The Top Ten Reasons....

[Windsor]

Though I believe God made life to be self-sustaining, I don't believe we could continue to exist if God didn't or that we could exist outside His will.

[Igakusei]

Though I believe God made life to be self-sustaining, I don't believe we could continue to exist if God didn't or that we could exist outside His will.

Regardless of where life came from, it's hard to argue that it isn't self-sustaining. Vitalism has been dead for a long time, and Craig Venter's experiments have basically proven that we can quantify every single element required for self-propagating life.

No supernatural sustaining force to be found (or needed).

Edit: but why believe your own eyes when some Bronze-age goat herders said otherwise?

[skyblue888]

There is no such thing as "self-sustaining" life in God's universe.

"Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws. This is false science and is sustained by nothing in the Word of God." E.G. White, 1897 G.C. Bulletin, p.73.

"All the philosophies of human nature have led to confusion and shame when Christ has not been recognized as all in all." E.G. White, Ibid,73.

He is the life of everything that lives but especially to those who believe, those who appropriate to themselves the merits of His great sacrifice.

sky

[Overaged]

There is no such thing as "self-sustaining" life in God's universe.

"Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws. This is false science and is sustained by nothing in the Word of God." E.G. White, 1897 G.C. Bulletin, p.73.

"All the philosophies of human nature have led to confusion and shame when Christ has not been recognized as all in all." E.G. White, Ibid,73.

sky

[skyblue888]

Glad you like it Over.

Christ said that He came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly. "All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God." 1 S.M.301.

All are recipients of the life of the Son of God but more abundantly for those who come to God just as they are, sinful, helpless, dependent, appropriating to themselves the merits of the sacrifice that was made for them upon Calvary's cross. To them the righteousness of Christ is imputed and imparted and "righteousness is love and love is the light and the life of God." M.B.18.

sky

[Igakusei]

That's actually a decent quote demonstrating that Ellen White had no clue what she was talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

[fccool]

Ok I'll try to respond to each one of these 10 reasons, and perhaps give you a different perspective.

Quote:

The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.

When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a very noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller.

Why the sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.

I think you misunderstand the place of religion in ancient culture. Much of it existed to tell the metaphorical oral history by mean of supernatural symbolism.

Human mind works through metaphors. Without metaphors and strict factual literal speech, our existence would be quite dull. For that reason we have ideas such as love, freedom, hatred ... and even abstract concepts such as economy and science.

In ancient world, people learned history by means of myths and metaphors. That's why it's very difficult to judge what these people really believed.

In Russian culture there are plenty of oral fairy tails of old about 7 headed dragons, the witches and immortal villains. Much of these symbolically reflected real Russian enemies at the time.

I would not be so quick to judge the ancients.

Quote:

All of these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the religious explanations were replaced by physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural or religious explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

Sure, but it's a poor argument. One can counter it with the idea of elimination of erroneous religious concepts for the search of the true one.

Likewise, we can say the same things about science. Science consistently eliminates the erroneous explanations, once these has been shown untrue.

Both scientific and theistic views have changed considerably over time. Even most prominent scientists like Newton, which landed rockets on the moon (with their equations) had to take a back seat to more discoveries.

I think the same could be told about the religious realm. The surviving religions today are those that perhaps reflect the reality closer than other. It certainly does not mean that these are factually correct, but we have to understand many these stories in context of metaphoric cultural morality.

Quote:

Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural or religious one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's actually caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"? Exactly zero.

Sure, when science rejects the plausibility of such ideas to begin with based on the lack of PHYSICAL evidence, and sort of sits back and says "Repeat this for me, right here and right now"... how can any other explanations be supported?

Film "Contact" dissects this paradox of science fairly well. If a single scientist indeed had opportunity to experience the events of the film, his/her experience would be rejected as heresay, no matter how true or false such experience was.

And that becomes the major point of scientific knowledge, vs religious knowledge. Religious knowledge is individual experience that can't be proven by scientific means. Scientific knowledge is a provable by it's own set standards, that demand repeatable showcase ANYWHERE and ANY TIME.

Even if God was to reveal himself to a group of scientists in a lab, and they documented such revelation... it would be meaningless if God would not repeat such revelation on cue to every person who inquires.

If indeed God exists, and He largely decides to be hidden for whatever reason it would be, then science would treat Him as non-existent for these reasons.

Quote:

Sure, people come up with new supernatural explanations for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources?

Again -- exactly zero.

Once again, the problem is not lack of evidence, but demand of repeatable occurrence of such things on the spot... for something that's fairly abstract in terms of scientific repeatability.

Let's say we stick two married people into a lab, and tell them, prove us repeatedly that you love each other. What would they do to prove the abstract concept? Which would be the standards by which we understand such abstract concept?

Science applies the same standards for abstract concepts as it would to physical phenomenon, as it should. That's what science is for... to deal with the real of physical.

Quote:

Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation -- human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the universe -- will be best explained by the supernatural?

Yes, although there would not be a clear way to test it via scientific methods. There are plenty of evidence for "supernatural" claims in that sense, many of which were thoroughly documented.

There are plenty of cases of people being possessed, and were told to speak foreign languages they never knew.

There are plenty of documented cases of children knowing the facts of "past lives" in terms of very delicate details.

There are plenty of cases of documented "out of body" experiences with people recalling conversations that took in different rooms while they were clinically dead.

The problem is that these can't be "tested" by scientific means. These are personal claims of experiences that are super-natural. You can't demand to stick them in the lab and repeat them whenever they want. And likewise, you can dismiss the supernatural aspect because it does not usually occur and go with more "plausible" explanation that science dictates without likewise providing an equal proof of such occurrence in that instance. But, of course, burden of proof rests with extra-ordinary... i.e. "Contact"

Quote:

Given this pattern, it seems clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can comfortably discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn't understand the world as well as we do now... but that, on more careful examination, has never -- not once -- been shown to be correct.

Once again, the science does not deal and can't possibly deal with supernatural in a lab setting. If it could, then it would not be super-natural at all.

Super-natural falls into the real of philosophy more than into the real of the science.

Quote:

If I see any solid evidence to support a religious or supernatural explanation of a phenomenon, I'll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.

And what evidence would you accept? Let's say that you have a vision and have a voice that says "Believe me today", would it be of any use?

That becomes the issue, when we try to literalize someone's experience in terms of scientific understanding. Religion is not science. Religion is a philosophy. You can't "prove" or "disprove" philosophic concepts in the same way you prove or disprove scientific ones.

We can break down "love" as a series of electrical impulses in the brain and series of chemical and endocrine secretions that results in our emotional states, but in process we reduced the concept to these processes and stripped it of the ideals that we live for.

Religious concepts are very similar. These are not there to give you scientific or accurate historical explanation. These are there to have a philosophy of life that's consistent with our collective being.

[skyblue888]

Quote: "The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones. When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a very noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them."

Igakusie

________________

"Those who dwell on the laws of matter and the operations of nature, in following their own limited, finite understanding, lose sight of, if they do not deny, the continual and direct agency of God. Many express themselves in a manner which would convey the idea that nature is distinct from the God of nature, having in and of itself its own limits and its own powers with which to work. There is with many a marked distinction between the natural and supernatural. The natural is ascribed to natural causes, unconnected with the interference of God. Vital power is attributed to matter, and nature is made a deity. THIS IS FALSE SCIENCE. There is nothing in the Word of God to sustain it. God is perpetually at work in nature." E.G. White, 1897 G.C. Bulletin, 73. *emphasis supplied

"Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will." E. G. White, Ministry of Healing,416.

This agency is the Spirit of God.

"God's throne is in Heaven (Ps.11:4) yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. (Ps.139:7) He has an intimate knowledge of and a personal interest in all the works of His hand." E.G. White, Education,132.

sky

[Igakusei]

Quote:

I think you misunderstand the place of religion in ancient culture. Much of it existed to tell the metaphorical oral history by mean of supernatural symbolism.

Human mind works through metaphors. Without metaphors and strict factual literal speech, our existence would be quite dull. For that reason we have ideas such as love, freedom, hatred ... and even abstract concepts such as economy and science.

In ancient world, people learned history by means of myths and metaphors. That's why it's very difficult to judge what these people really believed.

In Russian culture there are plenty of oral fairy tails of old about 7 headed dragons, the witches and immortal villains. Much of these symbolically reflected real Russian enemies at the time.

I would not be so quick to judge the ancients.

Are you serious? Most of the people on this very board believe in talking snakes, donkeys, gods that sacrifice themselves to themselves, angels of death, and all sorts of other nonsense. Sky in this very thread can't let go of the idea that our molecules are maintained by a supernatural force, an idea that science finally let go of by 1930. Considering we have produced artificial bacteria that have -zero- components where the function is not well-understood, it's pretty safe to say that vitalism is truly dead. There is absolutely nothing in our study of biochemistry and physiology to suggest that anything more than the laws of thermodynamics are at work in our bodies.

In any case, the point still stands. It's indisputable that people used to explain a lot of things in supernatural terms. Things that are well understood today. People thought that heavenly bodies were held in place by God, but then Newton explained them rather elegantly with the force of Gravity and a simple algebraic relationship. People thought that pestilence and disease were caused by God (or Satan, depending on your fancy), to the point that the smallpox vaccine was vehemently opposed by the Catholic church on the grounds that we were messing with God's divine judgement. Earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes are now explained by plate tectonics. The diversity of life is explained by evolution.

The fact that all of these things and more, once firmly believed to be well within the domain of God's control, have now been explained by simple natural forces acting along predictable lines. The point is that given this pattern, it seems unlikely that the remaining gaps (origin of the first life, big bang, etc.) in our knowledge are actually occupied by God. Chances are looking pretty good that they have natural explanations too, we just don't understand them yet.

Quote:

Sure, but it's a poor argument. One can counter it with the idea of elimination of erroneous religious concepts for the search of the true one.

Likewise, we can say the same things about science. Science consistently eliminates the erroneous explanations, once these has been shown untrue.

Both scientific and theistic views have changed considerably over time. Even most prominent scientists like Newton, which landed rockets on the moon (with their equations) had to take a back seat to more discoveries.

I think the same could be told about the religious realm. The surviving religions today are those that perhaps reflect the reality closer than other. It certainly does not mean that these are factually correct, but we have to understand many these stories in context of metaphoric cultural morality.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vktnYVOsDns

Quote:

Sure, when science rejects the plausibility of such ideas to begin with based on the lack of PHYSICAL evidence, and sort of sits back and says "Repeat this for me, right here and right now"... how can any other explanations be supported?

Film "Contact" dissects this paradox of science fairly well. If a single scientist indeed had opportunity to experience the events of the film, his/her experience would be rejected as heresay, no matter how true or false such experience was.

And that becomes the major point of scientific knowledge, vs religious knowledge. Religious knowledge is individual experience that can't be proven by scientific means. Scientific knowledge is a provable by it's own set standards, that demand repeatable showcase ANYWHERE and ANY TIME.

Even if God was to reveal himself to a group of scientists in a lab, and they documented such revelation... it would be meaningless if God would not repeat such revelation on cue to every person who inquires.

If indeed God exists, and He largely decides to be hidden for whatever reason it would be, then science would treat Him as non-existent for these reasons.

Yes, IF. That's a big if. So far, the track record of science is looking pretty good. We can do a lot of things today that would have seemed like magic only decades ago. Your ancestors believed in gods that were real and tangible and constantly interacted with the world to explain a wide variety of phenomena. You understand that this is untenable, so you're just moving your god further and further from reality so he becomes harder and harder to detect. That's not a strong argument in your favor, IMO.

Quote:

And what evidence would you accept? Let's say that you have a vision and have a voice that says "Believe me today", would it be of any use?

That becomes the issue, when we try to literalize someone's experience in terms of scientific understanding. Religion is not science. Religion is a philosophy. You can't "prove" or "disprove" philosophic concepts in the same way you prove or disprove scientific ones.

We can break down "love" as a series of electrical impulses in the brain and series of chemical and endocrine secretions that results in our emotional states, but in process we reduced the concept to these processes and stripped it of the ideals that we live for.

Religious concepts are very similar. These are not there to give you scientific or accurate historical explanation. These are there to have a philosophy of life that's consistent with our collective being.

I'd get my sanity checked out first, but yes. I have no bone to pick with the supernatural, I just don't believe in it. If I had Paul's experience, I'd be a Christian in a heartbeat. The problem is that my experiences have convinced me that "Paul's experience" is almost certainly a fabrication of the people who wrote it.

[Igakusei]

Sky,

Do you ever bother to think for yourself? I don't think I've ever seen you post anything that doesn't primarily consist of someone else's quotes.

You know that I don't believe EGW was anything special, right? Why do you think those would mean anything to me, other than to convince me further that she was delusional?

[fccool]

Quote:

2: The inconsistency of world religions.

If God (or any other metaphysical being or beings) were real, and people were really perceiving him/ her/ it/ them, why do those perceptions differ so wildly?

The simple answer would be that religious experience is subjective to cultural context, language, and understanding, since it is philosophical in nature rather than objective science.

Quote:

When different people look at, say, a tree, we more or less agree about what we're looking at: what size it is, what shape, whether it currently has leaves or not and what color those leaves are, etc. We may have disagreements regarding the tree -- what other plants it's most closely related to, where it stands in the evolutionary tree, should it be cut down to make way for a new sports stadium, etc. But unless one of us is hallucinating or deranged or literally unable to see, we can all agree on the tree's basic existence, and the basic facts about it.

The concept of God, due to it's nature, is abstract to human beings. It has to be explained in terms that they can perceive on their level. Abstract concepts tend to be interpreted subjectively. We don't all have an agreement on ideals like freedom, love, hate, beauty, delicious, and etc.

All of these are abstract, and therefore subjective. Just because we have disagreement on these things, it does not invalidate the concept. It actually amplifies it, because all of us do agree that such concepts do exist, no matter how subjective our experience of them is.

Quote:

This is blatantly not the case for God. Even among people who do believe in God, there is no agreement whatsoever as to what God is, what God does, what God wants from us, how he acts or does not act upon the world, whether he's a he, whether there's one or more of him, whether he's a personal being or a diffuse metaphysical substance. And this is among smart, thoughtful, sane people. What's more, many smart, thoughtful, sane people don't even think that God exists... and the number of those people is going up all the time.

And why would they be? Once again, God is an abstract idea to them that they tend to interpret subjectively from perspective of their own experience and understanding.

Just because all of us have different concept of beauty, does not mean that there's no such thing.

Quote:

And if God existed, he'd be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don't see God in even remotely the same way whatsoever?

It's more of a philosophical question, rather than scientific. I don't think the idea of "bigger" applies. In reality, God could be "smaller" then a single molecule, or exist in reality that's "real" in terms of ours being "simulated".

I think it's obvious that we can't perceive God. If we did, then all of us would be on agreement. It could very well be that there is no such entity, but there's evidence that there's intelligence behind processes of this universe, and people almost universally agreed with the concept.

Just because they subjectively disagreed on nature of such being, does not invalidate its existence due to the abstract nature such concept poses to humans.

Quote:

The explanation, of course, is that God does not really exist. We disagree so radically over what he is because we aren't actually perceiving anything that's real.

That's one of the explanations, and to think that it's the only one is illogical, and I've shown you that it is.

Just because concept beauty is subjective, does not mean that beauty is meaningless or does not exist.

Quote:

We're "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brains that's wired to see pattern and intention (even when none exists) is wired to see and believe.

In many cases we are, but there is evidence that such is not the case. Much of it is not scientific in terms of repeatability or objectivity, but it does not mean that it's not valuable. As I've said before, there's a reason for almost universal agreement of ancient humanity that there is intelligence behind our world. They were not as gullible and stupid as you make them out to be.

[skyblue888]

Sky,

Do you ever bother to think for yourself? I don't think I've ever seen you post anything that doesn't primarily consist of someone else's quotes.

You know that I don't believe EGW was anything special, right? Why do you think those would mean anything to me, other than to convince me further that she was delusional?

No need to tell me EGW is nothing special to you. I can think for myself enough to realize that. What about you Iga? you keep posting links for us to go to to be taught by uninspired men. So what then is the big deal?

Judging between what these men have to say and what Ellen says, it is not difficult to see who it is that is speaking the truth.

sky

[Igakusei]

The simple answer would be that religious experience is subjective to cultural context, language, and understanding, since it is philosophical in nature rather than objective science.

[Igakusei]

No need to tell me EGW is nothing special to you. I can think for myself realize that. What about you Iga? you keep posting links for us to go to to be taught by uninspired men. So what then is the big deal?

Judging between what these men have to say and what Ellen says, it is not difficult to see who it is that is speaking the truth.

sky

One of the problems with religion is that it teaches people that they already have the "Truth," right there in their own special little denomination. It is exactly why we have thousands of independent Christian denominations.

If Sunni Muslims only read information produced by other Sunni Muslims, and Shiite Muslims only read information produced by other Shiite Muslims, and Adventists only read information produced by Adventists, and Mormons by Mormons, and so on, it's no wonder that we all just end up talking past each other.

If you refuse to read anything outside the circle of information that you've always read, how will you ever know if you are wrong?

How would that Sunni Muslim know that he was wrong, if he had been taught to only read works from within his particular sect? What makes you think you are any different?

[skyblue888]

Suppose that the earth is a big cannon ball. How much gunpowder would it take to shoot the earth off into space and make it go as fast as it is going now, at the rate of about thirty miles a second? How much gunpowder do you suppose it would take? It has been found that it would take eight hundred times as much as the earth itself weights. But after it is started, it must be kept going. The earth does not lose a moment of time. Astronomers tell us that not one twentieth of a second has been lost during the past two thousand years. Why? Because there is a power behind it that will keep it going; it is not a thing that is moving itself!

"It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God’s power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain." E.G. White, Ministry of Healing, p.416.

sky

[fccool]

Quote:

3: The weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics.

I have seen a lot of arguments for the existence of God. And they all boil down to one or more of the following:

The argument from authority. (Example: "God exists because the Bible says God exists.")

The argument from personal experience. (Example: "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists.")

The argument that religion shouldn't have to logically defend its claims. (Example: "God is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence.")

Or the redefining of God into an abstract principle -- so abstract that it can't be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name God. (Example: "God is love.")

And all these arguments are incredibly weak.

Hmm. these are not really arguments. These are rather statements of belief based on certain evidence.

Outside of complexity of nature and and it's connecting purpose in terms of existence, there are no other objective arguments for divine existence.

That's the only argument that was enough for most of the world to conclude that there is indeed a causer or creator.

Since scientific thought evolved, it attempted to provide alternatives. IMO these alternatives are plausible, but likewise have their weaknesses, as they make plentiful assumptions and leaps in attempt to connect and justify their conclusions.

Quote:

Sacred books and authorities can be mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred book that doesn't have any mistakes. (The Bible, for just one example, is shot full of them.) And the feelings in people's hearts can definitely be mistaken. They are mistaken, demonstrably so, much of the time. Instinct and intuition play an important part of human understanding and experience... but they should never be treated as the final word on a subject.

I think both of us know enough about Biblical history and it's formation to conclude that much of it is exaggerated, or metaphorized to preserve certain principles.

However, these principles are based on overarching ideals that existed and evolved based on human understanding of God and human relationships.

It's interesting that separated by the oceans and isolated geographic locations, the ideas of God, sacrifice, and many other ideals were formed. Sure, the storyline differ, but the concepts are similar.

Don't understand me out of context, but to quote Tolstoy, "If God did not exist, then he aught to be created."

Quote:

I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves," and offered as a defense, "I know this is true because my mother/ preacher/ sacred book tells me so"... or "I know this is true because I feel it in my heart"... would you take me seriously?

I understand why you would say this. I find it unfortunate that the validity of certain facts is emphasized over the principles behind the metaphors. It certainly creates conflict between thinking people like yourself, and the religious people you are talking about.

The reality of the matter that our collective human experience should dictate certain ideals, apart from our understanding of God. IMO, if humans can't figure out certain moral concepts on their own, it would dictate a certain amount of failure on part of the creator, who supposed to be perfect.

But, I believe that's not the case. Humans can indeed figure out the moral concepts in secular setting. The reality is that we should value human life, we should have empathy, and we should have respect for each other... whether or not God exists. Belief in God should not be a dividing factor. It is unfortunate that it is today.

[Igakusei]

Suppose that the earth is a big cannon ball. How much gunpowder would it take to shoot the earth off into space and make it go as fast as it is going now, at the rate of about thirty miles a second? How much gunpowder do you suppose it would take? It has been found that it would take eight hundred times as much as the earth itself weights. But after it is started, it must be kept going. The earth does not lose a moment of time. Astronomers tell us that not one twentieth of a second has been lost during the past two thousand years. Why? Because there is a power behind it that will keep it going; it is not a thing that is moving itself!

What makes you think the Earth was placed in orbit by being shot out of a cannon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Suppose that the earth is a big cannon ball. How much gunpowder would it take to shoot the earth off into space and make it go as fast as it is going now, at the rate of about thirty miles a second? How much gunpowder do you suppose it would take? It has been found that it would take eight hundred times as much as the earth itself weights. But after it is started, it must be kept going. The earth does not lose a moment of time. Astronomers tell us that not one twentieth of a second has been lost during the past two thousand years. Why? Because there is a power behind it that will keep it going; it is not a thing that is moving itself!

What makes you think the Earth was placed in orbit by being shot out of a cannon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

I did not say that, I said, "Suppose that the earth is a big cannon ball."

Here is something else to ponder over:

"As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes all things." Ecclesiastes 11:5.

Take a bone for instance, in the human body. It is not a very interesting thing; but saw off a very thin slice of it, put it on the grindstone, and grind it down until you can see light through it, and then rub it down a little thinner still, then attach it to a piece of sealing wax, and put it under the microscope, and you will see some very interesting things. Here are some little dark places. They are hollow spaces. Inside of one of those spaces, when the bone is alive, is a little living creature similar to a jelly drop. Every one of these specks of life is at work; their work is to build bone. When a bone is broken, these bone cells, as they are called, go to work to make new bone to take the place of the old bone. Of themselves they have no more power to work than a grain of sand or a piece of sawdust; but there is a power in them that is working through them. Each one of these little cells is an evidence of the care of an unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all.

The bones have in the centre of them a substance called marrow. The ordinary bone marrow is white; another kind is red. In the red marrow of the bones the blood is manufactured. We have about five million cells in every minute drop of blood, and we have from ten to fourteen pounds of blood in our veins. The blood cells live about six weeks, and then die, and new ones must be created. This creating process is carried on largely in the bones. So the bones are not simply sticks to support the body but they perform one of the most important functions of the entire body, the making of blood!

"As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes all things." Ecclesiastes 11:5.

sky

[fccool]

Quote:

4: The increasing diminishment of God.

When you look at the history of religion, you see that the perceived power of God himself, among believers themselves, has been diminishing. As our understanding of the natural, physical world has increased -- and our ability to test theories and claims has improved -- the domain of God's miracles (or other purported supernatural/ metaphysical phenomena) has consistently shifted, away from the phenomena that are now understood as physical cause and effect, and onto the increasingly shrinking area of phenomena that we still don't understand.

Hmm. You are talking about apples and oranges here. It's easy to say that about the claim that there's a guy in the sky who throws lightening every time it storms, but Biblical claims do not share such claims.

I think that we have to agree that Biblical miracles are of different nature. Much of them actually revolve the idea of proving something to someone by God.

Sure, there is little to know historical support for these miracles, but the point remains.

Quote:

Examples: We stopped needing God to explain floods, but we still needed him to explain sickness and health. Then we didn't need him to explain sickness and health any more... but we still needed him to explain consciousness. Now we're beginning to get a grip on consciousness, so we'll soon need God to explain... what, exactly?

People found improper explanations for all sorts of physical occurrences. But they likewise got a lot of things that we only been able to recently confirm in terms of science.

This does not merely apply to religious people. It applies to people universally. We should weed out improper explanations, and replace them with more plausible or correct ones.

Quote:

This is what atheists call the "God of the gaps." Whatever gap there is in our understanding of the world, that's what God is responsible for. Wherever the empty spaces are in our coloring book, that's what gets filled in with the blue crayon called God.

But the blue crayon is worn down to a nub. And it's never proven to be the right color. And over and over again, throughout history, we have had to go to great trouble to scrape the blue crayon out of people's minds and replace it with the right color. Given this pattern, doesn't it seem that we should stop reaching for the blue crayon every time we see an empty space in the coloring book?

The best humans could do to represent infinity is to draw a mobius loop. Is mobius loop a correct representation of infinity? Of course not. It is a drawing that represents a fairly abstract concept.

Just because representation is not "correct", does not mean that reality behind the representation does not exist.

[Igakusei]

I did not say that, I said, "Suppose that the earth is a big cannon ball."

Here is something else to ponder over:

"As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes all things." Ecclesiastes 11:5.

Take a bone for instance, in the human body. It is not a very interesting thing; but saw off a very thin slice of it, put it on the grindstone, and grind it down until you can see light through it, and then rub it down a little thinner still, then attach it to a piece of sealing wax, and put it under the microscope, and you will see some very interesting things. Here are some little dark places. They are hollow spaces. Inside of one of those spaces, when the bone is alive, is a little living creature similar to a jelly drop. Every one of these specks of life is at work; their work is to build bone. When a bone is broken, these bone cells, as they are called, go to work to make new bone to take the place of the old bone. Of themselves they have no more power to work than a grain of sand or a piece of sawdust; but there is a power in them that is working through them. Each one of these little cells is an evidence of the care of an unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all.

The bones have in the centre of them a substance called marrow. The ordinary bone marrow is white; another kind is red. In the red marrow of the bones the blood is manufactured. We have about five million cells in every minute drop of blood, and we have from ten to fourteen pounds of blood in our veins. The blood cells live about six weeks, and then die, and new ones must be created. This creating process is carried on largely in the bones. So the bones are not simply sticks to support the body but they perform one of the most important functions of the entire body, the making of blood!

"As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes all things." Ecclesiastes 11:5.

sky

Did you think I thought the Earth had been placed in orbit by being shot out of a cannon? What was the point of the gunpowder thing? Yes, I expect it would take a terrific amount of gunpowder to accelerate a mass of almost 6x10^24 kilograms. That's 6 trillion trillion kilograms. You'd obviously need a big cannon and a lot of gunpowder to move something like that. Or, gravity and the reasonably well-understood mechanisms of planetary formation could do it. The same way planets are being "put in orbit" even as we speak, all over the galaxy.

As mentioned earlier, cells work solely according to the laws of thermodynamics. There's an entire science devoted to understanding the molecular basis of life. Haven't we already been down this road?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry

It's clear that you don't understand much about the science of life, but please don't project your lack of knowledge onto everyone else.

[fccool]

Quote:

5: The fact that religion runs in families.

I don't think that I have to be dwelling too much on this one, since it is essentially a straw man.

Human knowledge in general runs in families, since families is where human knowledge is initially transmitted.

We can likewise say that atheism run in families, that trade runs in families, that sports run in families.

Of itself, it's not an indicator of truthfulness of anything.

[skyblue888]

Did you think I thought the Earth had been placed in orbit by being shot out of a cannon? What was the point of the gunpowder thing?

Igakusei

_________________

I am only trying to reason with you. But I am not only posting for you but for all who may be watching and reading.

The earth turns upon its axis at the rate of seventeen miles a minute, while it moves in its orbit around the sun at the rate of nineteen miles a second. Think of this! Try to comprehend the meaning of this enormous speed--the earth revolving upon its own axis at the rate of seventeen miles a minute and we are clinging to the surface like flies revolving on a spinning top. But this is a slow rate compared with the rate at which it moves through its orbit, more than sixty times as great.

The sun travels faster than the earth. It travels at the rate of twenty-seven miles a second. And the earth and all the planets are travelling with it. So here is another still more rapid movement in addition to the earth’s movement on its axis and in its orbit.

Not only the earth and the sun, but every sun in the universe, with their planets revolving about them are moving, doubtless, at equally rapid rates. The mind staggers at the thought of the immense expenditure of energy necessary to keep all these gigantic suns and worlds in orderly movement. The sun, the centre of our solar system, is so large that if it were hollow, our earth might be placed in the middle, and there would be ample room for the moon to revolve around the earth, and several other moons outside it. The sun is reckoned to be one million, four hundred thousand times as large as the earth.

How much gun-powder would be required to start it off on its journey through space at the rate of twenty-seven miles a second? How much would be required to keep it in movement throughout all the ages of eternity? And yet this great sun is but a mere speck in our universe--only one of the countless number of suns, some of which are immensely larger!

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." Psalm 19:1-4.

sky

[fccool]

Quote:

6: The physical causes of everything we think of as the soul.

[igakusei: This probably applies less to SDAs than some of the others do]

The idea of a soul is a metaphor for the core of intellectual being. Hence, the question is whether that intellectual entity of us survives our body.

There are reasons to believe that it does in some form, and that there is more to our consciousness than we yet understand.

But, of course, in scientific terms we can only look at humans in terms of individual personalities which exist as programmed arrangement of neurons in their brain.

[fccool]

Quote:

7: The complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing.

That's why it's called supernatural . If you could test it (in scientific terms), it would be natural. How can you test something that you can't perceive?

[skyblue888]

The growth of a seed is just as mysterious as anything else we cannot explain. The miracle working power of God is at work everywhere in the universe in and through visible or invisible things.

"Those who have a true knowledge of God will not become so infatuated with the laws of matter or the operations of nature as to overlook or refuse to acknowledge the the continual working of God in nature." 1 S.M.293

"Those who judge of God from His handiwork, and not from the suppositions of great men, see His presence in everything." 8 T 325.

It is through the Spirit that God is everywhere present.

"Do I not fill heaven and earth,' says the Lord." Jer.23:24.

sky