BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Because we have brains that know a history and a consciousness of self in relationship to other selfs.

---

How does that give you choice? Do you have control over the atoms and molecules in your brain at any point?

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

---

You're speculating. Look, I understand and appreciate that you have faith in science. The ironic thing is your belief requires more faith than mine.

We are no closer to answering the question of how life began than we were 1000 years ago. The idea that we will eventually get there, outside of belief in a creator, is unsupported speculation on your part and nothing more. I that sense, your belief is no less far fetched than mine. You just don't realize it.

---

You're ignoring our history of centuries of advancement in human knowledge and revelation about the universe, its components, and the physics of its existence. We know far more about life, and the universe than we did 2000 years ago. We're continuing to learn and advance in that knowledge. There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

---

Once again even if we can figure that out. It still does not answer the why? I take a more Jesuit view of this discussion. Science can describe, measure and use the observations of what is around, but cannot answer the whys,how it fits, where we are heading and other questions that go along with the great advances in science. Reverse engineering is not the same as invention or knowing not only what gravity is,, but why it worls and why everything has to fit.. But the other side of the coin is the metaphysics, philosophy, religion, or whatever you want to call it.

There is some reason the universe is like it is, not just randomness. More scientist are starting to come to that conclusion. Read "Language of God", I too look for signs of the truth.

---

Why does there have to be a why? I'm very much in the process of figuring out what I still do and don't believe of the evangelical teachings I grew up with, but it would seem to me that human beings' collective quest for the why has led them/us to some very different (and often illogical and/or problematic) conclusions, and the proliferation of those disparate beliefs would seem to follow some pretty logical geographic and colonial paths. To me, it seems increasingly plausible that religion may only exist to satisfy our curiosity and give our lives meaning beyond a state of existence because most humans can't rest in the unknown or accept that there may simply be nothing beyond what we see.

I'm growing increasingly comfortable with the notion that we may just be happy accidents. I don't know the how or why, but only the former is truly necessary. There may simply be no why. Humanity may only exist because it does. And frankly, I'm OK with that. Working with elderly people and experiencing more death than most, I've come to believe that there is peace in passing. Eternal rest after a mostly difficult life in a pretty rotten world seems like a blessing to me. Living forever -- regardless of where you end up -- doesn't.

That probably speaks to the erosion of my faith, but I've never personally experienced God the way many here have. And it's not for a lack of trying. I'm just wired in a way that makes that very difficult, as I view virtually everything through a logical/practical lens and don't have very strong emotional responses. My wife calls me a robot. I'm not obviously. I have a pretty strong sense of justice and a heart for the weak, forgotten and downtrodden.

I think that's actually what still draws me to Jesus. And contrary to C.S. Lewis' postulation in Mere Christianity, I can follow him whether he was the Messiah or not. Even if he was a madman, I still think there's value in the radical things he taught about love and generosity. Just from a practical standpoint, I believe that the world would be a better place if more people lived and loved the way Jesus did. Unfortunately, I haven't seen very much of that from the modern church, which is a big part of the reason my faith has been shaken the way that it has. What value can a religion have that has so little material impact on the lives and behaviors of its adherents?

---

In Luke, Christ speaks of the non-religious doing a better job than the religious in the telling of the Good Samaritan. And yet, His story taught people how to put love into action and how not to be a hypocrite. He built the church on not being religious.

Why do people look at sinners, say I don't want to be like them and then walk away from the One who was/is the most unlike them.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Because we have brains that know a history and a consciousness of self in relationship to other selfs.

---

How does that give you choice? Do you have control over the atoms and molecules in your brain at any point?

---

"I think therefore I am." Descartes

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

I believe you're making my point that no amount of evidence will dissuade a determinist.

---

Your side point is irrelevant. I'm asking if YOU believe we have choice or not, and if so, where does it cone from if you believe only physical laws govern the movement of matter in this universe.

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

I believe you're making my point that no amount of evidence will dissuade a determinist.

---

Your side point is irrelevant. I'm asking if YOU believe we have choice or not, and if so, where does it cone from if you believe only physical laws govern the movement of matter in this universe.

---

Free will is compatible with the laws of physics.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

I didn't put that because the prior poster was disputing God's supernatural power, not Him being All Loving. He sent His own Son to die for our sins. Of course He is all loving, that was not in dispute.

However, part of being All Loving is being perfectly just, God hates evil, sin cannot exist in His presence. So many people's definition of being All loving, leaves out his perfect justice and hatred of sin. They turn God's real love into a, hippified version of love, an anything goes no rules type of love. That does not reflect on a Just and Righteous love God has for us.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

I didn't put that because the prior poster was disputing God's supernatural power, not Him being All Loving. He sent His own Son to die for our sins. Of course He is all loving, that was not in dispute.

However, part of being All Loving is being perfectly just, God hates evil, sin cannot exist in His presence. So many people's definition of being All loving, leaves out his perfect justice and hatred of sin. They turn God's real love into a, hippified version of love, an anything goes no rules type of love. That does not reflect on a Just and Righteous love God has for us.

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Nature does not require a supernatural explanation.

Your postponement argument is just a god of the gaps argument.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Nature does not require a supernatural explanation.

Your postponement argument is just a god of the gaps argument.

---

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying physics can't prove it doesn't. See NOMA.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Nature does not require a supernatural explanation.

Your postponement argument is just a god of the gaps argument.

---

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying physics can't prove it doesn't. See NOMA.

---

The burden of proof is not on physics to prove a negative.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Nature does not require a supernatural explanation.

Your postponement argument is just a god of the gaps argument.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Nature does not require a supernatural explanation.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

I didn't put that because the prior poster was disputing God's supernatural power, not Him being All Loving. He sent His own Son to die for our sins. Of course He is all loving, that was not in dispute.

However, part of being All Loving is being perfectly just, God hates evil, sin cannot exist in His presence. So many people's definition of being All loving, leaves out his perfect justice and hatred of sin. They turn God's real love into a, hippified version of love, an anything goes no rules type of love. That does not reflect on a Just and Righteous love God has for us.

---

That doesn't make sense. I'm sure you think God is mysteriously present everywhere, so sin exists in His presence. He has even advocated sinful action according the Bible. An all loving, all powerful god would not create a world or universe with sin and damning consequences. There should be no need for the concepts of sin and justice. Do you believe you can sin in heaven? Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Clearly these concepts are contrived by religious clerics to explain the human condition.

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

I didn't put that because the prior poster was disputing God's supernatural power, not Him being All Loving. He sent His own Son to die for our sins. Of course He is all loving, that was not in dispute.

However, part of being All Loving is being perfectly just, God hates evil, sin cannot exist in His presence. So many people's definition of being All loving, leaves out his perfect justice and hatred of sin. They turn God's real love into a, hippified version of love, an anything goes no rules type of love. That does not reflect on a Just and Righteous love God has for us.

---

That doesn't make sense. I'm sure you think God is mysteriously present everywhere, so sin exists in His presence. He has even advocated sinful action according the Bible. An all loving, all powerful god would not create a world or universe with sin and damning consequences. There should be no need for the concepts of sin and justice. Do you believe you can sin in heaven? Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Clearly these concepts are contrived by religious clerics to explain the human condition.

---

Why would an all powerful god create a universe in which choice was impossible?

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

quash said:

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

The fact is that they are NOT true.

God is all loving and all good. Many people (atheists included) do not understand the bible or how it was written.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

The fact is that they are NOT true.

God is all loving and all good. Many people (atheists included) do not understand the bible or how it was written.

---

None of those are facts. They're beliefs that can be neither proven nor disproven.

Which brings us back to the original topic, which is that we are all essentially constructing our belief system (or lack thereof) based on what we want to believe (or not believe) and what our individual experiences suggest is likely. None of us can say definitively that any of this is true.

If we all approached interactions with those who believe differently than us with more humility and curiosity, the world would be a much better place.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

The fact is that they are NOT true.

God is all loving and all good. Many people (atheists included) do not understand the bible or how it was written.

---

None of those are facts. They're beliefs that can be neither proven nor disproven.

Which brings us back to the original topic, which is that we are all essentially constructing our belief system (or lack thereof) based on what we want to believe (or not believe) and what our individual experiences suggest is likely. None of us can say definitively that any of this is true.

If we all approached interactions with those who believe differently than us with more humility and curiosity, the world would be a much better place.

---

proof? No we don't have proof because, in this situation, proof would mean it cannot be any other way.

You cannot prove to me that your spouse loves you. I'm guessing the evidence pointing to your spouse's love is overwhelming.

The same goes for the many different points regarding God, creation and the gospel. None of us were there at the beginning. None of us were there for the crucifixion or the for the resurrection. We can look at the evidence we have and then decide, if we want to put our faith in the remaining claims.

I'll celebrate 36 years of marriage next month. I can't prove to you my wife will not poison me between now and then but, the evidence suggests that she will not

---