Deja Vu isn't really like thinking, "Hey...this has happened before!" at all. It's more like a sudden feeling of familiarity that passes as quickly as it approached. Afterwards, you're left wondering what it was that MADE everything seem so familiar all of a sudden.
But obviously that exact event only took place at that exact time. Why was there confusion as to WHEN it took place (the past or the present)? It seems that such a confusion would be impossible, because we all know that events ONLY occur in the present. But sure enough, there is this occasional fleeting moment of uncertainty.
Anybody who has experienced deja vu (most people I've met) can tell you that there is a single moment when there is quite a bit of certainty that the exact event (not a re-enactment) has taken place before...but that moment of certainty passes through the current of time the precise moment proceeding it.
How is this possible? If we assume that time is constant and unchanging, there is simply no chance we experienced that moment twice. In order to be confused about your reality, you need an alternate reality to compare it to. If there is nothing to compare to, there could be no confusion. What if we ARE comparing to an alternate reality?
...or...
What if we assume that time is NOT constant and unchanging? Perhaps it can expand and contract, making an accurate detection of its passing difficult to measure.
What if is IS constant, but we are not strictly bound to it? Similar to floating with the current of a river and suddenly deciding to swim against it, or perpendicular to it.
Actually, a river isn't a bad analogy at all. Think of up-river as your past and down-river as your future. You create a smaller path within the river because you are so much smaller...meaning that the width of the river contains the entire scope your destiny, yet you can control which "side" of that destiny you will end up on (veering left or right [good or evil]). The mouth of the river can represent what lies beyond this life (the river). What about after the mouth of the river?
Evaporation.
Condensation.
Precipitation.
Do it all over again (dum-dum!) :-)
I think I'll call this idea "CHURCH OF WATER CYCLE". Maybe I could get a motorcycle that is for "official church use only!" I could put a sticker on it that says: CHURCH OF WATER-CYCLE MOTOR-CYCLE!
Brilliant!
Okay...back to deja vu...
WHAT IF the momentary confusion is caused be being suddenly removed from that reality, and then replaced back in to exactly the same moment (well...maybe slightly off - thus the confusion)? What happened while your consciousness wasn't in this reality? In this "time". Maybe somebody was talking to you. Maybe you were somewhere else ENTIRELY for eons while this reality stood still and waited for you to come back.
I don't think time passes at strict intervals. If I hold a stop watch for 30 seconds and ask 30 random people how much time had passed (without looking at the stopwatch, of course), how many different answers do you think I would get? People conducting this test in the past have gotten results ranging from 15 seconds to 4 minutes. Supposing the stop watch is an accurate representative of time, then this should show that we are NOT bound by time. 15 seconds go by for some, 4 minutes go by for others, while time maintains its own separate course. But suppose that the people being subjected to the test had the REAL accurate perception of time, and the watch was wrong.
Who knows? Fun to think about!
________________
Question Everything
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A conversation about "Knowing Stuff"
This conversation was the result of my facebook status (names appearing between |brackets| have been changed):
Kenny doesn't know anything...about anything. 8:16pm - 9 Comments
|Gordon| at 8:29pm January 7
That's true. You're only fairly sure about the most obvious of things. Certainty is simply stupidity.
Kenny Taylor at 8:42pm January 7
Yeah...but even beyond that. I just don't even know what I think today.
|Jane| at 8:55pm January 7
Everyone has those days. No matter how much you question things. Sometimes you just don't know anything at all. It's okay. You'll feel better soon.
Kenny Taylor at 8:59pm January 7
Haha. Well, not many people know what they think they know anyway.
|Gordon| at 9:09pm January 7
Nobody knows what they think they know. Knowledge is a technical impossibility, as there's no way to define the thing in a way that does not involve faith.
|Jane| at 11:14pm January 7
Well, you can't say you no absolutely nothing about anything. Why question everything you do. That's like saying" What if CAT really means DOG" ha ha. Revenge of the Nerds.
Kenny Taylor at 11:29pm January 7
Right. We are all in basic agreement that certain things seem to be true. Such as: We do exist. The sky is blue. There are 5 senses...etc. That's assuming that I'm not just imagining this entire thing I call my life, and not really a giant interdimensional octopus that shoots universes instead of ink, with eyes made of time and tentacles of light. My real name cannot be comprehended by the human mind. If you were to hear it, you would go insane with madness, because you would understand the true nature of the universe IN WHICH YOU LIVE...which is just one of the many I have excreted as a defense mechanism which allows me to elude my predators.
Holy crap! I think I just invented a religion!
Anyway, yeah. There are things we (humans) seem to agree on. It's in my favor to choose to believe that you're all real, rather than my consciousness being some cosmic irregularity that is the result of some chain reaction that I couldn't possibly comprehend...
Wait...IS that what consciousness is?
Whoooooaoaaaaaaa duuuude.
Oh and I forgot to say this about the octopus: I'm having a dream, and the dream is my consciousness. When I wake up, I'll be the interdimensional octopus again, and i'll be telling my interdimensional octopus friends about this WEIRD ASS dream I had, in which I started out extremely confused, but gradually learned more and more. I learned a language. I fell in love. I had been in fights. I got high. I nearly drowned. I created art. I hurt people's feelings. I got lost in a forrest.
I could outline every detail of my entire life, which isn't really my life at all...but just a dream.
And maybe my interdimensional octopus friend would reply, "Wow! All of that? You were only asleep for like 25 years!"
--------------------------
"...but just a dream."
But is a consciousness less valid if it is the result of a dream rather than biology or a divine force? Suppose your consciousness (aka "YOU") really is the result of a dream. The consciousness still happens. It is experienced. So it's still real. Even if it's not real ;-) Ha ha.
Kenny doesn't know anything...about anything. 8:16pm - 9 Comments
|Gordon| at 8:29pm January 7
That's true. You're only fairly sure about the most obvious of things. Certainty is simply stupidity.
Kenny Taylor at 8:42pm January 7
Yeah...but even beyond that. I just don't even know what I think today.
|Jane| at 8:55pm January 7
Everyone has those days. No matter how much you question things. Sometimes you just don't know anything at all. It's okay. You'll feel better soon.
Kenny Taylor at 8:59pm January 7
Haha. Well, not many people know what they think they know anyway.
|Gordon| at 9:09pm January 7
Nobody knows what they think they know. Knowledge is a technical impossibility, as there's no way to define the thing in a way that does not involve faith.
|Jane| at 11:14pm January 7
Well, you can't say you no absolutely nothing about anything. Why question everything you do. That's like saying" What if CAT really means DOG" ha ha. Revenge of the Nerds.
Kenny Taylor at 11:29pm January 7
Right. We are all in basic agreement that certain things seem to be true. Such as: We do exist. The sky is blue. There are 5 senses...etc. That's assuming that I'm not just imagining this entire thing I call my life, and not really a giant interdimensional octopus that shoots universes instead of ink, with eyes made of time and tentacles of light. My real name cannot be comprehended by the human mind. If you were to hear it, you would go insane with madness, because you would understand the true nature of the universe IN WHICH YOU LIVE...which is just one of the many I have excreted as a defense mechanism which allows me to elude my predators.
Holy crap! I think I just invented a religion!
Anyway, yeah. There are things we (humans) seem to agree on. It's in my favor to choose to believe that you're all real, rather than my consciousness being some cosmic irregularity that is the result of some chain reaction that I couldn't possibly comprehend...
Wait...IS that what consciousness is?
Whoooooaoaaaaaaa duuuude.
Oh and I forgot to say this about the octopus: I'm having a dream, and the dream is my consciousness. When I wake up, I'll be the interdimensional octopus again, and i'll be telling my interdimensional octopus friends about this WEIRD ASS dream I had, in which I started out extremely confused, but gradually learned more and more. I learned a language. I fell in love. I had been in fights. I got high. I nearly drowned. I created art. I hurt people's feelings. I got lost in a forrest.
I could outline every detail of my entire life, which isn't really my life at all...but just a dream.
And maybe my interdimensional octopus friend would reply, "Wow! All of that? You were only asleep for like 25 years!"
--------------------------
"...but just a dream."
But is a consciousness less valid if it is the result of a dream rather than biology or a divine force? Suppose your consciousness (aka "YOU") really is the result of a dream. The consciousness still happens. It is experienced. So it's still real. Even if it's not real ;-) Ha ha.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Do other people think like this? If so, please lie to me about it...
I was on an anti gay marriage forum on facebook and I read some pretty disturbing stuff. I wanted to comment on the forum, but I was required to join the group before I could post...and I didn't want to do that, so I just sent a message to one particular person I had a disagreement with. If you are the person I had this conversation with and you don't want your words posted on here, then have the words copy-written and I will remove them.
I changed this person's name to Glenn so that he may remain anonymous. However, his discussions can be found on several facebook cuases having anything to do with gay marriage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ME|
[excerpt from an anti gay marriage forum]
"The Bible has always been proven to be a solid source of historical evidence."
[end excerpt]
This is a false statement. The Bible rarely (if ever at all) makes any reference to any dates that these alleged events took place. How can this be an accurate historical record?
No credible historian that I know of would ever reference the Bible alone when citing history. The story of Cain and Abel is a fable. It was meant to teach a lesson, not to be interpreted literally. The same is true for countless other Old Testament stories.
Christianity does not rely on these stories being literally interpreted. The message remains the same whether the events actually took place or not.
The historical accuracy of the Bible has been discounted over and over. The sources that maintain the idea that the Bible is accurate are more often than not Biblical experts...not historical experts.
Making claims that "The Bible has always been proven to be a solid source of historical evidence" does nothing but damage your cause. It completely invalidates any credibility you could have possibly had to begin with. In this case, you are effectively helping the atheists more than you are the theists.
|GLENN|
mmm... not really. But that's alright, I don't expect you to agree with me. Take care!
|ME|
[excerpt from an anti marriage forum]
"Well, I have to say that your arguments really don't make any sense. And your application of old testament law shows that you really don't understand the Bible. I really suggest finding a pastor from a good, Bible believing church and asking him about old testament law and if/how it applies today. He'll be able to explain it without being confined to the number of characters in a comment as I am here.
Cheers!"
[end excerpt]
Specifically to the part about the application of Old Testament law...
You DO understand that the 10 commandments are found in the Old Testament, don't you? Are you suggesting that we can pay attention to this portion of the Old Testament, but ignore the other laws found therein?
|GLENN|
There were different types of laws. Ceremonial, Social, and Moral. Again, I would recommend talking to a pastor about this as they would be able to explain it much better than I.
Again, take care!
|ME|
I don't rely on people to spoon feed me what they say is true. I do my own research. I've read the Bible in its entirety many times, and have had countless philosophical discussions with theists and non-theists alike in regards to the Bible.
The same is true with science. If a scientist claims something as fact, that doesn't necessarily mean it IS a fact. It is up to us to double check their statements.
|GLENN|
That's fine. Like I said, I don't expect you to agree with me. People who don't want to be accountable to a higher source won't ever admit to any biblical truth. The fact that you're still debating via email tells me that you want our discussion to affirm your beliefs, or lack therof. You will continue to refer to your Bible reading and discussions as proof of your credibility, but that is just looking to yourself for truth.
I hope you'll stand back and take a look outside of your own knowledge. We're only human.
Later,
|ME|
"The fact that you're still debating via email tells me that you want our discussion to affirm your beliefs, or lack therof."
I strive to affirm my beliefs or lack thereof every moment of every day. I am constantly changing my mind about things as I gain new knowledge. I think everyone should do this. Who knows? Maybe you can change my mind ;-)
"You will continue to refer to your Bible reading and discussions as proof of your credibility, but that is just looking to yourself for truth."
That statement makes no sense at all. Credibility and truth are not the same thing. However, I AM on a constant search for truth. Christianity is one of the many places I have searched, and I'll be the first to admit that SOME good things come from Christianity...but it isn't the only source for answers. Not by a long shot. Buddhists have more (practical) answers than the Bible does (no, I am not a Buddhist).
"I hope you'll stand back and take a look outside of your own knowledge. We're only human."
Does "look outside of your own knowledge" mean to accept something that ISN'T knowledge as though it WERE knowledge?
I'm not an emotionless atheist with no sense of spirituality. There are all kinds of fascinating mysteries shrouding our existence. Science only explains so much, and what lies beyond those explanations COULD be God...but it could be something else entirely. Who knows? It is fun to speculate, and I do it often. But to hold firm that one source contains all the truth we need just isn't healthy...intellectually or spiritually.
One last thing - I hope you don't think of me as an antagonist. When you said that I was trying to affirm my beliefs, you were half-way right. I am not opposed to changing my mind about anything. Discussions such as these give me (and you) the opportunity to make our beliefs stronger by making good points...while at the same time giving us the opportunity to reconsider what we believe. I am in no way saying that atheism is the only answer, and that anyone who isn't an atheist is wrong. All I'm trying to say is that maybe we should think about what we believe in...and why we believe in it. Then be willing to talk about it. If you're not even willing to consider the possibility that Christianity could be wrong...that isn't faith. That is ignorance.
|GLENN|
I'm always willing to talk about Christianity. That's why I post on walls in the first place. I do think about what I believe in all the time. People spout a lot of facts without the evidence to back them up, and most of them are anti-god. When I look into them, I find their "facts" to be plain wrong. After any discussion, I play devil's advocate to myself and ask "What if I'm wrong about all this," but these basics always bring me back.
There is nothing to explain our world but a higher power... nothing.
If I accept that there is a higher power, who is He?
The Bible IS flawless dispite what people may try to convince me of. The scriptures are infallible and like I've said before, never proven wrong. If they were, it would be an easy task to crumble the Christian faith. Prophecies fulfilled, parallel historical accounts, archaeology (sp?), philosophy... so on... they all point to the Bible and God as true.
What kills me is that people who don't accept the Bible claim that all truth is relative. They have to... unless they point to the Koran or some other writing as their objective source. Without an objective source for morality, there is no right or wrong. Debating what is right and wrong when you don't have an objective source for right and wrong is pointless and defeats the purpose.
|ME|
" People spout a lot of facts without the evidence to back them up, and most of them are anti-god."
This is absolutely false. The only way you could come to that conclusion is if you received your information from a very biased source. You can believe that Moses carried every species of every animal on Earth on a boat for over a month, and then redistributed them to their appropriate habitats (camels in the desert, penguins in the antarctic, etc.) if you want to. But those of us who observe the laws of physics know that couldn't have possibly happened.
Bring me the top professionals in America in the field of any typical university core-curriculum subject, and let's tally up how many are theists, how many are non-theists, and how many are agnostic.
Also, I hope you aren't talking about evolution not being a matter of fact. Because we've observed that within our own recorded history. The domestication of cattle completely transformed the anatomy of the animal. Dog breeding has made dogs evolve (with the guidance of humans) in countless ways (ranging from chihuahuas to great danes). Those animals didn't exist 5000 years ago. They didn't exist until after human-guided animal breeding became common practice. That's exactly how evolution works.
Now, obviously the question begs to be asked: "So who's hands are guiding OUR evolution?"
Believe me, I want to know the answer to that question myself! It's something I think about constantly! I just think it's naive to use just one source of ideas when there are lots and lots of others to consider.
"When I look into them, I find their 'facts' to be plain wrong."
I'd like an example of this.
"There is nothing to explain our world but a higher power... nothing."
Well, there are lots of people who disagree. It is quite fascinating that we ARE here, though! Lucky us! Out of all of the other planets revolving around all of the other other stars, we had the right combination! We get to have this great experience we call "life", and who knows? Maybe our consciousness doesn't die when our bodies die. I wonder what kind of world we'd be able to perceive without the restraints of these 5 senses our bodies are limited to!
As I said before, it's fun to speculate. But anyway, the fact is that there are lots of other possible explanations as to how life began. They don't all agree with eachother, and I personally am happy about that...because it allows me to hear it from a lot of different perspectives. If you don't agree with what someone is saying, that's fine. But to ONLY agree with what ONLY ONE PERSON is saying is just foolish. Not to mention lazy.
"The Bible IS flawless dispite what people may try to convince me of. The scriptures are infallible and like I've said before, never proven wrong. If they were, it would be an easy task to crumble the Christian faith. "
It is an easy task. It's been done countless times. You don't want to believe the Bible isn't true, so you don't seek out that sort of information. The only thing you'll open your ears to are things that tell you that what you believe is true...is true. Don't make the mistake of generalizing atheists as people who purposely seek information that negates the Bible. In almost every case, it is quite the opposite...most are seeking information to support it, and they're not coming up with much.
If you believe the scriptures are infallible, then it simply isn't POSSIBLE for you to believe anything contrary. I remember what that was like. I remember how difficult it was when I was dealing with the fact that I had questions that weren't being answered. Religion surrounded me and my family my entire life...and even helped shaped who I am...and when I started asking the "wrong kinds of questions" at Bible school, it was simply ignored and they said they'd pray for me.
So I started looking for answers myself. I talked to every pastor/preist/holy-person in my town trying to find answers to my questions, and all I ever got was the same answer: "You just have to have faith."
To which I would reply: "Okay! How do I do that?"
- "Just believe."
- "Well, that's what I'm TRYING to do. How can I make myself believe? Where's the 'I-BELIEVE-IN-SOMETHING-THAT-CANNOT-BE-PERCEIVED' button? Because I swear I will push it RIGHT NOW!"
- "There is no button. You just need faith."
Eventually I had to give up.
Okay, back to things that you've said:
"Prophecies fulfilled, parallel historical accounts, archaeology (sp?), philosophy... so on... they all point to the Bible and God as true."
Again, I'm going to need examples.
"Without an objective source for morality, there is no right or wrong. Debating what is right and wrong when you don't have an objective source for right and wrong is pointless and defeats the purpose."
If a presidential candidate were saying that it is wrong for you to ever read the Bible or say the word "Jesus" in public...and they were trying to make it a law... and if I am arguing against them, saying that you should be allowed to read the Bible and say Jesus in public as much as you want...then I bet it wouldn't be pointless to you.
I bet that victims of the Spanish Inquisition (inspired by the Bible) wouldn't find it pointless to argue that torturing people is morally wrong.
Whew! That was a long one!!
I changed this person's name to Glenn so that he may remain anonymous. However, his discussions can be found on several facebook cuases having anything to do with gay marriage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ME|
[excerpt from an anti gay marriage forum]
"The Bible has always been proven to be a solid source of historical evidence."
[end excerpt]
This is a false statement. The Bible rarely (if ever at all) makes any reference to any dates that these alleged events took place. How can this be an accurate historical record?
No credible historian that I know of would ever reference the Bible alone when citing history. The story of Cain and Abel is a fable. It was meant to teach a lesson, not to be interpreted literally. The same is true for countless other Old Testament stories.
Christianity does not rely on these stories being literally interpreted. The message remains the same whether the events actually took place or not.
The historical accuracy of the Bible has been discounted over and over. The sources that maintain the idea that the Bible is accurate are more often than not Biblical experts...not historical experts.
Making claims that "The Bible has always been proven to be a solid source of historical evidence" does nothing but damage your cause. It completely invalidates any credibility you could have possibly had to begin with. In this case, you are effectively helping the atheists more than you are the theists.
|GLENN|
mmm... not really. But that's alright, I don't expect you to agree with me. Take care!
|ME|
[excerpt from an anti marriage forum]
"Well, I have to say that your arguments really don't make any sense. And your application of old testament law shows that you really don't understand the Bible. I really suggest finding a pastor from a good, Bible believing church and asking him about old testament law and if/how it applies today. He'll be able to explain it without being confined to the number of characters in a comment as I am here.
Cheers!"
[end excerpt]
Specifically to the part about the application of Old Testament law...
You DO understand that the 10 commandments are found in the Old Testament, don't you? Are you suggesting that we can pay attention to this portion of the Old Testament, but ignore the other laws found therein?
|GLENN|
There were different types of laws. Ceremonial, Social, and Moral. Again, I would recommend talking to a pastor about this as they would be able to explain it much better than I.
Again, take care!
|ME|
I don't rely on people to spoon feed me what they say is true. I do my own research. I've read the Bible in its entirety many times, and have had countless philosophical discussions with theists and non-theists alike in regards to the Bible.
The same is true with science. If a scientist claims something as fact, that doesn't necessarily mean it IS a fact. It is up to us to double check their statements.
|GLENN|
That's fine. Like I said, I don't expect you to agree with me. People who don't want to be accountable to a higher source won't ever admit to any biblical truth. The fact that you're still debating via email tells me that you want our discussion to affirm your beliefs, or lack therof. You will continue to refer to your Bible reading and discussions as proof of your credibility, but that is just looking to yourself for truth.
I hope you'll stand back and take a look outside of your own knowledge. We're only human.
Later,
|ME|
"The fact that you're still debating via email tells me that you want our discussion to affirm your beliefs, or lack therof."
I strive to affirm my beliefs or lack thereof every moment of every day. I am constantly changing my mind about things as I gain new knowledge. I think everyone should do this. Who knows? Maybe you can change my mind ;-)
"You will continue to refer to your Bible reading and discussions as proof of your credibility, but that is just looking to yourself for truth."
That statement makes no sense at all. Credibility and truth are not the same thing. However, I AM on a constant search for truth. Christianity is one of the many places I have searched, and I'll be the first to admit that SOME good things come from Christianity...but it isn't the only source for answers. Not by a long shot. Buddhists have more (practical) answers than the Bible does (no, I am not a Buddhist).
"I hope you'll stand back and take a look outside of your own knowledge. We're only human."
Does "look outside of your own knowledge" mean to accept something that ISN'T knowledge as though it WERE knowledge?
I'm not an emotionless atheist with no sense of spirituality. There are all kinds of fascinating mysteries shrouding our existence. Science only explains so much, and what lies beyond those explanations COULD be God...but it could be something else entirely. Who knows? It is fun to speculate, and I do it often. But to hold firm that one source contains all the truth we need just isn't healthy...intellectually or spiritually.
One last thing - I hope you don't think of me as an antagonist. When you said that I was trying to affirm my beliefs, you were half-way right. I am not opposed to changing my mind about anything. Discussions such as these give me (and you) the opportunity to make our beliefs stronger by making good points...while at the same time giving us the opportunity to reconsider what we believe. I am in no way saying that atheism is the only answer, and that anyone who isn't an atheist is wrong. All I'm trying to say is that maybe we should think about what we believe in...and why we believe in it. Then be willing to talk about it. If you're not even willing to consider the possibility that Christianity could be wrong...that isn't faith. That is ignorance.
|GLENN|
I'm always willing to talk about Christianity. That's why I post on walls in the first place. I do think about what I believe in all the time. People spout a lot of facts without the evidence to back them up, and most of them are anti-god. When I look into them, I find their "facts" to be plain wrong. After any discussion, I play devil's advocate to myself and ask "What if I'm wrong about all this," but these basics always bring me back.
There is nothing to explain our world but a higher power... nothing.
If I accept that there is a higher power, who is He?
The Bible IS flawless dispite what people may try to convince me of. The scriptures are infallible and like I've said before, never proven wrong. If they were, it would be an easy task to crumble the Christian faith. Prophecies fulfilled, parallel historical accounts, archaeology (sp?), philosophy... so on... they all point to the Bible and God as true.
What kills me is that people who don't accept the Bible claim that all truth is relative. They have to... unless they point to the Koran or some other writing as their objective source. Without an objective source for morality, there is no right or wrong. Debating what is right and wrong when you don't have an objective source for right and wrong is pointless and defeats the purpose.
|ME|
" People spout a lot of facts without the evidence to back them up, and most of them are anti-god."
This is absolutely false. The only way you could come to that conclusion is if you received your information from a very biased source. You can believe that Moses carried every species of every animal on Earth on a boat for over a month, and then redistributed them to their appropriate habitats (camels in the desert, penguins in the antarctic, etc.) if you want to. But those of us who observe the laws of physics know that couldn't have possibly happened.
Bring me the top professionals in America in the field of any typical university core-curriculum subject, and let's tally up how many are theists, how many are non-theists, and how many are agnostic.
Also, I hope you aren't talking about evolution not being a matter of fact. Because we've observed that within our own recorded history. The domestication of cattle completely transformed the anatomy of the animal. Dog breeding has made dogs evolve (with the guidance of humans) in countless ways (ranging from chihuahuas to great danes). Those animals didn't exist 5000 years ago. They didn't exist until after human-guided animal breeding became common practice. That's exactly how evolution works.
Now, obviously the question begs to be asked: "So who's hands are guiding OUR evolution?"
Believe me, I want to know the answer to that question myself! It's something I think about constantly! I just think it's naive to use just one source of ideas when there are lots and lots of others to consider.
"When I look into them, I find their 'facts' to be plain wrong."
I'd like an example of this.
"There is nothing to explain our world but a higher power... nothing."
Well, there are lots of people who disagree. It is quite fascinating that we ARE here, though! Lucky us! Out of all of the other planets revolving around all of the other other stars, we had the right combination! We get to have this great experience we call "life", and who knows? Maybe our consciousness doesn't die when our bodies die. I wonder what kind of world we'd be able to perceive without the restraints of these 5 senses our bodies are limited to!
As I said before, it's fun to speculate. But anyway, the fact is that there are lots of other possible explanations as to how life began. They don't all agree with eachother, and I personally am happy about that...because it allows me to hear it from a lot of different perspectives. If you don't agree with what someone is saying, that's fine. But to ONLY agree with what ONLY ONE PERSON is saying is just foolish. Not to mention lazy.
"The Bible IS flawless dispite what people may try to convince me of. The scriptures are infallible and like I've said before, never proven wrong. If they were, it would be an easy task to crumble the Christian faith. "
It is an easy task. It's been done countless times. You don't want to believe the Bible isn't true, so you don't seek out that sort of information. The only thing you'll open your ears to are things that tell you that what you believe is true...is true. Don't make the mistake of generalizing atheists as people who purposely seek information that negates the Bible. In almost every case, it is quite the opposite...most are seeking information to support it, and they're not coming up with much.
If you believe the scriptures are infallible, then it simply isn't POSSIBLE for you to believe anything contrary. I remember what that was like. I remember how difficult it was when I was dealing with the fact that I had questions that weren't being answered. Religion surrounded me and my family my entire life...and even helped shaped who I am...and when I started asking the "wrong kinds of questions" at Bible school, it was simply ignored and they said they'd pray for me.
So I started looking for answers myself. I talked to every pastor/preist/holy-person in my town trying to find answers to my questions, and all I ever got was the same answer: "You just have to have faith."
To which I would reply: "Okay! How do I do that?"
- "Just believe."
- "Well, that's what I'm TRYING to do. How can I make myself believe? Where's the 'I-BELIEVE-IN-SOMETHING-THAT-CANNOT-BE-PERCEIVED' button? Because I swear I will push it RIGHT NOW!"
- "There is no button. You just need faith."
Eventually I had to give up.
Okay, back to things that you've said:
"Prophecies fulfilled, parallel historical accounts, archaeology (sp?), philosophy... so on... they all point to the Bible and God as true."
Again, I'm going to need examples.
"Without an objective source for morality, there is no right or wrong. Debating what is right and wrong when you don't have an objective source for right and wrong is pointless and defeats the purpose."
If a presidential candidate were saying that it is wrong for you to ever read the Bible or say the word "Jesus" in public...and they were trying to make it a law... and if I am arguing against them, saying that you should be allowed to read the Bible and say Jesus in public as much as you want...then I bet it wouldn't be pointless to you.
I bet that victims of the Spanish Inquisition (inspired by the Bible) wouldn't find it pointless to argue that torturing people is morally wrong.
Whew! That was a long one!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
