| Keith's Home Page |
What others said about Science, Religion, or the movie Contact
June through July 99


| July through October 97 | November through January | The 12 Day Debate | February through April |
| May through July | August through September 98 | October through November 98 |
| December through June 99 | June through July 99 | Final entries |
| Back to the introduction |

The latest entries are at the bottom


Jun 7, 1999
Val
Hi. I just stumbled upon this site tonight, and I really like it. It's a good thing to have a place where religion and theology can be discussed. Something my Bible study teacher said the other day is that we are all theologians. A theologian (golly, I can't spell...I hope that's right) is a person who has a theory about or thoughts regarding God. And EVERYONE has a theory about God. That He does exist, that He doesn't. That he is Allah or Christ or something else. I believe that the God of the Bible is THE GOD. I believe this very firmly. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God. John 1:1 tells me that He was in the beginning. John 1:3 states that "through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Thus, he is the creator. I believe that He is the WAY. The only way. And the truth and the life (also in John, I believe).

I cannot look at the heavens and see the stars and ponder the universe without thinking about God. And the most amazing thing to me is that he values US--you and Me, measly human beings--over the stars. Amazing.

As far as Contact goes (though I see your about to move on to other movies). I loved the movie--not only because Matthew McConaughy was in it (I am a teenaged female)=) but also because I felt that it was an awesome argument for God. I believe that while science maybe can't prove God (which would leave no room for faith) but it can ultimately support His existence, His sovereignty, His power in creation, and His love.

I think I'll have to bookmark this page and come back though I feel I may be somewhat out of my league. Being only a young 'un, I've only had one year of physics, and it was... well it was a high school course!!!

Val


Jun 8, 1999
D.Ball
Val, you said that, "I felt that [Contact] was an awesome argument for God." How so? We've discussed this to some length here, but I'd like to know what you mean on this point specifically.

Jun 8, 1999
D.Ball
By the way, Val, welcome to the site. It's always nice to have new input.

Jun 9, 1999
Val
Why did I think it was an awesome argument for God? Oh, this makes me think I need to watch the movie again to get all the good thoughts that run through my head going again. OK. Let's see. Ellie was very opposed to accepting anything on faith to begin with. Yet in the end, everyone who believed what she said about her trip had to take it with a certain amount of faith and suspend other doubts. To me, that was an illustration. And that's a lot like faith in God. We're never going to prove He's there because that would take out the faith element. But He is there nonetheless. Not only there, but wanting to be involved in our lives. And THAT blows my mind! Perhaps I'm not presenting these ideas well. Sorry! I haven't read the book, and I may just have a really screwball interpretation of what I saw. Maybe next time I watch I'll write down where I go on thoughts along those lines and tell you all.

Jun 10, 1999
D.Ball
Val has said something which has caused me to consider something kind of strange with regard to Contact and Carl Sagan. Consider the following: the nature of science engenders the suspension of belief. The purpose of literature engenders the exact opposite, the suspension of DISbelief. How odd is it that Sagan has tied together these two opposite realms into one, cohesive, and comprehensible system?

One the one hand, literary scholars agree that we would not be able to follow Sagan's story (or any other work of fiction) unless we suspend our DISbelief that it COULD happen, that it is possible, or that it seems real in some way. Once disbelief sets in, the story no longer works, and we'll most likely toss it aside. On the other hand, what lies within Sagan's fiction --science-- is a system of thinking which requires us to do just the opposite, to suspend belief, rather than disbelief. Anyone want to comment on this strange phenomenon?


Jun 12, 1999
Keith
I just stumbled across the Great American Think-Off on C-SPAN and they asked this question: Which is more dangerous, science or religion? Good question. I think science is more dangerous. Check out the C-SPAN web site to read the final four essays.

Jun 13, 1999
D.Ball
Keith,
Thanks for the links to the essays. In general, I think EVERYONE, whether they were writing for science or for religion, agreed that either of these institutions can be harmful if taken to the extreme. The third person especially sounded like she didn't have a problem with religion in general, but BAD religion, people or groups of people who abuse authority or prey on ignorance and fear. I think most people would agree that's pretty dangerous. I think most people would agree that there are certain religions that fit this description pretty well. But I think this author, and all of the authors, totally missed the point.

It isn't religion or science (specifically) which create Hitler's or psychotic Jesus-freaks. It's something rooted far deeper in humanity.


Jun 14, 1999
Val
I appreciated the essays too. And I would agree that both science and religion are dangerous in their own right. Science, I think, is dangerous because it can sometimes give the illusion that all things can be explained or should have proof, and we get frustrated when we can't find those explanations and proof. However, I think religion, or in my case Christianity FEELS more dangerous. My slant is that it often requires total abandon. The phrase, "let go, let God" comes to mind. You find yourself realizing that YOU don't have the control over everything and that trusting feeling can be really scary. But, for me, in the end, I've found that what came when I let go and let God and watched Him work out his will was so much more than what I could have ever dreamed of doing in my own selfish control. And, in the end, the feeling of danger fades, and you realize with God for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31)

Jun 14, 1999
Daniel
Great essays Keith! I really enjoyed reading those. They were all four very well thought out. Which is more dangerous, the logical rule or the ethical? I think that one mistake people make is in comparing so closely science and religion. They are really two different things and have two different goals. I suppose it's easy to do considering both science and religion try to explain nature and the origins of life in their own way. But religion is the only one giving ethical or moral advice. One of the essays that I read thought that science was more dangerous because it did not afford ethical or moral advice. Another suggested that a man was afraid of what would happen to him after death, because of a lack of religious belief (I suppose I'm biased in which essays I picked). It is true that science doesn't provide ethical or moral rules, I think that is something that each person should discover for him or her self. And, if you follow certain philosophical principles, everyone just might end up agreeing on that point (but not likely). As for what happens after death, I have heard some scientific explanation for that, but not much, and not very well supported.

Science tries to explain what only one are of Religion explains. The rest is left to us, in a way I guess that makes science more dangerous. People often have a hard time deciding on their own what is right and wrong. On the other hand religion has a way of sheltering and controlling the lives it touches. In a way that makes it more dangerous. As religion forces acceptance without question (on the most basic level), it controls and prevents a good deal of reasoning and understanding that I think is important to human development. I suppose it all comes down to whether or not you trust people to think for themselves.


Jun 25, 1999
Keith
It is time to call it quits. Sometime in the next few weeks I will remove the input form and put all of the entries on my geocities and xoom sites. So the entries will be around as long as those two sites exist. If, after I remove the input page for this page, someone has a burning desire to add something, they can e-mail me and I'll add it. I am going to add a guest book for general comments about my whole site so you could add a comment there as well. Thanks everyone for all of the great entries.

Jun 25, 1999

while I have no problem with believing in an all powerful god, I always find a problem with religion. I believe it is just another tool to control people. Science may never have data either way. Religious leaders may never have data either way. The scientists showed more humility in there stance than the religious people. I believe this is the case in real life and that religious people still have the audacity to say they are right. Perhaps the "Bible" is a combination of 3 things: (1)a bunch of good advice from a sage (2) prophets (3) rules from lobbyists who wanted to be credible by association.

How else would anyone rationalize a woman having a baby without ever having a man's sperm nearby/ The world being created in 7 days

Alcohol is attributed to X amount of deaths. How many deaths is religion attributed to? In contact, the uncivilized were the religious people. This has been my experience. My dentist's son shot an abortion doctor weather you believe in abortion or not what happened to the turn the other cheek school of thought?


Jun 25, 1999

Re: Tom's August 4 1997 comment

Were you associating scientist with lions? and if so, was this a negative association? do lions carry a lessor connotation? ( are you judging?)who are you to judge who is and who is not a Christian? I wonder if the Hindu religion considered "Christians of 1,900 years ago, new age hipsters. You sure must feel lucky to just so happen to believe in the correct religion. Is there a committee that establishes what is and what is not a religion? Are you an American? Do you believe in freedom of religion or just freedom for your religion? What if it was against my religion to not be able to purchase beer in any place in America on Sunday morning? (communism?) perhaps Christian values are also communist. If they could have their way would they have their way? This sounds like communism and communism might be considered a threat to national security. should we all known Christians into the military or should it be a don't ask don't tell deal? Were the marines that committed treason heterosexual Christians? How trivial. beer laws are made by the community. So were slave laws before 1861. Perhaps recognition of freedom is ever expanding. Would most self proclaimed Christians own a slave in 1820 or would most atheist and agnostics own most of the slaves? Could Christian preachers be the real wolves in the sheep's clothing? Do they liken themselves to shepherds? If so they may know best how to mimic a wolf Have all the religions been established and if so, how long ago? For instance, one hour after the Baptist religion was started? All us other poor saps may be hopelessly delusional. challenge you to look Paul Hill (murderer)in the face and call him a non-Christian. I can imagine that he would consider you not being a Christian perhaps because you might only hold up a sign and not "actively" participate in "God's" will.

Did you read that there is finally peace in Europe? Perhaps when the Catholics and the Protestants finish killing each other there will only be a bunch of civilized, peaceful agnostics and atheist left to love one another. Do you consider all of the self proclaimed Catholics and Protestants, fighting in Europe, non-Christian? "Onward Christian soldiers?"

I may be wrong about all of this. I also believe anything is possible. Please give me feedback. Thank you for patiently reading through this unedited piece. Again I am open your opinion and to any education you might be able to offer.

Thank You, Barn


Jun 28, 1999
Keith
July 31 looks like a good last day. After that day these messages will no longer be posted automatically. That will make it 2 full years to the day. That's long enough. I've done my duty. It's not like this has a big burden, but it has been a small one. If anyone would like to volunteer to carry it on I would be happy to link to your site from here. It looks like this page is still being discovered. I suppose this conversation could last forever. So think about building a discussion of your own and I'll send links your way.

Please consider adding some final thoughts about this site.


Jul 3, 1999
Macross
Let's make it simple: in the movie, Contact, Ellie meets his father at the end when she arrived at the destination. Does it mean that when human beings die some unmeasured materials (you can say that they are energy since the universe had been proved by scientists that all materials should created by energy, or you can say that those materials or the energy are the spirits.) will come out from the dead bodies and then gather to form the bodies of another species, who will live in another place or dimension of the universe?

Jul 11, 1999
Virtus
I have been reading some entries in this website by the people who visit here. Val has a good point in which she says that sometimes you just gotta have faith like when Ellie got back from the trip and had no evidence to back up her story. You can apply that to God or the Gods (whichever you believe in). Maybe God/s doesn't want us to have any evidence of his existence. He may want us to have faith in him/them only. Maybe he even lives in another dimension or universe in which we cannot prove (with our laws of physics and chemistry) his existence because our laws and our ways of thinking and proving something are not applicable to that universe.

Over the past few years, after I have seen contact and read Carl Sagan's books, I have come to believe that there might not be a God or Gods. Why? Because I find there is no need for his or their existence. Scientists today are solving many mysteries and may one day not be able to solve one. So what? We are bound to arrive to our limits. For example, String Theory, a problem in physics has not been solve and some say we have might not ever solve it because it is beyond our intelligence. Everything we have learned about the universe so far tells us that no creator was needed and when we solve how the universe came to be, that may prove that a divine entity may not exist. If we need love in time when we have no one else's we go to God. Why not do what the extraterrestrial in Contact do. Lets love and help each other instead of looking for a being that might not exist. There are people out there who care. If not, be strong and self-confident that you are a great human being and that you and everyone else on this earth is very unique. Do something with your life and be great.

My point here is that the teachings of religions across the world are very vague. They are great but is the inventor really supernatural? I think the some teachings of Jesus Christ are excellent. My opinion is that he did exist but he was just a human and his teaching were a product of his human conscience. We may feel that God or Gods are with us right now but can that feeling be a placebo effect in which we are deluding ourselves. Miracles can be a product of this. Miracles in the Bible could have been simple things that were exaggerated. It has happened before. My view is that there is no need for a creator or divine entity. In a deep sense, Ellie's case is very different.

I feel I haven't expressed myself quite like I wanted to but I hope you can understand what I'm saying.


Jul 13, 1999
Murat Çabuk
If the rules of the Universe is going on without asking to go and without asking our permission isn't that obvious there must be a man who written the rules and who permits them to go without known by the humans for several years from the beginning of the time. So there must be a Ruler who rules the entire Universe.

Jul 13, 1999
Virtus
The laws of nature are woven into the universe. They can run themselves. I recommend reading books on physics and astronomy.

Jul 13, 1999
Keith
It seems like I remember that argument from my college philosophy class (about 500 years ago). There is order in the universe so therefore there must be a God. Or there is chaos in the universe so therefore there is no God. So the question is: Is there order or chaos? The quick answer may be: Isn't is obvious? There is order in the universe. We can predict the orbits of comets for thousands of years ahead so there must be order. We know the laws of physics, shouldn't God? My answer to that is: Who says the laws of physics are God's laws? I think the order verses chaos thing is a crummy argument for, or against God. I also think that it is very arrogant of Hawking and others to imply that someday we will have a universal theory of everything and therefore know the mind of God. That implies that we will know everything that God knows. You know, I think that someday we will know everything that God knows, but only because he has given that gift to us in the afterlife. We must live by faith. When we longer need faith (and therefore know the mind of God) we will have arrived at the ultimate destination.

Jul 13, 1999
More Keith
It seems like the cosmologists have turned that argument 180 degrees. We know the laws of the universe so therefore there is no God. We don't need God, we figured it out on our own. Our laws are based on our perception. What if there is another way of perceiving the universe? Am I quoting Macross here? Seems like he already taught us about this philosophy. Will we ever know if there is another way of perceiving the universe? Nope, at least not in our current state of existence. And once again, faith raises it's head.

Jul 13, 1999
More Keith
Whoa! It's been a while since I let my brain head that direction. It felt good. Actually, I am working on a long-winded final entry. I hope to have it done at the end of the month. I do get the last word on this site.

Jul 14, 1999
Virtus
Well, we did perceive the universe in a different way (about 1000 years ago). That was in the Dark Ages when there was no advancement in science and almost all of the knowledge of the world was lost because people of power felt uncomfortable with new ideas. We viewed the world as a creation of God or Gods. Now we view (at least some of us) it as it created itself. Who knows how we will perceive it tomorrow? And which one is the best or in others words, which one makes better sense?

Jul 14, 1999
Keith
I have heard that one before too. Sagan used the expression, "God of the Gaps" to describe how we have used God to fill in for our lack of understanding. It goes hand in hand with Hawking's "knowing the mind of God" and his no need for a creator because the universe may not have a beginning or end. In scriptural terms this is called pride. It is the opposite of humility. Humility is simply a recognition that there is a higher power. It is also the understanding that we will be held accountable for our actions. If we do have an understanding of the universe we only have it because we have been given that understanding by God. All light and knowledge comes from him through revelation. In a way that makes guys like Hawking and Sagan prophets, that is if they really have come up with a piece or two of the real truth. I simply cannot accept the notion that the more we understand, the less likely God becomes. In fact I believe the opposite. The more we understand, the more likely God becomes and the more credit he deserves.

Jul 14, 1999
A PERSON WORRIED ABOUT SECULARISM BECOMING DOGMA
To Virtus--I don't think Keith meant we should all return to the dark ages when he said there are other ways of perceiving the universe. We have more to gain by looking at something from all sides than we do by seeing something from only one side. A person who possesses the willingness to see the universe from varying perspectives is the sign of an open and thoughtful mind, one who does not think he has all the answers. The thing that bothers me about your post is that it sounds like you're blaming religion alone for the dark ages, when it was the Jesuit priests, Monks, and other religious figure heads who saved an enormous amount of knowledge by copying down manuscripts of philosophy and scientific inquiry--the Islamic religious leaders who preserved Aristotle and Plato by transcribing their works into their native Arabic languages, passing them on through each generation. Without these evil religious people, we just might still be in the dark ages.

Jul 16, 1999
Virtus
I understand that there were religious people in the Dark Ages who saved some knowledge of the past. Some also destroyed it. The point is, everyone was associated with a religion back then so there were good and bad. Kepler was a deeply religious person and he is the one that actually revived science. I am not accusing all of them of antiscience.

I also think that Hawking's saying is not literal. He is saying that we will soon know the universe as a whole and why it exist.

Contact made me really think of the concept "Okkams Razor". What is more likely? An almighty powerful God created us and gave us a mind capable of deciphering the mysteries of the universe, gave us the ability to doubt his existence, says that the universe is only 7,000 years old and yet that mind he gave us discovers a contradiction to that argument. Or that the universe created itself by processes we cannot understand or may never, that we created God because we saw the sun rise and set and thinking we can do the same, and that believing in a supreme being is a product of human evolution so we can survive and bring order to our society and not be afraid.

I choose the latter!


Jul 16, 1999
Kevin
I just read the highlighted comments on this page. On being that Religion has always tried to stop science since the beginning of time? Remind me again who is the father of genetics, oh yes that was a monk! Gee, there you go Religion stopping science. Or maybe the fact that the idea of evolution was first proposed 26 years BEFORE Darwin, but was less popular because it was given within the context of creationism. It i also find it amusing that people such as Stephen Hawking and other great physicists and mathematicians end up coming to believe in God after they have gone to the edges of science. We claim them to be great minds and of understanding the world. Well when they climb the mountain of the Universe to discover what's on top, who do they find there? The God and his faithful followers welcoming them home.

Jul 17, 1999

Virtus--you have presented a logical fallacy known as a "false dilemma" with respect to Okkams Razor. You would have us believe there are only two possible choices--that the world is either 7,000 years old (created by God) or it is millions or billions of years old and there is no God. Unfortunately, the world may very well be millions or billions of years old, but that doesn't mean there is no God. Conversely, if by chance the universe were only 7,000 years old, it would not mean, nor imply that there was a God. One does not logically imply the other.

I feel it is necessary to also point out that the number of people who believe in a "young" universe/earth is very, very small if you take into account all of the people who believe in a deity. In fact, the number of Christians (specifically) is about 50/50. It sounds like you're trying to say that belief in God REQUIRES one to also believe in a young universe, but that is completely false.


Jul 17, 1999
Virtus
I am basing my argument on what God (if he exist) says. For me to be able to believe in him, he needs to tell the absolute truth. Well, he said the universe is fairly young. But its not. So it all comes down to faith. Why would he lie? Also, just because the universe is billions of years old does not imply the nonexistence of a deity. You are correct. I didn't mean that. BUT, why would God lie????????? Or are you going to use that excuse that those years are heaven years or base on some other system?

Jul 18, 1999

Virtus-- I'm curious to know something. You have assumed that if God exists, then the Bible is God's word. How do you draw that conclusion? Isn't it possible that God exists, but that he has not yet revealed himself to humanity? Maybe God exists, but he doesn't even know about us... or maybe he doesn't even care. Maybe he didn't have the slightest thing to do with our existence. I'm not suggesting that any of these options are true, I'm merely trying to point out that when we use the word, "God" we carry with it all kinds of cultural baggage. We automatically envision devils and angels, heaven and hell. Maybe God WOULD lie. Who knows? Why does "God" come prepackaged in this box of presuppositions? It's down-right weird.

Anyway, back to your post... Have you ever wondered why there are so many Christians who insist that the word, "day" in Genesis means a literal, 24 hour period? You might find it interesting to know that they didn't always believe that. The original Church fathers who founded institutional Christianity thought that the word day meant long periods or epochs. And this was back as early as 100 AD One of the reasons for this is the limitations of the Hebrew language. For example, it also says in Genesis that "A DAY with the Lord is like a thousand years." There wasn't a word in the Hebrew language which means "long period" or "epoch," and they used "day" interchangeably. What is even more interesting is that the English language DOES have words to denote long periods or epochs, but we STILL use the word, "day" interchangeably the way the Hebrews did. We say things like, "Modern day medicine" or "the day of the dinosaur."

It is also interesting to note that this understanding of the word "day" being long periods held up until the beginning of the 1800s when the Fundamentalist movement began to sink its teeth in American religiosity. The fact that people in the modern era interpret "day" to mean long periods or epochs is nothing new e.g. it's not a REinterpretation.


Jul 18, 1999
RKW
Men of science learn about faith and prayer late in life, hope not too late!

Jul 19, 1999
Macross
About there is no absolute objective thought for this universe, examine the "Superstring Theory" in Quantum Mechanics, which I had mentioned before. However, I typed the wrong word. The word "string" and the word "strange" were similar to me. Anyway, find out some discoveries in this website:

http://www.bibleplus.org/Discoveries/discoveries.htm

There is a lot of things I want to say, but please give me some more time.


Jul 22, 1999
Macross
There are some questions I had brought out a long time ago which still had not been answered:

What is your meaning of life? E.g. Why do we need to live? What are we living for? What do you think the truth is? Especially applying these questions to that if there is no God or if we don't need God, etc.

There are even a lot of valuable questions we can think of in our whole lives.


Jul 24, 1999
Virtus
I believe that we evolved from a soup of organic molecules. Studying what may have sparked the origin of life and how it might have begun is to me more interesting and fascinating than the story of creation by God. So, you can say we are mere accidents. Created by natural processes. Comparable to elliptic curves that are created by accident when mapping an equation in a complex plane. But they are beautiful indeed. We are too. The idea of being accidents of great natural processes to me is not discomforting as many people find it. But we have that perfectly human urge to feel special. So we invent creation. I think our job in life is to advance our understanding of this universe and humanity as well.

Jul 24, 1999
Virtus
To Macross:
That web site you gave is totally unnecessary to the people who are deeply religious and faithful. Many, especially some of my relatives, don't care about evidences. They just have FAITH. And all those people and scholars that try to prove biblical miracles and events did happen are wasting they're time. It all comes down to faith. I have to assume they don't have it. I have no faith that those miracles happen and therefore didn't happen, I believe. As for the exodus, it might have happened, but Ancient Egyptians at the time didn't consider such an event to be BIG. They had other matters to attend to (according to their hieroglyphic texts). And they mention no plagues.


Jul 25, 1999
T.J.
If our job is to "advance our understanding of this universe and humanity," we should start by learning how to write a simple sentence.

Jul 25, 1999
Keith
T.J. get a life. There must be a web site someplace where you can critic (oh, did I spell that right?) grammar. Go there.

Jul 25, 1999
Keith
This presents an opportunity to elaborate further on why I am shutting the automatic entry thing down. TJ's entry isn't quite guestbook terrorism but it is irrelevant to this discussion. I have to be on the lookout for this, and even more so for inappropriate comments or links to the ugly side of the Internet. Fortunately I haven't had to deal that type of maliciousness, but it is that small burden that I mentioned earlier.

I guess that I am a little sensitive about critical remarks about grammar and so forth. I have been using computers to cover my butt in this (small) area. TJ's timing could not have worst. I had just ran this page through a spell checker and uploaded it when his entry appeared. Spelling is all I check for. Yesterday I returned from France. I don't speak French but a lot of those people speak English. I have nothing but admiration for anyone who is still willing to express themselves without perfect command of the English language.

This web site has entries from all over the world. It has entries ranging from highly educated scientists to children. All are welcome here, at least for another week.

That's enough of that tangent.


Jul 25, 1999
Macross
To Virtus:

Those people and scholars who are trying to find new discoveries are because everytime they find some discoveries or during the process of their research they again and again experience God and his creatures. The joy they found in their discoveries caused them to continue their research. Same as me, every time during the process of my research I experience God and the nature which he created. This is why I still continue my research. For the Egyptians, if I was one of them I don't think I would mention any plagues and those events in Exodus, and I would not consider those events as big and so on. It is because, of course, I didn't want to, just like many nations, spread much of my disgraceful experiences and history to others for the protection of my own nation (I think you better understand the Egyptian culture to see how they treat their own events and history when they are talking to other people. Many nations might not tell the truth of some of their history much to others if they think those might disgrace their nations). I said this only through my simplest thought by the concept of Ocam's Razor. However, you can say, by using the idea of Ocam's Razor, there is no God existed since you don't see any sign showed he exists. But to me, by using the same theory, I think God exists since creationism is the simplest answer from all other doctrines.


Jul 26, 1999
Slim
I have just stumbled upon this page and have a few thoughts I would like to share. First, to Keith, concerning you rebuttal of the "God of Gaps": How is it that everything we understand, we understand through God? Everything we know, save accidental discovery, has been built on previous knowledge, using our intellect and insight. Perhaps you mean to say that God has given us the ability to reason, and we therefore owe to him our understanding. Well, we within a few of mapping the human gene. It is thought that within the next decade we will have a complete understanding. The next such project has just begun - the mapping of the human brain, which will lead to the understanding of reason, and with it the ability to create reason, be it in humans, other life, or computers. Have we then equaled God?

Along the same lines, you state that the more we understand, the more likely God becomes and the more credit he deserves. Before lightning was understood, man explained it by a god. Now we know how clouds and electrical charges work resulting in a bolt from the sky. I think what you are saying, is that in understanding these intricate workings, God deserves credit for the design. But using your own words, who is to say that the laws of physics are god's?

I have more, but no time now.


Jul 26, 1999
Keith
You know, that does bring to mind an interesting notion. Let's say that someday we do have it all figured out. We have a total understanding of the physical world. Biology is completely understood. Cosmology is completely understood and even proven. Let's say we know all of the answers about the universe that we perceive. Lately such a notion is not unthinkable. Does that mean that God is no longer needed? Does that imply that God does not exist? If you think that way, why? Where is the link between our level of understanding and the lack of the existence of God? Why can't we be intelligent and believe in God?

Jul 27, 1999
Slim
I'm a college student, definition of god they have taught in philosophy is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving being. (I can prove that this god does not exist) In this case, we become all-knowing, hence all-powerful? How can there be a supreme being who is not supreme to us?

Jul 27, 1999
Keith
Now you have my attention. I've been doing this site for two years and no one has been bold enough to state that they can prove anything about god, whatever it may be. Lay it on me. I'm assuming that you think that the god you described (loving and so forth) doesn't exist and not a god in general. I don't know maybe you think you can prove that no god exists. By using the "p" word you have cut to the core issue on this site, so I am very interested in your proof, especially as I prepare my final entry.

Jul 27, 1999
Daniel
Slim, Do you mean that you can "prove" based on logical proofs, not physical evidence? Either way, whether you have physical evidence or a simple construct of consistent statements, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Jul 27, 1999
Slim
Here it is: most views on God finger him as the creator, so imagine this. Being omnibenevolent(all-loving), wants to create the best possible world. Being omniscient(all-knowing), he is able to determine the best possible world. Being omnipotent(all-powerful), he is able to create best possible world. The world we live in is simply not the best possible; there is far too much unnecessary evil. I do not contend that evil is unnecessary; some evil is necessary for good to exist. But, and this is the key point - unnecessary evils do exist.

Some say, "god works in mysterious ways" to rationalize these evils, perhaps he killed that child because the child would grow to do some greater evil. Ok, but why did the child need to be burned alive, and endure such pain. Certainly the innocent child never intentionally inflicted such pain on another, so punishment rational does not work either, plus an all-loving god forgives, not punishes.

Some claim that there is a devil, an evil god to oppose the good one, and it is this devil who is responsible for unnecessary evils. Well, then God is not omnipotent, or he would surely destroy the devil, and there cannot be two ALL powerful gods.

Here is the argument that is most valid to me - that god created the best world in which free will could exist, and it is human actions that are responsible for unnecessary evils. Well, some of the most horrible sufferings in the world have been due to diseases, viruses, not man.

So, I suppose that my argument mainly shuts down the all-loving aspect of God. However, if there is a God who is not all-loving, he is either an all-hating god (are we in a world of constant suffering?) or he is sort of neutral had some mysterious motive to create us which I cannot even begin to imagine.


Jul 27, 1999
Slim
Looking foward to your thoughts.

Jul 27, 1999
Keith
OK. I thought you were going to come up with something new. Take a look at Christian Johnson's entry on MAR 16, 1998. That is the most powerful entry on this site and it supports what you have said.

Jul 27, 1999
Virtus
I agree with Slim. If God is an all-powerful loving God, why would he create a hell? Why would a loving God make people suffer in hell. The people are human!!! They make mistakes. It is in our nature. We are not perfect. He made us like this. And now we get punished for it? Why? The Ancient Egyptians had a better belief than does Christianity and any other religions that believe in hell. When a person did evil, the Gods sent a beast to devour the person. Then the person was gone for ever. The ancients feared this and they kept they're civilization in order because they believed this. The ancients Gods were not all-loving and that is why they would do this. If I did something really horrible in life (not that I have), I would rather be devoured by this beast than to suffer for eternity. I would just cease to exist. No more suffering. I think they're concept of punishment after death is better than any religion that I know of. Sadly this religion is not around today.

Jul 27, 1999
Daniel
Slim,
The first problem with your "proof" is in assuming that God (by necessity) would create the best possible world just because he is also a loving a caring being. Evil (whether it is necessary evil or otherwise) exists in this world--period. The fire that burns innocent children is propelled by the same laws of physics which permit these same children to live. But why God does not intervene in the laws of physics is beyond me. And it seems to me that is what your question really is because fires can happen in this world--and that's okay with you so long as nobody gets hurt by them. I don't think that we can automatically conclude (assuming one believes in God in the first place) that God does not care about such tragedies as this, that he does not love man simply because he allows them to suffer. Virtus said that he liked the Ancient Egyptian's religion better because it was more aesthetically pleasing to him, because the thought of burning in hell sounded so drastic and so on. And I must confess that I don't personally like the idea either. But, I'll tell you something else. I'm a person who believes in evolution. Now, I don't particularly like the idea of being evolved from a primordial sludge. The idea is really quite tasteless to me, but I accept it anyway. The reason is because I have realized that truth is not secured based on whether I like one thing over the other. Aesthetic appeal plays no part in what is fact. So... that's just my two cents worth.


Jul 27, 1999
Daniel
Virtus,
I kind of agree with you on the thing you said about hell. Like I told Slim, I don't like the Christian notion of Hell either. In fact, I'm not completely convinced that it exists. However, it is not true that God would not create a Hell, assuming that he is all powerful and loving. Not only for the reasons I gave above in my post to Slim, but for this reason also-- Some people probably deserve to burn in hell. I'm not God, so I won't pass around judgment on anyone--but when I look at some the most incredible evil people on this earth who have caused entire generations of suffering, it is not hard for me to imagine that they deserve some kind of retribution. Sure, we all make mistakes... we're all fallible human beings. But we also know the difference between right and wrong--we know the difference between hate and love. We know the difference because we have indicted God for not loving the human race simply because the world isn't perfect. If you really want to know why an all powerful and loving God would create a hell, I know of a place where you can get an answer. Go ask a Christian. Ask a pastor or minister, and I'm sure they'll be happy to sit down with you for a couple of hours and explain it to you. Not for you, huh? I bet that's not your cup of tea, is it? Well, to tell you the truth, it's not mine either. But you don't see me going around claiming that there's no rationale to it.


Jul 27, 1999
Keith
Good points everyone. I also have a problem with the mainstream notion of hell. I'm sure that if you did sit down with that minister he would tell you that Jesus has all of the bases covered. What is that scripture in the end zones? "For god so love the world that he sent his only begotten son..." He atoned for physical and spiritual death or, to put it another way, he atoned for emotional and physical pain. I believe that. It makes sense to me, but to be qualified for salvation from hell fire we must know of Christ well enough to have faith in him. And there is where I have an issue. I think it would be safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived on this planet have never even heard of Jesus. They were born in the wrong place at the wrong time. How does a loving God send those people to burn in hell for eternity? I have my own opinion but I would really like to hear another believer come up with an answer.

Jul 27, 1999
Daniel
Keith,
My opinion is that they do not burn in hell. I do not even think that the Bible says they will burn in hell, even though most Christians will disagree with me. Either way, it does not say specifically, rather theologians have inferred this. Consider this... if Christians said that people who have never heard of Christ do not burn in hell, there would be no reason to "spread the gospel" so to speak. In fact, it would be in our best interest to insure that future generations were as ignorant about Christianity as possible, because, statistically, some will automatically reject. And if they reject it... well...better fill the ice trays.

So... now that I think of it, Christianity might have been perpetuated by this doctrine. A fear of hell is pretty powerful, not only for myself but the people I love, my family, etc. I can see how many people would be driven to convert such people to insure their safety, to insure the safety of the world. But, regardless of whether the real power behind it is driven by fear, it still might be true. Like I said, just because I don't like it doesn't make it false.


Jul 27, 1999
Daniel
By the way, Keith, what is your opinion? Do you know of any scripture which talks about this and specifically says that anyone who has never heard of Christ, including babies or tribesmen out in the middle of the Congo will go to hell? Every verse I've read pertaining to salvation in this context is (to me) none specific. Like, there is a verse which says that it is worse for a man who knows of God to reject him than it is for a man who has never heard of him. That's not an exact quote, and if you give me some time, I'll find the reference. But, the meaning is the same. Anyway, this seems to indicate that there IS a difference between ignorance and rejection. What do you think?

Jul 28, 1999
Slim
Daniel, I do not believe that God does love man simply because he allows them to suffer. As I said, some suffering is necessary - it strengthens us in some ways, individually and as a race. But there are undeniably unnecessary sufferings (on this world, not in hell) and it is beyond me why an omnibenevolent God would not intervene. On another note, I too believe in evolution and because of this I am also driven to the following belief: we are in some way slaves to our genes, just as all other living things are. Our nature is a combination of born-in traits, plus the imprint of experiences. Our nature determines our decisions. Our decisions play a part in determining our experiences (the rest is chance?), and so on. Everyone is always raving about 'being yourself', well that's not too hard, how can you be anyone else? Therefore, I don't blame people for they're nature. A man who knowingly inflicts unspeakable suffering on generations of people should burn eternally? Let me ask you something, you could never bring yourself to act such, or even imagine acting such, correct? Me neither. Well this man isn't so lucky. He could. In fact, something about him, be it a 'psychotic' lust for torture or a complete inability for compassion, he is driven to do this. Just you and I are driven to hold the morals we hold and act on them. Where did they come from? From those around us, teachers and parents, but more so from within. This is the important question: do we really have a choice, on what comes from within? I, personally, am still unsure on this issue. Though I find it very likely that free will is a myth, I simply cannot bring myself to condemn myself and the human race to such pointlessness and hopelessness. I am assuming, Daniel, that as you believe in evolution, you also believe that God stepped in when humans evolved and gave us free will, otherwise, you could not blame evil people. I really hope that you are right and we do have choice. But as yourself said, my wishes bear no weight on reality.

Jul 28, 1999
Slim
On the other issue, I believe that if a God exists, he is not the one of the some ancient book writing by humans. If God exists, and if he is a moral God is some way, and if he does reward and punish, he would surely do so based on the moral or immoral actions of his people, not on their belief or disbelief.

Jul 28, 1999
Keith
I am eating a burrito for lunch. Let's say that this benevolent god exists. How would I know? Should I expect a report from god saying "there was a pathogen in your burrito today, I (being all knowing) determined that this particular pathogen would cause you needless suffering, so I zapped it for you" Maybe the Titanic sinking caused needless suffering. Imagine the lookout guy seeing the iceberg instantly melt by the finger of this benevolent god. Maybe this kind of thing could happen all the time. We would all be saying "thanks god, that was a close one. Thanks for being so benevolent" This would also imply that we would no longer need faith because we would obviously know that this god has intervened to remove needless suffering. God would be the only one who would know what suffering is needless, not us. What a world that would be! We would all worship this god with no questions asked. We would not be free. Most believers do thank God for their blessings. I believe that God is benevolent. I think I have seen intervention in my life from God but I will never really know for sure because faith is just part of the deal. Faith makes freedom possible.

Jul 28, 1999
Slim
Yes, what a world that would be indeed. I fail to see why a world in which God openly intervenes becomes a world without freedom. If you are a Christian you believe in heaven - where you know God, where all is good. Well, will you loose your freedom when you enter heaven, because you know of God and that nothing bad can happen there? (My parents used to tell me heaven was where you get to do whatever you want all day and night.) More likely you believe in a heaven where you can make choices, without fear of horrible consequences. Sounds good to me. Seems to me Christians' idea of heaven would be the best possible world. I also fail to see in what sense faith is so crucial to freedom. A God who requires faith, who knows that not everyone will believe (?oh well, those who don't buy it can go to hell?) sounds like a test to me. And why would God test us if he loved us all so much. At this time in my life, I can honestly say that I have no faith in any God. I do not say that there is none, but I do not worship one. Are you saying that I have no freedom? I hold the same morals, and act the same as I did as when I used to worship regularly and whole-heatedly. I do not believe I have lost any freedom whatsoever, if I ever had any to begin with, that is.

Jul 28, 1999
Keith
Actually I was quite proud of that entry that I popped out at lunchtime. I thought I did a good job of describing how that type intervention takes away our freedom to believe in god. Oh well.

I hope everyone in the West had a chance the partial lunar eclipse this morning. Events like that have a way of putting things into clearer perspective, whatever your perspective may be. I took lots of pictures. Hopefully one or two will turn out. If they do I will put them on this site.

I am expecting a few final essays. I would really like to hear from everyone again, even if it is just a repeat of an earlier entry. Please consider adding a few summary thoughts.


Jul 29, 1999
Macross
Human being is much more advanced than animals, such as his mentality. I am thinking about the complexity of human psychology on these days, such as his powerful imagination, creative thoughts, intelligence and so on, which caused a great advanced civilization comparing to the animals', well, if I am thinking about this in evolution. When we only think of human politics, either the positive or negative side, its complexity is incredible. Of course, when the brain of a species evolved to a more advanced level, both mental and psychological complexity also increased. However, we had found none of the species so far which could even get closer a little bit to the stage of human being. And we had found that their mentality was limited to be evolved to a very advanced level, even their both mentality and bodies were varying or evolving slowly to adapt the varied environment. Could the "struggle for existence" cause a human being to be evolved to such high advanced civilization comparing to the animals'? Can you somehow find the precious value of the individuals (each of us) who are unique and exceptional in their existence?

Jul 29, 1999
Keith
It looks like the Pope has clarified hell. It's not a lake of fire and brimstone after all. It's more like a state of regret for being separated from God. I do not know what the physics of hell would be. I do think that it is punishment but it is only temporary. In the Revelation of John there is a passage that says that hell will free it's occupants at some point. Then comes the final judgment. Yep, that implies that this life is a test. It is not pass or fail though. Our grades will depend on our faith. Our faith is expressed by our actions so we will be judged according to our works. I'm just rambling...

Jul 29, 1999
Daniel
No Slim, the fact is I COULD bring myself to be (let's say) another Hitler. And so could you. We're not any less human than he was. The point is that we make the choice to be "moral." I agree that some people can have a genetic tendency toward being violent, or some can have a genetic tendency to be just the opposite. But it comes down to individual choices we make. A man who's gene make-up tends toward violence does not automatically dictate that this man will be violent. If he exercises control and tolerance, he can be a peaceful man.

As for free will, I believe we have free will, but not complete and total free will. For example, a person cannot decide that he will be good and moral ALL of the time, ALL of his life. Eventually, he's going to slip up because he's human. So, there is a limit to our autonomy. But, if someone makes me mad and I feel like punching his lights out, I can exercise restraint. I can resist depending on whether I listen to my head or listen to my emotions. This might be harder for some people than others, but we can make the choice. We don't have to be slaves to our emotions.


Jul 30, 1999
Val
It's almost 1 a.m. here so there's no guarantee that any of this will be coherent or cohesive (though the fact that I know what those words mean at this hour gives me hope). I've been reading some of the latest comments, and wow. I've missed a lot. I guess I'd just like to add some of my own thoughts about God. These are my beliefs and thoughts. I would never claim to know for sure about any of this, because God is SO much bigger than me and all of us that we will never be able to fathom Him. These ideas may be pretty randomly ordered, but bear with me.

In regards to the issue of people who've not heard of God going to Hell. I believe at this point in my life and learning, that all people are given an inborn instinct that there is a God. Romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." To me this says that we intuitively know that there is a higher being and we see through creation that He is there. Somehow, people seem to know that there is something out there bigger than us that got us here. Why else would religion of some sort have been so prevalent in virtually all of human history (from what I've absorbed from my h. school education and history classes anyway)? That's where the term child-like faith comes in. Children trust easily in God because the inborn knowledge of Him is there. I believe that God is just and loving. A person who has not ever heard the name Jesus or conceived of an organized religion will not be held to the same account as a person who has seen the Gospel, laid out for them. I don't know what God will do, cause I'm not Him, but I believe that He in all of His justness, is merciful, and gracious to all of His children.

The Hell thing. God loves us all. This is true. But God cannot tolerate sin. He just can't. Justness, is also a part of His character. God is perfect and he cannot tolerate the imperfection of sin that we chose by our free will. So, he must separate us from Him. But, His grace provided a way to Him despite that--through Jesus' death on the cross. We must only accept the gift of His grace.

As far as an all-powerful God having the power to defeat Satan. He does and He will. There is a final battle between God and Satan told of in Revelations. It describes the defeat of Satan that will take place during the time after Jesus' return. In the end, God will win. He will overcome, and there will be a new Heaven and a new earth where God's way will be lived out. Revelations 21:3-4 describes a bit about this new place in saying, "And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.'"

And what will Heaven be like? I have no idea. It's like a Christmas gift. Part of the fun is waiting to see what it will be.

Proving God? I've learned that only God can prove Himself. My proof is within myself. I'm different with Him and His leading than I am without, and there are things that have happened in my life that I can only attribute to God and His hand on me.

This is what I've come to believe. But, I in no way claim to know the answers.

In closing, I guess all I can say is I plan to keep believing, in a God of love, of justness, of power, and of grace. Thanks to all of you for opening my eyes to some new ideas, and for listening to mine.


Jul 30, 1999
Slim
Daniel, i agree that we may have control over our impulses. But what made Hitler such a source of pain and suffering for others was his belief that he was superior to them. It was not fits of emotion that he did not control. It was his belief. I don't think it's possible to choose one's beliefs. Do you think you could wake up tomorrow and choose to believe that everyone around you was so much lower than you because of their religion or race? You might try, but I doubt you would ever truly believe it. It takes something else to have that kind of effect, something out of our hands. I believe what I has come to make sense to me, and I do no choose what makes sense to me, it just does or doesn't. And we all act on our most sacred beliefs.

Val, why can't God tolerate sin? I always thought that acceptance of anther's flaws and patience was a huge part of love. At least it has been in my life. Is God's love so different? As for God defeating Satan, what is he waiting for? That question may be unfair, and most likely has no answer, but it just makes me wonder. It sounds like the world will be perfect after this event...so, what's the deal?

I would also like to say that when I think about it, I was probably too hasty it using the word proof. I completely admit that I could be so far off track that I am just producing nonsense. Took a philosophy of knowledge class and have learned that what we truly know is virtually nothing. But 'proof' is just a word i've come to use when presenting some logical thoughts with a conclusion sort of deal. Also, I have left my e-mail address because the site is shutting down, and I welcome everyone to continue sharing with me. New ideas and revelations usually come through such conversations; sometimes others have impact on you, but more often, you learn more about yourself by expressing yourself outwards.

Thanx all. Peace, love, unity, respect.


Jul 30, 1999
Slim
Oh yeah, and i loved Contact - saw it at the drive in for the first time. Was amazed.

Jul 30, 1999
Keith
Thank you Slim. This has been an interesting last few days thanks to you. Come on everyone else. Lay your last one on us. I will accommodate you as best as I can. I will even build a page for you if you want me to, just in case you have some long winded entry. My last one is scribbled on a notepad, not done yet...

Jul 30, 1999
Daniel
Slim, In general I agree with you about what we believe being ingrained somewhere in our personalities or subconscious or something like that. You're correct in that I cannot wake up tomorrow thinking I'm better than everyone else who is of another race or religion. But, that does not mean that over time I could not be conditioned to think so. Over time, if the conditions were drastic, it is POSSIBLE that I could be conditioned to what ever kind of person we can dream of. We have to remember, Hitler wasn't born a racist. He wasn't born into the man we hate so much today.

Also, I think on some level we DO chose what makes sense to us. For example, a religious man will more likely give an argument a fair trial in his own mind if the argument in question is in favor of his own beliefs--and visa-versa. I'm not saying it's always that way. But, certainly bias plays a part in it. Certainly Hitler's racist bias led him to embrace the racist propaganda to which he was exposed. I guess what you and me are discussing are how those biases get in a person in the first place. I cannot deny that personal experience, genetics, or other such forces play a part in it. But, I think it also comes down all of the choices we make in our lives. Sure, we don't decide over night to be ANYTHING, not good or bad. We decide over time, over the long term, which in turn breaks down to the individual choices.

Well folks, this is about it for me. I will be at a family reunion until Monday, so this will be my last regular entry on the forum. I do, however, have one more post, which I will email to Keith later this evening. It is an essay I've been working on since Keith announced he was closing down the forum. I hope you'll read it. I wouldn't have been able to write it without all of the other entries I've read here over the past year and a half. I thank all of you who have taken the time to read my posts, to respond to them, and allow me to learn from you. AND THANK YOU KEITH who made this forum possible!! I'll leave you guys with this little quote--

Freedom, so they say, amounts to the choices you have made...
Freedom, I must say, exists in unconditioned minds.

--Brendon Perry


Jul 30, 1999
Virtus
I find it very interesting what Val had to say about all cultures that we know of throughout history that believed in a God or Gods. It's so true. But Carl Sagan said in one of his books, though I forgot which one, that it is in our nature...embedded in our brain to follow a high power. We need order so we believe in a higher power. Again, the Egyptians mixed leadership with divinity. The Pharaoh was half God and man. All in all, it is in our reptilian brain to follow a supreme power.

Jul 31, 1999
Macross
In summary of my principles, science should not be used as a tool to prove God's existence since science is a "human" research program, which can only be used to examine the "nature". However, if we consider God's existence, we are thinking about the "supernature". We seem better use metaphysics to examine the supernature, but my next principle is that metaphysics still cannot solve the question of God's existence since it is a tool which was only created by our mind, knowledge and logic, even though human being has a mind to think of and imagine the things which might belong to the supernature. In other words, human mind is restricted in one certain level, just like an example that we live in a 3D nature. Therefore, when we consider God's existence, we only consider him by faith because our mind, knowledge and logic cannot help us to understand the origin of God. When we think of the universe, we should open our mind that we should not only use our knowledge of science and logic of philosophy to examine it. Otherwise, such silly thought caused our knowledge to be more limited because of our control of our apriori in the power of our creative mind and imagination. We should consider why human being originally has a mind to think of the things we cannot prove. Are there some things existed beyond our nature that even our knowledge and logic cannot define them? Just like an example of "Contact" that in the experience of Ellie at the end, she experiences something she cannot understand and prove by human knowledge and logic. Something exists which is beyond all our knowledge. In thinking of the universe, we should open our mind to breakthrough the restriction of all our knowledge in order to experience more things which are beyond human knowledge and nature.

Jul 31, 1999
Keith
Thank you Macross. Thanks for coming back and for all of your other entries.

Jul 31, 1999
Keith
Val, I hope you're not done yet. You have got to have one more in you! I won't remove the input page until tomorrow night, so we have one more day.