Afterlife….How About For You?

[Blues Man]

I’m not so sure about that. Empirical trust in a process (science) that will assiduously test and challenge, vs, “faith”, well, there’s a HUGE difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant.

Scientists cannot study God and things of the spirit. Both are outside the parameters of science because science is limited to physical matter. That is why God, religion, and spiritual matters belong in the realm of philosophy. When anything spiritual edges into the physical world, then anyone interested in truth and fact should be open to what science reveals to us. God stands for truth. He is unafraid of truth, and so should we.

And there are many schools of philosophy and none of them has all the answers.

Would you take exception at your religion being called a philosophy and that it was no more valid than any other school of philosophy?

Personally I am partial to Stoicism.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't want kids being taught religion in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationists who believe a god will scoop us all up and save us condemns us to a horrible fate and absolute destruction. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and as history shows-- the fear then was galvanizing. Now Christians want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our desert gods. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep your creationism where it belongs-- in your churches and your dinner tables, and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought and evidence.

Religion should not be taught in place of science any more than math (or any other subject) should be taught in place of. My own opinion is that religion should be offered as another elective in our schools. So, not in place of science, in addition to science. The biggest mistake the Protestant denomination made was to announce no one needed to be instructed in the Bible--everyone could read and understand it on their own. Most foolish statement ever made. The Bible should be studied, not read, and by teachers who are trained not only in the Bible, but Biblical cultures, history, and languages. If this happened, silly and relatively modern notions that the earth is six thousand years old and people being snatched up into the sky would quickly dissipate as proper knowledge takes its place.

Here is the reason: Life is much more than knowledge. At the end of life, people do not wish for knowledge of rockets, satellites, and technology. Religion may not make people smarter, but it does make them stronger and better disciplined.

And before anyone objects about "which" religion: ANY and all religion that fills a classroom if students choose that elective.

 

[Meriweather]

Would you take exception at your religion being called a philosophy and that it was no more valid than any other school of philosophy?

Imagine a three columns with these headings: Science, Language, Philosophy.

Under science is Rocket Science any more valid than Marine Biology? Under Language, is Spanish more valid than Cantonese? Under Religion, is Catholicism more valid than Stoicism? Of course not. While all these examples are very different they legitimately fall under the same heading. Just as we would not teach Cantonese as a science, nor should we teach marine biology as a religion--and so on and so forth.

 

[Meriweather]

I have to disagree that faith is based on reason and rationality. That's not meant to be dismissive of your comment but the very fact that one’s faith is overwhelming a function of parentage and geographic place of birth means that reason and rationality are not factors.

Think of it this way. More than one branch of science can claim to be based on reason and rationality. In fact, each one can. The same is true of religion. Also, parentage and geographic of birth may also be a factor in determining what branch of science to which a person is drawn.

 

[Hollie]

I have to disagree that faith is based on reason and rationality. That's not meant to be dismissive of your comment but the very fact that one’s faith is overwhelming a function of parentage and geographic place of birth means that reason and rationality are not factors.

Think of it this way. More than one branch of science can claim to be based on reason and rationality. In fact, each one can. The same is true of religion. Also, parentage and geographic of birth may also be a factor in determining what branch of science to which a person is drawn.

Ultimately, all branches of science conform to the discipline of the Scientific Method. Hypothesis, testing, observation and modification of the hypothesis are a part of biology, chemistry, the physical sciences, etc.

The methods of the Scientific Method don't change subject to place of birth. For example, the study of the effects of gravity and how it affects ocean tides or the study of bacterial microbiology are not specific to place of birth.

 

[Meriweather]

Yes i was an only child and not that it's anyone's business but I was orphaned at 14

And I am not suspicious I just don't trust very many people. In fact as of this minute there are only 3 people on this entire planet I trust.

I agree, it is no one's business, and I feel badly that you lost your parents at 14. Not to be cute, but are the three people on the planet you trust, also the ones who agree to do things your way?

The reason I asked, is that we seem to have such different perspectives and I was curious as to what helped to build each of our perspectives. I see that growing up, I learned to function as part of a unit (Oh, no! The Borg! ) You seemed view what you wanted or did not want, should have been central to how your family functioned, and you got a little peeved when it did not.

In a family of ten, one does not see it as who can be trusted and who cannot; one learns who can be trusted for what--and who is best suited to assist with any particular issue. People move in and out of that position of greatest trust depending on what is going on.

 

[Hollie]

I don't want kids being taught religion in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationists who believe a god will scoop us all up and save us condemns us to a horrible fate and absolute destruction. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and as history shows-- the fear then was galvanizing. Now Christians want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our desert gods. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep your creationism where it belongs-- in your churches and your dinner tables, and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought and evidence.

Religion should not be taught in place of science any more than math (or any other subject) should be taught in place of. My own opinion is that religion should be offered as another elective in our schools. So, not in place of science, in addition to science. The biggest mistake the Protestant denomination made was to announce no one needed to be instructed in the Bible--everyone could read and understand it on their own. Most foolish statement ever made. The Bible should be studied, not read, and by teachers who are trained not only in the Bible, but Biblical cultures, history, and languages. If this happened, silly and relatively modern notions that the earth is six thousand years old and people being snatched up into the sky would quickly dissipate as proper knowledge takes its place.

Here is the reason: Life is much more than knowledge. At the end of life, people do not wish for knowledge of rockets, satellites, and technology. Religion may not make people smarter, but it does make them stronger and better disciplined.

And before anyone objects about "which" religion: ANY and all religion that fills a classroom if students choose that elective.

The Constitution forbids religion being taught in schools. Christians have the option of Sunday school if they want their children taught Christianity. Have you considered the practical implications of dozens of religions competing for public school space, time and money for instructors and materials? Who manages, for example, twelve different religious groups demanding equal time and resources for public school classroom time?

It's unworkable, unconstitutional and takes away resources from core curriculums.

 

[Meriweather]

The methods of the Scientific Method don't change subject to place of birth. For example, the study of the effects of gravity and how it affects ocean tides or the study of bacterial microbiology are not specific to place of birth.

Religious practices also share commonalities: We believe and worship a being greater than self. We pray. We gather together. We draw comfort and give comfort to one another.

I am not saying that religion is better than science. I am saying each has its place and purpose. We should not be like a pie that is arguing over what is not needed--the crust, the fruit, the sugar. Each part of the pie serves a purpose. So does each of the disciplines we choose to be part of our lives. Yes, when we serve up the lasagna, some might prefer more garlic and less basil, just as some today prefer more science and less religion. Still, there is room for both in life.

 

[Meriweather]

The Constitution forbids religion being taught in schools.

Not true. The Constitution says the State cannot choose what religion a person wishes to practice. Right now, it appears the State is saying no to practicing any religion. If we were following the Constitution, in public places we should be seeing marks of ALL religions, not no mark of any religion. For the State, it is just easier to rule no religion in public places than embrace all religions in public places. The Constitution says to embrace the practice of all religions, not something that is chosen by the State. It appears the modern State wants to choose secularism and worship of State as the religion. That was not the intent of the Constitution.

 

[Meriweather]

It's unworkable, unconstitutional and takes away resources from core curriculums.

How does any elective take away resources from core curriculum? Do you argue the usual electives of music, art, drama, technology, PE, and languages take away resources from core curriculum?

 

[Hollie]

It's unworkable, unconstitutional and takes away resources from core curriculums.

How does any elective take away resources from core curriculum? Do you argue the usual electives of music, art, drama, technology, PE, and languages take away resources from core curriculum?

Religious instruction is not a part of core curriculum in public schools. As State entities, the constitution forbids public schools from teaching / endorsing religion. That principle of the Constitution (Establishment Clause), has been upheld repeatedly.

 

[Meriweather]

Religious instruction is not a part of core curriculum in public schools. As State entities, the constitution forbids public schools from teaching / endorsing religion. That principle of the Constitution (Establishment Clause), has been upheld repeatedly.

Teaching about a religion does not establish a religion. Congress shall make no law regarding religion...and they have made plenty. In fact, the Supreme Court is equally guilty. No one should blink twice about religions being taught and practiced in this country. Government is supposed to stay out of religion. And if they had, overall, it would be more in line with the Constitution.

 

[Hollie]

The Constitution forbids religion being taught in schools.

Not true. The Constitution says the State cannot choose what religion a person wishes to practice. Right now, it appears the State is saying no to practicing any religion. If we were following the Constitution, in public places we should be seeing marks of ALL religions, not no mark of any religion. For the State, it is just easier to rule no religion in public places than embrace all religions in public places. The Constitution says to embrace the practice of all religions, not something that is chosen by the State. It appears the modern State wants to choose secularism and worship of State as the religion. That was not the intent of the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents anyone from bringing a "holy text" to a public school or even a group of students wishing to gather outside of classes to pray.

It is unconstitutional for public schools to hold/promote or teach religion as a part of their syllabus. If you believe that is misinformation or a misunderstanding of the Constitution, that argument is for the courts and the courts have ruled consistently.

The Establishment Clause and the Schools: A Legal Bulletin

www.aclu.org

 

[Hollie]

Religious instruction is not a part of core curriculum in public schools. As State entities, the constitution forbids public schools from teaching / endorsing religion. That principle of the Constitution (Establishment Clause), has been upheld repeatedly.

Teaching about a religion does not establish a religion. Congress shall make no law regarding religion...and they have made plenty. In fact, the Supreme Court is equally guilty. No one should blink twice about religions being taught and practiced in this country. Government is supposed to stay out of religion. And if they had, overall, it would be more in line with the Constitution.

Describe the public school syllabus that teaches about religion. And, government is staying out of religion by not teaching religion in the public schools.

Your argument effectively takes the position of those already adjudicated by the courts. The Constitution has survived the challenge of those wishing to have religion as a part of the public school syllabus.

 

[Hollie]

The Constitution forbids religion being taught in schools.

Not true. The Constitution says the State cannot choose what religion a person wishes to practice. Right now, it appears the State is saying no to practicing any religion. If we were following the Constitution, in public places we should be seeing marks of ALL religions, not no mark of any religion. For the State, it is just easier to rule no religion in public places than embrace all religions in public places. The Constitution says to embrace the practice of all religions, not something that is chosen by the State. It appears the modern State wants to choose secularism and worship of State as the religion. That was not the intent of the Constitution.

The Establishment Clause is somewhat different than your interpretation. It prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress, a State religion, thus discrimination against those not holding the government religion.

 

[Meriweather]

It is unconstitutional for public schools to hold/promote or teach religion as a part of their syllabus. If you believe that is misinformation or a misunderstanding of the Constitution, that argument is for the courts and the courts have ruled consistently.

No. It is not. No one can force a student into a religion class, but it may, indeed, be offered as an elective. Most schools who have gone this route usually do a general religion study.

What are you so afraid of? Parents and students can decide on whether to choose this course as elective, or choose one of the other many electives. Do you expect parents and volunteers to teach science to their child for an hour once a week? Or, do you prefer science to be taught by a professional? Why are you so eager to deny religion classes this same consideration?

 

[Meriweather]

The Establishment Clause is somewhat different than your interpretation. It prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress, a State religion, thus discrimination against those not holding the government religion.

That is my understanding. Government may not establish a religion. Teaching classes about religion(s) is not establishing a religion.

 

[ding]

there is no reason to believe in anything without empirical proof

You get absolute proof after you die. It doesn't matter if you don't believe it.

So IF there is an afterlife and a supreme being I will believe it after I see it.

But I don't really think I will see anything after I'm dead

He may just grant you your wish to be left alone and withdraw his spirit from you. Some people don’t know what they had until they lose it.

Some people think they have something then realize it was all just fantasy

Actually that doesn’t seem to be very common. What almost everyone will recognize is that it is extremely common to take something for granted which is exactly what happens to people who don’t realize what they had until they lose it.

which is exactly the denial you are making to avoid the totally uncommon phenomenon you have described. So which one of these two are you at risk for now?

Well since if I tell you I'm not in denial you will use that statement as proof that I am in denial. So you tell me what you believe I am in denial of.

And where is your evidence that the situation I described is uncommon?

Or is that merely your opinion?

First of all everything is propaganda. The trick is to sort through it to find the truth. So I’m not the guy that you probably think I am if you think I can’t be persuaded because I can. I am always searching for the truth. But I am also a bit of a contrarian in that when I see someone who doesn’t have a balanced view I will tend to argue the other side to bring balance to the picture. So if you actually argue both sides more than likely we will find ourselves collaborating instead of locking horns. Let me ask you this question. Do you truly understand how evolution works? Because if you understood how it worked it might change how you approach life. It’s very much like the technology cycle where when an idea reaches its practically complete state it bursts onto the scene in an explosion. This is called the inflationary phase. Then slight differences work to compete against each other during the equilibrium phase. It’s the slight differences which drives the competition until the next big leap is achieved and the process starts all over again. This is how progress works and it is not just limited to biology. The same thing can be said for consciousness and this is exactly how truth is discovered. So differences in opinions are not bad. But the ones who can look at both sides objectively will have an advantage as long as they are not interested in steering the outcome but are interested in discovering the truth. That’s where I am at.

So with that said, let me answer your questions as I see them. You are in denial that you can be wrong about the existence of God. It’s not that you have faith in what you believe as much as it is you have faith that you can’t be wrong. I say this because I don’t believe you have ever really considered the possibility that God exists. I say this because I was in a similar position 25 years ago. And it wasn’t until probably 15 years ago that I had a notion that I was wrong. So I have an idea of what it is like to not realize that there is the spirit of God in all of us and I also have an idea of what it might be like if he were to withdraw his spirit and how only then would those who never knew they had it be able to know what they had lost.

It is extremely common for people to take for granted things that they have. And it is extremely common for people to realize that they took it for granted when they lose it. I can name dozens of real life examples.

How many examples can you name where people think they have something then realize it was all just fantasy?

In closing, while I can be persuaded the person persuading me will need to have truth on his side which means he has already argued both sides himself and what he believes is locked down tight. Because otherwise any errors in his view will be exposed during the conflict and confusion process of the equilibrium phase which is where competition determines the truth.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Afterlife….How About For You?
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Let me step back for a moment so that I may explain myself in an alternative way. When considering the fundamentals of logic, leading to truth, there are three "Laws of Thought" that must be considered:

The three Laws of Thought​

​

(1) The Law of Contradiction, (it is impossible for "proposition" and "not proposition" to be true simultaneously). The "Proposition" cannot be true (T) and not true [False (F)] at the same time.​

​

(2) The Law of the Excluded Middle Ground (There are only two states for any proposition - it is either true or not true. There is no gray area.)​

​

(3) The Principle of Identity. (A proposition is equal to itself.) ​

As for your inability to not be able to look past the word inalienable, let me say that it should be logical that everyone has a duty and an obligation to the creator to behave with virtue.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of problems here.

◈ A proposition that something is "inalienable" (in this case "Natural Law") is either "True" or "Not True" for everyone → everywhere → simultaneously. Conditional Statement: IF North Korea is populated by "people," and the United States is populated by "people" THEN it is not possible for one population of people to have an "inalienable right" that the other population of people does not.​

​

NOTE: If it were truly inalienable...​

And if one doesn’t then there are logically consequences. But the key to the phrase inalienable is that the rights are granted for no other reason than we are God’s creatures.

(COMMENT)

This is flawed because it is based on an unverifiable statement of fact (Creationist Theory) for which the truth of it is not in evidence.

You don’t have to earn them. They are granted freely but they are not unconditional.

(COMMENT)

Granted freely by whom?

The Law of the Excluded Middle Ground (There are only two states for any proposition - it is either true or not true. There is no gray area.) preclude the possibility that one population is bound by conditions before granted inalienable rights that the other population is not. The Law of Identity must be the same for both populations. You cannot have conditions on one side of the equation that are not on the other side of the equation.

Maybe you should read more sources on nature’s law. I’m not the one making up these beliefs. These were commonly held beliefs for a very long time. Try reading Blackstone, Coke, Aquinas, ancient Greeks, Locke, America’s Founding Fathers. Or even wiki, lol.

(COMMENT)

Oh, for heaven's sake → yes! I'll do my very best to catch up with you. American Founding Fathers' thoughts on "natural law" are unique to America. That uniqueness is still obvious over two centuries later - looking at the COVID-19 pandemic treatment. The most recent example is the controversy over The Democrats’ Gamble on Health Care for the Undocumented. Or the controversy touched-off by the decisions to withhold fair treatment: She's an undocumented immigrant, a taxpayer and an essential worker. But she won't get a stimulus check.

​

The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. ​

​

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings.

I don't capitalize william for the same reason. Too many williams created by human beings.

The name of the Christian god is not God.

I'll capitalize

Assuming, of course, that you’re not a government school nihilist…y'know, and believe human beings are nothing but accidental constructions of mud and dust.

For those of us who believe otherwise.....

1.We learned about reward and punishment early on, perhaps via this catechism:

He's making a list
He's checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town

He sees when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you been good or bad
So be good for goodness sake

2. At some point later in life it became a more serious question, whether there is something after we shuffle off this mortal coil, and might give some of us pause. Of course, not those victims of government school indoctrination, which does everything possible to marginalize, ridicule, erase, any links to religious traditions. For those folks, it’s government we must worship, and the best part is that the great god government is there to reward all no matter if they’re good or bad. Kind of removes that burden of responsibility.



3. But…”Christian beliefs about life after death are based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection are part of God’s divine plan for humankind. Through his death on the cross, Jesus pays the penalty for mankind's sin and mankind's relationship with God is restored. This is called atonement. Christians believe that three days after the crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead and he once again appeared to his disciples. This is taken to mean that Jesus’ sacrifice was a victory over sin and death. Although physical death still happens, those who believe in Christ and live good lives will be given eternal life in Heaven.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zn6ncdm/revision/3.

And if you read Dante, you have a darn good picture of the damage you will face, depending on how bad you are. Although there was a bar called ‘The Ninth Circle,” in the Village, that was pretty OK……

I always gravitated to the view of the Argentine poet, Jorge Louis Borges: "I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library"



4. The Old Testament appears to be clear, if subtle, on the issue of an afterlife.

In telling Abraham, the first Jewish person, of his future, there is this:

15.15 As for you, You shall go to your fathers

“Often, in describing death, the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible use the phrase “gathered to one’s kin.” Here, the Torah describes Abram’s eventual death as Abram going “to your fathers.” For reasons I will explain at length, the Torah never directly declares there is an afterlife. But throughout the Torah, an afterlife is clearly implied. Sarna notes, “In whatever form, the phrase certainly originates from the belief in an afterlife in which one is reunited with one’s ancestors irrespective of where they are buried.” Dennis Prager, “Genesis”



Make you feel better?

Why would it?

DEad is dead there is nothing after

So you best make the most of each and everyday you wake up ans draw breath

"Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if a god was really omniscient wouldn't he know if a person is only pretending?

You just admitted that you think god can be duped by mere mortals

The two gifts accorded mankind are free will and intelligence.


God didn't create robots.


In Genesis, we have an occasion where God loses an argument to one of his creations....

I refer to Prager's book, "Genesis."


"GOD IS MORALLY CHALLENGED—A FIRST IN HUMAN HISTORY

18.24 What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? Abraham argues for sparing the entire city of Sodom if fifty innocent people live there.

18.25 Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Abraham not only argues with God, he declares God wrong—“Far be it from You”—if God should kill the innocent along with the guilty. The Hebrew words chalila l’cha may also be translated, “Don’t you dare do such a thing . . .” It is astonishing that anyone would feel he could speak to a deity in this way. Such a statement is unique among all bibles and perhaps all holy literature. But it is the essence of the Torah and of later Judaism that humans may have so real a relationship with God that we can actually speak this way to Him. This negotiation between Abraham and God led Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to title his book on Abraham and the history of Jewish lawyers Abra- ham: The World’s First (But Certainly Not Last) Jewish Lawyer.

18.25 (cont.) Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

Abraham was arguing a principle made famous thousands of years later by the English jurist William Blackstone. Known as “Blackstone’s Formulation” and still adhered to today in Western legal thought, it postulated “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”4 What is as incredible as Abraham’s arguing with God is his assumption that God is just. It is incredible because we know of no other people at that time or be- fore who made such an assumption about their god(s). This assumption changed history. Never had a human being challenged a god or gods on moral grounds. This is one of many reasons the Torah is as different from pre-Torah thought as life is from non-life, and it is therefore one of the many reasons the Torah—like the emergence of life from non-life—can best be explained by attributing it to God.

Equally amazing, God was in no way upset with Abraham for arguing with Him, or even for the manner (verse 25) in which Abraham spoke to Him. God responded to Abraham’s moral argument by agreeing with him.



He prefaced his next request with a statement of humility.

18.28 What if the fifty innocent should lack five? Will You destroy the whole city for want of the five?” As a bargaining technique, Abraham did not say “forty-five.” He wanted to empha- size the number “five” hoping a compassionate God would not destroy an entire city because just five fewer good people resided there.

18.28 (cont.) And He answered, “I will not destroy if I find forty-five there.”

18.29 But he spoke to Him again, and said, “What if forty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not do it, for the sake of the forty.” Abraham kept lowering the number of innocent people. And God kept agreeing.

18.30 And he said, “Let not my Lord be angry if I go on: What if thirty should be

found there?” And He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

18.31 And he said, “I venture again to speak to my Lord: What if twenty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not destroy, for the sake of the twenty.”



18.32 And he said, “Let not my Lord be angry if I speak out this last time: What if ten should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten.”

Nevertheless, a small group, as Abraham’s appeal suggests, can make a moral impact. In fact, most of the good that has ever even achieved has been initiated by small groups. Examples include the extraordinary group of founders of America, the handful of Christians who brought about the abolition of slavery, the dissidents in the Soviet Union and other tyrannies who helped bring down evil regimes, and the moral impact of the tiny group of people known as Jews.

In addition to a preoccupation with justice, Abraham demonstrated a concern for humanity in general (starting with the extraordinary hospitality he exhibited at the chapter’s opening). The people of Sodom are not his family, his people, his ethnicity, or his religion, yet their fate weighed on him."


God, in fact, appears to appreciate his creation exhibiting this sort of behavior and initiative.

So your god would congratulate an atheist for pretending to believe in him and then reward said atheist with eternal life in heaven ?

He kind of sounds like an idiot to me if he is so easily fooled

My 'God' is capitalized.

Didn't you learn that in government school?


Bet you can't quote where I said "god would congratulate an atheist for pretending to believe in him and then reward said atheist with eternal life in heaven."

Either you aren't the swiftest of students, or you believe that lying is a valid manner of advancing your argument.
Which is it?


To correct you, I've said that there is a determination for reward and punishment in an afterlife.

I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings.

So tell me why are you using Pascal's wager for an argument if the god you believe in can see right through it?

if you really believe that your god is omniscient wouldn't you be telling people that those who would make Pascal's wager are doomed because their ruse would be immediately discovered by a god that knows all?

Or do you really believe people should lie about believing in a god?

"I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings."

You know very well you're lying.....and that's the answer to my earlier question....you believe lying is acceptable.

The reason you don't capitalize the term is to show the sort of disrespect for the concept, and you've been trained to do.

I am not lying.

Humans have worshiped many gods.

The one you worship is just one in a very long list of gods.

And I told you why I don't capitalize the word god. It has nothing to do with your beliefs.

And FYI my mother was extremely religious so no one taught me not to capitalize the word god. I decided to do that of my own free will

There is only one God, it is the Judeo-Christian one that served as a foundation for the folks who created this nation.

You really didn't learn anything in that government school, did you.



Out of pity, I'll provide this:

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

No religion should be taught in public schools

And YOU say there is only one god and you are hardly a credible source

I for one have seen no proof that any gods exist

One is being taught now, you fool: militant secularism, neo-Marxism.

The only religion banned is that of our Founders.



1. "Third-Grade Teacher Has Students Write ‘Get Well’ Cards To Cop Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal A third-grade teacher at a public school in New Jersey is under fire after she encouraged her students to write letters to notorious convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who recently fell ill in prison.

Marylin Zuniga teaches language arts and social studies at Forest Street School in Orange, N.J."

Third-Grade Teacher Has Students Write ‘Get Well’ Cards To Cop Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal



2. - School's Nation of Islam Handout Paints Founding Fathers as Racists


"School's Nation of Islam Handout Paints Founding Fathers as Racists
The teacher also told Sommer that her son was not supposed to take the Nation of Islam handout home. It was supposed to stay in the classroom. That bit of news caused her great alarm.
“The fact that students were cautioned against allowing their parents to see anything is deeply troubling,” West told me. “The only reasonable explanation is they don’t want parents to know what it is their children are learning.”

3. Under pressure from transgender activists, progressive politicians, teacher unions, and the education establishment, and despite parents’ opposition, America’s public schools are capitulating to ideologues and implementing the radical transgender agenda with full force.
...regardless of biological sex, .... Activists want every child, from kindergarten on, to learn that “sex” is something “assigned at birth” rather than a biological reality. They want children to think that individuals get to choose their own “gender identity” (not limited to male or female), and that everyone else must affirm that “gender identity” as true.


...nothing that parents (or teachers) can do to prevent the schools from imposing policies designed to indoctrinate children with gender ideology.

In public education, the “deep state” describes a coalition of various groups – including teachers’ unions, progressive advocacy groups, major corporations, and philanthropists --that work together to promote the progressive worldview..."
America’s Public Education System: The Ultimate Deep State





4. The National Education Association approved a new "business item" expressing support for abortion access during its annual conference in Houston.

"[T]he NEA will include an assertion of our defense of a person's right to control their own body, especially for women, youth, and sexually marginalized people," the resolution states. "The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade."

The NEA is the largest teachers' union in the U.S. with more than 3 million members. It collected nearly $400 million from American educators in 2018, according to federal labor filings. The union is also one of the most politically active in the country, spending $70 million on politics and lobbying in 2017 and 2018. Nearly all of the union's political action committee spending went to Democrats during the midterm cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


NEA's 2019 adopted New Business Items (NBIs) reveal what savvy teachers have known for decades: state and national teachers' unions are essentially the political action committee of the Far-Left,"
Largest U.S. Teachers' Union Endorses Abortion




5. the 20-minute video being shown in American classrooms entitled The

Story of Stuff; a catchy title to appeal to grade school kids. This piece of anti-capitalist propaganda was

put together by Greenpeace member Annie Leonard.







6. NYC schools allow kids to go on #ClimateStrike
“TEN YEARS. We have ten years to save the planet,” Mayor Bill de Blasio cautioned in a tweet. “Today’s leaders are making decisions for our environment that our kids will have to live with. New York City stands with our young people. They’re our conscience. We support the 9/20 #ClimateStrike.”

Legions of adolescent activists across the globe are expected to demand immediate action to combat climate change in advance of a major UN conference on the issue next week.

As long as mom and dad sanction their principled truancy, absent kids won’t have attendance records dinged, the DOE said.

The September 20th event will feature Sweden’s “Climate Crisis” sweetheart, 16-year old Greta Thunberg.

Teen activist and Swedish sensation Greta Thunberg, who recently docked her zero-emissions sailboat in New York, will speak at the event which will snake its way through lower Manhattan to Battery Park.

Kids with parental permission to attend will be granted excused absences from school, Education Department officials tweeted Thursday.

The infamous “Green New Deal” will be promoted as well.

The New York City climate strike is backed by more than 100 environmental and political activist groups and other institutions, including New York Communities for Change, The New School and the Sierra Club.

The protesters’ demands include a “Green New Deal” that would end fossil fuel extraction and move the nation onto entirely renewable energy sources by 2030. Green New Deal policies have been backed by the likes of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Personally, if I were one of the kids, I might argue about going to school at all. After all, if the Earth only has 10 more years before we are going to die, wouldn’t it be better to spend the time having fun or spending quality time with family?

On the other hand, if the New York City school officials were really invested in solving the climate crisis, wouldn’t they emphasize science and math? Perhaps keeping the kids in school and having them conduct experiments or perform calculations would inspire an interest in real climate science.

One theory that seems to prove true and is certainly consistent with what is happening with the New York City schools: When global problems are emphasized by locals, serious local matters are being ignored.

Case in point: New York state test results for third- through eighth-grade public school students are out, and the results are underwhelming.

Statewide, more than half the kids flunked yet again: Just 45.4% were deemed proficient in reading and 46.7% in math. In the city, 47.4% passed the reading test, while 45.6% got by in math.

Think the problem’s skimpy funding? Sorry: In 2017, the Empire Center’s E.J. McMahon reported in May, New York shelled out 89% more per kid than the national average. And that gap has been growing fast: In 1997, per-pupil outlays here were just 45% above average.

…In the city Thursday, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza tried to spin the results positively. The pass rate in English, they noted, is up 0.7 percentage points — and three whole points in math.

“Growth counts for something,” Carranza insisted.

Huh? That paltry uptick is what they’re proud of? Even though more than half the kids bombed? Please.

Notably, kids in the one category of public schools de Blasio and Carranza (and their union pals) don’t run — i.e., the charters — beat their counterparts in the regular schools by more than 10 percentage points in both English and math.

At least the kids won’t be flying private jets to attend the event. That makes them substantially less hypocritical than the celebrities who will be indoctrinating them during the Manhattan event.



NYC schools allow kids to go on #ClimateStrike



7. “Fifth-grade teacher defends wearing 'Columbus was a murderer' shirt to school” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/16/fifth-grade-teacher-defends- earing-columbus-was-a/
8. “Seattle Public Schools Say Math Is Racist
The Seattle Public Schools Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee (ESAC) released a rough draft of notes for its Math Ethnic Studies framework in late September, which attempts to connects math to a history of oppression.” Seattle Public Schools Say Math Is Racist

9. “The sex and gender revolutionaries have officially taken over the Austin Independent School District without firing a single shot. In spite of overwhelming opposition from parents and pastors, the district’s trustees voted early Tuesday morning to implement a pornographic sex education policy that includes instruction on anal sex and how to place a condom on an erect penis.

The father of a fifth grader demanded to know who gave the school district the right to teach his child how to have anal and oral sex.” Texas School District Implements Pornographic Sex Education Policy

10.” It appears the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), which held a solidarity rally this Saturday afternoon, …. seemed more like a convention of far-left radicals than the image of clean-cut teachers the CTU would like to project. Thousands of red-shirted Chicago Teachers Union members flooded into Chicago’s aptly named Union Square Park at noon today to demonstrate for solidarity and workers’ rights. Protesters embraced radical revolutionary imagery, wearing shirts with Che Guevara on them and holding signs emblazoned with the “iron fist.”

Occupy Chicago and anarchist groups as well as the Progressive Labor Party, International Socialists, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and others stood alongside teachers chanting for solidarity…” Radical left coalesces around Chicago Teacher protest


More



In the vid, teacher’s union with the Socialist iron fist banner…







11. “Racial Literacy Curriculum,” elementary schools in Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, California, Rhode Island, Missouri, and Illinois have all adopted the mind-blowing, politically-charged brainwash that they tout as education. Topics for Kindergarten to Grade 8 include: implicit bias, white privilege, intersectionality, LGBTQ issues, racism as a “primary institution of the US,” and other such leftist agenda talking points.” EXCLUSIVE: New Leftist ‘Racial Literacy Curriculum’ Brainwashing Elementary School Children

12. The Pollyana Curriculum…nationwide

“Beginning in Grade 3, the Pollyanna "Racial Literacy Curriculum" asks students to become activists in order to achieve leftist goals. The 3rd Grade chapter is entitled "Stories of Activism – How One Voice Can Change a Community." The expected result is for students to understand "how we can be agents of communal, social, political, and environmental change."

…Pollyanna takes leftist activism to new heights, fabricating an image of a racist America that children are taught to rebel against.

By Grade 8,after nine years of acute indoctrination, the children are ready to fight on behalf of leftists in America. "tudents will set commitments for rectifying current social ills, such as learning and planning how to carry out anti-racist activism and/or social advocacy in their communities and/or to improve their everyday lives." The 8th Grade chapter is entitled "Racism as a Primary 'Institution' of the U.S. – How We May Combat Systemic Inequality." EXCLUSIVE: Leftist Activism Is A Requirement Of New Elementary School Curriculum



13. “Minnesota ‘Teacher of the Year’ takes knee during National Anthem at NCAA title game” Minnesota ‘Teacher of the Year’ takes knee during National Anthem at NCAA title game | The College Fix

14. "School in Brooklyn Hands Out “Drag Queen in Training” Stickers to 4-Year-Olds” School in Brooklyn Hands Out “Drag Queen in Training” Stickers to 4-Year-Olds

15. “Teacher: “No Regrets” for Desecrating American Flag in Classroom” Teacher: “No Regrets” for Desecrating American Flag in Classroom

What gods are central to this religion you say is being taught in public school?

The great god, government.


Children are taught to worship Gaia, mother earth.......on the day of Lenin's birthday.

Gee I guess I missed that class because I am no fan of the fucking government either but you are.

Funny how the atheist (me) is critical of all government while the believer( you) is a fan of government.

Seems to me you are a little confused about who is actually indoctrinated here

No vulgarity.

Fuck fuck fuck

Yeah, it looks you were not privileged enough to be sent to Parochial school.
Yes, the education was better than public schools.

I even kept the same book from 7th grade and used it in public school 9th grade.

The book? American Civics. Check it out sometime.

Publisher? Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.


Yes, there is a God that created this world, and you denying this doesn't make it not so.

And you believing doesn't mean it is so

Reason and experience say otherwise.

there is no reason to believe in anything without empirical proof

There’s plenty of empirical evidence. It is literally all around you.

But putting that aside 90% of everything we know was accepted on authority of others. We didn't actually do the work or see the evidence. We took it on the word of others. Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go around knowing next to nothing their whole life.

With that said we shouldn’t blindly accept knowledge on the authority of others either. We should make some effort to see if what they claim makes sense.

We in all our arrogance think we understand the universe when in reality 95% of it is an utter mystery

But the mere fact that we do not understand something is in no way proof that a supreme being is responsible for it

My dog will never understand fractions because her brain has real physical limitations.

I believe that the human brain also has limitations and that we very well may be incapable of understanding the universe.

I have always found more than interesting that the biblical order of the creation of the universe is the very same that modern science has come around to proposing.

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry landEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Both are merely theories that are unproven

....but taught in government school as though there were facts.

I have never seen the big bang be called fact.

It is the best theory we have based on our observations.

But then consider the fact that we have only observed about 5% of the matter and energy that comprises the universe you have to admit that the big bang even if it is the theory that best reflects our observations is not adequate.

Unlike some, I see no need to attribute the origins of the universe to a god simply because we as human beings may be incapable of every understanding the process.

It’s a little more than that. It’s energy being created from nothing according to the laws of nature which means they were in place before space and time and those laws predestined intelligence to arise. In effect the universe is an intelligence creating machine. It’s not an accident.

It is exactly that.

We do not understand 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the universe.
it is my belief we may never be able to understand it.

Saying a god made everything because we don't know the answer is a cop out.

And so what if your life was an accident? That makes it even more precious because it's the only one you will ever get

No. It's not a cop out to say that spirit created the material world. It's the logical conclusion of studying the material world. Something I doubt you have ever done.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale - like you do - then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will agree with or accept. Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument I will use my perception of God because your perception of God is a fairy tale and designed to get fairy tale answers instead of seriously considering the proposition. My perception of God is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us. God exists outside of our four dimension space time. So my premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. In other words, it's not an accident that intelligence arose. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All I have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if you assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

But wait... there's more.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

This is the basis for my belief. So what is the basis for your belief?

Wow all those words to propose a false dichotomy.

How so? Can you articulate how it is a false dichotomy?