Eternal Imperative Redux

Question from Rick:
In previous discussions it appears that we have come to rational conclusions:

– Two positions of understanding exist: everything came from absolute nothingness or there is an “eternal imperative”. Most “thinking” people know that an “eternal imperative” is most logical.
– Science, thanks to people like Lawrence Krauss are close to proving that nothing within the Physical Universe was responsible for “everything”
– In conclusion: it appears that the most logical position is that there is in fact an eternal imperative and that eternal imperative is responsible for the existence of the Physical Universe.

In light of the above considerations SmartLX rightly states that the fact of an eternal imperative does not prove the persistence of an eternal imperative. This fact does shift the discussion from “is there a god” to “who is/was God”? It also shifts SmartLX’s position from atheism to deism.

Adam admittedly is going to believe what Adam believes regardless of Science or Philosophical discussions.

Rohit is still committed to Science (because it is simpler) and he believes Science will discover how everything came from absolute nothingness.

Erick just doesn’t know!

So SmartLX, why don’t you create a site “Ask the Deist”, so our conversation can continue?

Answer by SmartLX:
Oh dear, where to begin.

The Eternal Imperative, the hypothetical thing which had existed forever and was responsible for everything else, either did or didn’t exist. In its place could have been not just “nothing within the Physical Universe” but actually nothing at all, according to Krauss, so it’s futile to try to bend his work towards supporting the idea of a god. Another alternative we didn’t discuss was an infinite number of finite “imperatives”, for example an endless series of lone universes. Until the relative mechanics and more importantly probabilities of the three (and any other) options can be calculated, it’s not logical to assume that any one of them is factual. Nor is it wise to go with the option that superficially makes the most sense to us personally, because if quantum mechanics teaches us anything it’s that reality can be counter-intuitive.

Yes, if there was an Eternal Imperative that doesn’t mean it’s still there. But if there isn’t one now, it doesn’t mean there ever was one, only that there’s a potential excuse for lack of evidence for one. If despite what I’ve just said everyone asserts an Eternal Imperative (and not just the party who really wants there to be one) then the discussion becomes about what the Eternal Imperative is. It only becomes about who/what God is if you totally conflate a creator God with the Eternal Imperative, and you haven’t even begun to argue that it’s God – besides pointing out similar qualities in two hypothetical objects, which is at best circumstantial and at worst a blazing logical fallacy. Did you really think you’d be able to slip the existence of a god into an argument with atheists as a starting premise and go unchallenged?

Even capitalising the name “Eternal Imperative” is a subtle implication that it’s a title for a person, not a thing. It’s why Prime Mover and Uncaused Cause are written that way. Mind you, after a quick look around it seems like it’s only you using it to mean what you think it means, here and in the other forums where you appear to be either calling in reinforcements or trumpeting your imminent victory. Among evangelicals and Baptists an eternal imperative usually means an eternal command, for instance to worship or to proselytise. So points for two words’ worth of originality, I suppose.

88 thoughts on “Eternal Imperative Redux”

  1. There either is an “eternal imperative” or everything comes from “nothingness”! One can argue that the eternal imperative is not necessary, because the physical universe may have come from a series of previous universes.
    However, that still begs the question, “where did those prior universes come from”? And if in fact we find that the material universe or all of those hypothetical previous universes have always been, then they in fact become the “Eternal Imperative”.

    My argument is not, what is the “Eternal Imperative” but rather that there most assuredly is an “Eternal Imperative”, which is responsible for “Everything”. While you have stated now twice: “quantum mechanics teaches us anything it’s that reality can be counter-intuitive”, this sounds a lot like the gibberish of justification that the atheist so hates from those that are religious.

    We all know natural order does not honor a perspective proclaiming “nothing is responsible for everything” or that something had the ability to source itself into existence from absolute nothingness. Arguing those perspectives is more than counter-intuitive, it smacks in the face of empirical rationality, which most atheist believe they are.

    My only point for this site is that an eternal reality is imperative and that the “eternal imperative” is ultimately responsible for the existence of our Physical Universe.

    Therefore it is not irrational to believe that there is a “GOD”.

    1. To me it’s really not clear why the ‘eternal imperative’ needs to be an intelligence of any sort (pardon the small case letters at the beginning of “eternal” and “imperative” 🙂 ). And that too one with quite a personality (or personalities depending on the religion you choose).

      Saying that it could be a personality / intelligence smacks of trying to reduce the ‘eternal imperative’ to our own image … and then saying that we were created in the image of the eternal imperative.

      Maybe it’s not irrational to believe that a personality is the eternal imperative (my humble brain cannot comprehend this particular bit of rationality too clearly though). But then the kinds of things religions around the world would have us believe that this personality(-ies) does and wants us to do is a bit hard to swallow. This eternal personality(-ies) seems so petty and simplistic – forcing theists to invent interprettations of what holy books mean to say when they say something embarassing about the eternal personality/ intelligence.

      So we are to choose, then, between simple laws or a simplistic personality … I choose simple laws.

      (I’ve read and re-read this post to make sure it does not sound vicious. The intent is earnest, believe me … the jibes on the eternal personality are somewhat intentional :). But then I can count on it’s forgiving nature, I suppose?)

      1. Rohit,

        I believe the point is not if either one of us can fathom an eternal personality, clearly you have already dismissed the possibility of such.

        The point is that it is rational to believe in an eternal imperative! It is also rational to believe an eternal imperative is responsible for our existence. It is also rational that the physical universe does not confine the eternal imperative. This is also in harmony with the Bible’s explanation of God.

        Discussions regarding the viability of any particular religious understanding is essentially reserved for those that believe there is in fact a God. If in reality you are an agnostic because you do not understand the nuances of say Christianity, then that would be a discussion I would be glad to have with you. The Bible insists that faith is an important ingredient in a relationship with God. If as you insist, you have no faith in God, then there is no reason to discuss the subject.

        1. Rohit,
          Not that this matters to anyone that has taken the so called “blasphemy challenge”, but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, but rather denying that God the Father is the source of the works of the Holy Spirit. Generally those that were warned in the Bible about the dangers of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit were not atheist, but theists.

          1. Rick, you are obviously an ardent believer and are probably trying to connect your love for (and an obviously strong belief in) Christianity and the bible with fundamental (unanswered) questions about origins.

            I admit that I could not be bothered to go into the details of any old world religions or new age spiritualistic credos (but thanks for offering to discuss Christianity). Having had spent most of my early youth tasting various religions and what they had to say about the nature of god, I’ve satiated my appetite for religious answers.
            I am pretty hard-nosed now when it comes to what I believe and what I do not believe. And that gives me a clarity of thought and action that I find liberating.

            I guess I will believe/ develop faith in god or anything like it only when he/ she/ it reveals itself to the whole of humanity directly and unequivocally. Personal revelations / experiences and accounts of those personal revelations tied together as holy books are things I do not count as valid proof.

            The eternal argument(s) on the nature of the eternal imperative(s) will probably continue among the scholarly and the lotus-eaters alike. The truth will (again, as Krauss says) probably come from ever deeper exploration of nature … not from revelation, desire, ardent hope or pure thought.
            And the exploration of nature through science continues on and strange but fascinating answers keep trickling in.

            Till that search goes on, based on our individual views of what it means to be rational, I guess we are free to argue that a) believing in god is rational or b) Not believing in god is rational but there could be a chance (albeit very slim) of there being a god or c) Laws of nature are all that there is. And we need not agree with our views of what it means to be rational … the bounds of our bounded rationality are stretched everyday by deeper scientific understanding of how nature functions.

  2. Haha, to clarify my position, I believe what I find convincing or probable. You also need to acknowledge the different levels of importance beliefs might have.

    For instance, let’s say you had a friend named Sally who died last year who liked cake and loved cream cheese. So given that information, you believe that your friend Sally probably ate cheesecake every once in a while when she was alive. Does it matter to you if you are wrong? Probably not. Could you go investigate and try to find testimony or evidence to validate your beliefs? Yes, if you so desired. But why does it matter? It’s an insignificant piece of information that has no impact on your life. So you continue to believe that Sally probably ate cheesecake while she was alive.

    That’s exactly how I feel about this issue. It’s unimportant, but based on my own understanding of existence, yes I do hold a belief on the matter. Do I care if I’m right? No.

    Also, on a side note, I think my definition of Universe may be different than others. My definition of Universe is “Everything that is” or “All of existence”. Which I thought was the common definition, but perhaps it is not.

    1. Adam,
      Interesting point: “You also need to acknowledge the different levels of importance beliefs might have”. When it comes down to it, it really is a question of the heart. The Biblical-heart appears to be ones personal economy, the place we hold those things that matter most to us. Like Sally’s cheesecake, and the portion of Sally’s life was dedicated to the consumption of cheesecake.

      So you Adam do not care if there is or is not an eternal imperative, it makes no difference to you. What does matter to you Adam?

      1. What matters to me are things that impact myself and my fellow beings on this planet. Human “rights”, animal “rights”, not exploiting others, (anti) discrimination, kindness, love, happiness. These types of things matter to me. Knowing how/if the universe began has no weight on my life.

      2. If you want to know what matters to me in relation to theology. Indoctrination, which I consider abuse, religious legislation, escaping reality instead of facing it, and discrimination against others because of what they believe (probably my biggest focus). Those topics have a weight in my life, and in all of our futures.

        1. Adam,

          You started with yourself (the things that matter most) and then you included your “fellow beings on this planet”. These things matter to me as well.

          No I did not ask for your opinion on “theology indoctrination”, which I also am put of by, however, the question of reality, what is real and how do we determine reality is essentially what this discussion is about. My point in this thread is that the “eternal imperative” is decidedly real, even though it may yet be undefined in the hearts of many. Clearly the “eternal imperative” is not of the makeup of fairy tales.

          Injustice, bullying, these things are inappropriate in any civilized society.

        2. Adam,

          You started with yourself (the things that matter most) and then you included your “fellow beings on this planet”. These things matter to me as well.

          No, I did not ask for your opinion on “theology indoctrination”, which I also am put of by, however, the question of reality, what is real and how do we determine reality is essentially what this discussion is about. My point in this thread is that the “eternal imperative” is decidedly real, even though it may yet be undefined in the hearts of many. Clearly the “eternal imperative” is not of the makeup of fairy tales.

          Injustice, bullying, these things are inappropriate in any civilized society.

  3. This whole debate is just a god in gasp. We do not know therefore it is god/magic/fairies did it.

    Maybe we will never know how the universe began or how reality was created/came to be but to believe in a god who created everything is foolish because in almost every religion there is a god who communicates with its children and is acting according to prayer/rituals to this god.

    Such a god does not exist and has never existed in real life. Therefore it is futile to believe in a god because there is no god who communicates with its creation. Therefore there is also no afterlife because people get saved thanks to the relationship they have with god or the deity itself because you do good deeds because god said so according to the scriptures.Therefore the whole belief in a god is meaningless to me.

    1. Lukas,
      So what is reality to you? Must your reality conform to your understanding or does it exist only to the extent of your understanding? Must reality subject itself to you or can you comprehend something being “real”, yet existing beyond yourself.
      It seems some atheist essentially want to be gods of their own life and they resent the imposition of something or someone beyond themselves that they might need to be accountable to.
      This discussion is about the rationality of an “eternal imperative”. Has something always been and how could something exist if there was ever infinite nothingness? If this site is a fair representation of “atheism” then many atheist appear to be angry about the possibility of God. This I have trouble understanding, why does “God” or concepts of God evoke anger expressed in ridicule. Ridicule, is generally a defense mechanism intended to secure ones own faith. If atheists are so certain that the “eternal imperative” is not God, then why do they continue to ridicule those that do?
      I have not ridiculed anyone on this site for his or her disbelief, why does my rational belief deserve ridicule? What have I shared on this site that is ridiculous?
      Lukas, it appears to me that your comments are reaching for encouragement from those that agree with your faith perspective. The reason I am using the word “faith” is because I am hearing opinions born from perspective of personal uncertainty. Reality here appears to be self-affirmed!
      For example:
      Adam says: “Knowing how/if the universe began has no weight on my life.”
      Lukas says: “We do not know therefore it is god/magic/fairies did it. Maybe we will never know how the universe began or how reality was created/came to be but to believe in a god who created everything is foolish”
      So, Adam and Lukas, if you want to mock my concept of reality, it might be wise to determine what it is before you do so!

      1. Hmm Rick you may be confused. There are no rules or social policies or philosophies or scientific endeavors that one must adopt to be an atheist. Atheism isn’t a body of one way, one method, or one paradigm. You also may be confused at our roles on this site. I just randomly found this site about a year ago and started commenting on it, just as you are now. I’m not a voice for all of atheism, nor is anybody. Part of why I comment here is for people to understand that.

        To be an atheist simply means…when asked, “Do you believe at least one god exists?” Your response is no. We are NOT bound by anything else. So expecting an agreement or consensus about other topics is just not going to happen. We are people, individuals, who just happen to not believe in gods. Atheism in itself is not a community, a teaching, or even a world view.

        And to clarify, I wasn’t talking about “theology indoctrination” I was talking about Theology, with indoctrination heading off my list of related topics that I care about. But looking back on that I realize that I meant to say “theism” not “theology.” My mistake.

      2. There are two interesting statements in your post above Rick that I think theists probably complain about in their interactions with atheists:
        (There are similar walls that we atheists hit in discussions with theists … but let’s talk here about the walls theists hit).

        Statement 1
        “It seems some atheist essentially want to be gods of their own life and they resent the imposition of something or someone beyond themselves that they might need to be accountable to.”
        Well – I speak for myself here, but I suspect most atheists will agree – our atheism is not a rebellion against god or an exasperation against being held accountable for our actions by some eternal being.
        It’s not possible to be god of one’s own life … god of anything in-fact when we actually control so little. The illusion of control is a well documented logical fallacy inherent to our psychological makeup. In fact there is a whole body of existentialist literature built around the angst that arises (in theists or atheists) when they find out how little they control.
        Our atheism arises out of various reasons. To me personally, it is a bit terrific to believe in a god that keeps tabs on the cosmically irrelevant actions of what must appear to be dust mites on the dust mites of dust mites seen from his/her/its eternal perspective. He/ she/ it, if it exists must really have better things to do … new universes to breathe out from nothingness for e.g. 🙂
        The theist position (which may appear to be rational to some, depending on one’s definition of rationality) is a bit arrogant – that there must be a god that cares for us and has codes of conduct decreed for us written out in texts open to all sorts of interpretation by anyone who reads them. I’ve pointed this out before as well.
        A more palatable/ less arrogant position might be that there is a god and it doesn’t give a fig about us … (which in-fact is a documented belief in come religious traditions). I would still argue about the rationality of belief in any deity – caring or uncaring … but then again, belief in such a deity depends on one’s definition of rationality.

        Statement 2
        “This I have trouble understanding, why does “God” or concepts of God evoke anger expressed in ridicule.”
        I think some of us atheists are a sometimes bit impatient with religious folk. I think it’s like this … if you understand or “get” something completely and you think it’s simple, then while explaining it to someone else, you expect them to get it/ understand it when you explain it.
        When they do not get it, one gets exasperated and may start sounding impatient/ rude. The same ridicule, I suspect, is faced by an atheist in a room / forum full of theists. Dawkins mentioned somewhere of him getting vicious hate mail from theists in one of his books.
        The anger expressed as ridicule is mostly a) perceived (unless, like Dawkins, you are getting hate mail – which means the anger is real) and b) disguised impatience with the person who apparently is not understanding a simple point of view (simple as perceived by the person explaining it).
        It has little to do with insecurity in my opinion.
        It is natural … happens all the time … and we all do try to control it and not let it come forth that often.

        1. Let me also add here Rick that the reason I post replies on this site is that it helps me think and question my atheism. It helps me be clearer about why I do not believe. A lot of clarity comes when one is forced to write down one’s thoughts in coherent terms.

          My remarks on certain questions that get asked on this site can be a bit sarcastic … since in my mind those questions are more or less settled (when people question evolution for e.g., I tend to not put in my two cents worth because I think if you don’t care to understand scientific fact, then you are basically a lost cause …).

          Your questions on origin were different though – they have made me think and have actually made me research more on what science has to say about origins. I even bought Krauss’s book just to make sure I got what he was saying.
          My atheism is more entrenched after all this thinking 🙂 … but it was a good round of intellectual digging.

          So thanks to you … my atheism’s been made stronger 🙂
          (Just yanking your chain !)

  4. Rick lets divide your post shall we?

    1. I do not know what reality is, but for me reality is my everyday life I live.I am not a god and I never claimed I know what reality is but I know one thing for sure. The god you are seeking does not exist that is for sure. If he would then Hitler, Stalin or disaster would not exist in this world and therefore for me your god is nothing more then a fairy tale or every prayer would work.
    2. If there is a god who created the universe I do not know. I however know if there is such a god he does not care about us because we are pathetic and we are useless and nothing more. Therefore worshiping such a god is useless because he cannot and will not hear you and will not give you a heaven if he even exists and that is a giant question.
    3. I am a agnostic and I am not making any ridicule of your faith if you want Rick then believe in pink unicorns if it will make you better but for me it does not give me comfort to the contrary a god brings even more questions to science and to our reality like where did the god come from? What is his purpose? Is there something beyond this god?
    4. You Rick came here to ask about this but no atheist is claiming he knows all the answers of the universe, he just gives you the answer we have so far and the possibilities and why we show you there is no god. If you want all the answers go to your church boss he will give you some.
    5. What is the concept of reality?? I do not know but as Dr. Steven Novella is pointing out that when religious people are pointing this out they are really in their ends:

    “Where did the universe come from?

    I don’t know. This is without a doubt a scientific mystery. The Big Bang is not even an attempt to explain where the universe came from – it simply describes an event at the beginning of this universe. Whether or not the Big Bang emerged from “nothing” and exactly what “nothing” is, is an interesting question. If you are interested, I suggest A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

    It is remarkable, however, that the “god-of-the-gaps” gurus who are trying to promote their own theory of everything by pointing to what is currently unexplained by science have to go all the way to the origin of the universe. I think that says something about where we are scientifically. And give us time – science will likely illuminate such cosmological questions over time.

    Lanza here is making a classic logical fallacy of the pseudoscientist – confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable. Just because we have not yet fully explained the origins of the universe, that does not mean that our current paradigms of physics and cosmology will not eventually provide at least a partial explanation.”

    Taken from: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/biocentrism/

    Rick you are fighting for a ship that has already fallen. Even if there is a god but there must not be a one because a friend e-mailed me a science paper where scientist think that our universe could have been created thanks to the multi-verse theory where two universe collided to each other. There are theories how our universe was created and in time I think like Dr. Steven Novella is claiming we will solve this riddle but so far we have not even one point of evidence which is pointing us to some god.

    1. “It seems some atheist essentially want to be gods of their own life and they resent the imposition of something or someone beyond themselves that they might need to be accountable to.”

      I am not a god of my life and I believe that no atheist is a god of his life. Atheism does not promote the motion that you are a god of your own life. This is the promotion of New Age gurus ala you create your own world. This is wrong Rick..

      “This discussion is about the rationality of an “eternal imperative”. Has something always been and how could something exist if there was ever infinite nothingness? If this site is a fair representation of “atheism” then many atheist appear to be angry about the possibility of God.”

      We are not angry about a possibility of god but there are no evidence for god in the first place. If you have more evidence Rick for god then just a philosophy then please present them to us. I as a skeptic need evidence or I will not believe because I am a atheist thanks to my skepticism. I need evidence Rick and by evidence I mean normal evidence not just philosophical possibilities.

      “This I have trouble understanding, why does “God” or concepts of God evoke anger expressed in ridicule. Ridicule, is generally a defense mechanism intended to secure ones own faith. If atheists are so certain that the “eternal imperative” is not God, then why do they continue to ridicule those that do?”

      We are not ridiculing you. I was pointing the logical answer that a god you believe does not exist. If he would exist then there would be no suffering in the world. Every prayer would work and we would have proof of heaven, ghosts, angels etc.. All these mythological things would be a fact. So far nothing of these things came to be and even Near-death experiences can be explained thanks to normal biological functions, biases of researchers or bad reporting. So please Rick if you have something more then please share.

      “I have not ridiculed anyone on this site for his or her disbelief, why does my rational belief deserve ridicule? What have I shared on this site that is ridiculous?
      Lukas, it appears to me that your comments are reaching for encouragement from those that agree with your faith perspective. The reason I am using the word “faith” is because I am hearing opinions born from perspective of personal uncertainty. Reality here appears to be self-affirmed!”

      Rick like I stated I do not make fun of you I am just pointing out that your argument is a god in the gasp argument and I am sick of these arguments. I must battle these arguments almost daily on the skeptics forums where I am a member. Therefore I am making fun of the argument itself because I am sick of these arguments. Its like we do know something the god did it/aliens did it.

      Second I do not know how reality came to be and no atheist knows also. We are just waiting to know how reality came to be but I know for sure that a god you are preaching for does not exist and never existed. If he would exist then I think the whole universe would be drastically different. Miracles would be a fact, demons, possessions and all that woo stuff would be real. So far nothing like this is happening. For me atheism is not about faith but about the evidence. If you have evidence for gods existence then show me this evidence and I will become believer again but so far and for the years I was in the waters of religion(I have a Master degree in Science of Religion) I have seen only faith but not evidence..

      1. I just wanted to add this. BTW: I also only found this site when surfing the net. I am just a user of it and not a mod or admin.

        1. Last thing to add.

          If I said something bad or if you feel that I made fun of your belief then I apologize Rick.. I just wanted to tell that it was a god in the gasp argument and second I also do not mean those pink unicorns as a offense. I am just pointing out that people believe strange things which give them comfort but I need more for then just a belief.

          So again if I wrote something bad or it sounds bad to you Rick I apologize.

          1. Just so we are clear, I believe the “eternal imperative” eternally exists beyond the Physical Universe; this is also consistent with the Biblical explanation. When given the possibility that Krauss can prove that nothing within the Physical Universe is responsible for the existence of everything, then I rationally look beyond the Physical Universe for the “Eternal Imperative”.
            It appears that most Atheist (including Krauss) when given the above considerations conclude that “nothing” is responsible for “everything”. So, that is why I ask, what would an Atheist have God do to prove His reality? Certainly, a miracle would not convince those that ignore the likelihood of the miracle of creation, preferring to believe nothing is responsible for everything. And then advance that if that is not true then previous universes were likely responsible for everything, which brings us back to the question of the “eternal imperative”, is it these phantom universes?
            Adam, I understand that there is no universal atheist perspective; do you realize that there is no universal theist perspective either? Your rantings: “what matters to me in relation to theology. Indoctrination, which I consider abuse, religious legislation, escaping reality instead of facing it, and discrimination against others because of what they believe” imply that you believe that all Theists advocate such, which is simplistic and absurd.
            Rantings from Lukas:
            – reality is my everyday life I live—(So reality centers on Lukas)
            – I know one thing for sure. The god you are seeking does not exist that is for sure
            – Hitler, Stalin or disaster would not exist in this world and therefore for me your god is nothing more then a fairy tale or every prayer would work (If Lukas were god he would not give man free-will.)
            – god is useless because he cannot and will not hear you and will not give you a heaven if he even exists (God will not serve Lukas therefore god is useless)
            – What is his purpose? (The created have purpose?)
            – I suggest A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss (everything from nothing)
            – I need evidence Rick and by evidence I mean normal evidence not just philosophical possibilities (Evidence like if God would jump when you say jump?)

            Rohit the reasonable,
            “it is a bit terrific to believe in a god that keeps tabs on the cosmically irrelevant actions of what must appear to be dust mites on the dust mites of dust mites seen from his/her/its eternal perspective. He/ she/ it, if it exists must really have better things to do … new universes to breathe out from nothingness for e.g.”

            1. Rohit the reasonable,
              “it is a bit terrific to believe in a god that keeps tabs on the cosmically irrelevant actions of what must appear to be dust mites on the dust mites of dust mites seen from his/her/its eternal perspective. He/ she/ it, if it exists must really have better things to do … new universes to breathe out from nothingness for e.g.”
              “is a bit arrogant – that there must be a god that cares for us and has codes of conduct decreed for us written out in texts open to all sorts of interpretation by anyone who reads them”
              What seems cosmically irrelevant and arrogant to you is not necessarily irrelevant to one that is identified as “Love”.
              So what would cause you to consider the possibility that God is the “eternal imperative”?

              1. Well … if he/ she/ it had more of a role to play in the universe.
                For e.g. an eternal imperative in the form of simple laws of nature might mean that those very laws led to origin and have more role to play in the universe.

                Suppose that a quantum foam is the eternal imperative (a nothingness out of which space and universes emerge randomly and quantum mechanically – some disappear back into the nothingness and some perpetuate). We observe that even in our universe today, quantum laws of particles popping in an out of existence are the norm. This gives more credence to the quantum foam eternal imperative since you see something similar operating in our universe through the laws of QM.

                In the case of god as eternal imperative, I do not see such a parallel.
                Now one might argue that origin was a miracle by a creator god and miracles happen all around the universe currently. So there is some role of god in the current universe, giving credence to the god as eternal imperative conjecture.
                But particles appearing and disappearing in and out of existence is experimentally demonstrable I think and is the norm in the universe at large. Alleged miracles are neither.

            2. I’m trying to understand what you said to me…let’s see.

              “Adam, I understand that there is no universal atheist perspective; do you realize that there is no universal theist perspective either?”

              Of course there is no universal theist perspective. I don’t beleive I said there was.

              “Your rantings: “what matters to me in relation to theology. Indoctrination, which I consider abuse, religious legislation, escaping reality instead of facing it, and discrimination against others because of what they believe” imply that you believe that all Theists advocate such, which is simplistic and absurd.”

              No, it doesn’t imply that at all. That’s like taking a statement, “It bothers me that there is racism in America.” To mean, “I think all Americans are racist.”

              All I did was list things that matter to me that have to do with theism. Nothing more, nothing less.

              1. Adam,
                What do those things have to do with theism? You say: “All I did was list things that matter to me that have to do with theism”.

                1. Hey Rick, I would think it was obvious, but I guess I’ll explain.

                  First I’ll say that religion IMO is a product of theism….Actually I was going to go through point by point, but I think that isn’t necessary. Theistic religions often do the things that I said matter to me, that should be clear enough.

                  Maybe I took your, “what matters to you?” question wrongly?

            3. I will divide your answer Rick:

              “Just so we are clear, I believe the “eternal imperative” eternally exists beyond the Physical Universe; this is also consistent with the Biblical explanation. When given the possibility that Krauss can prove that nothing within the Physical Universe is responsible for the existence of everything, then I rationally look beyond the Physical Universe for the “Eternal Imperative”.”

              Yeah Rick, the Bible. The woo of the century book. I think believing in the bible is like believing in Hitler. Where is your god Rick today when millions of children suffer every hour? Why does not god stop rapers, priests who rape, murderers and serial killers??

              “Rantings from Lukas:
              – reality is my everyday life I live—(So reality centers on Lukas)

              What are you ranting about Rick? I never said that reality is centered around me??

              “- I know one thing for sure. The god you are seeking does not exist that is for sure
              – Hitler, Stalin or disaster would not exist in this world and therefore for me your god is nothing more then a fairy tale or every prayer would work (If Lukas were god he would not give man free-will.)”

              Rick Free will does not exists. You are sleeping under a rock –

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

              I get it now Rick. You are a strong believer. You came just here to attack and not have a reasonable communication. If you want to prove god here then go on. But misquoting me is a failure and I will not continue this discussion.

              You are just making fun of everyone because you are mad that we do not take your non-sense of a god real. I am done with this..

              1. (Evidence like if God would jump when you say jump?)

                Nope. Rick evidence that he would appear before us like aliens can appear before us if they exist. Or that god would reveal his knowledge about the universe in the bible and give us knowledge that are more then old Jewish myths but like all religions there is no proof that there is a god.

                – god is useless because he cannot and will not hear you and will not give you a heaven if he even exists (God will not serve Lukas therefore god is useless)

                Does God serve you Rick?? Wow God is your personal slave? What a surprise..

                It to me no surprise that when Rick is faced with normal arguments he begins to call them rantings.

                Second thing I claimed that we do not know how reality came to be but claiming that its made by god is a god in the gasp argument, nothing more. Also Rick you behave like a typical believer – when you cannot face the arguments you begin to behave like a small little child and start making fun of everyone. This shows why you need a imaginary friend.

  5. Hello there,

    Two positions of understanding exist: everything came from absolute nothingness or there is an “eternal imperative”.

    Since this “eternal imperative” would not itself come from anything, i.e. would come from nothing, the second position falls into the first.

    1. “Eternal” essentially means to have no beginning. Is an “eternal reality” imperative? Many on this site believe as Lawrence Krauss believes, that everything came from nothing, therefore they believe that “nothing” is eternal. Of course this is exactly what an atheist should believe in “nothing” and many are proving true to their claim.
      If Science proves that nothing within the Physical Universe is responsible for the existence of the Physical Universe and the laws, which govern it, most would look elsewhere. Imagine jumping into your car and you find that your keys are missing; do you sit staring at the ignition wondering when your keys will appear? If Science determines that nothing scientifically determined everything then it is rational to look beyond the Scientifically detectable reality. Just as it is not rational to sit in your car staring at your keyless ignition, it is also not rational to credit “nothing” for the existence of everything.
      The “eternal imperative” most likely exists in a reality that is not confined by the law of our Universe. The fact that the Bible advances this perspective should not bring the outrage and ridicule from those claiming to be genuine seekers of truth. It is a simple fact that alters ones course of direction.

      1. Is Lawrence Krauss’ “nothing” really nothing, though? I just googled the guy and I vaguely remember reading about this quantum vacuum before. It is an ambient energy that can form unstable pairs of oppositely charged particles. Okay, cool, but hardly ex nihilo.

        1. You are right Millstone. Rick is a believer and always be. This was discussed before:

          http://asktheatheist.com/?p=1860

          All you can see in that discussion that Rick wants to believe hard in his god and he ignores all the arguments and even evidence that there is no such thing as a biblical god who loves his sheep.

          Also if Rick would read Krauss or even his page on wikipedia about his book: Universe from Nothing he would know that the universe was not made from nothing:

          ” David Albert for The New York Times criticizes the book for failing to live up to its title, and criticizes Krauss for dismissing concerns about his use of the term nothing to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a “philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing'” (i.e. instead of having the meaning “not anything”).[5]”

          Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

          Ok. I am done with this..

          1. I have not read Krauss either but, if “A Universe from Nothing” is just a sensationalist title, I wonder why he was even brought into the discussion.

            Now, what I think is that the universe (as in the sum total of all that be, the known and the unknown, our spacetime and beyond, most literally everything, including the gods should any exist) has by definition nothing left to come from. I have never heard a religious or profane viewpoint that escaped that.

            1. Millstone,

              You seem sensible, therefore lets see if we can have a sensible discussion?

              You say: “Now, what I think is that the universe (as in the sum total of all that be, the known and the unknown, our spacetime and beyond, most literally everything, including the gods should any exist) has by definition nothing left to come from. I have never heard a religious or profane viewpoint that escaped that.” You assume that your universe as you define it binds “everything”; therefore your concept of reality would be limited to the so-called “natural” in-lieu of the “supernatural”.

              Theists in contrast accept a supernatural explanation (God), which is not bound by your constraints; therefore your viewpoint does not matter to the theist.

              There is the possibility of shared understanding in regard to origins that reach beyond the isles of our personal beliefs, If an eternal reality is imperative. The real discussion between the atheist and the theist should mature to what is the “eternal imperative”?

              Again, the reason we can conclude there is an “eternal imperative” is because we know experimentally that something does not materialize from nothing. We verify “something”, which in this case your “the sum total of all that be” is ample evidence that something has always been or is eternal.

              The atheist could argue that the material universe has always been in one form or another. Or that a series of previous universes spawned this universe into existence and that the previous universes were eternal, or came from the unknown eternal.

              The Bible conveniently places God eternally separate from, yet responsible for the physical universe. This perspective is not “roll your eyes” ridiculous. It is saying that God (the something that has always been) caused the physical universe to come into existence.
              This statement (while amazing); is more sensible than “nothing caused everything”.

              If Krauss is not in fact advancing the notion that everything came from nothing, then whatever the something (that he calls nothing), is the “eternal imperative”.

              1. « You assume that your universe as you define it binds “everything”; therefore your concept of reality would be limited to the so-called “natural” in-lieu of the “supernatural”. »

                Both points are correct but the “therefore” linking them is not. Those are in fact unrelated.
                – I did define the universe as the whole of existence. The word can take other meanings, such as the “observable universe” for which science gives an age and size, or a component of the “multiverse” defended by some, or of course the “creation” i.e. all which exists save the creator. But I went with the definition I thought most useful in this discussion.
                – It is also true that I do not believe in the existence of the supernatural.
                – However, should you be right in your beliefs, this definition of the universe would include the natural and the supernatural, the physical and the metaphysical, the creation and the creator.

                « The Bible conveniently places God eternally separate from, yet responsible for the physical universe. This perspective is not “roll your eyes” ridiculous. It is saying that God (the something that has always been) caused the physical universe to come into existence.
                This statement (while amazing); is more sensible than “nothing caused everything”. »

                Repeating myself for emphasis: the physical universe is not everything to the theist, the creation and the creator are. And nothing caused your everything, since you believe something (God) has always been. I am not talking about some paradoxical emptiness spouting God. I am saying that nothing caused Him, i.e. He was not caused. This is what “nothing” is supposed to mean in English, as we both would like Krauss to remember. And thus your statement appears no more sensible to me than “nothing caused everything” because “nothing caused everything” is what I see in your statement.

                1. Millstone
                  You say:
                  “Repeating myself for emphasis: the physical universe is not everything to the theist, the creation and the creator are.”
                  “And nothing caused your everything, since you believe something (God) has always been…I am saying that nothing caused Him, i.e. He was not caused. This is what “nothing” is supposed to mean in English, as we both would like Krauss to remember. And thus your statement appears no more sensible to me than “nothing caused everything” because “nothing caused everything” is what I see in your statement.”

                  You’re missing my whole point. My claim is that an eternal reality is imperative! Something or someone has to have always been, never “nothing”. The discussion you and I should be having is what is the something or someone that has to have always been.
                  This discussion (Eternal Imperative) ensures understanding that the Bible depicts God as being eternal. It does not ensure that everyone that embraces this fact adjusts his or her belief system to the Biblical view. However, genuine seekers of the truth should allow the weight of the “eternal imperative” and the implications thereof to sink in.

                  1. All I have been saying through this discussion is that, while you insist on contrasting your view with the everything-from-nothing conundrum, you have not convinced me of the difference.

  6. Found this and I think its fitting for this discussion:

    “Hawking: no God behind the Big Bang:

    So much for physics revealing “the mind of God.” Lest anybody still think that Stephen Hawking is religious, even in a deistic sense, check out his new book, The Grand Design (coauthored with American physicist Leonard Miodinow), available in the US September 7. Here’s part of Hawkings’s precis, taken from the Amazon listing:

    In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a “model-dependent” theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse–the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete “theory of everything.” As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, “42.”

    From the Times piece:

    Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” he writes.

    “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” he finds. . .

    . . . Richard Dawkins, a biologist and fierce proponent of atheism, welcomed the book, describing it as Darwinism for the very fabric of Nature, not just the creatures living within it. “That’s exactly what he’s saying,” said Professor Dawkins. “I know nothing of the details of the physics but I had always assumed the same thing.”

    However others, such as Professor George Ellis, an emeritus professor at the University of Cape Town and President of the International Society for Science and Religion, were less impressed. “My biggest problem with this is that it’s presenting the public with a choice: science or religion. A lot of people will say, ‘OK, I choose religion, then’ and it is science that will lose out,” he said.

    All taken from: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/hawking-no-god-behind-big-bang-dawkins-discussion-at-930-a-m-est/

    You can read the whole blog post in the link..

      1. There is more then just gravity at play here:

        “The central claim of the book is that the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.[11]”

        Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)

        More info there in the link.. There are already hypothesis how the universe came to be and proposed by people who know what they are doing and have a wide knowledge of the universe itself. I will trust more those people then some old bible book and a bible preacher..

        However as always Rick will ignore that because he just want to push your god in the discussion and believes that is the answer to everything a fairy tale creator who helps his flock. Which again does not exist.

        1. Lukas,

          You say you are “done”; yet you keep posting? By the way, Christian bashing is not something new that you have invented, comments like:

          “Rick will ignore that because he just want to push your god in the discussion and believes that is the answer to everything a fairy tale creator who helps his flock. Which again does not exist”

          These comments serve no conversational purpose!

          I will however respond to the portion of your post that is worthy of response:

          “The central claim of the book is that the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.”

          Lukas, I wonder if “gravity”, “quantum mechanics” and “relativity” (which all appear to be candidates for the eternal imperative) exist independently of one another? I also wonder if laws exist without agents to act upon?

          However, if laws have the ability to create everything from nothing, as Hawking believes, then how does one rationally distinguish laws from a lawgiver?

          This reverts back to the argument: if “nothing” created “everything” or nothing within the Physical Universe created everything; then why wouldn’t God be a viable candidate? Likewise either “laws” create “everything” or “laws” derived from a lawgiver created everything.

          This seems to ultimately come down to a question of faith, what do you believe?

          1. Lukas,

            You say you are “done”; yet you keep posting?

            Because I am bored, made up my mind and found this new stuff. If you are not interested you must not reply to my posts.

            “By the way, Christian bashing is not something new that you have invented, comments like:”

            However this is not the point of the discussion. So if you take this as bashing

            “Rick will ignore that because he just want to push your god in the discussion and believes that is the answer to everything a fairy tale creator who helps his flock. Which again does not exist”

            These comments serve no conversational purpose!”

            Ok I stop play the evil one when you stop making fun of people around here.

            “This seems to ultimately come down to a question of faith, what do you believe?”

            This is not true Rick. There are evidence for the hypothesis. Hawking is smart enough and knows his science. The same goes for Krauss. He would not create a hypothesis out of thin air and without some evidence to back this up. God on the other hand has no evidence to back him up. So sorry its not about faith its about evidence. Therefore I trust more Hawking and Krauss on this.

            Second thing if a god would exist (the post of Milstone gave me this idea) then our universe would not only be material but also immaterial. That means there would be besides natural laws also supernatural laws because god is supernatural/paranormal. That means paranormal phenomena would exist in our universe and would be proven. So far our universe is only working on natural laws and no paranormal laws have been detected.

            However Rick you are free to believe what you want and you must not reply to any of this if you do not desire.

            1. Opps made a mistake:

              “By the way, Christian bashing is not something new that you have invented, comments like:”

              “Rick will ignore that because he just want to push your god in the discussion and believes that is the answer to everything a fairy tale creator who helps his flock. Which again does not exist”

              These comments serve no conversational purpose!”

              This should not be there:

              However this is not the point of the discussion. So if you take this as bashing

              I wanted to reply to all of this, this way:

              Ok I stop play the evil one when you stop making fun of people around here..

              1. Wanted to add the last thing because according to what Rick wrote he does not even know what a scientific hypothesis is. I just use the wikipedia for this:

                “People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an “educated guess”[8][9] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Some scientists reject the term “educated guess” as incorrect, however.[10] Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.

                According to Schick and Vaughn,[11] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:
                Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
                Parsimony (as in the application of “Occam’s razor”, discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
                Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
                Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
                Conservatism – the degree of “fit” with existing recognized knowledge-systems.”

                Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Scientific_hypothesis

                Therefore a hypothesis is:

                “People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an “educated guess”[8][9] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence.”

                Therefore what Rick wrote:

                This reverts back to the argument: if “nothing” created “everything” or nothing within the Physical Universe created everything; then why wouldn’t God be a viable candidate? Likewise either “laws” create “everything” or “laws” derived from a lawgiver created everything.

                This seems to ultimately come down to a question of faith, what do you believe?

                Its not true because what Rick claims he has not evidence for. Hypothesis is not build on faith because a hypothesis has to have some evidence to back it up. God, Souls , Ghosts, Psychic powers etc.. have no evidence to back them up. So therefore when someone comes and claims that there is a PSI hypothesis that means he is wrong. Even a hypothesis has to have some solid evidence to begin with it. This is why Hameroffs Quantum Mind is not even taken as a hypothesis in science or as a alternative because it has not evidence to back it up. This can be considered also for a lot of paranormal things in parapsychology.

                This is the last I wanted to add here.

                1. Lukas,
                  Is an eternal reality imperative? If you say “NO”, then do you believe everything came from nothing? If you say “YES”, which most thinking people would say, then you agree that eternal attributes are not even theoretical, but provable based on our natural observations and reason.

                  1. Lukas,
                    My only point is that the Bible depicts God as eternal, which one might think would be a difficult attribute to prove, yet, in reality an eternal reality is imperative.

                  2. Rick

                    I do not have to answer any of your questions because you did not answer mine. First reply to my posts and then we can talk..

                    1. Second thing I wanted to add. First please read more about science Rick because from your replies I really have the feeling you know nothing about science itself and you are believing that scientists are making guesses and everything we know about the world around us is based on what people belief in the end. This is not true for most people. The only person who is replying here and his responses are based on faith are your Rick. You do not have evidence but only belief which can be seen even from your last reply to Millstone:

                      “This discussion (Eternal Imperative) ensures understanding that the Bible depicts God as being eternal. It does not ensure that everyone that embraces this fact adjusts his or her belief system to the Biblical view. However, genuine seekers of the truth should allow the weight of the “eternal imperative” and the implications thereof to sink in.”

                    2. Also this one I missed from Rick:

                      This reverts back to the argument: if “nothing” created “everything” or nothing within the Physical Universe created everything; then why wouldn’t God be a viable candidate? Likewise either “laws” create “everything” or “laws” derived from a lawgiver created everything.

                      So if a god created these laws why he is not present in this universe and is not helping his creation? Did he went out fishing? A god which is not present in his universe shows that he has not desire for his creation and does not care about it. He just went it be and therefore it is not the god of the bible you are preaching here Rick. So again this is a weak argument.

                      There is even a second problem that god is paranormal like I wrote in one post therefore there would be also paranormal laws which do not exist.

                      The third problem of your argument is that when there is a god who is loving why did he not give better laws then this?? Why did he not create a universe without suffering or a universe without diseases?

                      Fourth problem of your argument: Why did god created laws in the first place? If he created these laws he himself had to be a subject to law. That means what caused him to create these laws and if something caused him to create these laws he had to be a subject to a more powerful law.

                      There are more problems with this argument Rick when you are trying to bring into the discussion a god who is according to the bible. This is just on the top of my head what I could think of. So if you have time I will await your response to all of my questions not only these but those above I also written.

                    3. Lukas,

                      You ask: “So if a god created these laws why he is not present in this universe and is not helping his creation? ”

                      —He is spiritually present! How do you know He is not present? Many would argue that He subjected Himself to a physical presence in the person of Jesus Christ.

                      You ask: “Did he went out fishing? A god which is not present in his universe shows that he has not desire for his creation and does not care about it. He just went it be and therefore it is not the god of the bible you are preaching here Rick. So again this is a weak argument.”

                      –What is a weak argument, that an eternal reality is imperative?

                      You say: “There is even a second problem that god is paranormal like I wrote in one post therefore there would be also paranormal laws which do not exist.”

                      –How do you know there are no Spiritual Laws?

                      You ask: “The third problem of your argument is that when there is a god who is loving why did he not give better laws then this?? Why did he not create a universe without suffering or a universe without diseases?”
                      –According to the Bible, it was because He desired to have a loving relationship with mankind that man was given prerogative. The only way God could assure that there would be no suffering or disease would be to not give man a free will (prerogative).

                      You say: “Fourth problem of your argument: Why did god created laws in the first place? If he created these laws he himself had to be a subject to law. That means what caused him to create these laws and if something caused him to create these laws he had to be a subject to a more powerful law.”

                      –In the person of Jesus Christ God did subject Himself to His own laws.

                      You say: “There are more problems with this argument Rick when you are trying to bring into the discussion a god who is according to the bible. This is just on the top of my head what I could think of. So if you have time I will await your response to all of my questions not only these but those above I also written.”

                      So now that I have answered all of your questions, perhaps you will be brave enough to answer my question: “Do you believe everything came from nothing or do you believe something has always been? If you believe something has always been, then what is it?

  7. Rick

    I want answer and not religion brainwashing like this:

    —He is spiritually present! How do you know He is not present? Many would argue that He subjected Himself to a physical presence in the person of Jesus Christ.

    Jesus Christ is a myth. Its a anecdotal story.

    –How do you know there are no Spiritual Laws?
    – Show me one? Show me spiritual laws in action like that prayer works..

    –According to the Bible, it was because He desired to have a loving relationship with mankind that man was given prerogative. The only way God could assure that there would be no suffering or disease would be to not give man a free will (prerogative).

    – You really believe this? Second thing is then your god is weaker then a chemical reaction in a brain – hence love.

    –In the person of Jesus Christ God did subject Himself to His own laws.

    – I await normal answers not Christian brainwashing ok.. I do not believe in the myth of Jesus.

    – So now that I have answered all of your questions, perhaps you will be brave enough to answer my question: “Do you believe everything came from nothing or do you believe something has always been? If you believe something has always been, then what is it?

    I do not believe Rick. I have evidence because all those hypothesis are based on evidence. You have belief because you lack evidence Rick.

    Also you did not answer my questions. You just brought up your Christian woo into the discussion.

    1. Some I missed:

      You say: “Fourth problem of your argument: Why did god created laws in the first place? If he created these laws he himself had to be a subject to law. That means what caused him to create these laws and if something caused him to create these laws he had to be a subject to a more powerful law.”

      –In the person of Jesus Christ God did subject Himself to His own laws.

      This is not a answer. Read the question again..

      You ask: “The third problem of your argument is that when there is a god who is loving why did he not give better laws then this?? Why did he not create a universe without suffering or a universe without diseases?”
      –According to the Bible, it was because He desired to have a loving relationship with mankind that man was given prerogative. The only way God could assure that there would be no suffering or disease would be to not give man a free will (prerogative).

      – Free Will does not exist:

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

      I however know that you will ignore this like you ignore other links.

      Also if it would exist then god is the biggest sadist in the universe. He likes to watch Big Brother all the time?

      1. Last thing Rick, I know the bible because I was a believer. The bible is proof of nothing then just mythical story tales created in old times when people had not science.

        1. Lukas,
          I find no indications that you know the Bible. By the way Jesus is a historical person, you may question that He was/is the Son of God, but it is foolish to claim He is a myth.
          How old are you Lukas?

          1. I know the bible. Jesus is a myth of the sense that he had magical powers Rick. I was not saying that he never lived:

            – Jesus Christ is a myth. Its a anecdotal story.

            I said its all anecdotal story and myth. That means he lived but all his miracles and magic are just myths.

            Also Rick why do you not believe in other Christs or people who claim they are Christs like for example:

            José Luis de Jesús Miranda (born April 22, 1946 in Ponce, Puerto Rico) is the leader of the Creciendo en Gracia sect (Growing In Grace International Ministry, Inc.), based in Miami, Florida. He claims to be both Jesus Christ returned and the Antichrist, and exhibits a “666” tattoo on his forearm.

            Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Luis_de_Jesús

            Or here you have a whole category of people who claimed they are like Jesus:

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

            Here there are many.

            Rick I have a Master of Science of Religion. I work mostly with religious cults but I know the bible. Again your claims have no strength. Second why do you want my age? What has all this to do with my age? This is a childish question.. First read more then just the bible and then you will know that the world is more complex then you think.

            There was even a movement where they claimed there is no Jesus. The Christ myth theory but you would need to study more history about your religion then just the bible:

            The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community around 100 CE

            Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

            It was rebutted. Therefore I am telling that Jesus existed but all the other things around him are anecdotal and are a myth.

              1. As for the question Rick that:

                Why you do not believe in other people who claimed they are the son of god. I know what you will tell me:

                – That the bible tells you to not to belief in false prophets.

                I was just asking this question because from a logical standpoint I see no difference between Jesus Christ, Buddha or other religion icon. Those all people were just people with no magic only their cults created their mythical image.

                1. The reason I asked your age is because you seem to want to take this conversation to a personal level. Your ranting and your acquisitions about me personally imply a young immature personality.
                  Clearly you do not want to have a conversation as you refuse to answer even one question posed by me. And you insist that I surf through wikipedia for your personal perspective.
                  So, you claim to have been a believer, where you all those things you have accused me of being? I was once an atheist and now I am a believer!

                  1. This is ranting Rick:

                    “The reason I asked your age is because you seem to want to take this conversation to a personal level. Your ranting and your acquisitions about me personally imply a young immature personality.”

                    I do not have a immature personality and I have not brought this into a personal level. It is sad you have fallen to such low levels again Rick. You first came here and made fun of everyone and attacked even atheists here that they are ranting or that they are deists in a mocking tone.

                    Second show me where I am bringing this to a personal level? I just said I do not believe in your bible woo. I also stopped making fun of you and only asked why do you not believe in other people who claim that they are Jesus Christ when they are doing the same what Jesus did but in our age but without the magic. Which even Jesus did not have.

                    “Clearly you do not want to have a conversation as you refuse to answer even one question posed by me. And you insist that I surf through wikipedia for your personal perspective.”

                    Nope I do not. I however thought that you are a genuine seeker of truth like you claim:

                    “However, genuine seekers of the truth should allow the weight of the “eternal imperative” and the implications thereof to sink in.”

                    But if you are not willing to do that then from this I have the feeling that all you said are just lies and you want to push your agenda here.

                    “So, you claim to have been a believer, where you all those things you have accused me of being? I was once an atheist and now I am a believer!”

                    And what? From your answers you were a weak atheists. I also doubt you were one(every believer or even New Age guru who sells books claim this) because you know little to nothing about atheism or science itself. Let alone you know nothing about your religion now from your posts besides some weak arguments from the bible which can be found thanks to a quick google search. From your posts I have the feeling that it is you who have a naive personality because these responses are really naive. This is just a example:

                    – reality is my everyday life I live—(So reality centers on Lukas) – I
                    – god is useless because he cannot and will not hear you and will not give you a heaven if he even exists (God will not serve Lukas therefore god is useless)
                    – What is his purpose? (The created have purpose?)
                    – I need evidence Rick and by evidence I mean normal evidence not just philosophical possibilities (Evidence like if God would jump when you say jump?)

                    I did answer your question but you did not get it look above. I will repeat myself here:

                    I do not believe Rick. I have evidence because all those hypothesis are based on evidence. You have the belief because you lack evidence Rick.

                    Really Rick if you cannot counter my arguments then it is a waste to discuss this. In my last posts I have written nothing to attack you. I just wrote that Jesus is a myth for me and showed you that your knowledge even in your own religion is weak and you replies this? If you want to counter this all just by calling me immature then live in your bubble of lies.Also a person who believes in magic calls me immature. Wow this is a twists.

  8. Rick wrote:

    “I am sorry, what arguments, you are confusing arguments with accusations.”

    Here I will write all according to me mocking tones of Rick who he thinks are arguments.

    These are arguments?:

    – So SmartLX, why don’t you create a site “Ask the Deist”, so our conversation can continue?

    This is for me mocking. You are making fun of him.

    – Rantings from Lukas..

    This is a argument? I cannot tell. If you point to everything that all that the person said is rantings then you are making fun of him.

    – Rohit the reasonable,

    You this is not making fun of someone and attacking him with sarcasm and pointing out that he is not believing him and will not believe him.

    Rick wrote:

    “Your ranting and your acquisitions about me personally imply a young immature personality.:”

    This is a argument? Calling someone that he has a immature personality??

    Second thing is I would like to see what rantings and accusations I made before. The only one I could find was this:

    “This whole debate is just a god in gasp. We do not know therefore it is god/magic/fairies did it.”

    Which I explained that its not ranting and not making fun of it. Even philosophers use these expressions when commenting on god in the gasps arguments.

    However Rick took it as a attack:

    “This I have trouble understanding, why does “God” or concepts of God evoke anger expressed in ridicule. Ridicule, is generally a defense mechanism intended to secure ones own faith. If atheists are so certain that the “eternal imperative” is not God, then why do they continue to ridicule those that do?”

    First Rick did not get it and second I apologized for the confusion and I said in a normal hard way that I do not believe in his god in the gasps argument and that I do not care what he believes but it was not a personal attack or mocking him. I also replied this way because you, Rick started this in a mocking tone.

    So again Rick. Do I have it wrong? What is your take about this whole situation without emotions..

    1. Rick wrote:

      “So when you were a believer, were you all those things you have accused me of being?”

      Nope I was not because my arguments were more better and I did not start a conversation in a mocking tone and did not ignore links which atheists posted me and I read all those stuff to learn. Even when I read all those things I could reply them in a normal way because I wanted to learn and I had not fear to face the truth.

      1. I however admit that my responses can sound hard but the truth is also hard and I rather live in the hard truth as in weak lies because when your realize that these things are lies they will destroy you more then the truth.

        Note: for lies I mean every lie not even religion.

          1. One thing I wanted to add. This whole debate is the same like the Kalam which William Lane Craig proposed. This argument is ancient and it has a lot of flaws:

            The thing which is discussed here is Kalam. Which is ancient(see wikipedia for this argument and its history – Kalām cosmological argument):

            “William Lane Craig’s version of the kalam cosmological argument is as follows:

            Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
            The universe began to exist.
            Therefore, the universe must have a cause.”

            There are however several counter-apologetics to this argument:

            “2 Counter-apologetics
            2.1 Counterargument
            2.2 Counterexample
            2.3 Circularity
            2.4 Equivocation
            2.5 Special pleading
            2.6 Why only one cause?
            2.7 Fallacy of Composition
            2.8 False Dichotomy
            2.9 So what ”

            Both quotes taken from: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

            This argument has several flaws which I already pointed out on this site in another discussion besides those listed by Iron Chariots(feel free to look there and read):

            – Even when god is involved it can be any god you want – from Zeus to even demons or pink unicorns.
            – Second this cause could have been a natural one(to which we already have some evidence) and therefore it is not needed to be a god.
            – It is a ancient argument which is repeating itself countless time from what I read it originated from Ancient Greece – Aristotle therefore I think they did not believe in a Christian god this just shows another flaw when people like Craig want to use it.
            – Another problem is that Craig is also not a honest person. If you do not believe me google theses:

            Documenting William Lane Craig’s lies about his opponents

            an-index-of-why-william-lane-craig-is-a-dishonest-genocide-defending-creepy-homophobe

            from patheos com.

            Also this argument was looked at Cosmological Kalamity at infidels.

            Okay I wanted to add this to the discussion..

            1. Lukas,
              I am not arguing that everything has a cause, I am saying that something or someone has to have always been, thus the Eternal Imperative. This is why I have asked you if you believe that everything came from nothing or do you believe that an eternal reality is imperative?
              This is the question that you will not answer.

            2. To be precise the argument history:

              The Kalām argument was named after the Kalām tradition of Islamic discursive philosophy through which it was first formulated. In Arabic, the word Kalām means “words, discussion, discourse”.

              The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle and later refined by Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes).[9] In Western Europe, it was adopted by the Christian theologian Bonaventure (See Craig, 1979, p 18). Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover, which was also propounded by Averroes.

              Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalām_cosmological_argument

              However Aristotle was the first one with his Cosmological argument.

              This shows that all people should believe then in Allah or Aristotle.

            1. Rick wrote:

              “I am not arguing that everything has a cause, I am saying that something or someone has to have always been, thus the Eternal Imperative. This is why I have asked you if you believe that everything came from nothing or do you believe that an eternal reality is imperative? This is the question that you will not answer.”

              First you are pushing the Eternal Imperative in the meaning of a God from Christian perspective. I have nothing against your eternal imperative the problem here is that you are combining two things a god who created the universe who is also loving and is according to the bible.

              Second I answered your questions already just look in the posts.
              Third I do not believe. I am not a believer I have evidence this is the difference between us. You believe and I rely on evidence. Therefore I am here with Hawkings and physics.

              Rick wrote:

              “What ever has always been could not be caused!”

              You want to say that the Universe always was?

              I have pointed here the Kalam argument because you claimed this:

              The Bible conveniently places God eternally separate from, yet responsible for the physical universe. This perspective is not “roll your eyes” ridiculous. It is saying that God (the something that has always been) caused the physical universe to come into existence.
              This statement (while amazing); is more sensible than “nothing caused everything”.

              Rick wrote:

              You say: “my arguments were more better”. How were they better?

              Because I did not ignore other links. I read all these stuff and was not so ignorant to listen what atheists had to say. You are just repeating yourself and you do not even read replies and posts. If you would you would not ask the same questions over and over like this:

              “This is why I have asked you if you believe that everything came from nothing or do you believe that an eternal reality is imperative?
              This is the question that you will not answer.”

              Or you would not ask this:

              “You say: “my arguments were more better”. How were they better?”

              When I already answered it here:

              Nope I was not because my arguments were more better and I did not start a conversation in a mocking tone and did not ignore links which atheists posted me and I read all those stuff to learn. Even when I read all those things I could reply them in a normal way because I wanted to learn and I had not fear to face the truth.

              1. Your post I have read, these links do not provide an answer to the personal question I have posed to you: Do you believe that an eternal reality is imperative or do you believe that everything came from nothing?

                1. Rick wrote:

                  “Your post I have read, these links do not provide an answer to the personal question I have posed to you: Do you believe that an eternal reality is imperative or do you believe that everything came from nothing?”

                  I answered on your question here:

                  – This is not true Rick. There are evidence for the hypothesis. Hawking is smart enough and knows his science. The same goes for Krauss. He would not create a hypothesis out of thin air and without some evidence to back this up. God on the other hand has no evidence to back him up. So sorry its not about faith its about evidence. Therefore I trust more Hawking and Krauss on this.

                  – Third I do not believe. I am not a believer I have evidence this is the difference between us. You believe and I rely on evidence. Therefore I am here with Hawkings and physics.

                  To put it in a nutshell:

                  I am here with Krauss and Hawking. I however do not believe in them because belief is about believing. Hawking and Krauss have evidence because like I wrote and quoted wikipedia a hypothesis needs evidence this is the most plausible to me.

                  However there is also another opinion to your question:

                  “Do you believe that an eternal reality is imperative or do you believe that everything came from nothing?”

                  This opinion is I do not know. I do however that there is no god(in the sense of religious scriptures) responsible for the reality or the universe.

                  Also Rick you are wrong one of the links tackles this question – The link from Iron Chariots. There are the answers why a religious god cannot be the answer to our questions..

                  1. After reading your whole posts I had to look on one of your posts that you wrote the Millstone and reply.

                    Rick wrote:

                    “My view would be that something-has-to-have-always-been as opposed to a past nothingness.”

                    First thing Krauss does not claim that there is nothing. He claims that Quantum Vacuum is responsible thanks to evidence we have.

                    Second I know that in your view there has to be a Christian god responsible for this.

                    However what if the god of the Muslims or the gods of the Ancient Greeks are responsible for this? Or what if a natural force that has no intelligence is responsible? Or Azatoth the Mad Sultan of Lovecraft fiction is responsible? Or a is evil being is responsible for this?

                    You see Rick when it comes down the the core of this question. It comes to belief and to what you belief is responsible for the creation of the universe because you have chosen your god and your religion.

                    However as I showed you science does not work this way. Science needs evidence and when it is Krauss or when it is Hawkings their hypothesis are at least based on some evidence.

                    However your conclusions are not based on evidence but only your chosen belief. You do not even have evidence that your religion is the right one? Because in the end the creator of the reality/universe could turn out to be Marduk or the Giant Spaghetti Monster?

                  2. You say: “This opinion is I do not know”!

                    My life “evidence” tells me that everything could not have come from nothing.

                    I conclude that something or someone has always been. This perspective is based upon everyday evidence. Thus the eternal imperative.

                    1. Rick said:

                      You say: “This opinion is I do not know”!

                      I just only mentioned all possibilities to this question but they are not far all. Maybe after Krauss or Hawking there will come other people with better hypothesis or even theories with more evidence. Science is great because thanks to its knowledge we know more and more.

                      Rick said:

                      “My life “evidence” tells me that everything could not have come from nothing.
                      I conclude that something or someone has always been. This perspective is based upon everyday evidence. Thus the eternal imperative.”

                      I don’t want to be evil here but when I said something similar you mocked me:

                      Rantings from Lukas:
                      – reality is my everyday life I live—(So reality centers on Lukas)

                      This is your quote Rick.

                      Also Rick after reading this quote from you again:

                      My life “evidence” tells me that everything could not have come from nothing.

                      You sound a believer from the start(according to what you wrote in your last respond) and not a ex-atheist like you claimed in one of the posts:

                      – I was once an atheist and now I am a believer!

                      However I am just pointing out things that don’t fit in what you wrote before.

                    2. Lukas makes a good point, the above should have read “Life evidence indicates that everything could not have come from nothing”

                    3. Lukas,

                      It is important to understand that while I was once an atheist, I no longer am, the evidence regarding the reality of God and the integrity of the Bible in revealing God overwhelmed my doubts. There are natural reasons and Biblical reasons for what I believe to be true and generally I do not consider the two to be in conflict. It is really to this point that I have made myself vulnerable to this site; I am willing to look at your doubts in regard to the Biblical account objectively. While I am concerned for the souls of those I encounter, I understand that I am not the key instrument for their safekeeping. I also understand that my imposition upon this site has been annoying to many, but lets face it, if the atheist perspective is right and I am wrong, it makes little difference. However, if I am correct then much is a stake.

                      You have asked a number of questions that I will attempt to answer. In summary they are:

                      Why do I not follow others claiming to be Christ?

                      Why did God create such a mess (i.e. the World)?

                      Why doesn’t God provide evidence of His reality?

                      Why does God not answer prayers?

                      And then Lukas, you seem to be convinced that man does not have a “free will”. This I will speak to as well.

                      Free will for the sake of this conversation rests in the autonomy of choice. When all the environmental and biological influences are taken into account, do we make independent choices? There would be little need for this conversation if opinions-of-choice could not be swayed. The Bible petitions mankind, it also petitions the individual soul and ultimately holds that liberty of choice (free will) necessitates responsibility for choices.

                      We have spoken of the “eternal imperative” and while the door is wide open for candidacy, the Biblical account of God is a viable candidate. Is the eternal imperative rational, intelligent or simply a cosmic always with universal capabilities?

                      If there were no candidates within the physical universe then an extra-dimensional candidate would seem likely. This extra-dimensional eternal reality would not likely be confined to the laws by which our lives are bound. Again the Biblical account of God tracks along this same path.

                      Certainly, expectations of finding and capturing God within the physical universe would seem unlikely, unless He provided mankind we the capability to comprehend Him. The Bible outlines a spiritual reality where faith is essential for a relationship with God. Faith does not exist where truth is defined physically. The Bible identifies God as “invisible”, claiming that no man has seen God, physically. If we could see God we would know that God is confined and constrained within His own creation, thus we would rightly doubt that what we were seeing was in fact God.

                      The Bible claims that God took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ for the divine purpose of reconciling man to God. This according to the Bible was done through the virgin birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no need to look for another according to the Bible, because when He returns all will know His identity.

                      This reconciliation is God’s loving reach for mankind, love must be trusted, it is apprehended by faith, it is a gift from God.

                      The Biblical reason the world is in a mess is in part because God desires a loving relationship with man. If God forced His love upon mankind, then man would be claiming that God is a cosmic rapist. The Bible outlines that God’s love is a gift extended to every man and it must be apprehended by faith. God has allowed the atheist to rebuff Him.

                      According to the Bible unanswered prayers are generally as a result of inappropriate requests or requests without genuine faith. Ultimately the believer is to want what God wants for them, to trust in His loving plan for their life.

                      The Bible also speaks of two lives and two deaths. The first life is physical life and the first death is separation from this physical reality. The second life is eternal, life in the presence of God. The second death follows the first death, it is life totally isolated from the love of God.

                      All of these answers come back to faith in God; they also presuppose that there is a God. If one presupposes that there is no God then, none of this will hold any weight.

  9. Rick wrote:

    Lukas,

    “It is important to understand that while I was once an atheist, I no longer am, the evidence regarding the reality of God and the integrity of the Bible in revealing God overwhelmed my doubts.”

    – According to this quote from you I doubt you were atheist to begin with:

    “My life “evidence” tells me that everything could not have come from nothing.
    I conclude that something or someone has always been. This perspective is based upon everyday evidence. Thus the eternal imperative.”

    – Also your rest of replies are in such a manner that you do not understand science or atheism at all. Therefore I do not believe you Rick that you are a atheist. You did not even know what a hypothesis is. You did not read any books about atheism or even about science. You ignore many links here and you just keep telling the same over and over again. Also according to your quoting of the bible it seems to me that you are top over the head in this and this smells to me that you were not a atheist to begin with because a atheist who becomes a believer has some doubts and does not swallow the bible book whole like you did.

    Rick wrote:

    There are natural reasons and Biblical reasons for what I believe to be true and generally I do not consider the two to be in conflict. It is really to this point that I have made myself vulnerable to this site; I am willing to look at your doubts in regard to the Biblical account objectively.

    – Our doubts? What have you looked at Rick? You just keep ignoring everything a person posts here which is not consistent with your view and keep on repeating the same arguments over and over again a fine example is here:

    Rantings from Lukas:
    – reality is my everyday life I live—(So reality centers on Lukas)

    To which Rick replied this:

    Lukas makes a good point, the above should have read “Life evidence indicates that everything could not have come from nothing”

    Second you came here not to teach us something but to mock this whole site. Some of the quotes where Rick is making fun and mocking:

    – So SmartLX, why don’t you create a site “Ask the Deist”, so our conversation can continue?
    – Rantings from Lukas..
    – Rohit the reasonable,

    Rick wrote:

    While I am concerned for the souls of those I encounter, I understand that I am not the key instrument for their safekeeping. I also understand that my imposition upon this site has been annoying to many, but lets face it, if the atheist perspective is right and I am wrong, it makes little difference. However, if I am correct then much is a stake.

    – Nothing is at stake. You are not a martyr here or a enemy even when you would like to view yourself this way. The problem with you is that you are just ignoring and this is why everyone has stopped to debate you here. I will maybe also because this is useless. Its like talking to a brick wall. Second thing is that if you are right the universe would be different and third. I think that even a lot of atheists and skeptics would be happy that there is a god and a afterlife however judging not only from the behavior of the priests and bishops or the pope I think that even the hierarchy does not believe in the teachings of their own bible.

    Rick wrote:

    “You have asked a number of questions that I will attempt to answer. In summary they are:

    Why do I not follow others claiming to be Christ?

    Why did God create such a mess (i.e. the World)?

    Why doesn’t God provide evidence of His reality?

    Why does God not answer prayers?”

    – There is much more questions that I asked.

    Rick wrote:

    And then Lukas, you seem to be convinced that man does not have a “free will”. This I will speak to as well.

    Free will for the sake of this conversation rests in the autonomy of choice. When all the environmental and biological influences are taken into account, do we make independent choices? There would be little need for this conversation if opinions-of-choice could not be swayed. The Bible petitions mankind, it also petitions the individual soul and ultimately holds that liberty of choice (free will) necessitates responsibility for choices.”

    – You did not have read the wikipedia article. That free will is a illusion. You know nothing about neuroscience from what you wrote because if you would read it Rick this is what its written there:

    “It is quite likely that a large range of cognitive operations are necessary to freely press a button. Research at least suggests that our conscious self does not initiate all behavior. Instead, the conscious self is somehow alerted to a given behavior that the rest of the brain and body are already planning and performing.”

    – this is from the wikipedia neuroscience of free will that I posted the link here several times.

    Also another problem is Rick that thanks to new research in neuroscience we now know that psychopaths have no empathy that means they were born that way that they have no empathy for others. Does that mean they will all go to hell because they are born or became this and cannot have empathy? Just read this:

    Neurological basis for lack of empathy in psychopaths – Science daily:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924174331.htm

    Rick wrote:

    “We have spoken of the “eternal imperative” and while the door is wide open for candidacy, the Biblical account of God is a viable candidate. Is the eternal imperative rational, intelligent or simply a cosmic always with universal capabilities?”

    – So is the god of Moslems, the god of Hindus, Buddhas cosmology, Zeus, Moloch, aliens, Satan, Matrix, Pluto, Marduk and every magic being you can even think off. It depends on what old fairy tale you believe in without evidence.
    – Second there is a problem if your god is the true one then all those non believers who believe for example in Allah will go to hell. What a evil and sadistic god this is..

    Rick wrote:

    “If there were no candidates within the physical universe then an extra-dimensional candidate would seem likely. This extra-dimensional eternal reality would not likely be confined to the laws by which our lives are bound. Again the Biblical account of God tracks along this same path.”

    – Have you some evidence for a extra-dimensional eternal reality?? Second if there is even a extra dimensional reality this reality must not be eternal and it must not be the reality of a Christian god. You have no evidence for these things. Nope this is just your philosophical answer. Also not only the bible tells about other dimensions. Greeks had Tartarus where Hades was. Allah again has heaven in another dimension. There are many other myths with the same magic other dimensions. So which one god is now true? Of course you believe its yours Rick because you have just belief and no evidence to back this up.

    Rick wrote:

    “Certainly, expectations of finding and capturing God within the physical universe would seem unlikely, unless He provided mankind we the capability to comprehend Him.”

    – Yes like all gods in the past so why should your god be different? Even Zeus had his own cult. Or even demons like Satan have their cults. Does that make them more real? I do not think so.

    Rick wrote:

    “The Bible outlines a spiritual reality where faith is essential for a relationship with God. Faith does not exist where truth is defined physically. The Bible identifies God as “invisible”, claiming that no man has seen God, physically. If we could see God we would know that God is confined and constrained within His own creation, thus we would rightly doubt that what we were seeing was in fact God. “

    – This claims all the ancient myths. Zeus was up in heavens. Allah cannot be seen etc. Also you need to have even faith in Marduk. This again is no answer Rick.

    Rick wrote:

    “The Bible claims that God took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ for the divine purpose of reconciling man to God.”

    – There are countless people who claimed this for example:

    Throughout history, emperors and rules in diverse cultures have assumed titles that reflect their filial relationship with deities.[1] The title “Son of Heaven” i.e. 天子 (from 天 meaning sky/heaven/god and 子 meaning child) was first used in the Western Zhou dynasty (c. 1000 B.C.).

    The Emperor of Japan was also called the Son of Heaven (天子 tenshi) starting in the early 7th century
    Given that in Greek mythology, Heracles and many other figures, were considered sons of gods such as Zeus, from around 360 BC

    Just take a look in here: Son of God in wikipedia.

    – The idea that god take the shape of a human is ancient also. Many ancient gods took the form of mortal men.

    Rick wrote:

    “This according to the Bible was done through the virgin birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no need to look for another according to the Bible, because when He returns all will know His identity. “

    – Virgin birth is also old and ancient and it’s a myth:

    Finish mythology:

    Marjatta: while herding, she eats a lingonberry and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a boy who will grow up to be the king of Karelia.

    See rationalwiki virgin birth.

    Rick wrote:

    “This reconciliation is God’s loving reach for mankind, love must be trusted, it is apprehended by faith, it is a gift from God.”

    – This is like preaching and not answers to my questions. I now even more doubt that you were a atheist.

    Rick wrote:

    “The Biblical reason the world is in a mess is in part because God desires a loving relationship with man. If God forced His love upon mankind, then man would be claiming that God is a cosmic rapist.”

    – First god is weaker then a chemical reaction in his brain – hence love?
    – Second that is pathetic what you wrote that god would be a rapist? You relieve believe that. First thing Rick you know what would god do? Second a scientist is a rapist when he shows us the truth and a cure to cancer?? You are really a dreamer and funny a top of that.

    Rick wrote:

    “The Bible outlines that God’s love is a gift extended to every man and it must be apprehended by faith. God has allowed the atheist to rebuff Him.”

    – No its not god loves. It is that god never existed like Zeus and others have not existed. I see no difference between Zeus and other cults then your Christian god.

    Rick wrote:

    “According to the Bible unanswered prayers are generally as a result of inappropriate requests or requests without genuine faith. Ultimately the believer is to want what God wants for them, to trust in His loving plan for their life.”

    – Yeah the same stupid and chicken argument. God knows best even when all were praying against Hitler or a tornado. God knew best that Hitler is a saint or that tornado is good therefore he released them upon the world. Yeah therefore prayer is useless if god knows best I had not to pray at all and have the same results. Also what is appropriate payer and what is not? I seen people with genuine faith and these people lost their children to sickness and were faith believers that ranged to fanaticism and god did not answer their prayer. They were like you Rick but god abandoned them because there was no god at all.

    Rick wrote:

    “The Bible also speaks of two lives and two deaths. The first life is physical life and the first death is separation from this physical reality. The second life is eternal, life in the presence of God. The second death follows the first death, it is life totally isolated from the love of God. “

    – Rick this is preaching again. If I want a preaching thing I would read the bible. Also I know these things. I was expecting a normal discussion and not a preaching session.

    Rick wrote:

    “All of these answers come back to faith in God; they also presuppose that there is a God. If one presupposes that there is no God then, none of this will hold any weight.”

    – Yes Rick this you have it right. Its all faith. Nothing more. This is what is the difference between science and religion. Religion is based only on faith which has many illogical problems and has no evidence. Science is based on logic and evidence..
    – I am disappointed Rick. I waited for normal answers and what I got? Preaching from the bible. If this convinces you then it is sad. You just showed me that you are only a strong believer and that you were no atheist at all. I do not believe you that you are a atheist or that you are a seeker of truth. You are blind by your faith alone and therefore you do not seek truth but only a confirmation of your beliefs.

      1. Rick wrote:

        “According to the Bible unanswered prayers are generally as a result of inappropriate requests or requests without genuine faith. Ultimately the believer is to want what God wants for them, to trust in His loving plan for their life.”

        – Also wanted to add one thing:

        Theologians are fighting to this day to find the answer why god answers some prayers and some not and mostly answer that a human cannot understand god but I see that Rick knows all the answers and that from the bible. Hmm. nice.

        1. Last thing what Rick said I wanted to add after reading one of his posts:

          Rick said:

          “Ultimately the believer is to want what God wants for them, to trust in His loving plan for their life.””

          – So god send all those people to Auschwitz because he loved them Rick? He send all those catholics to death by Stalin because he loved them? Those priests and even Jews were praying that they will not die by the hands of the Nazis or Soviets that a god would send them a army from the US or whatever to destroy Auschwitz for example or a bomb from the Allies would fall on the concentration camps but nothing like that happened and so many prayed for that but nothing happened.

          I cannot follow your logic Rick here.

          1. Lukas,
            If this life is all there is, then you are correct, but then that is the question isn’t it? The Bible says this life is but a vapor in contrast to eternity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *