Did God make Atheists?

[idiom]

Interesting article (http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html) from a while back....


Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform,


It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists.

I think this reflects a pretty modern trend where the Church has turned its back on science out of some sort of fear of what it will find, when for the last millenia or so it has been the keeper of knowledge and at the cutting edge of science.

Churches should be handing out scholarships in Biology and such not hiding from the world. Most of the best universities in the world were founded by christians back in the dark foggy past.

[sevin]

Churches should be handing out scholarships in Biology and such not hiding from the world. Most of the best universities in the world were founded by christians back in the dark foggy past.

Yea it's too bad. If they believe God created everything, they should be even more interested in studying this stuff. Of course, there is the Institute for Creation Research, but those guys hardly qualify as scientists. I think Ken Ham only has a Bachelors.

[disorderlyvision]

http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc329/disorderlyvision/Atheist.jpg

[PaulaGem]

They create the impression that you have to be insane to believe in God.

[Theocrat]

Atheists do not exist. All "atheists" presuppose God to argue against God's existence. In effect, they have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of their own. They do this in a number of ways. One example of this is in the natural sciences. In natural sciences, "atheists" use induction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/induction) to make predictions about the nature of the universe and living organism. Induction is based on the idea that nature is uniform, and therefore, what happens in the future will be like the past. That is how predictability is ascertained to establish scientific laws.

However, in an "atheist" universe, there is no rational basis for them to assume induction, since in an "atheist" universe, nature is random and impersonal. For example, it can be equally possible in a given experiment that if you drop a ball that it can either go up or down in every trial, since nature is constantly changing without a standard interval.

Yet, "atheists" presume that nature is uniform, and therefore, they reason from past experiences that future ones (such as dropping a ball a hundred times to establish the law of gravity) will be the same in a given interval. They use induction. However, when they do so, they are no longer operating on "atheistic" assumptions about nature. In fact, they are acting like Christians, because in the Christian worldview, induction makes sense, since God has created the universe in a uniform and predictable pattern, governed by His laws imposed on what He created.

Romans 1:19-22 tells us,

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... [Emphasis mine]
The "atheist" knows God, but he suppresses the truth about Him in his heart. He would rather hold the truth in unrighteousness, as Verse 18 in that same passage tells us, than bow down to the obvious and worship his Creator.

Yet, his use of induction in natural science, his use of deduction in logical analysis, and his appeals to morality all evidence that the "atheist" is really a theist, because the "atheist" worldview cannot account for such things in a consistent and objective manner. As I said before, the "atheist" must borrow those concepts from a Christian understanding of the universe. That is why God does not believe in atheists, and He has made Himself abundantly clear to all men, so that no man is without excuse.

So, does God create atheists? The answer is an emphatic no. The "atheist" naturally rejects God by his own volition, and he does so with the knowledge of God in his heart, however suppressed it may be. That is why "atheists" such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens always come across as people with these two basic but contradictory expressions in their thinking and writings:

"There is no God," and
"I hate Him."

[Meatwasp]

Yawn, Here we go again. I foolishly clicked on to this thread. I hate myself when I do this.

[Brassmouth]

Atheists do not exist.

Yes, we do, buddy. Our numbers are growing while yours are shrinking.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm)



However, in an "atheist" universe, there is no rational basis for them to assume induction, since in an "atheist" universe, nature is random and impersonal. For example, it can be equally possible in a given experiment that if you drop a ball that it can either go up or down in every trial, since nature is constantly changing without a standard interval.

Yet, "atheists" presume that nature is uniform, and therefore, they reason from past experiences that future ones (such as dropping a ball a hundred times to establish the law of gravity) will be the same in a given interval. They use induction. However, when they do so, they are no longer operating on "atheistic" assumptions about nature. In fact, they are acting like Christians, because in the Christian worldview, induction makes sense, since God has created the universe in a uniform and predictable pattern, governed by His laws imposed on what He created.

This is such bullshit. The belief that atheists believe the universe is "random" is widespread among ignorant religious zealots.

Physical laws are also not formulated in this matter. They are based on calculus and advanced mathematics, which are of course, applied logic. Put bluntly, your statements are clearly illogical.

Your little theorem can easily be applied to Zeus, Thor, Wotan, etc etc. It doesn't even help you, even if I assume that it's true, which I don't, and which it clearly isn't.

Your attempt to continuously apply some rip-off of Hoppe's argumentation ethic to apologize for your superstition is disingenuous and futile. No one but you is this desperate to keep your fairy tale alive.


Romans 1:19-22 tells us,

It doesn't "tell us" anything. It is a passage from a book written by Middle Eastern bigots and charlatans. It's pure bullshit. You might as well quote from Mao's Little Red Book. At least then we'd get some insight into history...


The "atheist" knows God, but he suppresses the truth about Him in his heart. He would rather hold the truth in unrighteousness, as Verse 18 in that same passage tells us, than bow down to the obvious and worship his Creator.


I suppress the truth in my heart?
I don't like to talk about it, but when I was younger I was a devout Christian much like yourself, and I can tell you I did much more "suppressing of truth" back then than I've ever done since.

On that note, it is in no way "obvious" that an invisible man lives in the sky, and knows everything, controls everything, and creates everything, yet somehow leaves not a strand of empirical evidence. I'd sooner become a Sun worshiper than a Christian. At least I can see the sun. (and yes, I stole that from Carlin)


As I said before, the "atheist" must borrow those concepts from a Christian understanding of the universe.

So scientists must borrow concepts from superstition in order to arrive at scientific results?

Once again, you almost make me weep with your disregard for truth and reason. You can't write a single post with spouting off blatant contradictions.



So, does God create atheists? The answer is an emphatic no.

Couldn't agree with you more. "God" doesn't create anything. No such being exists.


The "atheist" naturally rejects God by his own volition, and he does so with the knowledge of God in his heart, however suppressed it may be. That is why "atheists" such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens always come across as people with these two basic but contradictory expressions in their thinking and writings:

"There is no God," and
"I hate Him."



Atheists cannot hate god. We don't believe it exists! How can we hate it? That makes absolutely no sense.

Also, stop speaking of Dawkins and Hitchens. You refuse to read Rothbard or Hoppe, let alone Dawkins or Hitchens. You're farrrrrrrrrrr too close-minded and lost to superstition to ever even consider reading The God Delusion, or a similar work. Do not speak about that which you are totally ignorant of.

[sevin]

Atheists do not exist. All "atheists" presuppose God to argue against God's existence. In effect, they have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of their own.

This makes no sense. Why would you have to assume something is true in or argue that it is not true? I don't believe in leprechauns. Do I have to "presuppose" leprechauns to argue against their existence?


However, in an "atheist" universe, there is no rational basis for them to assume induction, since in an "atheist" universe, nature is random and impersonal. For example, it can be equally possible in a given experiment that if you drop a ball that it can either go up or down in every trial, since nature is constantly changing without a standard interval.

You have it completely backwards! Physicists have studied and measured the laws of the universe. The constant of gravity is not changing. However, in a universe where god exists and miracles happen, anything is possible.


They use induction. However, when they do so, they are no longer operating on "atheistic" assumptions about nature. In fact, they are acting like Christians, because in the Christian worldview, induction makes sense, since God has created the universe in a uniform and predictable pattern, governed by His laws imposed on what He created.

Using inductive reasoning does not mean one is acting like a Christian. Just because you believe in the laws of nature (such as gravity) doesn't mean you have to believe god put them in place.

You must read a lot of Christian apologist books.

[torchbearer]

How many atheist have your made today?

[Kade]

Atheists do not exist. All "atheists" presuppose God to argue against God's existence.



The arguments that can be used to defend Presuppositional, can also be used to more readily defend Naturalism.

I reject outright the metaphysical; or rather, anything that fails most basic foundations of empiricism.

Since god does not exist, it did not "make" anybody.

[Kade]

You could also consider argument of reason... or a variant of the argument from non-belief and the atheist's wager...




* God's hiddenness is necessary on this account, since his presence would inspire people to behave as if good out of fear or selfish interests, not out of courage or compassion or a sense of personal integrity.

* A false, evil image of God in the bible is necessary in order to test whether the reader will place morality or faith first, so this tests moral courage in the face of assertions, threats and promises of reward. It also tests cognitive trustworthiness, since it is wrong to trust what someone merely wrote, over scientifically established truths and the direct evidence of reason and the senses.

* Natural evils and unchecked human evils are also necessary on this account, since only in such a way can a god "demonstrate" that no moral power is behind the universe, that there is no custodian, and by that means lead a rational, compassionate observer to conclude there is no god. If the universe were well-ordered, with inherent moral enforcement and the containment or restriction of evils, observers would conclude there is a god and thus, again, might act as if good out of fear or hope of reward.

[torchbearer]

You could also consider argument of reason... or a variant of the argument from non-belief and the atheist's wager...




* God's hiddenness is necessary on this account, since his presence would inspire people to behave as if good out of fear or selfish interests, not out of courage or compassion or a sense of personal integrity.

* A false, evil image of God in the bible is necessary in order to test whether the reader will place morality or faith first, so this tests moral courage in the face of assertions, threats and promises of reward. It also tests cognitive trustworthiness, since it is wrong to trust what someone merely wrote, over scientifically established truths and the direct evidence of reason and the senses.

* Natural evils and unchecked human evils are also necessary on this account, since only in such a way can a god "demonstrate" that no moral power is behind the universe, that there is no custodian, and by that means lead a rational, compassionate observer to conclude there is no god. If the universe were well-ordered, with inherent moral enforcement and the containment or restriction of evils, observers would conclude there is a god and thus, again, might act as if good out of fear or hope of reward.

You could also throw in the deist rational-

Like a watchmaker- God created the watch(universe) with all the mechanisms (laws of physics) wound it up (first motion), but then lets it run its course without intervention. all morality- good and evil- are the consequences of the matter that becomes animated and then makes choices.

[Kade]

You could also throw in the deist rational-

Like a watchmaker- God created the watch(universe) with all the mechanisms (laws of physics) wound it up (first motion), but then lets it run its course without intervention. all morality- good and evil- are the consequences of the matter that becomes animated and then makes choices.

That violates the second and third rule....

[Sandman33]

Yes, God gave you free will and you decided to be an atheist and not believe in God. It's your choice.

But if you don't believe in him don't expect him to believe in you either.

Oh and I love how atheists cling to mathematics....where do you think math came from? If God doesn't exist what USE is emotion? Love, hate, BEAUTY, the things that separate us from animals.

If God didnt exist we'd be just like animals instead of creating art and having the ability to appreciate beauty.

[Kade]

Yes, God gave you free will and you decided to be an atheist and not believe in God. It's your choice.

But if you don't believe in him don't expect him to believe in you either.

Oh and I love how atheists cling to mathematics....where do you think math came from? If God doesn't exist what USE is emotion? Love, hate, BEAUTY, the things that separate us from animals.

If God didnt exist we'd be just like animals instead of creating art and having the ability to appreciate beauty.

You strike me as someone who has never before heard an argument against your position, or having systematically chosen the darker side of unadulterated ignorance.

[torchbearer]

That violates the second and third rule....

rules? what rules?

[Kade]

rules? what rules?

Morality exists more perfectly, more absolutely, when one acts morally without the knowledge that they are benefiting from the act.

Atheism has a stronger moral defense.

[torchbearer]

Morality exists more perfectly, more absolutely, when one acts morally without the knowledge that they are benefiting from the act.

Atheism has a stronger moral defense.

morality is subjective. so to KNOW you are moral is only to admit that you are holding your own standards.
Ayn Rand believes you can know morality using a system of values. Maybe she is right, but still, value is subjective.
People value things differently.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

However, in an "atheist" universe, there is no rational basis for them to assume induction, since in an "atheist" universe, nature is random and impersonal. For example, it can be equally possible in a given experiment that if you drop a ball that it can either go up or down in every trial, since nature is constantly changing without a standard interval.

wtf?

[sevin]

Love, hate, BEAUTY, the things that separate us from animals.

Yes, we have complicated emotions such as love and hatred that animals do not have. There is no need for god to exist for this to be true.



If God didnt exist we'd be just like animals instead of creating art and having the ability to appreciate beauty.

Why? God does not have to exist for people to create art and appreciate beauty.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Thats it Theo. You are going back on my ignore list. You keep spouting stuff you know is not true. I dont know how many times we have to go in these circles.

[LibertyEagle]

Yawn, Here we go again. I foolishly clicked on to this thread. I hate myself when I do this.

:D

[Bman]

have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of their own.

Christianity has not always existed.

I would say someone like Aristotle would have been an Atheist. Maybe more like a Transcendentalist. Which would make him more Agnostic. Where did he borrow his worldview from?

[Theocrat]

Yes, we do, buddy. Our numbers are growing while yours are shrinking.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm)

I don't see how that refutes my argument. I only wish you had quoted my entire first paragraph because in it, I explained why I believe there are no atheists. The entire context of my post proved that truth, as a matter of fact, if you understood my argument correctly.


This is such bullshit. The belief that atheists believe the universe is "random" is widespread among ignorant religious zealots.

Physical laws are also not formulated in this matter. They are based on calculus and advanced mathematics, which are of course, applied logic. Put bluntly, your statements are clearly illogical.

Your little theorem can easily be applied to Zeus, Thor, Wotan, etc etc. It doesn't even help you, even if I assume that it's true, which I don't, and which it clearly isn't.

Your attempt to continuously apply some rip-off of Hoppe's argumentation ethic to apologize for your superstition is disingenuous and futile. No one but you is this desperate to keep your fairy tale alive.

The idea of randomness in nature is not something which comes from a Christian conception of science. It derives itself from a naturalistic perspective, and I direct your attention to such origins of the concept here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random#Randomness_in_science).

Actually, in all natural sciences, whether life or physical, laws are first based on repeated phenomena through observation. As a matter of fact, observation is the first principle in the scientific method. From repeated observations, then comes the mathematical formulations to explain how the phenomena operate in the universe. In other words, math is subsequent (that which comes after) to understanding physical phenomena after empirical observation.

It's funny how you make an empty claim that my arguments can be applied to fictitious gods like Zeus, Thor, and Wotan (You're sounding like Richard Dawkins, there), but then you fail to offer proof for such an assertion. Am I to assume that you're mocking me due to a lack of evidence on your part?

You tell me that I am ripping-off Hoppe's argumentation ethic (whatever that is) to prove my argument, but then later on you say that I "refuse to read Rothbard or Hoppe." Not only is that presumptuous of you, but it is contradicting yourself. So which is it?


It doesn't "tell us" anything. It is a passage from a book written by Middle Eastern bigots and charlatans. It's pure bullshit. You might as well quote from Mao's Little Red Book. At least then we'd get some insight into history...

How is your sentiments above in any way a rational refutation of what Scripture proclaims? It seems to me that you don't like what the Bible teaches, so therefore, you must attack it personally, feeding off your emotions. Also, comparing the Bible to Mao's Little Red Book is so far-fetched, that I'm wondering if you've read either book.


I suppress the truth in my heart?
I don't like to talk about it, but when I was younger I was a devout Christian much like yourself, and I can tell you I did much more "suppressing of truth" back then than I've ever done since.

On that note, it is in no way "obvious" that an invisible man lives in the sky, and knows everything, controls everything, and creates everything, yet somehow leaves not a strand of empirical evidence. I'd sooner become a Sun worshiper than a Christian. At least I can see the sun. (and yes, I stole that from Carlin)

I'm very sorry to hear that you lost your faith at a young age. However, your experience in the Christian faith is not the same as my own, for I've worked diligently to understand the truth of God's claims in His word, and He hasn't failed me yet.

Appealing to empirical evidence for God is missing the point. God is an immaterial Being, not subject to matter in nature. That's not to say that God has not left evidence that He has created nature, but it is to say that proving God's existence is going to have to be determined on other grounds of proof than just empirical evidences.


So scientists must borrow concepts from superstition in order to arrive at scientific results?

Once again, you almost make me weep with your disregard for truth and reason. You can't write a single post with spouting off blatant contradictions.

No. I said scientists must borrow concepts from the Christian worldview in order to arrive at scientific results. You added the word "superstition" in there, not me. Stick to my arguments, and refrain from your personal attacks.

For your information, I am using truth and reason to prove the validity of my arguments, but your reject them on the basis of your own presuppositions.


Couldn't agree with you more. "God" doesn't create anything. No such being exists.

Says you. As someone who only believes things by "empirical evidence," how do you prove empirically that God does not exist? I'd like to see evidence of that.


Atheists cannot hate god. We don't believe it exists! How can we hate it? That makes absolutely no sense.

Also, stop speaking of Dawkins and Hitchens. You refuse to read Rothbard or Hoppe, let alone Dawkins or Hitchens. You're farrrrrrrrrrr too close-minded and lost to superstition to ever even consider reading The God Delusion, or a similar work. Do not speak about that which you are totally ignorant of.

Thank you for proving my point. The fact that you reject God's existence, even in the face of obvious evidence, shows that you already hate God. That is what I argued throughout my post, if you were paying attention, my friend.

Just to let you know, I have read Dawkins's and Hitchens's books. I'm very comfortable with their arguments, and I critique them as best I can. However, you're wrong to say that I refuse to read the works of Rothbard or Hoppe; I simply have not gotten around to reading their books yet (although I have read excerpts from some of Rothbard's articles). There are other books I'm reading, as well as writing a book of my own.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Says you. As someone who only believes things by "empirical evidence," how do you prove empirically that God does not exist? I'd like to see evidence of that."

FWIW, a person cannot prove non-existence with formal logic (that I know of). We use formal logic to prove existence. If we cannot prove existence, then non-existence is the conclusion.

/end of HB's participation in this silly thread.

[Theocrat]

This makes no sense. Why would you have to assume something is true in or argue that it is not true? I don't believe in leprechauns. Do I have to "presuppose" leprechauns to argue against their existence?

God and leprechauns are two separate entities, so vastly different from one another. Comparing the two is nonsense. I'm not talking about simply presupposing the person himself, but rather, the entire system which justifies his existence, which I went on to explain in my post.


You have it completely backwards! Physicists have studied and measured the laws of the universe. The constant of gravity is not changing. However, in a universe where god exists and miracles happen, anything is possible.

Yes, I understand full well that physicists have studied and measured laws of the universe. I'm simply saying that those who do not believe in God study and make measurements based on the Christian conceptions of the physical world which make sense of how the laws in the universe can be understood in the first place. They have the same assumptions that Christian physicists have, even though their worldview cannot justify what it is they are doing, or more importantly, why they are doing what they are doing.


Using inductive reasoning does not mean one is acting like a Christian. Just because you believe in the laws of nature (such as gravity) doesn't mean you have to believe god put them in place.

You must read a lot of Christian apologist books.

If what you said is true, then please explain to me the basis for assuming induction in a materialistic perspective of the universe. Trust me, it will not be an easy question for the "atheist," and prominent "atheist" philosophers in history, such as David Hume and Bertrand Russell, have struggled with justifying the nature of induction in a naturalistic paradigm of the universe. Let's see if you can do better than they.

[Theocrat]

The arguments that can be used to defend Presuppositional, can also be used to more readily defend Naturalism.

I reject outright the metaphysical; or rather, anything that fails most basic foundations of empiricism.

Since god does not exist, it did not "make" anybody.

If I may be so bold as to say so, it is not that you reject the metaphysical entirely so much as you reject that which is immaterial in the metaphysical realm of human experience. As a naturalist, you do accept material realities, which is why you choose to only accept those things which can be tested on the foundations of empiricism.

However, it must be pointed out that everything which you've stated above is not proven true by empirical methods. They are, if you will, immaterial concepts, reasoned separately from empirical tools, such as a microscope or test tube. In effect, you've made claims which themselves are inherently non-physical realities, because your argument for naturalism is not made of natural elements.

Once again, I'd like to know how an empiricist can prove by empirical methods the nonexistence of God. Being the intelligent person you are, you realize the dilemma you've put yourself in. On the one hand, you argue that we can only know things metaphysically by empirical methods. On the other hand, you argue that God does not exist, which itself cannot be proven metaphysically by an empirical method.

[Objectivist]

YouTube - Al Pacino Speech on Devil's Advocate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGR4SFOimlk)

[Objectivist]

Atheists do not exist. All "atheists" presuppose God to argue against God's existence. In effect, they have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of their own. They do this in a number of ways. One example of this is in the natural sciences. In natural sciences, "atheists" use induction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/induction) to make predictions about the nature of the universe and living organism. Induction is based on the idea that nature is uniform, and therefore, what happens in the future will be like the past. That is how predictability is ascertained to establish scientific laws.

However, in an "atheist" universe, there is no rational basis for them to assume induction, since in an "atheist" universe, nature is random and impersonal. For example, it can be equally possible in a given experiment that if you drop a ball that it can either go up or down in every trial, since nature is constantly changing without a standard interval.

Yet, "atheists" presume that nature is uniform, and therefore, they reason from past experiences that future ones (such as dropping a ball a hundred times to establish the law of gravity) will be the same in a given interval. They use induction. However, when they do so, they are no longer operating on "atheistic" assumptions about nature. In fact, they are acting like Christians, because in the Christian worldview, induction makes sense, since God has created the universe in a uniform and predictable pattern, governed by His laws imposed on what He created.

Romans 1:19-22 tells us,

The "atheist" knows God, but he suppresses the truth about Him in his heart. He would rather hold the truth in unrighteousness, as Verse 18 in that same passage tells us, than bow down to the obvious and worship his Creator.

Yet, his use of induction in natural science, his use of deduction in logical analysis, and his appeals to morality all evidence that the "atheist" is really a theist, because the "atheist" worldview cannot account for such things in a consistent and objective manner. As I said before, the "atheist" must borrow those concepts from a Christian understanding of the universe. That is why God does not believe in atheists, and He has made Himself abundantly clear to all men, so that no man is without excuse.

So, does God create atheists? The answer is an emphatic no. The "atheist" naturally rejects God by his own volition, and he does so with the knowledge of God in his heart, however suppressed it may be. That is why "atheists" such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens always come across as people with these two basic but contradictory expressions in their thinking and writings:

"There is no God," and
"I hate Him."



Insanity personified^^^.

[Theocrat]

You could also consider argument of reason... or a variant of the argument from non-belief and the atheist's wager...




* God's hiddenness is necessary on this account, since his presence would inspire people to behave as if good out of fear or selfish interests, not out of courage or compassion or a sense of personal integrity.

God's presence is not hidden from those who have a personal relationship with Him. To those who humble themselves and obey His commandments, God makes Himself known abundantly in ways in which are as real as the room I'm in right now (cf. James 4:6; John 14:21). Even to those who do not see Him or acknowledge His existence, God still sees them and holds them accountable for their thoughts, words, and actions accordingly. If a man closes his eyes, does that mean no one else can see him?

If you mean to say that God's essence is hidden from humanity, I would agree with you. That is necessary because God is so holy, powerful, and righteous, that sin is destroyed in His very essence. If God were to reveal Himself in His totality upon the Earth, we would not be able to bear it and would immediately die (because of the sin present within and around us). Those prophets and saints in Biblical times which caught just a glimpse of God's shekinah glory were immediately compelled to fall on their face due to the brightness and awesomeness of God's essence.

Yet, God's Holy Spirit abides and moves upon the earth in such a gracious and loving way that it is only by His Spirit that man can be truly courageous and compassionate in the way which God requires of His creatures. History is replete with examples of men and women who died in the faith at the hands of persecution and personal ruin in possessions because the Spirit of God was alive in them, comforting and emboldening them for the task and testimony of their God.


* A false, evil image of God in the bible is necessary in order to test whether the reader will place morality or faith first, so this tests moral courage in the face of assertions, threats and promises of reward. It also tests cognitive trustworthiness, since it is wrong to trust what someone merely wrote, over scientifically established truths and the direct evidence of reason and the senses.

You have many assumptions in that point there. I'd like to know what you mean by "a false, evil image of God," because what you consider to be "false" and "evil" is definitely not the same as what I consider those things to be, neither is it the same as the next person.

Also, I think you're arguing a straw man when you say that those who believe in God by faith in the testimony of the Bible cannot also trust in scientifically established truths. Of course, I would have to ask what you mean by "scientifically established truths" because what you consider those to be would greatly differ from what I or other theists would consider scientifically established truths to be. I assume you mean those scientific theories which are naturalistic are true, but that is just another method of looking at the natural data in comparison to scientific theories which assume supernaturalistic theories as the basis for its truth.


* Natural evils and unchecked human evils are also necessary on this account, since only in such a way can a god "demonstrate" that no moral power is behind the universe, that there is no custodian, and by that means lead a rational, compassionate observer to conclude there is no god. If the universe were well-ordered, with inherent moral enforcement and the containment or restriction of evils, observers would conclude there is a god and thus, again, might act as if good out of fear or hope of reward.

You've just committed what's called the Naturalistic Fallacy. In essence, it is the belief that you can derive imperatives from indicatives, or more simplistically, get "what ought to be the case" from "what is the case". It is simply impossible to gain morals from nature, for nature operates in a predictable, but impersonal manner. Molecules do not tell us whether it is right to kill babies. Cells do not instruct us whether or not we should steal from our neighbor. Etc., etc.

However, in a naturalistic paradigm of the universe, that is what the naturalist is left with. Inherently by their system, morals are no different than the electrochemical responses of the brain. But since the electrochemical responses are not the same in everyone's brain, how does one determine who is being moral and who is not being moral? Such a worldview destroys morality, rather than establishing morality in the ways which we all take for granted. That is, morality is the standard of behavior which is expected and/or imposed upon humans in their social and personal interactions. That cannot be shown in an empirical worldview.

So, I find it such an act of futility for you to say God cannot exist because we cannot find morals in nature which would warrant obedience to Him. Of course morals don't exist in nature! How could they? To justify moral truths, we have to deal with them on another plane of knowledge separate from the empirical or natural. Morals are not inherently made of matter, after all, and because of that, they are spiritual or immaterial in nature. However, since the empiricist rejects the spiritual or immaterial, he cannot consistently account for moral truths in his worldview. And because of that, he must borrow from the Christian worldview to make sense of morality at all.

[Theocrat]

wtf?


Thats it Theo. You are going back on my ignore list. You keep spouting stuff you know is not true. I dont know how many times we have to go in these circles.

http://guestcommentaryjdpkillercase.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/head-in-the-sand2.jpg

[Objectivist]

Whenever one bases their opinion about others on a work of fiction such as the bible, they in reality have no basis for an logical opinion.

[idiom]

What the hell guys.

Not One On Topic Post.

Thats pretty bloody Miserable.

[sevin]

God and leprechauns are two separate entities, so vastly different from one another. Comparing the two is nonsense. I'm not talking about simply presupposing the person himself, but rather, the entire system which justifies his existence, which I went on to explain in my post.

I know they're are very different entities. It doesn't matter which two things you compare. I just don't see how I'm "borrowing" from the Christian worldview just because I don't believe in something.

And what is this system which justifies his existence? I guess I didn't understand your explanation.



Yes, I understand full well that physicists have studied and measured laws of the universe. I'm simply saying that those who do not believe in God study and make measurements based on the Christian conceptions of the physical world which make sense of how the laws in the universe can be understood in the first place.

Are you saying that without Christianity there would be no science?



If what you said is true, then please explain to me the basis for assuming induction in a materialistic perspective of the universe. Trust me, it will not be an easy question for the "atheist," and prominent "atheist" philosophers in history, such as David Hume and Bertrand Russell, have struggled with justifying the nature of induction in a naturalistic paradigm of the universe. Let's see if you can do better than they.

What do you mean the basis for assuming induction? Do you mean that without the existence of god, there is no way to assume that induction works? I'm not arguing, yet, just trying to understand your perspective.

[Objectivist]

What the hell guys.

Not One On Topic Post.

Thats pretty bloody Miserable.

Did you expect genius at the level of religion?
Nice pun by the way.... "What the hell guys"

[idiom]

The *point* of the op was to talk about the idea that the church of today is discouraging Christians from becoming scientists and the effects that would have on the scientific population demographics.

But, go on, entertain yourselves.

[jsu718]

Yes, we do, buddy. Our numbers are growing while yours are shrinking.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm)


You do know that the link you give isn't talking about atheists alone, right? The stat that is growing is the number that identify in the survey as "no religion, atheists, and agnostics". The actual number of atheists is still around 2%, just like the last few decades. The change in number is those moving away from the organized and official religious tags, like "Catholic" or "Baptist".

[Jordan]

New topic: Who the fuck cares?

[Theocrat]

The *point* of the op was to talk about the idea that the church of today is discouraging Christians from becoming scientists and the effects that would have on the scientific population demographics.

But, go on, entertain yourselves.

I think you might find this article (http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/) interesting and relevant to your OP.

[idiom]

Yay. Looking at those table though, I didn't see anyone born in the 20th century.

Theo, did you ever get encouraged by your church or fellow christians to go into, say, biology or quantum physics or some such?

I know I didn't. I went into Biology and Geology when God told me to go to Mars... and that got more than a few raised eyebrows.

[Kraig]

So according to Theo I don't exist. :D

[Objectivist]

The *point* of the op was to talk about the idea that the church of today is discouraging Christians from becoming scientists and the effects that would have on the scientific population demographics.

But, go on, entertain yourselves.

It's better that non-christians do not become scientists as christians don't base their thinking on reason and facts, they operate under faith and faith doesn't make it in the realm of science. You have to prove your work before your peers as a scientist and all christians ever do is "Because I said so." or "The bible says." no proof in either statement.

[LibertyEagle]

It's better that non-christians do not become scientists as christians don't base their thinking on reason and facts, they operate under faith and faith doesn't make it in the realm of science. You have to prove your work before your peers as a scientist and all christians ever do is "Because I said so." or "The bible says." no proof in either statement.

A bit collectivist, don't you think?

[Objectivist]

A bit collectivist, don't you think?

Prove god exists.... I can wait.

[idiom]

Prove god exists.... I can wait.

So... what you are saying is, no Christian has ever written a scientific paper of any merit whatsoever?

[Objectivist]

So... what you are saying is, no Christian has ever written a scientific paper of any merit whatsoever?

To many assumptions to give you an answer. Then I didn't say that, I stated what I prefer and my personal experiences with christians to date.

Then I'd trust the thinking of people who deal with reality and not base their ideas on faith alone. Any rube can get lucky on faith, it's a 50/50 proposition.

[Objectivist]

I'm still waiting for the proof of god.......

[idiom]

I am still waiting for you to explain away the existence of Christian scientists.

[Objectivist]

I am still waiting for you to explain away the existence of Christian scientists.

I did.
"Then I'd trust the thinking of people who deal with reality and not base their ideas on faith alone. Any rube can get lucky on faith, it's a 50/50 proposition."

[idiom]

Do you really think I would ever put


"Because I said so." or "The bible says."

In any peer reviewed paper I intended to publish?

[PatriotLegion]

New topic: Who the fuck cares?

I'm for that!!! LOL

But on a side note (pour more gas on the fire) ;)

Would a god or any god create a f**ked up world we live in today? If its that bad then where is he/her to help this fading society we call the human race??? You think god would allow us to slain each other in his name, for natural resources, or power?

If there is a "god" then he created us for his amusement, in my guess we are all like the little plastic army men that we had as children that we melted down with matches! :D

[sevin]

So... what you are saying is, no Christian has ever written a scientific paper of any merit whatsoever?


I didn't say that, I stated what I prefer and my personal experiences with christians to date.

Then I'd trust the thinking of people who deal with reality and not base their ideas on faith alone. Any rube can get lucky on faith, it's a 50/50 proposition.

I'm still waiting for the proof of god.......


I am still waiting for you to explain away the existence of Christian scientists.

Christian scientists apply science to their work, but not to their daily lives. This is common among the majority of people. They use logic and reasoning in their day-to-day activities, but when it comes to personal issues, they abandon all reason and get their advice from their preacher or the bible. I think it's a kind of mental laziness, or maybe fear that they'll make the wrong decision, so they turn it over to religion.

[PaulaGem]

It's better that non-christians do not become scientists as christians don't base their thinking on reason and facts, they operate under faith and faith doesn't make it in the realm of science. You have to prove your work before your peers as a scientist and all christians ever do is "Because I said so." or "The bible says." no proof in either statement.

My Niece is a "Christian" and her father is an engineer that worked on the first laser barcode reader & grocery checkout. She is a cancer researcher for a local biotech.

There are a lot of thinking Christians. I believe I am one.

My main problem with the Church is that it trains the flock to be sheep.

If you follow the teachings of Yeshua you have only one Lord, the infinite all knowing God. Why wouldn't such a Christian be challenged to grow closer to the One by learning about His/Her creation and the rhythm and mechanics behind it? You could also call that "science".

[PaulaGem]

I'm still waiting for the proof of god.......

God is a proven reality in my life because I have a personal relationship with Spirit. Unfortunately that is a personal, metaphyisical proof. It's impossible to give a physical proof for something that is by definition metaphysical.

Why would you even bother to ask?

[PaulaGem]

Christian scientists apply science to their work, but not to their daily lives. This is common among the majority of people. They use logic and reasoning in their day-to-day activities, but when it comes to personal issues, they abandon all reason and get their advice from their preacher or the bible. I think it's a kind of mental laziness, or maybe fear that they'll make the wrong decision, so they turn it over to religion.

Why would someone pretending to be smart make such a stupid generalization?

Someone who truly experiences a "personal relationship with God" knows that that is the ultimate test and religion is nothing.

Have you heard the term "Word of Knowledge"? It is a fundamentalist term for a real metaphysical experience. When you look to God for answers you frequently get them, direct from the source, not through a church or a book.

[Andrew-Austin]

Why would someone pretending to be smart make such a stupid generalization?

Someone who truly experiences a "personal relationship with God" knows that that is the ultimate test and religion is nothing.

Have you heard the term "Word of Knowledge"? It is a fundamentalist term for a real metaphysical experience. When you look to God for answers you frequently get them, direct from the source, not through a church or a book.

Do you want to describe what you mean by "personal relationship with God".

Your obviously not hanging out with the G-Man, like you would hang out with a human being you have a personal relationship with.
And I'd like to assume that you don't think God speaks to you.

Is this "relationship" just a mixture of feelings you have regarding life?

[PaulaGem]

Do you want to describe what you mean by "personal relationship with God".

Your obviously not hanging out with the G-Man, like you would hang out with a human being you have a personal relationship with.
And I'd like to assume that you don't think God speaks to you.

Is this "relationship" just a mixture of feelings you have regarding life?

On rare occasions God does speak very clearly and specifically. I call this the "voice without a voice". Again, because it is metaphysical I can only describe my personal experience, I can not prove this in the physical sense.

The "realationship" is primarily one of mutual love and trust, and since Spirit has a more complete and realistic perception of both the physical and the Spriritual world, I pray for instructions and understanding a lot.

Usually the information comes in the just waking-up stage in the morning in the form of exceptionally creative thoughts and ideas, but it has also come in the form of specific factual information that I was unaware of and was later verified through other sources.

[Theocrat]

So according to Theo I don't exist. :D

No, you exist as a person created by God. However, you are not a true atheist. There are no atheists, for no one can prove the nonexistence of God (impossible to prove a universal negative). Even if you attempt to disprove God's existence, you have to steal Christian conceptions of such things as logic, morality, and science to do so.

At best, all you can say is that you don't believe God exists, but you really don't know because you have not seen all of the evidences which may prove His existence. But then, that makes your belief a matter of faith, and you're right on the same level with Christians to justify that faith.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, you exist as a person created by God. However, you are not a true atheist. There are no atheists, for no one can prove the nonexistence of God (impossible to prove a universal negative). Even if you attempt to disprove God's existence, you have to steal Christian conceptions of such things as logic, morality, and science to do so. At best, all you can say is that you don't believe God exists, but you have not seen all of the evidences which may prove His existence. But then, that makes your belief a matter of faith, and you're right on the same level with Christians to justify that faith.

False. A negative cannot be proven empirically. You yourself are atheist in regards to a number of gods and deities. Try the truth sometime, Theo. :) It will do you good. What makes you think Christians have a monopoly on logic?

"As a discipline, logic dates back to Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), who established its fundamental place in philosophy." (note that Aristotle predates Christianity)

Your Roman-like bias shows very clearly, sir. ;)

[Theocrat]

False. A negative cannot be proven empirically. You yourself are atheist in regards to a number of gods and deities. Try the truth sometime, Theo. :) It will do you good. What makes you think Christians have a monopoly on logic?

"As a discipline, logic dates back to Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), who established its fundamental place in philosophy." (note that Aristotle predates Christianity)

Your Roman-like bias shows very clearly, sir. ;)

You're absolutely right. A negative cannot be proven empirically, and that has been one of my points all along. Those who reject God on the basis that He cannot be empirically proven fall into the trap of not being able to prove there is no God empirically, themselves. So, my question to the empiricists is on what basis can they prove the truth of their assertion that there is no God. I have not heard an answer to that yet.

Also, I am not an atheist with respect to other false gods. All it takes is the belief in one God to show that I am not truly an atheist. The belief in God makes me a theist, and a Christian, to be more specific. You're just playing with semantics there.

The basis for logic is grounded metaphysically with the Christian worldview, dating back to the Old Testament. In passing, I would say the false idea today is that Christianity began with Jesus's incarnation, but it goes all the way back to the Book of Genesis. Jesus was there as God Who created all things. However, logic as a system of thought may have been written extensively by Aristotle, but God's people were using logic way before Aristotle's writings were popularized. Also, Aristotle failed to adequately justify the use of logic, attributing it to the forms within material things. The Hebraic understanding of logic came from a transcendental law which presupposed special revelation by God to His creatures in how they thought, acted, and spoke to Him and to each other. That is where I find the basis for logic, and it has nothing to do with a "Roman-like bias."

[LATruth]

The burden of proof is not on the atheists. It's on your flock Theo. And again, scripture is not proof.

[Theocrat]

The burden of proof is not on the atheists. It's on your flock Theo. And again, scripture is not proof.

The burden of proof is on both Christians and "atheists". We are both making positive claims about the truth of whether God exists or not. Christians say God does exist, and "atheists" say God does not exist. Both of those claims can not be true at the same time and in the same way, so it means one of them is false. Therefore, both claims as to the reality of God's existence have to be proven true by some level of evidence and objectivity. Just as Christians have to prove why they believe God exists, so do "atheists" have to prove why they believe God does not exist. It's just that simple.

[torchbearer]

agnostics are honest- they simply say they don't know.
Thomas was agnostic until he felt the wounds of Jesus.
I don't think it is wrong to question as Thomas did...

[sevin]

Why would someone pretending to be smart make such a stupid generalization?

Now, now. Be nice. :)



The "realationship" is primarily one of mutual love and trust, and since Spirit has a more complete and realistic perception of both the physical and the Spriritual world, I pray for instructions and understanding a lot.

What I'm saying is that Christians don't literally know there is a god. They just believe it based on their feelings. And from your post, I can see you agree with me.



At best, all you can say is that you don't believe God exists.

This is all semantics. By my definition, someone who doesn't believe God exists is an atheist. I thought everyone used that definition. I guess not.


You're absolutely right. A negative cannot be proven empirically, and that has been one of my points all along. Those who reject God on the basis that He cannot be empirically proven fall into the trap of not being able to prove there is no God empirically, themselves. So, my question to the empiricists is on what basis can they prove the truth of their assertion that there is no God. I have not heard an answer to that yet.

Okay, in order to accommodate you, I won't say, "It is true that there is no god." But I will say, "It is true that there is no proof of god." You take it from there.

[Bman]

God is a proven reality in my life because I have a personal relationship with Spirit. Unfortunately that is a personal, metaphyisical proof. It's impossible to give a physical proof for something that is by definition metaphysical.

Why would you even bother to ask?

God Exists = X

X has two possible answers 0 for false, and 1 for true.

Now you need to figure out the equations and variables to prove the statement. No one has. When I say God doesn't exist I say it only to ruffle feathers of those who say God does exist. I cannot prove that equation and neither can they.

[Theocrat]

Okay, in order to accommodate you, I won't say, "It is true that there is no god." But I will say, "It is true that there is no proof of god." You take it from there.

Have you examined all the proofs for the existence of God? If so, then you yourself would be God, since you would have absolute knowledge in all things and in all places to know that statement as being absolutely true (however, self-refuting). If not, then you're arguing on the basis of trying to prove a universal negative, which we know is impossible.

[sevin]

Have you examined all the proofs for the existence of God? If so, then you yourself would be God, since you would have absolute knowledge in all things and in all places to make that statement absolutely true. If not, then you're arguing on the basis of trying to prove a universal negative, which is where we left off before.

You don't have to know everything in order to not believe something. You just have to decide for now if there is enough proof to justify a belief in god. I don't see enough proof. If in the future I learn otherwise, I will change my mind. That is why, as I said in the other thread, I consider myself agnostic.

[Theocrat]

You don't have to know everything in order to not believe something. You just have to decide for now if there is enough proof to justify a belief in god. I don't see enough proof. If in the future I learn otherwise, I will change my mind. That is why, as I said in the other thread, I consider myself agnostic.

That is not what you said in your previous post. You said "It is true that there is no proof of god." (Emphasis mine) That is an absolute statement, and you would have to know everything in order to believe the truth of that assertion. Somehow you missed that concept. Just because you don't see the proof for God's existence doesn't mean there isn't any. After all, the universe does not revolve around you. There are plenty of people who see abundant proof for the existence of God, and it has unequivocally convinced them that there is a God. It's just that you either don't like their proofs, or you don't agree with them. That would be a personal problem on your part, though.

[sevin]

That is not what you said in your previous post. You said "It is true that there is no proof of god." (Emphasis mine)

Okay, you got me. Talking to you is like running through an obstacle course. Maybe I should have said, "It is true that I do not see any proof of god."


There are plenty of people who see abundant proof for the existence of God, and it has unequivocally convinced them that there is a God. It's just that you either don't like their proofs, or you don't agree with them. That would be a personal problem on your part, though.

So are you saying that you have personally seen or experienced things that prove to you that god is real?

[Theocrat]

Okay, you got me. Talking to you is like running through an obstacle course. Maybe I should have said, "It is true that I do not see any proof of god."

That's much better. I keep you going because I love you. :D


So are you saying that you have personally seen or experienced things that prove to you that god is real?

Yes, many of those proofs have been very convincing to me, but I try not to use them outside of a worldview in which they don't make sense, which is why I try to argue for God's existence on the impossibility of the contrary when I can.

[sevin]

Yes, many of those proofs have been very convincing to me, but I try not to use them outside of a worldview in which they don't make sense, which is why I try to argue for God's existence on the impossibility of the contrary when I can.

Okay, so at least you explain why you insist on arguing on the impossibility of the contrary, as you say. My problem with this is that people from hundreds of religions will say the same thing, that they have had "proofs" in their lives that they find very convincing. But they can't all be right. You have to admit that it is all faith.

[LATruth]

You have to admit that it is all faith.

Or ambiguous coincidences that people find meaning in, much like horoscopes.

[TortoiseDream]

A quick point: all atheists believe in God. How can you doubt something that does not exist? "Theist" is in the word "atheist", afterall.

[LATruth]

A quick point: all atheists believe in God. How can you doubt something that does not exist? "Theist" is in the word "atheist", afterall.

<facepalm>http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/Jesus_facepalm.jpg</facepalm>

[Objectivist]

A quick point: all atheists believe in God. How can you doubt something that does not exist? "Theist" is in the word "atheist", afterall.

WHo gave those that don't believe in the invisible man the name "Atheist"??? I can guess it wasn't the non-believers.

[TortoiseDream]

WHo gave those that don't believe in the invisible man the name "Atheist"??? I can guess it wasn't the non-believers.

Whether or not the atheist named himself or not does not change the fact that what he doubts must exist in order for him to doubt it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Whether or not the atheist named himself or not does not change the fact that what he doubts must exist in order for him to doubt it.

That doesn't follow. For example, I doubt that the boogieman exists, but that doesn't mean it exists. Not that I have all the answers to the "God question", but your logic is sloppy. :(

[Objectivist]

Whether or not the atheist named himself or not does not change the fact that what he doubts must exist in order for him to doubt it.

I have no doubts.

And with that I'm outie.

[heavenlyboy34]

A quick point: all atheists believe in God. How can you doubt something that does not exist? "Theist" is in the word "atheist", afterall.

yes, but the preposition "a" means "without". ;)

[TortoiseDream]

That doesn't follow. For example, I doubt that the boogieman exists, but that doesn't mean it exists. Not that I have all the answers to the "God question", but your logic is sloppy. :(

The boogieman exists simply because you brought it to our attention; he plays an active (usually small, as we are adults) part in our lives.

What does it mean to exist, anyways? I believe I require you to exist, and you require me to exist - that is, existence is a relationship. Atheists have a relationship to God, whether they like it or not.

[PaulaGem]

Okay, so at least you explain why you insist on arguing on the impossibility of the contrary, as you say. My problem with this is that people from hundreds of religions will say the same thing, that they have had "proofs" in their lives that they find very convincing. But they can't all be right. You have to admit that it is all faith.


The fact that people from hundreds of religions have personal experience or metaphysical "proof" that God exists actually supports the concept of a Trancendental One. They don't all have to agree on the exact nature of the experience because something that is by definition "infinite" will of course have people experiencing it from different perspectives.

[heavenlyboy34]

The boogieman exists simply because you brought it to our attention; he plays an active (usually small, as we are adults) part in our lives.

What does it mean to exist, anyways? I believe I require you to exist, and you require me to exist - that is, existence is a relationship. Atheists have a relationship to God, whether they like it or not.

ex⋅ist

 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/E03/E0398000) /ɪgˈzɪst/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [ig-zist] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA –verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being
Clear enough? ;) The boogieman doesn't exist simply because I brought it to your attention. That is as false as saying "I have a million dollars in my drawer" when there is in fact nothing there but socks.

You're overthinking this and have outsmarted yourself by half. ;) I had a chuckle at your expense, though. :D Thanx! :)

[TortoiseDream]

ex⋅ist

 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/E03/E0398000) /ɪgˈzɪst/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [ig-zist] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA –verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being
Clear enough? ;) The boogieman doesn't exist simply because I brought it to your attention. That is as false as saying "I have a million dollars in my drawer" when there is in fact nothing there but socks.

You're overthinking this and have outsmarted yourself by half. ;) I had a chuckle at your expense, though. :D Thanx! :)

That definition is redundant, it's not a real definition. "To be is to be,", okay, but what is the essence of being?

The "million dollars in your drawer" definitely exist, as I see it. After all, you just created them.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The fact that people from hundreds of religions have personal experience or metaphysical "proof" that God exists actually supports the concept of a Trancendental One. They don't all have to agree on the exact nature of the experience because something that is by definition "infinite" will of course have people experiencing it from different perspectives.

Is this anything like all the claims of aliens and monsters? They dont all agree on the exact nature of the experience. Maybe Big Foot and ET and the Chupacabra are all part of the same group?

[heavenlyboy34]

That definition is redundant, it's not a real definition. "To be is to be,", okay, but what is the essence of being?

The "million dollars in your drawer" definitely exist, as I see it. After all, you just created them.

Perhaps you prefer...

exist-(v.t.)1. to have being (Webster's 21st Century dictionary :cool:)