Mockingbird

I didn't quote your complete rant because it was redundant. It is interesting to me that you thought that one person's (new to dz.com, too) profession of faith and a reference to one of the major principles of theism deserved a hateful response such as yours. But it's always interesting to me how skeptics respond to Christians with such anger. Why don't you give us the same freedom you have-- to weigh the evidence we find necessary to weigh, to come to our own conclusions, and to engage in calm discussion about our worldview without expectation of being torn apart and called gullible, brainwashed, and stupid? Hey, I don't know of any Christian here who is trying to convert you, or anyone else. We are defending what we believe against false accusations or representations; that is all. (Unfortunately, most skeptics don't have a correct understanding of Christianity. They think they do; but I've heard some very inaccurate assumptions being made.) I, for one, don't like my beliefs being misrepresented. You wouldn't either I'm sure. And, as Steve said, he enjoys gaining other insights and the mental workout. I have to say I do too. As for the early "indoctrination" that some of us doubtless did have, I can only be thankful that this was the case for me. I don't care if you view this as brainwashing--- if this makes you feel better to call it that, go ahead. Everyone eventually turns 18 and moves out into the world and gets a thorough indoctrination from freedom and the other side of life. Becoming independent is a wake-up call-- everyone re-examines their philosophy and broadens their horizons. If you don't think so, you're just ignorant of the fact. Some of us are more introspective than others, and take great pains to reevaluate their belief system. Yes, as someone who was taught early, I am thankful for early exposure to the scriptures. As Paul said to Timothy [look out, I'm gonna' quote a bible verse!!], "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." "God allows hook turns."

Right, and I was reminded of the advice that you shouldn't judge a system of beliefs by its abuses but for what it is. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Oh, it's not his decision that stands out; it was the motivation for his decision. I brought it up because I ran across it in my reading and thought it was a good reply to the thread's question, from Huxley's POV that is. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Why should I? It is confession of a writer, who was involved in parapsychology. What does it mean for everyone else? It's the confession of an honest skeptic/agnostic/atheist. But, OK, don't address it. I must confess--- this is ironic. An atheist getting bent out of shape if something from one of their icons is taken out of context! As for this quote, according to Dr. Charles F. Urbanowicz, Professor of Anthropology at Cal State, there were 6 editions of Origin of Species, and the "Creator" was inserted in the 2nd and subsequent editions. Oh, but I know, "he didn't really mean it!".... whatever; he certainly did at one point in his life. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

What is "opinion"? Isn't this just another argument of semantics--- Isn't it basically the same thing? Your vote simply represents your will. That's the purpose of a vote. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Good pics, Kathleen! I especially love that last one! As you know, I got to sort of watch it via webcam... Thanks for your account of THE jump. So cool! Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

What _are_ you voting according to? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Oh, I'm so ashamed... I have never read the whole Origin of Species. So? You protest too much. The implications are clearly there. Not that it matters that much. For Darwin to concede the possibility of a Creator is inconsequential to reality. Just gives us more insight into the man's mind. Why don't you address Huxley's confession? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

What do you hope to accomplish by voting on something? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

This is something I'd like to see a proof for. "There is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Darwin, Charles; The Origin of Species, Chicago, Great Books of the Western World, 1952, p. 243. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

At least he was honest. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Picture, please, of the proud AFJRPTC cadet? I bet he's sharp! Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Nothing comes to mind as a reply other than things I've already said. I think we're just butting heads at this point! I've enjoyed the tenor of the discussion over the last day or so. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

No, I'm not "ultimately" saying anything about the unexplainable or "imperfect"!! But if I can't learn the "why" behind something right away, I may as well learn something from it, and in the case of the symbolic blind-spot, it seemed to fit the bill. Hey, just a good object lesson! Peace. I agree with your first statement 100%... in cases where God has not given direct revelation about a thing. I like the clock relativity example. And you're right, if you made up your own mind in advance and said that the results of the experiment wouldn't make a difference to the conclusion, you wouldn't really learn anything. You'd be settling on believing in a guess. Discovery would not have taken place. The only problem is that supernatural acts of God aren't subject to the same type of scientific investigation. That is what makes them SUPERnatural. The supernatural (I would add, especially supernatural origins) is not learned by science, tho' the effects of supernatural acts (what I consider "evidence") can be, sure. To learn about the supernatural [God, that is], we must depend on direct revelation from Him, otherwise we go in circles 'cos we're not able to prove anything about Him. If the universe & its origins were merely natural, science would be very dependable in that area. But since God has provided direct revelation of himself and of what He did, all evidence becomes subject to His revelation. If it doesn't sync yet, it will eventually. This is where my own inquisitiveness especially enters the picture, as I was trying to tell another Poster. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

The thing created judging the Creator? The standards by which you critique His work couldn't possibly match His. I won't apologize for God's design; He doesn't need me to! "a blind spot"???? I have no definitive answer for you. Was it created with this blind spot, or did it develop over time? In the meantime, maybe you could look at the eye's "blind spot" as symbolic of man's blind spot in being able to fully comprehend God and his creation! Yes, the oldest compilations of both O.T. and N.T. TOGETHER in one volume, date back only to the 400s and 500s. But complete (or nearly complete) N.T. manuscripts and complete O.T. manuscripts date hundreds of years earlier. We don't really have a need for the originals. Comparing the thousands of very old hand-copies coming from many parts of the ancient world enable scholars to determine/reconstruct what the originals said. Take a look at http://www.logos.com/greek/nt --- no need to read every word if you don't want to, just scan through it--- to get an idea of all the resources which are and have been available to textual scholars. I have no doubts that my bible as I have it today contains a trustworthy representation of what God intended. See reply in bold above. This is close to my position. Science can't fully explain God. It sheds light on a LOT of His laws and on how He made things work. If science finds evidence which appears to conflict with an obviously literal statement of scripture, I think science will eventually be able to reconcile the supposed conflict... yes, because the conflict is only "supposed." The conflict comes from our limitations. As I've said before, Philh, our differences are philosophical, and we won't come to a point of agreement, unless we agree to disagree. We can keep talking about it if you want to, but it may not lead anywhere.

After doing that, what exactly brought them to the conclusion that there is no God. I'm not sure what you're asking. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

I don't discard reason. But I do subject my reason to what God has said. To what do you subject your reason? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Frankly, Jakee, I have no idea when the universe was created, and whether the bible means six 24-hr. days, or over epochs of time. Is the creation account meant to provide a scientific timeline for us, or is it written in a Hebraic sort of poetry, where not all concepts are literal, but is dramatizing the simple fact that God was the creator? I don't know! I believe that some day it will all be disclosed. But for now, I just don't have all the answers. I'm not afraid to say "I don't know." I don't believe that what science has discovered/uncovered in the way of evidence is necessarily incorrect! I just think it hasn't all been reconciled-- brought into focus-- yet. Yes, I think you summarized your philosophy well. You misrepresented mine, of course. I have no dislike for evidence, because I know that it will eventually reveal something that can be traced back to God. And no, of course I don't believe God tries to "fake us out" or whatever. He doesn't need to resort to that kind of thing. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

No, they're just more upfront about their closed-mindedness than you are. Now now, Jack. What's the point of asking when you have already decided what the answer is? I agree. If you think you already know the answers, there is no point in asking, is there? Was this last reply of yours cathartic? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

I see God's wisdom all around me-- in the laws of nature, the order and structure and design in creation, for instance. I see God's wisdom throughout the bible in his words and his actions. I see God's wisdom personified in His son, Jesus Christ. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Every religion has a different way of accepting Christ??? Something tells me we're not on the same page. In Christianity, accepting Christ as our only way to God is the central message of the gospel. Following certain specified behaviors, many of which are cultural, is where the "devil enters the details," as you put it. But a Christian is not "saved" by what he does; he is "saved" by the One to Whom he entrusts his soul. This can be expressed in many different ways; I'm trying to put it as simply as possible. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Are you trying to tell us that you can read Ancient Greek? That you have access to originals of the Bible? Or you just choose one of the available Bible interpretations, and believe it to be the original? Well, yes, I can actually. But that's not really necessary for coming to a conclusion on this issue, because as you say, I don't have access to the original pieces of papyrus, hide, etc. that the books which make up the bible were written on. The original documents are not available to us. Only myriads of copies, and copies of copies... all of which are quite striking in their similarity! Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"