Question for Atheists/Agnostics/non-Christians...what troubles you?

[Ovedya]

Humor me for a moment. Let's look at it this way. The earth is in a fixed rotation around the sun. Think maybe that's what He meant? Does it fit?

The earth rotates on its axis, but it revolves around the sun. It is constantly moving.

It's in a fixed orbit. What verse were you referencing before?

[sylvan3]

Humor me for a moment. Let's look at it this way. The earth is in a fixed rotation around the sun. Think maybe that's what He meant? Does it fit?

The earth rotates on its axis, but it revolves around the sun. It is constantly moving.

It's in a fixed orbit. What verse were you referencing before?

Several:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

[billie]

Humor me for a moment. Let's look at it this way. The earth is in a fixed rotation around the sun. Think maybe that's what He meant? Does it fit?

The earth rotates on its axis, but it revolves around the sun. It is constantly moving.

It's in a fixed orbit. What verse were you referencing before?

Several:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Yes, it's constantly moving, but in a fixed rotation, a fixed orbit. What I meant was, it's not spinning out of control, blindly hurtling through space.....so to speak.

[sylvan3]

Humor me for a moment. Let's look at it this way. The earth is in a fixed rotation around the sun. Think maybe that's what He meant? Does it fit?

The earth rotates on its axis, but it revolves around the sun. It is constantly moving.

It's in a fixed orbit. What verse were you referencing before?

Several:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Yes, it's constantly moving, but in a fixed rotation, a fixed orbit. What I meant was, it's not spinning out of control, blindly hurtling through space.....so to speak.

I agree that it is not stating that it is blindly moving out of control. However, I see the word "immovable" three times. It doesn't say "fixed in orbit." That is your interpolation.

In my opinion, use of the word immovable would be quite consistent with people's lack of knowledge, at the time, that the earth even rotated.

[pointer]

Humor me for a moment. Let's look at it this way. The earth is in a fixed rotation around the sun. Think maybe that's what He meant? Does it fit?

The earth rotates on its axis, but it revolves around the sun. It is constantly moving.

It's in a fixed orbit. What verse were you referencing before?

Several:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Yes, it's constantly moving, but in a fixed rotation, a fixed orbit. What I meant was, it's not spinning out of control, blindly hurtling through space.....so to speak.

I agree that it is not stating that it is blindly moving out of control. However, I see the word "immovable" three times.

It isn't a very good translation. The words 'not removed' would be better. These verses are nothing to do with science at all; they are to do with the power and authority of God. The earth, which is to remain in existence, is evidence of those attributes.

Edited July 23, 2006 by pointer

[pamjane]

Pamjane--maybe it was just a thought, but it was a powerful thought. Where did you read about that test?

sylvan3,

I read about the experiment in How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael Shermer. I'm not able to post the name of the book the experiment is documented in, but it's written by S.A. Vyse.

[sylvan3]

Pamjane--maybe it was just a thought, but it was a powerful thought. Where did you read about that test?

sylvan3,

I read about the experiment in How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael Shermer. I'm not able to post the name of the book the experiment is documented in, but it's written by S.A. Vyse.

Thanks much...

[secondeve]

i want to point something out here: take it as you wish:

you said:

not a single one of whom - despite their convictions - can resolutely prove to another what happens when they die.

you are correct. nobody can prove it. even those who claim to have died - supposedly went to heaven - but then was sent back. (which of course i find rediculous)

but if - IF there is a heaven and a hell - just imagine IF there was - would you want to take the chance in going to hell? not many would. i mean... its a lake of fire. would you take that chance?

I might well ask you the same question, gekko. Look at the multiplicity of religions. No matter what we believe - unless athiesm is correct - we run the risk of punnishment of some kind. You'd be hard-pressed to find a faith which offers no negative consequences for believing or doing the wrong thing; if Islam is the correct faith, we're both in trouble; and Muslims, non-believers and Christians alike will be punnished equally if either Judaism or Hinduism is the right answer.

This is why it seems strange to me that Christians point to the patterns present in the world and take it as a sign that we are created beings. Even if that hypothesis is correct, and a god is responsible, it doesn't help a jot in deciding which deity is real.

if you live in a city - take a look at a large building. now - how do you know if someone built that building? did it just somehow appear after hundreds of years? no. how do you know if there was a builder of that building? the building is proof that there is a builder - you can't see the builder at the moment - but you know that somewhere some builder built that building. its not considered faith that you know a builder built the building - its common sense.

look at paintings - if you like paintings that is. look at a painting. how do you know if there was a painter? well. simple. the painting is proof that there is a painter. did the painting appear after hundreds of years of oil paints mixing together? no. so how do you know if there was a painter? the painting is proof that there is a painter - you can't see the painter at the moment - but you know that somewhere some painter painted that painting. its not condsidered faith that you know a painter painted the painting - its common sense.

now. look at the forests around you - the animals - the plantation/vegetation - the mountains - rivers - oceans etc. how do you know if that creation had a creator? well. simple. the creation is proof that there is a creator. did evolution make everything so precise over hundreds of years? no. how do you know if there was a creator that created this creation? the creation is proof that there is a creator. you can't see that creator - but you know somewhere out there is a creator that created this creation of animals, mountains etc. its not faith that you know there is a creator that created the creation. its common sense.

I think two things in response to this:

1. You're talking about complex things being created in one go, like paintings or buildings. The whole point of evolution is that this cannot and does not happen. The theory says that life began very, very simply, and that gradual change over millions of years resulted in the current state of affairs. You're also using a biased analogy, in that the given examples are things which human beings make, which we know the origin of, and which could not possibly occur on their own. Try the same question with something like a shell. Does the answer automatically point to God? No - and a shell is something which occurs in nature. By deliberately chosing complex, stand-alone things as your starting point, you're excluding the whole premise of evolution, which is that complex entities - like people - do not come about at once, but that simple entities - like amoebas - are the starting point. Take this for a metaphoric example. Imagine I took a blank canvas, and then added a single line, dot, curve or squiggle to the page every day for ten years. To begin with, the image would be very simple. Gradually, it would grow in complexity: I might be able to draw a concrete image, like an animal, and then add scenery, or simply make an abstract picture. But when the ten years were up, the end result would be very different to the original starting line. Now imagine I did the same thing on several different canvases. The pictures might be the same up until a certain point, but if I make one or two small changes at one point, it will differ the end result from all the others. Some of my drawings might look similar, or wildly different: but they have still all come about over time, from simple beginings, as a result of small but significant changes.

2. If it were true, your analogy only points to a creator. It does not say there must be only one such god; it does not say whether his/her intentions are pure, evil, or ambivalent; it does not prove their interest in human beings above everything else in creation; it does not make them immortal, though they may be long-lived or powerful; it does not, in short, indicate exclusively that the Christian God is the right one, and that everyone else is wrong.

so how did everything start with evolution? millions and millions of years ago with the Big Bang?

where did the big bang come from? some sort of matter that was floating around eventually collided?

where did that come from? etc.

As Sylvan stated, evolution is not intended to answer the question of what happened beforehand. More importantly, though, the question of the origins of the Big Bang is no more or less difficult than asking where God came from. If all matter in the universe has always existed, then this assumption works for both the idea of God and the theory of the Big Bang. If something can come from nothing, this logic works for the Big Bang and for God. If Christians can say that God has always been - which cannot be proven - then it is just as logical or reasonable for an athiest to say that the universe has always existed, and that all the matter in it has always existed in one form or another. This hypothesis proves nothing.

i understand how questions and Biblical contradictions can lead to an unbelief in God, but is there anything that makes you wonder sometimes that you may be wrong or that you may change your mind about God (maybe not even the Muslim-Judeo-Christian type God, but a Creator/Supreme Being in general)?

As I've said - I can't prove or disprove the idea that there might be a greater being out there, and from time to time, I wonder about it. But I don't believe there is any more proof in the world to suggst that the Christian God is correct than there is to say that Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Odin or Amun-Reis the true god.

[billie]

Eve, have you asked that greater being to show you more of itself?

[secondeve]

Eve, have you asked that greater being to show you more of itself?

Once or twice, when I was about nine or so. Never happened.