Who Made God?

That wasn't lost on anyone.
Everyone's aware of your thoughts on such a matter.I'm not ignoring your point because I think you're wrong.
I'm ignoring your point because it doesn't detract at all from the point I'm making.
Since it doesn't matter to my point, engaging with it would only take away from the point I'm trying to make.My point isn't about your thoughts, it's about how many religions are similar to the Bible.Without getting into which are true and which are not, many religions provide an historical narrative about people they consider to be real doing things they think led to the world being such as it is today.I totally agree that you think the Bible does this truthfully, and that all other religions do this incorrectly (either lying on purpose, or possibly without their own knowledge of it being wrong).However, that doesn't change the fact that they are all similar in that they all do it. Regardless of who does it accurately or not (such is up to the individual to identify for themselves) or even usefully or not.This is just to say that there is some layer of similarity.
This is not to say that I think they are all exactly the same.Just the fact that they can all be called "a religion" implies that there is some layer of similarity. Otherwise they all couldn't be identified using the same word.
In turn, the fact that they are called "different religions" implies that they are not all exactly the same. Otherwise they couldn't be called different.That layer of similarity will go so far, and then begin to break down.Your insistence that no religion is similar to the Bible in any way is silly.Obviously all religions are similar in the sense that they have followers (whether correct to follow or not).
All religions have precious items (holy books, symbols... things like that).
All religions have some sort of code you need to adhere to (moral perhaps, maybe even just a dress-code).In this sense ALL religions are similar to the Bible.In the sense of having an historical narrative attempting to speak of people they think are real doing things they think led to the state of the world today... MOST religions are similar to the Bible. Maybe all of them, again? I don't really know.None of this suggests whether or not any of those religions are true or valid.Not every idea is an attempt to attack your personal views.
Most of us really don't care what your views are, we have our own to worry about

I will respond by only quoting you (plus a few small Luther quotes later) and not quoting myself or anybody else.I suppose you will say that my quotes of you are "too long" for you to read.But here was your last response to me.

quote:

---

I have never figured out why, but I just about never understand a word you are saying. What you say about me is far far from anything I recognize.

---

Just before this, I simply asked you what the difference was between Martin Luther questioning books and scholars looking at things.You said:

quote:

---

I'm aware of the differences in canon collections and of Luther's objection to the letter of James. There have always been limited areas of disagreement. So what? I don't have the opinion you attribute to me. I object to UNBELIEVING scholars which so many here rely on. What's that got to do with your complaints?
Christian views were NOT so different in the early years, I've read a lot of the early church writers and their views have come down to us as part of the Christian doctrinal legacy.

---

Remember how this all got started.You said:

quote:

---

I do remember that the mystery writer Dorothy Sayers wrote about her conversion by realizing that King Artaxerxes (the king in the book of Esther) really existed. She knew the history already and when she found him in the Bible she realized the accounts were true. I myself wasn't converted by such things though, I was converted by the Catholic mystics Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross who wrote about their personal experiences of God using scripture for references. God uses various things to draw people to Himself.

---

Somebody pointed out that the book has historical troubles.You responded with a few posts.

quote:

---

Fortunately Dorothy Sayers was a much better judge of things historical than you.

---

The poster responded and you then responded:

quote:

---

I'm going with Sayers. Modern biblical scholarship is a fraud.

---

Here is a link on Luther's Canon.Luther's canon - WikipediaHere one of many anti-Esther quotes from Martin Luther (this one from Table Talk)

quote:

---

I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities. The Jews much more esteemed the book of Esther than any of the prophets; though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains.

​

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/...of-esther.html#CUPeqSZrG0fChmk6.99

---

Go to Bing and type inMARTIN LUTHER ESTHERHere is another Luther quote

quote:

---

the Jewish canon. You are somewhat biting and derisive yourself about that canon, when you compare the Proverbs of Solomon and the Love-song (as with a sneering innuendo you term it) to the two books of Esdras and Judith, and the History of Susanna and of the Dragon, and the book of Esther (though they have this last in their canon; in my opinion, however, it is less worthy to be held canonical than any of these).

---

I keep asking you why you keep attacking people who point out that "The Bible" has been discovered to be the work of man as oppose to the work of a deity?You want to side step any rational discussion.Please spend some time telling us why Luther (the first modern scholar to reject Esther as divine) is somehow o.k. while modern scholars are so evil.You had a problem with Bruce Metzger when we were discussing Mark 16:9-20 (you kept saying that modern scholars like him were anti Christian non believers), but then I quoted Eusebius saying that the vast majority of Mark manuscripts lacked those 12 verses.Why can't you answer the question and address the fact that Luther rejected all these Biblical books ( at least 5 in the current King James, plus over a dozen more STILL when you look at the Apocryphal books in the 1611 King James).He rejected:EstherJamesHebrewsRevelationJude5 of the 66 Bible books and 4 of the 27 New Testament books we rejected by Luther.

quote:

---

Think.
If ever there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, it would be impossible for there to have ever been something after that point.

---

So there was always "something", right?But then the question will always be "where did that come from?".The must have been a time when there was absolutely "nothing" (we used to always think of space itself as always existing until we learned to look back in time through telescopes, but we now know that was in fact "something", and a something that didn't always exist) everywhere.(I will not even attempt to come up with a "solution" because it would be a joke)My only suggestion is that we look (for an idea of what was going on) outside our own universe for any "place" this might have been going on (and don't even bring up the issue of "time" in the "time and place").There can be clues from our own universe, but everything here (we know of) seems to have been after there was already particle building blocks seemingly already "evolved" (from wherever?) if one knows about the quantum fluctuations.Heinz Pagels died in a tragic mountain climbing accident (at all too young of an age), but his quotes are interesting.Googlekeywordheinz pagels laws physics vacuumorHeinz pagels quotesorheinz pagels law physics void big bangThis quote was interesting.

quote:

---

What 'tells' the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time

---

quote:

---

There was emptiness more profound than the void between the stars, for which there was no here and there and before and after, and yet out of that void the entire plenum of existence sprang forth.

​

Famous Quotes & Sayings | QuoteTab

---

He was looking at our own universe.

Which brings up another question. Do We Need God? Thus we basically have two questions.Philosophically, the debates at EvC Forum center around the usefulness, purpose, and methodology of science as well as the philosophy of belief and of how and what it says. Ours is a forum of atheists, agnostics, and believers and there shouldn't really be a conflict with science. The fact that there is is one of the main issues that make up the debate.jar has successfully argued that there is GOD, Who (if existing) is complete. Well beyond human description. Humans worship Gods that they understand...thus in the sense of linguistic and verbal description, We Made God. Hardcore believers vehemently disagree, claiming that the Bible was inspired by God Himself as it was transcribed. Much energy has been invested by organized religion to propagate this teaching. Or we became aware of God. How would we tell the difference? Imagine that you one day became aware of a certain car. By definition, it eased your anxiety, confirmed your desire, and was capable of getting you to where you wanted to go. Without seeing a picture of it and without another description of it, could you say you made it up (imagined it) or could it be possible that you simply became aware of it? Perhaps it is natural to anthropomorphize a character, just as one would think of a car when they thought of a transport vehicle. The question remains unanswered whether one becomes aware of a concept already existing or whether one literally makes it up.When believers become born again, they quite naturally feel as if they are suddenly aware of Gods presence, through Jesus Christ. The point remains, however, that the story was fed to them before they experienced the awareness. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Unless I could actually get into it and drive it, it's pretty obvious that it's just made up.

I think it could be argued that some people need to believe in God in order to find meaning in their life. However, reality isn't forced to make something real simply because humans need to believe in it. If a made up deity is indistinguishable from the deity you believe in, then the conclusion should be obvious. Imagine if your neighbor got a car, and he invites you over to take a look. Upon looking in the garage you don't see a car. Your neighbor tells you that the car is invisible. You then ask if you can throw some flour on top of the car to show that it exists. Your neighbor explains that all matter passes through the car. You come up with test after test after test to possibly show that the car exists, but each time you neighbor tells you that the results of that test will be indistinguishable from that car not existing.At what point do you just stop and conclude that your neighbor is making it up?

I would ask several questions.

Why did you want to tell me about this car that I cannot perceive?

Can I watch you drive the car?

How often do you use this car?

How did you come to acquire this car?

At what point do you just stop and conclude that your neighbor is making it up?

It depends howq well I know my neighbor and whether or not he has been illogical previously.
I also dont need proof of the car as long as such a car would also be proven useful to me and whether I too could acquire such a car.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

It really doesn't does it? You have all the evidence you need to know that your neighbour not only doesn't have a car but is also deluded about thinking he has. How can an imaginary car be useful to you? (I suspect the analogy has just collapsed.)

allow me to resurrect the analogy.My neighbor Fred, whom I've had a casual relationship with for several years, informs me that whenever he is despondent, or whenever he knows of friends or family who is struggling, he retreats to his garage. In his garage, he says, is something(SomeOne) who is greater and more powerful than any human or any invention of humanity.The presence will take him wherever he needs to go.Skeptical yet mildly intrigued, you follow him around back to his garage. It contains the usual bells and smells, but aside from that it appears empty. There are some cushions to kneel on, and some chairs to sit quietly in and escape from the noise of the city around you. He at least soundproofed his garage, and it admittedly is an oasis of silence and meditation. Apart from that, however, there is nothing there that you can detect.Being the eminently logical chap that you are, you bring this fact to his attention. How he responds to you at this point is arguably the only evidence that you will have that his oasis may or may not be worth using. He has, of course, told you that you and your family are free to use it at any time.Quite naturally, you have other ideas and methods of dealing with your stress and of helping others. At that time, you are quite sure you would never use his garage for any solution for any of your problems nor would you allow your family to go in there. He had insisted to you that there was a presence of peace and serenity in his garage, and though it did seem comfortable and quiet, you had experienced the same bells and smells in your childhood in buildings much fancier than his garage. Now the questions:

Would you ever find yourself needing a place of solitude and meditation?
Many would prefer a quiet walk in the woods or at least outdoors.

​

Would you believe that a psychiatrist and his cabinet of drugs would provide a better solution for your stresses and agonies than a quiet contemplative garage that had a comfortable place of solitude?

​

Would you trust your neighbors judgement? Why or why not?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

You do understand that you changed the topic completely don't you Phat?Consider this starting point. Now jump to the summation. Note you totally changed the topic from "something(SomeOne) who is greater and more powerful than any human or any invention of humanity. The presence will take him wherever he needs to go. " to a place for contemplation.

Whenever I ask you where I can get a car like that, you tell me I don't want one.

No, never. Yup. I go fishing, but that's because I like fishing. I don't suffer from stresses and agonies. When I have problems to deal with I try to tackle them head on. Maybe I'm just lucky. Can't tell - the fact that he retires to his garage to think or whatever, doesn't tell me how good a dentist he is. I'd prefer a contemplative chap like that to a fundamental religious believer any day though.

Define lucky. You know that I have issues with luck and chance.

It only has one meaning - don't try to overcomplicate it. I'm lucky in that the things that seem to torture you don't concern me at all. It's luck because I didn't do anything to be this way. You do, but the rest of us are fine with it so perhaps it's you not chance and luck?

1. I was told to tell you about the car by a holy book.
2. You can only drive the car in the afterlife where no one can see you but other people in the afterlife.
3. See above.
4. An invisible car salesman sold me the car. Then I have an invisible bridge to sell you.