Figuring Out Religion

[iwealth]

Isn't it plausible that if Jesus has already returned to earth or if he's planning a return in the near future that the faithful will likely be FIRST in line to discount his presence as some hokey scam while the agnostics at least view the event with some level of curiosity?

[LC475]

The only way we get information about reality is through our senses.

Thus, the only way we can possibly know about God if if He reveals himself.  That is, He makes Himself known in some way detectable to our nerve endings (and any other sensory apparatus).

If, on the other hand, God is non-spacial-temporal or irrational in some way (everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, existing outside of time, etc.) then there is no way to have any rational discussion about Him, because our senses and our minds are only equipped to deal with spacial-temporal phenomenon.

[Kshartle]

I personally find the idea of the existence of absolute truth to be extremely meaningful to me--even if I have no idea what the absolute truth is all about. Its mere existence tells me, for example, that moral relativism contradicts logic. If truth is identified with the concept of moral "good," then the existence of absolute truth implies the existence of an absolute morality. That's huge.

Brilliant. I've been arguing along these lines in the thread about violence. Where have you been Tortoise?

If truth exists (clearly it does based on the contradiction of the argument it doesn't), then right and wrong exist, as in...correct and incorrect.

Consistency is preferable (or superior or better than) to inconsistency. If you are argue that inconsistency is better then you are arguing that it's preferable or better or good to consistenly apply the principle that inconsistency is preferable - FAIL.

So truth (correctness) exists and consistency is good, preferable, superior, whatever. It follows then that what is consistent and true is also good. You can't argue that it's true that falehoods are good - this is another FAIL.

This is where I approach the concept of self-ownership and how the arguments against it all fail the test of being true or consistent. Self-ownership (the argument for which is on another thread) directly implies that I own myself and the effects of my actions and no one else has the right to infringe upon that and control me, force me, rob me. Note - none of those actions say you can't stop me from doing bad since that would be a different action. If I steal your wallet and you steal it back you're not stealing. You can't steal what's yours. If you kill me while defending yourself you haven't attacked me, you've defended your life blah blah. To some of you this stuff is very obvious I know.

The point of all this is that absolute truth and morality can be proven logically and are not subjective as people like to claim. Your own moral code might be or possibly can only be subjective but absolute morality is not. So if we can understand what is true and consistent we can say conclusively what is good or morally preferable. Just because that last sentence has good and preferable in it we are trained to think OPINION OPINION SUBJECTIVE - NO TRUTH THERE ALERT.

I am leaving out a lot of stuff to fill in some of these blanks because this could turn into a monster of a monolouge. I think I've filled most of those blanks in on other threads and I don't want to stray from the religion topic.

I do want to thank you tortoise for applying the principles of logic to your arguments rather than just throwing up your hands and saying it's impossible. Everyone here is either smart enough to get these concepts or smart enough to demolish them so let's get them out there.

It might require another thread though. 

[moda0306]

The possibility for an absolute truth to exist doesn't mean that morality is an absolute truth, or even if it was, that it's provable.

Even if morality is provable, it doesn't mean we can't be put into one of these:

Ethical Dilemma

a complex situation that often involves an apparent mental conflict between moral imperatives, in which to obey one would result in transgressing another.

But now it seems like all of a sudden we once again have DEDUCTIVE proof of morality, not inductive.  I guess we'll have to argue in that other thread for 90 pages again as to why you've changed your position.

[Kshartle]

The possibility for an absolute truth to exist doesn't mean that morality is an absolute truth, or even if it was, that it's provable.

Even if morality is provable, it doesn't mean we can't be put into one of these:

Ethical Dilemma

a complex situation that often involves an apparent mental conflict between moral imperatives, in which to obey one would result in transgressing another.

But now it seems like all of a sudden we once again have DEDUCTIVE proof of morality, not inductive.  I guess we'll have to argue in that other thread for 90 pages again as to why you've changed your position.

Let's move this over or suspend this discussion on this thread but can you just tell me what you mean by "changed position". Who has changed their position and what was it and now what is it?

[moda0306]

I thought you had admitted that it was inductive logic, rather than deductive.  We can move this back over there.

[Kshartle]

I thought you had admitted that it was inductive logic, rather than deductive.  We can move this back over there.

I've not overtly admitted either, and honestly, I don't know the definitions of either so I can't admit it. I can't offer an explanation of either concept since I'm not really familiar with the words. I don't even know you are claiming I admitted.

Ok - no reply necessary. We can move over. Shall we start with truth existing? I thought I did that several times in that thread before moving onto self-ownership. It seems like such a basic concept (truth) that I didn't spend more than a post or two on it.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

I read those Creeds.  To me, they're just self-referential statements.  It's all well and good, but before I lend any weight to certain assertions of a religion, I have to have some external or internal reason to believe it is truly the word of God.  Referencing the word of God as proof that you have the word of God on your hands just doesn't move me one inch.  In fact, it distances me from religion even more.

When I mentioned "feelings," it was perhaps a bit of a back-handed (unintentionally) way to speak of faith.  I'm not saying you don't have good days or bad days, but your "Faith" is what I see as a "feeling" inside of you that tells you that the Gospel is correct instead of other religious theories.

I would love love love the people with faith in this discussion to do the best they can to describe to us 1) How they came about their faith in God (and, more specifically, that their breed of Christianity is the "correct" one), and 2) as difficult as it may be, describe their Faith.

If you're going to provide physical/historical evidence of your version of God/Jesus/history, then it might serve you to do so better without the use of self-referential quotes/prayers/dictations.  Those things just don't mean anything to the un-convinced.  We would love to hear more details about your Faith, though, as we realize that's the internal piece that we might be missing.

Moda,

I will try to address your request of (1) and (2) but my honest answer is "I am not exactly sure what the defining event was that really struck home with me, or even if there were one, other than somehow, God wanted me so badly and persevered so that I finally 'saw the light' ".

First of all, I did not intend for the Creeds to be taken as any type of proof of anything.  They are just a good summary of Christian beliefs for the past 1600 plus years.  Mostly, they came about as addressing various heresies.

Here are some of the processes that apparently have affected me in more or less chronological order. 

* Raised from shortly after birth the Methodist church by a mother and grandmother who were both Sunday School teachers and attended church almost all Sundays and occasionally during the week for special events and Bible School in the summers was a big event in town.  My grandfather never attended church as I remember but sat around frequently reading a Greek (self-taught) Bible.  He was the most intelligent person I ever met - scored the highest on an Army WWI IQ test in the Southwest that had ever been recorded to that time.  My father rarely attended church.  I lived on the outskirts of a very small town (500 - 600 people) and attended a very small church, probably 50 to 75 members.  As I remember, more than half of the kids in my first grade public school class attended the same church I did.

* Baptized in a Presbyterian church by a Presbyterian minister at about 14 months old.  Why Presbyterian and not Methodist?  I have no idea.

* Taught younger children in a Sunday School class when I was a teenager.  Few memories of that.

* When I was about 17, my mom said I was old enough to make my own decision about attending church.  I promptly quit going as all I observed was a bunch of hypocrites who wanted to look good by attending church and talked about everyone (small town) behind their backs.  (It took me quite a long time to figure out everyone in church was a sinner and all had different flavors of sin and all were in need of a merciful God).

* Rarely attended church during my college years.  Studied engineering, became even more steeped in science and the Scientific Method as a means to understand the world than I was as a high school math and science nerd.  Thought that creationist stuff was myth and baloney.  Who needs God anyway?  (In retrospect, I was rapidly becoming my own God ... I was important, if you did not believe that, just ask me!).

* Last year of college, married a Methodist woman who always attended church from early childhood on with her mother and grandmother.  We had been dating steady since junior year of high school.  She would occasionally "nag" me to attend church; I blew it off.

* We moved far away from home when I graduated.  Wife continued to attend church but went to a Lutheran church of some type instead of Methodist - don't know why the denomination change, probably convenience of location.

* Moved again, and again, and again.  Wife continued going to church (now says she had been praying for me for years but had stopped the nagging long before) sometimes attending Methodist churches, sometimes other denominations - main focus was just on going to hear God's Word regardless of who was delivering it.  Wife was a Young Life leader; had several teenage kids in our house frequently doing their thing.  Wife took our kids to church with her - I would go to Saint Mattress on Sunday mornings.

* Made a bet with my wife about who was singing some song on the radio.  I NEVER bet as I do not like to lose.  I was certain I was right.  Terms of the bet - if I lost, I would start attending church.  If she lost, I don't remember what the deal was but probably involved frequent bedroom activities    I lost!!!!!!!!!!!!  Darn it.  Can you feel the arrogant, condescending person that I had become, thinking I was the center of my universe and I knew what was really important?

* Started attending a variety of churches with my wife, she wanted me to find one I was "comfortable" with.  Tried Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and finally settled on Episcopalian.  I found that I actually enjoyed hearing and interacting with the Priest - he seemed such a normal guy.  Ate, drank moderately (whoa there, Baptists and Methodists frown on drinking, what was going on here anyway?), was fun to be around.  Started paying attention to his sermons and actually, shock of horror, attending an evening Bible Study.  I started to see that learning about this Bible stuff could actually be intellectually stimulating.  I had not yet made it to understanding what the religion stuff was really about.

* Moved again.  Attended a Methodist church.  The married Pastor was discovered to be making advances toward his secretary.  Big scandal.  Became ugly.  We left the church and began to search for another.  Tried another Methodist, a Baptist, a Presbyterian all seemd somewhat lacking to me.  My wife was very, very patient.  We ended up at an ELCA Lutheran church.  Stayed there for 10 years or so.  The ELCA convention declared that practicing homosexuals were OK to be Pastors as long as they were in a monagamous relationship, they did not need to view it as a sin and repent as was expected of an adultry relationship - seemed to be speaking out of both sides of the mouth to accomodate our secular culture.  Seemed to be contrary to what Scriptures said but we hung in there.  Our local church began processing what that new stance would mean for us.  The head Bishop of the entire ELCA publically said that Scriptures were no longer relevant.  That was the major "Whoa there" as it seemed if you believed that, there is no reason to attend church; just go the YMCA if you need a personal trainer, or get self-help books out of the library, or join the country club for better social interaction - they would do a better job of it than the church could.

* Began the church seeking process once more, meanwhile attending a variety of churches.  This time, I did not want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire so I began an intensive study of what different denominations believed, at least in their published statements.  Took several classes at a local "Adult Lifelong Learning" facility that dealt with religion.  Tried to learn about and understand religious history, the reformation, eastern orthodoxy, Roman Catholics, Islam, etc.  Read several books.  Lee Strobel books were interesting and made a good case that my rational mind could relate to, even if they got a bit repetitive.  Read the "Left Behind" series.  Even read Dan Brown novels.  Was driving around one day and saw a "Evangelical Lutheran Church" (an LC-MS congregation) that I had never visited.  Stopped in to view the church and see the Sanctuary.  Saw a light on in the Pastor's office and knocked at the door.  Had an hour plus chat where I grilled him on every topic I could think of to see what his views were.  He was kind, patient, gracious.  Everything sounded good and very much on target with my beliefs and what I had been able to discern was real Christianity ... whatever that meant.

* Started attending that LC-MS church for Bible Study (led by the Pastor) and Devine Service.  I found that somehow, the Divine Service had all the things that I "felt" were necessary for me to be filled: Confession and Absolution, presentation of the Word via a really good sermon that did not tell me how to live my life in detail but told me what sin did to me and how there is an answser for that sin - the Gospel, and always communion every Service.  I liked the liturgy as it was really just songs and words that were Scriptural.  The people were extremely warm, inviting, nonjudgmental.  What really got my attention was that people did not seem to fear dying like I saw in every other church I had attended.  They did not like death, were obviously sad when it happened, but were not fearful and did not wonder what was going to happen to the deceased.  The funeral services did not focus on the past (oh what a wonderful person he was and all the great things he did and we will remember him for a while or he will live in our memory) but focused on the future (how wonderful it will be to re raised on the last day with a perfect body and soul and live in the presence of God forever).  In short, it is all about what God did for us and not what we do or did for God to please Him.  One of my favorite Luther sayings, paraphrased, is, “You go to church on Sunday to get your sack filled up.  During the following week, you empty your sack by passing out kindness and mercy, and help your neighbor with his needs.  You return on Sunday to refill your now empty sack.  Repeat.”?  So, I go to church every Sunday … I just don’t like going around with an empty sack; that might turn me into a grumpy old man full of bitterness and hating God because Satan would be trying very, very hard to fill that empty sack with his lies.

* I have continued to study, reading LC-MS doctrine, learning about what Martin Luther did and thought, listening to Seminary introductory courses via iTunes University, listening to internet radio programs, talking and becoming friends with other LC-MS pastors as well as mine, studying my Bible, attending Bible Studies at another LC-MS church, reading books.  I have found after much, much study that the Scriptures are internally consistent, present a unified account, and inspire hope.  I have satisfied my engineering/science based mind that the Scriptures really are God breathed and inerrant (taken in the proper context using the Scripture interprets Scripture method of analysis); in short, I have uncovered no holes nor uncovered any nasty rocks.  The Christian worldview, and particularly as taught by the LC-MS, is by far the best one I have studied.  I am joyful that I have found my home.  I just wish it had not taken me so very many years to get here ... and I can hardly wait to discover the next part of my journey.  What will it be?  Who knows if it will be good or bad by my standards; I just know that it will be good by God's standards.  I want to enjoy this gift of life that has been given to me, but I also know the next one will be ever so much better.  Come Lord Jesus! 

OK, Moda ... you asked, thus you shall receive.  Hope you get something out of my story.  But, please remember that it is not my story that counts.  It is God's story.  By the Grace of God throught faith, He will find you if you pursue his Word and believe His promises.  Faith comes by the Word, hearing it, being bathed by it, tasting it, internalizing it.  Faith is strengthened by the Word.

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Kshartle,

All you would have to do is admit that your argument has some solid inductive qualities, but is not deductive, and that there are a lot of grey areas that make it not deductive, and we'd be about a million times closer to agreeing with each other.

That, or lay out your case, with definitions, in deductive logic format.

Please, for everyone's sake. We might just finally realize you're right.

It might be inductive, but it's about as inductive as me knowing I'm responding back and forth with a human and not a simulation like the matrix....imo

I'll give it another shot.

Can you agree that just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's false?
Can you agree that something isn't false just because it's not proven?
Can you agree that the existance of grey does not mean there is no black and white?

Ok so now we've moved to the realm of inductive logic. Now observations and grey areas are huge contributors to the conversation.

Thanks for admitting it's not deductive logic and that we can't prove morality.

If something is a fact, it can be true or false, but if something is an opinion, then we can disagree. Facts aren't matters of agreement or disagreement, they are a matter of either correct, incorrect, or we simply don't know. (Remember, I'm not disagreeing with most of your statements, but simply stating that there are complications and moral dilemmas that make this shit pert' near impossible to analyze objectively with perfect logic).

I agree that something isn't necessarily false just because it's unproven.

I agree that grey areas do not eliminate clearly black/white areas.

Kshartle, if you really don't know the meanings of "deductive", "inductive", "axiom", etc, you should probably take a break to go take a class in logic.  It'll teach you a lot about the limits thereof.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle, if you really don't know the meanings of "deductive", "inductive", "axiom", etc, you should probably take a break to go take a class in logic.  It'll teach you a lot about the limits thereof.

I appreciate the suggestion. On a related note...I can't explain how my car engine functions but I can start the engine and drive around in it

It seems to me the only limit for logic is when people have belief in unprovable assumptions that things exist without logical explanation. I don't know if calling that a limit is appropriate though. I am probably wrong 

[Mountaineer]

Kshartle, if you really don't know the meanings of "deductive", "inductive", "axiom", etc, you should probably take a break to go take a class in logic.  It'll teach you a lot about the limits thereof.

I appreciate the suggestion. On a related note...I can't explain how my car engine functions but I can start the engine and drive around in it

It seems to me the only limit for logic is when people have belief in unprovable assumptions that things exist without logical explanation. I don't know if calling that a limit is appropriate though. I am probably wrong 

I would suggest that logic has limits.  I believe we gain knowledge three ways:  Cognitive (logic?), Experience, and Revelation.  Logic seems to fall short on Experience (e.g. learning how to walk upright) and Revelation.

... MOuntaineer

[Xan]

It seems to me the only limit for logic is when people have belief in unprovable assumptions that things exist without logical explanation. I don't know if calling that a limit is appropriate though. I am probably wrong 

But it IS logically provable, and even necessary, that things DO exist without logical explanation.

Please see this (the biographical part at the beginning isn't really necessary):
http://plus.maths.org/content/goumldel-and-limits-logic

In any system, even one so basic as the system of natural numbers, there are statements that are true but are unprovable.  In other words, no logical system can ever be 100% complete and 100% consistent at the same time.  And that's according to logic!

In his 1931 paper Gödel showed that, no matter how you formulate the axioms for number theory, there will always be some statement that is true of the natural numbers, but that can't be proved. (That is, objects that obey the axioms of number theory but fail to behave like the natural numbers in some other respects do exist.)

But why not just turn such a true but unprovable statement into an axiom? After all, axioms are precisely those statements which we accept to be true without proof. But here lies the true bite of the incompleteness theorem: Gödel showed that whenever the axioms can be characterized by a set of mechanical rules, it does not matter which statements are taken to be axioms: some other true statements about the natural numbers will remain unprovable. It's like an ill-designed jigsaw puzzle. No matter how you arrange the pieces, you'll always end up with some that won't fit in the end.

[Kshartle]

In any system, even one so basic as the system of natural numbers, there are statements that are true but are unprovable.  In other words, no logical system can ever be 100% complete and 100% consistent at the same time.  And that's according to logic!

It's logically provable that logic in not 100% consistent?

Ok guys I'm about to have a scanners moment.

Let's back to the relatively simple topic of whether or not God exists. That should be a breeze. I need to answer Mountaineer's questions, at least for myself.

[Mountaineer]

Let's back to the relatively simple topic of whether or not God exists. That should be a breeze. I need to answer Mountaineer's questions, at least for myself.

K, I can hardly wait to see your comments on the epistle I wrote to address Moda's questions.  And, I really do appreciate your perspectives.

Xan, would be interesting to see how you take a crack at Moda's questions ... but I understand if you don't.  I struggled with whether it would be productive to do so.

Got to run now too, time to go play (per Wife's instructions).  Have a great evening. 

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

In any system, even one so basic as the system of natural numbers, there are statements that are true but are unprovable.  In other words, no logical system can ever be 100% complete and 100% consistent at the same time.  And that's according to logic!

It's logically provable that logic in not 100% consistent?

Ok guys I'm about to have a scanners moment.

Let's back to the relatively simple topic of whether or not God exists. That should be a breeze. I need to answer Mountaineer's questions, at least for myself.

It has been logically proven that every sufficiently complex axiomatic system (like arithmetic) contains true statements that cannot be proven within the system. This was a tremendous surprise when it was discovered, as up to that point it was assumed that it would be possible to create a mechanical method to prove all true statements in a given system.

You should really read "Godel, Escher, Bach" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach). It's very interesting and explains this about as well as could be imagined.

[moda0306]

I thought you had admitted that it was inductive logic, rather than deductive.  We can move this back over there.

I've not overtly admitted either, and honestly, I don't know the definitions of either so I can't admit it. I can't offer an explanation of either concept since I'm not really familiar with the words. I don't even know you are claiming I admitted.

Ok - no reply necessary. We can move over. Shall we start with truth existing? I thought I did that several times in that thread before moving onto self-ownership. It seems like such a basic concept (truth) that I didn't spend more than a post or two on it.

Jesus K... I've been getting lectures from you this whole time on logical fallacies and you don't even know the definitions to "inductive" vs "deductive?"

I wouldn't condescend like this but if you don't understand terms I'm using ask for a damn definition (or look it up on Wikipedia) so we don't waste 30 pages of us having an argument that you don't even understand.

Sorry if I sound pissed but this is just more evidence that you care more about defending your position than actually having a good-faith debate.  How in God's name have we gone this f*cking long without you knowing these things?

Ah... I'm just pissed now.  Let's get to that thread later... in the meantime, google "deductive vs inductive logic" and you'll find some good stuff.

Also, look up "sound vs valid argument."

[ns2]

The moment we start thinking we've got it all figured out is the moment we need to remind ourselves of the gospel.

Couldn't agree with that more. Paul said "Now we see through a glass darkly" so it never ceases to amaze me how dogmatic people can be about spiritual things of which they have no knowledge other than what those who claim to see clearly tell them.

[Mountaineer]

Pointedstick,

I would be very interested in what your father-in-law thinks of this.

All,

This may be of interest if you would like to hear a program on "resisting the devil" and the dangers of a watered down theology.

http://issuesetc.org/2013/12/13/2-resis ... ll-121313/


Edited Dec 15 to add this link:  http://www.amazon.com/Alleged-Discrepan ... 256&sr=1-2

This is an old book (written circa 1874) but is relatively up to date in its discussion.  The Amazon link gives some pros and cons by readers.  It is available free at this link:  https://archive.org/details/examinationof00hale

... Mountaineer

[Tortoise]

It has been logically proven that every sufficiently complex axiomatic system (like arithmetic) contains true statements that cannot be proven within the system. This was a tremendous surprise when it was discovered, as up to that point it was assumed that it would be possible to create a mechanical method to prove all true statements in a given system.

You should really read "Godel, Escher, Bach" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach). It's very interesting and explains this about as well as could be imagined.

+1

I loved that book when I read it years ago and should really go back and read it again. Superbly written, highly entertaining book that covers some mind-blowing ideas.

The religious have to be very careful.  As we see in the NT, Jesus often criticized the self righteous religious folks the most severely.  Jesus said he came for sinners, not for the righteous.  The moment we start thinking we've got it all figured out is the moment we need to remind ourselves of the gospel. 

And let's not forget the group of people who made Jesus really flip out, shouting and even tipping over tables: The money-changers, a.k.a. bankers, in the temple. They were trying to make money off of worshipers in a place of worship, because nothing was sacred to them except money. That was the one time in the Gospels that Jesus really lost his cool, so to speak.

Freakin' bankers. Some things never change.

[MediumTex]

And let's not forget the group of people who made Jesus really flip out, shouting and even tipping over tables: The money-changers, a.k.a. bankers, in the temple. They were trying to make money off of worshipers in a place of worship, because nothing was sacred to them except money. That was the one time in the Gospels that Jesus really lost his cool, so to speak.

Freakin' bankers. Some things never change.

Yeah, that's right.  In the Bible, wealth looks less like a blessing and more like a hazard.  I like these verses from 1 Timothy 6:17-19:

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.  Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.  In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."

I'm still working on that ... I've been hoarding money for a long time, and it's a tough habit to break.

Flashy preachers who flaunt the personal wealth they have generated through their ministries have always bothered me.

It would be like an activist for the hungry flaunting his pot belly as a sign of his success.

[Kshartle]

I have a few questions for the atheists, agnostics and semi-believers, in order of my priority.

1. Why do you feel/think they way you do about religion? 

2. What led you to that way of thinking?

3. How do you explain why death happens?

4. What do you think happens when you die?

5. What or who created the universe?

6. Do you think there is an absolute right and wrong?  If so, what is the basis for that?

7. For the evolutionists - Why have no "transitional" species been found?

Thanks,  ... Mountaineer

Everyone of these questions could be their own thread.

1. See #2

2. After 30 years of being a strict believer, I started studying philosophy, logic and ethics. I came to a 100% or 99.9% confident belief in rational proof of secular ethics, human self-ownership and individual rights. The concept of a God, whether Christian variety or any other violates those principles. Really after 9/11 I stated looking into the government's role in our lives and all the false flags and lies upon lies. I started questioning everything I'd been taught. I learned about how populations are controlled. I think the concept of a God and the religion that follows is a very obvious control mechanism that has been a relic of our days as cave people.

The self abuse required for most religion (humans are naturally bad and need to be submissive and devote themselves to the collective and not be greedy or whatever) just smacks of being straight from the sociopaths who want to control everyone and they are concepts that the slaves are supposed to believe in.

3. I'm not an expert on molecular breakdown or what leads to death as we currently understand it. As a total layman in this area I can see and understand why the greatest know masses (suns) "die". It makes sense that everything would undergo changes as time goes on and go through cycles but I think this difficult question is better answered in #5.

4. Nothing. We're gone. It's like the plug was pulled on the computer that is our brain. Our program is completely deleted from the universe and we no longer exist, it's just a clump of decomposing matter.

5. The universe is extremely big. It's mind-boggling. The only way I can comprehend something or someone creating it is if it's all a computer simulation. I think there are some good arguments that it actually is a computer sim (I know this sounds absurd). I can't remember them all at the moment, but I think there have been some very impressive scientific studies that suggest the movements of light across the universe suggests we're on a grid with limits and things behave like a computer program. I also have read that extremely tiny "universes" have been created in labs (I don't understand well enough to explain).

There is a theory that intelligent life will eventually create a simulated universe with "intelligent" life in it to make scientific observations which will eventually create it's own simulations etc. For all I know we could be a simulation or a sim of a sim. Death might be programmed in. This is not an area where I have a strong understanding but these arguments make sense. Where it all started though.....impossible to say. Is there other intelligent life in the universe? No question. Even if we're a cosmic accident the universe is so vast there must be other accidents. Some of these will be much much older......maybe millions or billions of years. Of course they could be watching. Maybe we are their children. Maybe they are watching to learn. The plausible theories are truly endless. This isn't any God that we know of though but might explain some common "experiences" across the globe.

6. Yes no question. I think we've beat this one to death. If one exists the other exists. There are some things that are absolutely correct, there has to be since the argument against it is a contradiction. We can determine what is true if we can agree on definitions. I won't make the case here for self-ownership but this is one. The actual truth of self-ownership if it does exist then leads to other conclusions about whether certain human behavior violates rights, making that behavior wrong by definition. The consequences of this behavior are wrong and destructive. This sounds like a bunch of subjective opinion and dismissible as such but I'm really arguing that it's a very real thing that exists and it's consequences are predictable. It's a concept that could fill a book but yes....right and wrong exist in the same way mathematics exist. It wouldn't exist without humans but this is irrelevant. There are consequences to it's existence and it exists independent of any God or other being declaring it.

7. I'm not an evolutionist. I think the argument for intelligent design is much more compelling. Humans are unable to create anything close to the complexity of the human brain. To think it could happen without something intelligent designing it to me seems absurd but I'm not an expert on the subject. Now where did that intelligence come from.........

I could barely do these concepts even a tiny bit of justice so forgive me. These questions are so enormous.....These answers are like reading the bible by only reading the first and last sentence of each book.

[Mountaineer]

Kashartle,

Interesting.  Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Kashartle,

Interesting.  Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions.

... Mountaineer

I could only scratch the surface....but to summarize....I believe there is intelligent life, much more advanced than us. The universe is just so big how else could it be? I don't believe it's all-powerful. It's understanding of morality and the universe is much greater. If we are it's creation they've programmed in morality or that's just the natural consequence of being a self-aware being.

It looks like we're designed and life/death is desigend, but as to where the the existance of everything comes from.....I don't even have a guess. It's mind-boggling.

Our religions though appear to be man-made creations and could not be based on what is true but instead what is false. Of course they haven't been proven but this isn't the argument I rely on.

I'd like to know how it all works but I'm satisfied others will do the work and I'll stick with a moral code based on what I think is provable as right and wrong behavior.

[Mountaineer]

2. After 30 years of being a strict believer, I started studying philosophy, logic and ethics. I came to a 100% or 99.9% confident belief in rational proof of secular ethics, human self-ownership and individual rights. The concept of a God, whether Christian variety or any other violates those principles.

Kashartle,

If you do not mind another question, what denomination(s) did you participate in for the 30 years?  Or, how were your beliefs formed?  Just curious.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

2. After 30 years of being a strict believer, I started studying philosophy, logic and ethics. I came to a 100% or 99.9% confident belief in rational proof of secular ethics, human self-ownership and individual rights. The concept of a God, whether Christian variety or any other violates those principles.

Kashartle,

If you do not mind another question, what denomination(s) did you participate in for the 30 years?  Or, how were your beliefs formed?  Just curious.

... Mountaineer

Father Catholic, mother Lutheran. We went to Lutheran school until I was 12 and he got his first marriage anulled. Then Catholic church and catholic high school. Fiddled around with a couple denominations in the Army but was generally un-churched. Re-joined the Catholic curch post-Army for a couple year. I started dating a gal who went to a baptist church, very biblically based in a good way. The motto was "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing". The focus was on Christ and God's grace...not rules etc.

Spent 5-6 years at that Church in the choir, volunteer, singles ministry etc. It stated to become clearer to me that things didn't make sense and as I have now spent some time away and studied other things I've come to the conclusion that it's not true.

Now my conversion is not an argument. That's the false argument called "statement of conversion". Sometimes people make that argument here with economics. "I used to think money printing was inflationary but now I don't but I won't address the arguments, just look at my conversion or the conversion of others etc."