it does exist shouldnt preclude the fact that since you have no foreknowledge or way of precieving your own fate (trapped as we are by the human condition) that speculation on it doesnt rob you of it.

As for the existance of Evil geting in the way of omnibenevolance; I shall refer you to the philosopher St Augustine who wrote so much about it in his work "The City of God".

[Thorne]

BTW the consept of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscientient, or even omnibenevolent deity does not preclude or negate free will in anyway whatsoever.

From each creatures personal perspective the theory of consepual awarness of ones fate or destiny if it does exist shouldnt preclude the fact that since you have no foreknowledge or way of precieving your own fate (trapped as we are by the human condition) that speculation on it doesnt rob you of it.

Semantics! Regardless of one's personal knowledge, if an omniscient being has already foreseen the results of everything, then anything you do will only lead to those results. While you may perceive it as free will, from the perspective of such a being it's predestined.

As for the existance of Evil geting in the way of omnibenevolance; I shall refer you to the philosopher St Augustine who wrote so much about it in his work "The City of God".

Yes, theologians have been wrestling with this problem for centuries, with little or no success. Evil comes from Satan, they say. But God created Satan, and that omniscient God knew that Satan would bring evil to the world, so God knowingly created evil.

From "God: The Failed Hypothesis", by Victor J. Stenger:
"The problem of evil can be formally stated as follows:
1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

The God in this quote is, of course, the traditional Judeo/Christian/Islamic God as defined in the Old Testament. While this does not say that a god or gods cannot exist, it does refute the existence of God as we've been taught to understand him.