Zealot

I don't believe in any over-structured eastern-martial arts. If you are in a real fight all you need is to know something that your opponent doesn't and anticipate how they are going to attempt to achieve the same end. Rocks work well to that end. Or pans. Or really anything that they don't see coming. For the past three or so years I have got together with a friend who is an avid student of Western martial arts and we spar with various blunted weapons from his collection. What we have both learned from the process is that the most important two things to winning any fight are to know yourself and know your enemy. However it is also important to recognize that if you go looking for fights you will eventually meet somebody who can beat you. It's best to be peaceful as much as you are able.

I have very little difficulty with solitude... though I would have serious misgivings about experiencing the next 20 years of my life alone for practical purposes. I would especially hate the idea of not getting to see my beloved fiance. However I am sure that there would be enough to keep my mind occupied... The one thing I wonder, if both doors are permanently locked when you press both buttons is that the same as saying "I refuse to play your game?" consiquentially the scientists allowing you to leave peacefully or would it just mean a slow and annoying death from starvation? If it is the first then I would quite happilly press both buttons, but if the second I do believe that I have some obligation to preserve my life at least to the extent that the experiment allows so I would have to settle for door a.

Since my post is aimed mostly at the below quote I would like to pose a question to everybody beforehand: why do you suppose that religion is such a hot-button topic for many people? I think that the answer has to do with the centeral role that theology plays in most people's epistomology, though beyond that rather vague notion I really dunno. I don't agree, though I do understand where you are coming from I believe. However I would urge you to consider that perhaps you do not know as much about the Bible (and more importantly the God who wrote it) as you may believe... Creation is a difficult question regardless of your theological bias. On the one hand if you believe in an atheistic form of Evolution then you are forced to say that both life comes from non-life and life can not come from non-life. This is a clear violation of the principle of non-contradiction (which Aristotle argues is the single most important principle to our capacity to reason... denying it denies the ability to learn anything and effectively tells me that attempting to convey information to you is meaningless. See Metaphysics IV, chapter 3 for further reference) On the other hand to say that the Earth is probably not 4.6 Ga old, (That's 4.6 billion years for those who aren't familiar with Geological time suffixes) is to say that the majority of evidence is either invalid or else improperly interpreted. So far as I can tell the later is the lesser logical sin, however the truth is probably neither of the above since both seem to in some way or another deny the possibility of having real knowledge. Though I really want to expound I do not believe that it would be appropriate. (Besides I am already becoming too long-winded) I will make a challange to you: go and read the Bible and some good commentary on it for yourself. You will probably be surprised how little you really know about it. Don't just trust what other people have told you about it because regardless of whether they agree or not everybody is biased one way or another toward such a famed work. Yes, there are a lot of things that Christianity borrows from other religions and that other religions borrow from it. Ideas tend to flow that way from one person to another. It doesn't make them wrong... Truth is to say of what is that it is or to say of what is not that it is not (Aristotle in Metaphysics). To the extent that they are true every world religion will conform in some way to what is actually true. For example, if it is true that it is wrong to commit murder, every world-religion that condemns murder is true in that respect, and if it is wrong to steal then every world-religion that condemns stealing is true in that respect. If it is not possible for man to earn reconciliation with God then every world-religion that says so is in that respect true. (This idea, coupled with the notion that since we couldn't get to Him God came to us instead, is the true distinction between Christianity as the Bible portrays it and every other world-religion, so if these ideas are true, that is why Christianity will always be closer to the absolute truth about God and the human condition then other world religion could hope. If on the other hand this coupling of ideas are false then we Christians are more hopeless then all people.) I would also suggest that you google the name "World Vision" along with "Red Cross" and "Salvation Army." It turns out that Christian organizations are working toward the goal of making a better world. This is not to minimize the efforts of others, only to demonstrate that this is something that is important to the Church--precisely because it is something that is important to the God we serve. I would also ask you the intraspective question: what do you do to remidy these problems that you so readilly site as counterevidence of a loving God?

As near as I remember from Anatomy and Physiology cracking your knuckles by pressing them in and downward does not appear to affect occurence out arthritis at all. However, popping them by pulling them out does seem to cause a higher rate of occurance. The reason is that arthritis usually is caused by repeated damage to connective tissue. Hyper-extension, which is any time that you force connective tissue to move beyond its maximum range of motion (pulling a bone out of the socket, bending your finger backwards beyond what it can extend itself, etc.) can cause damage. That is the reason why arthritis often develops in the shoulders of baseball players and around the site of serious sports injuries... 'least that's what my professor said.

Hm, always was just told '98%' in Stats class :-k . Still, I don't see how in the world you could hope to statistically analyze the probability of something like the presense of God in the world :| . If it were that simple, I don't think this argument would still be going on after these thousands of years... My point wasn't based on your family, but where you live. Would I be correct in saying that you live in a nation where Christianity is prevalent, or the most common religion? Like you were, currently I'm not very religious, but subconsciously if I were to ever encounter something that could be misconstrued as 'spiritual', I would within a heartbeat immediately assume the Christian God the most likely reason. Why? Simply because living in an environment where Christianity was the main religion of the area closed my eyes off to most other major religions as a child, and thus I have a bias towards it [subconsciously]. Would I ever logically come to the conclusion that God was the main cause of anything? Generally I'd have to say no. But that doesn't change the fact that it's always going to be my first impulse option. And again, what reason do you have for saying that the Christian god is the only one who could be involved in what you see? Why couldn't it be, say, one of the three hundred million or so Hindu gods? I dunno any reason why I shouldn't use the same principles to reason in regard to what can not be fully tested as what can be. Sure, it doesn't really hold scientific value because it is exploring something that will always be beyond science's grasp, but that doesn't preclude all value. The crux of it is that we can form a null-hypothesis (no god) and an alternate-hypothesis (God). Very roughly we can look at the chain of events that is one's life and to a lesser extent the chain of events that are the lives of those around us, and we can make quantifiable guesses as to how things should look in the absence of god, and how things might be different in the presence of God. Yeah, since either one or the other is true and we have no way of diffinitively determining how things might be different if it were the other way this holds very little scientific value. However, deduction is at a total impasse' so the next tool in our intellectual tool-kid is induction--of which statistics is the mathematics. If we can know anything about God's existance it must be based at least somewhat in statistics. I have to say a few things about myself before I became a Christian. I read the Koran before doing so was popular, and I also have read a lot of the Ramayana (I think I horribly misspelled that, but one of the key Hindu scriptures basically). I had looked into Buddah and Confucious. I don't really know why I refused to even consider Christianity. Something about it simply repulsed me. I speculate that it is that Christianity is the only world religion that is truely all-or-nothing... no hedging of bets or reincarnation or anything. I do live in an aria that is predominated by a type of Christianity as you would probably define it. However, in the world as a whole and really in any part of the world, claiming the name Christian (or any other religion for that matter) and actually acting as if you believe it are two very distinct things. Many people can do the former but there are always a small minority who actually live as if their God is real. (which, by the way, makes a lot better sence of Christian theology then Hindu or Budhist theology). I hate to say it but the Koran is Islam's greatest counterexample in much the same way that the Book of Mormon is the dominant religion in my home town's greatest counterexample. Ultimately I am interested in only one thing: "The truth is to say of what is, that it is, or to say of what is not, that it is not. Falsity is to say of what is, that it is not, or to say of what is not, that it is." (Aristotle, in Metaphysics 1011[a24]) I believe that Christianity has the highest probability of being true. I may be wrong. By virtue of the reasons I believe I can never claim absolute certainty. Yet I am about as sure that God is who HE is as I am that the earth revolves around the sun.

The one that really convinced me is rather silly... but it was the culmination of a long list of coincidences. C. S. Lewis likened his experience to a wounded animal fleeing its hunter, (Surprised by Joy). In a sence I can agree, but I won't bore you with the whole story, only the pivot point and a minimal of background information. In the Fall of 2000, I was becoming very militantly anti-Christian. My mom wanted to do something about it, so kinda forced me into going to a Christian Youth Group to try and demonstrate that Christians are people and not that different from anybody else. I argued with the ordained Youth Minister all night long. I also decided to read the Bible and prove that either she didn't know what she was talking about or else it didn't make sence of the world. (In either case demonstrating that Christianity was rediculous) I had made it a little over half way through the Old Testiment when I stumbled accross a book called Ecclesiastes and was stunned by how well this book that was thousands of years old nailed my life down. I threw the Bible accross the room and vowed never to touch it again, but the refrain "a chasing after the wind" haunted my every waking hour and also my dreams. I couldn't sleep and decided to prove once and for all whether God was real or not. I've always been a bit of a geek. At the time I was the DM for my friends' game of Dungeons and Dragons. I loved the sence of control that it gave me, though that is not important except that at this point I fealt completely out of control--helpless before what seemed to be an unbeatable adversary. Anyway, I decided to try a simple experiment. I took two 20-sided dice and said to myself that I was going to throw them and if they were both 20's then that would be proof enough that the God that this awful, wonderful book talked about was real. Anything else would be irrefutable proof that He wasn't. I didn't need much at that point I must confess... just something to push me over the edge at this point. God had already just about exhausted my ability to doubt His existance. Anyway, I threw the dice and I didn't believe what I saw--so much so that I threw them twice more, getting double 20's both times before I could accept that I was truely in the presence of Majesty. The probability of double 20's is 1 in 400 on any given throw. The probability of getting double 20's a specific time, three times in a row is 400^3=1 in 64,000,000. In and of itself I am aware that this is a rather silly reason to become a theist, but in light of the other evidence that I saw and continued to experience over the next six months as one by one my entire family became Christian... (the story is very messy but I suppose if you want, PM me and I will tell you) it seems to build a lot stronger case for that particular God then any other, and even more so for the existance of a God over the nonexistance of one. Really the coup de grace was when my father, an alcoholic and avowed atheist, accepted Christ one Sunday while I was being a cabin leader at a Christian camp with my youngest brother. I will add that he had divorced my mother because she was "interfering" with my becoming an avowed atheist like my father. When we got home dad was entirely different. Since that he has never again drank or even desired to, he and mom are getting remarried to one another some time in the next year, and for the first time in my life I really had (and have) a father.

I got a few tools, a tool box, a few recipe books, a really interesting history book... and my favorite gift was a cake decorating kit that my fiance' and her family gave me... :) I'm a bit of a geek but I am absolutely delited.

And I'm 98.39352% sure that that's simply a bias towards your upbringings. What proof is there that god is apparent in any action you assume he is in, and what reason do you have for believing it has to be the Christian god? 99.7% has statistical meaning... Your random percentage is just an effort to insult my intellect. Randomness tends to act in a very special way. When there is no interferance and certain other conditions are met, the distribution for a given random sample will make a bell-curve. 68% of possible random samples will fall within one Standard Deviation (SD) of the mean, 95% will fall within 2 SD and 99.7% will fall within 3SD of the mean. What I am saying is that if the hypothesis "there is no god" is true then my life (which ought to be as good a good random sample as any) is one of the .03% of results that does not fit the null-hypothesis. In an effort to debunk your hypothesis that I am biased toward belief, let me say a few things: I became a Christian either late in 2000 or early in 2001. I was undergoing no major stresses, just my junior year of High School. I was raised in a non-theistic home. Religion was never part of my life growing up--not even for Christmas or Easter. Before I actually looked into it I was militantly anti-Christian. Any questions or comments?

It is an interesting coincidence that we are able to contemplate the question, is it not? :-w What is really intriguing is that it is possible for two individuals to recieve the exact same data and come to different conclusions based on it. I believe that such is direct evidence that the mind is much more then just a computer, that at some point it transcends simple logic and becomes more then just a biological supercomputer. The only explanation that I can think of that fits the bill is that the human mind is a reflection of something far greater and more marvelous still. Irregardless of anything else from our perspective as humans such a Being is well deserving of the title God. Another interesting thing to consider is that the evidence against a static universe is staggering. Yet, if there is a beginning then there has to be some cause for such. String theory can give an account for our universe, but seems from what I understand (which isn't a lot, I'm a student of philosophy, not physics, so if I am wrong and somebody can explain it I would love a PM) to only push back the origin of origins somewhat. It does not eliminate the need for an origin for everything. Anything large enough to be the first cause for everything must be self-existant and omnipotent... such a being, regardless of sentience or lack thereof deserves the title god as well. I happen to be a Christian because it seems apparent to me that the probability of Christianity being true is higher then the probability of any other theistic world religion given problems such as the existance of evil and suffering, humanity's tendency toward selfishness, and other information. To go into more depth would be, I believe, going beyond the purpose of this thread. Suffice it to say that I am somewhere around 99.7% confident that the number of "coincidences" I have seen that have God's fingerprints all over them point to HIM rather then any other god. And I would be even more surprised to find out that there was no god in light of what I have seen and experienced.

This is the thing about art: For a chef, food is the medium for art. For a carpenter wood is the medium. For the philosopher ideas are the medium, and words for the writer. Art is an expression of who you are and (hopefully) the beauty that is there. It is in some sence a search for goodness, and can be preformed in a host of different mediums by a host of different people. With that said my advice is choose the medium that you enjoy working with the most. Music, lines, color... flavor, scent, wonder... Whatever it is, as long as you have a passion for it and honestly give it all you have that will be enough. Just remember that what is easy is not always best, and never lose sight of the goal of finding some way of expressing some form of goodness.

The one thing that I am going to say is that anybody who has anything that they regret has failed to grasp something very important about the nature of existance. A great American philosopher named Charles Sanders Pierce wrote something very profound. "The [human] mind is a sign developing according to the laws of inference." What Pierce means is that the thing that makes humans special is our ability to learn and grow in understanding. The idea hearkens back to how Aristotle opens his book of Metaphysics: "All human beings by nature desire to know." That is what we do, we learn and grow. And everything including childish video games are opportunities to learn and grow. In fact, the only thing that it is really reasonable to be regretful about is failing to learn when there is an opportunity to do so, so I find myself wondering do you regret playing Runescape or do you regret not learning and growing as a result of playing Runescape?

I am going to take a leap and guess that you probably have never critically read the communist manifesto... Marx's error is right there, plain as day. He assumes the worst of human nature in his preamble history of the western world. Then he assumes that human nature will somehow be improved by the implimentation of his system. If people are evil, as he assumes in his preamble, then people will continue to be evil and nothing will really change. (the USSR under communism is a prime example of this.) If people are good then there is no need for the revolution. In either case it is the case that communism does not work. In case you had not noticed I am not impressed with humanity's moral capabilities. I think that we are all a bunch of selfish little brats. Some people do a better job of hiding it, but we are all the same in that respect. However, I will say that I am a little bit liberal when it comes to social programs. I believe that it is fine if the government wants to pay for education, healthcare, or so on... But they also need to find a way to minimize abuse of the privilage (and the consiquent abuse of the system that goes with it). Otherwise countless billions of dolars will be wasted annually which could be much better applied. That's the problem that most of Europe is facing at the moment... and the United States of America is facing it as well in a slightly different way. The real question is how do we enable social welfare without enabling people to be less then they could become? And in honesty I have no idea what the answer is. Since people are selfish, a lot of people will take advantage of anything which enables that. If we are going to help people out with healthcare of such, how do we do so without encouraging that behavior? *Shrugs* Straight communism doesn't work. No offense to those of you who live in Socialist states, but that doesnt' seem to be working well either. So I suppose that the answer must be somewhere else.

Let me think... If I wish to understand a work, should I read a translation of a transcription of a translation, in a language that is not my primary language, or should I read a translation of a transcription that is in my native language? I will also point out that though the KJV is a good translation of the Latin Vulgate, the Latin Vulgate by virtue of not being Greek and Hebrew fails to fully convey what the intention of the original text was in several places. A direct translation tends to do a better job in that department. I rather admire Asimov. He is one of very few atheists who actually had any idea what he was really rejecting... Though even he had a skewed vision of Christianity, and I would assume consiquentially other religions as well. He viewed them through the assumption that it is not the case that there is any god. I'm not saying that is necessarilly a bad assumption but it ought to be obvious that to view a theism through that lense will always give you a skewed image of what that theism is. It would be about the same as me looking at the world around and marveling that you and I see the same world and you still don't believe in God. Of course I see HIM in it. I believe in and know HIM so it only follows that I recognize HIS handiwork... even if that isn't actually what I see. However, if I desire to understand you and what it is that you see I have to see the world without that preconception. I have to see it through the lense of there is not a God. I can do a fair job of that, having actually been there once upon a time. So I have a fair idea what an atheist sees, looking at the world. However I find that it is often the case that like I was at that time, most atheists are very ignorant about what it is that they actually reject. Now, if you are only interested in your own life and having reason to act in whatever way seems best to you, that is fine If I know you I will pray for you, but it is your right to be that way. However if you claim to be persuant of the truth, then have the courage to actually look at what doesn't agree with what you believe to be true. If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense and you know that... and that affirms that what you believe is more likely to be true by virtue that this particular belief system does not appear to be true. If it does make sense then you can believe it based on reason, and know that you are one step closer to what is actually true.

Think about it this way: Assume that there is a God, and that HE is completely Good. What that means is that in all ways he conforms to a perfect code of moral behavior in all aspects... Courage, purity, wisdom, patience, kindness, justice... and so on. This perfect morality is known and understood to us, HIS creatures as agape' or charity... That is valuing others regardless of externals such as wealth or lack thereof, influence, or lack thereof, and so on. Now imagine that for some unknown reason this God allowed the possiblity that HIS creatures may not achieve complete goodness. In other words, we may be cowardly or foolhearty, lacking for purity or so enamored with it that it gets in the way of relationships, too foolish or too reliant on our own intellect, and so on... That is all that any moral shortcoming is is a lack of achieving perfection in some aspect of life. Since it is the case that all human beings fail to achieve moral perfection, it has come to pass that we are no longer sure exactly what that would look like so we are a bit confused. However, since we mostly agree that there are some things which are not morally perfect, such as murder or theft, it is reasonable in light of a belief in a perfectly moral being that there is a perfect moral code. That is also why religion is at the heart of this debate. Because it is necessary to establish a moral code beyond just a few things like murder or theft. I will point out however that Christianity is somewhat different from other religions because what it teaches is that I am dead and that Christ lives through me. To the extent that this statement is true I am morally perfect because HE is morally perfect. And it is the case that Christians tend to be better people after becoming such then they were before, giving empirical evidence that this is a reasonable hypothesis.

That's a fairly general statement... can you back it up? Hehe, "study" may be a stretch for some people (which I believe is your point), but atheism stems from the rejection of religion and man-made gods. To reject something, you must understand what it is first. If one does not understand the god(s) they are rejecting, they are not truly the atheist they seem to think they are. I salute you if in fact you have a true understanding of what it is that you reject... However I know that before I was a Christian I would have described myself as an athiest (later a satanist). Why? Because I just accepted what other people claimed about the Bible as fact. A funny thing happened when I read it for myself... The contradictions? Well, some of them may actually be contradictions. Then again they may not. There are valid explanations both ways, though it seems to me that the explanations for them being non-contradictions are somewhat stronger. Funny thing is that the God of the Bible seems to do a lot better job of explaining some of the absurdities that are inherent to this universe which we inhabit then any other explanation, either theistic or materialistic. However, I will urge you rather then taking anybody's word, myself included, read the Bible, and do so in a modern translation. (I like the New International Version because of accuracy and readability) Find out for yourself such things as context, author's purpose, and perspective for whatever event or commandment is being recorded. If you are still not convinced, quite frankly you are in better company then the person who calls themself a Christian who has never examined what they believe... and I believe, based on a certian verse in Revelation (3:14-20 for those who are interested) that you are in better standing in God's eyes as well for knowing what it is that you reject.

If you want something to happen, and an adventure to live, then find one. Go volunteer some time to a charity, or reread a good book. Make a friend, take a walk somewhere you've never been... Do something mildly stupid. Find out something that you never knew before. These are the things which make a life meaningful. Who you touch, what you've learned... What you've shared with others is what your life is worth, so go start building some real wealth.

I live within a few hundred miles of what is potentially the most dangerious volcano on the planet... Right in it's kill zone. Approximately every 600,000 years it blows it's stack, leaves a giant hole in the ground, and causes deposition which is used to date other rock layers... And it is 20,000 years overdue. The Yellowstone hot spot is rather a frightening beast if you consider it in that light... And in the light that the most recent activity happens to be right underneath a rather large, shallow lake. What that means is that there is an instant source for gasses which will make the initial eruption all the more powerful. Have you ever seen a column of debris that reaches the ionosphere? I haven't and frankly don't want to. People practically everywhere in the Northwestern hemisphere will be able to see it, and when it's all said and done, people in the entirety of North America will hear the rumbling. If people in my community are not killed by pyroclastic lava flows, in all likelyhood they will still suffer permanent hearing loss due to the volume and durration. When the magma chamber is finally emptied, and things finally settle down there will be a thick layer of fresh ash, like snow only heavier, extending thousands of miles down wind. In addition to that thousands of kilotons of volcanic ash will be caught in the jet stream and circle the earth for months or years afterword. Global temperatures will probably fall durring this time to such an extent that it triggers a new ice age, and the lack of sunlight will starve most plants. Anyone who actually survives will have starvation to look forward to... The world over. 'Least all this is what was talked about in one of my Geology classes once upon a few years ago... Volcanology actually. Probably it's still reasonably accurate though. Exciting, isn't it? Quite frankly I would prefer nuclear war with China or Russia. It is important to note that even though this is reasonably accurate scientifically I have a very good reason to believe that it probably will not happen in the lifespan of the human species on Earth, though my reasoning there is... shall we say in a sense greater and in another sense less then scientific, and in any case irrelivant to this discussion.

I'll try to make what I am saying somewhat more clear. Years and years ago, in ancient Greece, there was a very brilliant man by the name of Aristotle. Some of the things which he is remembered for include the foundations of the science of Biology, Logic, and contributions to other arias of human knowledge. One of the things which he said is that it is not possible for a thing to possess at the same time both a quality and the logical negation of that quality. Basically if you have both 1 and -1 in the same equation they cancil one another out. And this, Aristotle suggested, goes for all types of qualities. For example, you can not have a house which is both the color red (defined as only the color red, no other colors present) and the color green (defined as only the color green, no other colors present). It can only be one or the other, at least at any given time, from any given perspective. That is the principle of noncontradiction. If Aristotle is to be believed, this is something that all fully functional human beings (and most other living things on the planet) know without ever having to learn about it. It goes deeper then knowledge and is in fact, the keystone of knowledge. If it is possible for a thing to both possess a quality and it's logical negation (for example for God to both exist everywhere and nowhere by the same deffinition of exist) then it may be possible for any given object to possess qualities which are logical negations of one another. If this is the case then I can never know anything because I can not trust that things will not change suddenly and without warning... Or even more insidious, only selectively be true. People who act as if this is the case get locked up in a padded room for their own protection, and the remainder of people on the planet call them insane. Anyway... I made the argument that all knowledge, which is to say any time that you believe a thing to be true, and that belief is justified by evidence, must be based on rational thought. I did not go into different types of justification, and perhapes that will help. There are three types of reasoning according to the American Semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce. The first is deductive reasoning which can be defined as a mode of reasoning in which, if both premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is an example of deductive reasoning. The first two lines are the premises and the last line is the conclusion. Induction is the second type of reasoning. It is reasoning from an instance of a rule and the outcome of that rule to the rule itself. It can also be defined, like deduction, based on what can be known about the conclusion. In inductive reasoning if the premises are true then it is possible that the conclusion is true, but it is not assured. The inductive form of the same argument that I gave a second ago is this: The final type of reasoning is called Abduction by Peirce. Aristotle mentioned it, so I am told, but did not write about it. Anyway, abduction is reasoning from a rule and the outcome of that rule to an instance of what happened. It is the predominant reasoning used in detective work, medicine, and in most of the historical sciences. As with the other modes of reasoning, it is possible to define it based on the outcome. In abductive reasoning the truth of the premises makes possible the truth of the conclusion. However it does not make it probable in and of itself. An example is: There are consecutively three types of knowledge: deductive, inductive, and abductive. (they have other names but I will call them these because I can't remember, and this should be easier to follow anyway) Deductive knowledge is never mistaken. (it can not be justified if one of the premises is false) Inductive knowledge is generally correct. Abductive knowledge may be correct, but requires exploration using other modes of reasoning, and trial and error as confirmation. For example, if a mechanic believes that it is the battery that is causing the car to not start he will first attempt to charge it, then replace it, then replace other parts until the car will start) Anyway, all of these processes are rational. That is to mean that a system has been put in place and is followed by your mind either conciously or subconciously in determining the truth or falsity of a belief or claim. There is no other means in which a person can actually think and ever get anywhere in the landscape of the intellect. What that precludes is a foundation for thought which is in any sence random because of how systematic these are. I said that quantum mechanics does not work. I say this because often when nerve cells interact they only release a very small number of neuro transmiters. (forgive me for being vague. I am no neurologist and do not want to overstep what I actually know to be true.) As I understand it the number is so small that quantum mechanics can not predict the outcome of the reaction... It can not be assured that the second brain cell will get the message if that is all that is going on. I recognize that some spontanious ordering does tend to happen... In geology the SiO3 tetrihedrons organize themselves to form a variety of different minerals at different temperatures... Carbon forms either diamonds of graphite under different circumstances... Both are amazing, but nowhere near as complicated as the trillions of interactions in your brain which appear to give rise to thought (unless you are a dualist and regard the brain and mind as seperate entities... which I am because that is the simpler conclusion and in my assessment the more probable conclusion). Quantum mechanics can not explain how I can think. Therefore there must be something else which can because I do think. That means that there is something more fundamental to the nature of reality then just the material and form which it takes. Supernatural. It appears to make more sense. And if there is anything supernatural at all, it seems the simplest conclusion is that at the very least there is a Creator.

I don't know that I could deal with somebody who's core beliefs are particularly different from my own. It seems that in such a case, the two would be kinda like a team of oxen who each want to go different directions. Ultimately they would either be forced apart of grow to hate one another. One of the first things that I have to know about a person before I am willing to consider them as a potential life-partner is what they believe to be true about the nature of existance and the nature of God. My fiance' happens to believe close to the same thing as I do in both regards. Sometimes we disagree in as much as I am somewhat more conservative and suspicious of people's motives then she is. And in a sense I place a higher value on the fairness of a process then of the outcomes of that process, and she places a higher value on the fairness of the outcome. However, since we both believe in (and act as if it is true) the God of the Bible, and since we both love HIM even more then we love one another, we are traveling on a common path and make suitable companions for one another. That being the case, the differences actually make life more interesting. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes she's wrong, and a lot of times we aren't really sure who's right, but it gives us something to talk about and discuss. Both of us like that. I don't think that it is possible to be in a relationship with somebody of a radically different system of viewing the world from your own and not either appear to be trying to change them, or trying to do the actual thing. Just telling it how you see it will almost always appear as if you are attempting to disprove them. In a sense you are when your view and theirs are in sharp contrast because whether or not people admit it we all tend to agree that "the truth is to say of what is, that it is, and to say of what is not, that it is not. The falsity is to say of what is, that it is not, and to say of what is not, that it is."--Aristotle, in Metaphysics. By saying that most people tend to believe this what I mean is to say that we tend to act as if this is true, at least when it is in our benefit, or there is no personal loss to do so. An example of this is if a person steals our car and then makes the claim that we sold it to them or whatnot. Or for neutrality, Answering a poll regarding what you look like in an ideal significant other.

*Sighs* I guess that I'm not a christian then... 'Least according to his holyness. Good thing my judge and King is Jesus rather then Benedict. besides, the term Christian has become too watered down of late.

I don't think a single word of that made any sense. You literally talked yourself in illogical circles. Reason is unreasonable, so some form of a god has to exist? The universe has properties that we can understand, so some form of a god has to exist? Non sequiters, anyone? I mean, I'm not an atheist, but there's no flaw in warri0r's logic. Just because something supernatural (i.e., beyond what is natural to us, and thus impossible to understand) can't be disproven is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it exists. *Sighs* Let me break it down. Let's assume that there is nothing supernatural. It follows from that that nature is all that exists. Nature is governed by principles which are random in nature (ie. chaotic) Examples include quantum mechanics which govern how individual atoms and molecules interact. It also follows that since nature is all that exists my mind is a part of nature. My mind functions based on chaotic principles. My mind preforms reasoning, an ordered series of events focusing on a goal. (this is an example). Therefore my mind is both chaotic and ordered in nature. Therefor it is not the case that nothing supernatural exists. The same argument form was how it was discovered that the square root of two is irrational. It's called reductio ad absurdum or reducing to absurdity. It is based on the premise that a thing can not be in possession of both a quality and it's logical negation. In this case, my mind can not both possess rationality and irrationality. The weakness of my argument is that I do not go into the reason why I believe that it is intrinsically necessary that something supernatural exist in order to explain how the mind can be rational in a world based in part on irrationality. I am too tired to go into that tonight. Maybe tomorrow after work I will... or later... depending on when I get done with everything else I'm already doing.

*annoying buzzer sound* WRONG. You may be confusing your statement with the fact that no human being is superior to another in value. One's opinions and beliefs, based on differing levels of expertise and quantities of knowledge known, can be superior to anothers. There are basically two types of beliefs currently on this thread: 1) naive idealistic romantic opinions and 2) realistic, experienced, knowledgable opinions. Sorry fellas, guna go with the realistic ones. I have to disagree slightly. I do believe that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false. It is obvious that such is the case in describing nature. Either my house is red or my house is not red. It does not depend on who is looking. If my house is red, and I say it is green, then I am lying. I believe that the same holds for intellectual possitions as well. This includes the statement that either premarital sex is good or premarital sex is not good. In order to address this question, we need to look at ethics. I tend toward being utilitarian. What I want is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. (What I really want is perfect goodness for all people but that isn't happening until Messiah returns again so I settle for utilitarianism in the mean time). This is what I mean by good; to the extent that an action or event is beneficial to all involved it is a good action or event. In light of that, let's look at the pros and cons of sex both in a healthy marriage and outside of a healthy marriage. (A healthy marriage is for the sake of this particular examination any heterosexual relationship in which both partners are completely committed to one another, make efforts to communicate with and be understanding of one another, and have decided to bind themselves together so tightly that in a very real sence they become a composite entity, a whole being unto themselves. I define it this way because I do believe that people who have genuinely made that commitment ought to be classified as in some sence already having fulfilled that commitment since it isn't possible to prove that they or any will until they have at the end of their lives when one partner passes on.) Pros inside a healthy marriage relationship: A very fierce sence of oneness besets the lovers. Very good stress releiver. Aids in focusing on the other's needs, takes a person's focus off of themselves. Fun. Gives good excuse to connect with one another. Can be something to laugh at. Cons inside a healthy marriage relationship: Can cause change of plans in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Can consume a lot of time. Complicates things when it doesn't go smoothly (such as one partner being ill, or exhausted and not being able to preform). Pros outside of a healthy marriage relationship: Feels good. Relieves stress. Fun. Can be something to laugh at. Cons outside of a healthy marriage relationship: Can be devisive when the lovers are not completely committed to the good of the other. Complicates things when it doesn't go smoothly. Risks damaging the lives of both partners in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Socially frowned upon (this really is a con, though not a major one in my assessment). Risk of placing too much emphasis on physical sensation damaging the relationship. Can consume a lot of time. I could probably go on. None of these lists are exhaustive. However it is my belief that outside of a healthy marriage relationship, whether it is in an unhealthy marriage or in an unhealthy pre-marriage relationship sex is a bad thing. Having been there, I would actually go a step farther and say even in a healthy pre-marriage relationship it is still a bad thing. However some of the destructive potential is lost if (as is the case with my fiance' and I) both partners are committed to marriage and more significantly to one another for the remainder of their lives. I can not argue that from a purely logical footing however so rather then arguing "because my holy book says so"* I won't do so at all. *I do think that such an argument can be as legitimate as most others on ethical issues but certian prerequisites for the beliefworthyness of the system espoused by the holy book must be established and I don't want to go that far off the topic at hand... Besides, I have to get up and cook early tomorrow so I'm going to bed.

+1 cool points for you? You wouldn't know that till you prove God does not exist? You speak as if it was a fact. ~Defender~ Defender, people don't refuse to pray just because they think it will make them cool. If they do they are as pathetic as the kids at school aspiring to conform to the group of jocks. People refuse to pray because statistsically, it's nothing special at all. People get healed and people don't about 50/50 but somehow, those amputees never regrow a leg. And we don't need to disprove god to confidently hold this position. Just like we don't need to disprove that praying to the flying spaghetti monster, the flying teacup, pink elephants, gremlins, troll, witches, warlocks or James Dean works. There are no facts in the supernatural world but that dosen't give us an excuse in an argument. What if the supernatural is just another level of reality? What if there's a super-supernatural with another level of deity? What if there's a super-super-supernatural? Or even another dimension in which this god of yours or another 24 exist? Parallel universe? Inside a wormhole? Perhaps Santa, the Zen spirit of Beetohoven, Yogi Bear and Alice Cooper's youthful facial appearance all exist on a fold in space time beyond the edge of the universe in the thirteenth dimension of a super-super-supernature. But do you hear me arguing "you can't prove that Santa, the Zen spirit of Beetohoven, Yogi Bear and Alice Cooper's youthful facial appearance don't exist on a fold in space time beyond the edge of the universe in the thirteenth dimension of a super-super-supernature and don't answer my prayers. You speak as if it's a fact." Well, whether you accept this fact or not, my little scenario has as much credence as does your god in terms of provability. Please, don't use the old 'you can't prove that god dosen't exist' stunt, because that is an IMPOSSIBILITY unless said god ever chooses to show himself to us. Proofs and known truths are reserved for the natural world, I'm afraid. (forgive the slight facetiousness) Hmmm... Methinks that you place too much value on inductive and abductive reasoning... And specifically on how they relate to the sciences. If I were to tell you that all mooses are elephants, and all baboons are oceans, and therefor all mooses are oceans you would call me crazy. My reasoning is unfounded. Yet, if chaos is at the heart of everything, (think about quantum mechanics) and my reasoning capacity is in any sence of the word a thing, then chaos is at the heart of my reasoning (which I assume to be ordered). Furthermore if chaos is the heart of reason, then reason is unreasonable so I may as well stop trying to achieve anything through it and go live in a cave. My above argument is every bit as valid as this one: All ants are insects. All insects are animals. Therefor all ants are animals. That is to say that knowledge (Defined by Aristotle as justified true belief) is not possible. That doesn't conform with my experience with reasoning. Technology, science, and medicine all seem to indicate that reasoning is ordered in several ways. The first is that if the same conditions hold, and I do the same thing, the same outcome will occure. This has been established to be true in a host of different circumstances. The fact that the computer that I am using to write this message is working stands as testiment to the truth of this observation about the ordering of reason. The other way that reasoning is ordered is that it appears to be the case that regardless of whether or not a sentient being is conciously focusing on an event that event will still obey certian principles and ordering. A dead tree will fall in a windstorm whether I watch it or not. In a sense reasoning superceeds interpretation of it. With that in mind I confidently make the conclusion that if reasoning is ordered, then there is a basis for that reasoning. Reasoning is ordered, so it only follows that there must be a basis for that reasoning. I haven't established the necessity of diety, but I believe that this is ultima-facie grounds for holding the belief that that is a reasonable basis for reasoning being ordered. I'm not interested in proving that I'm right and you are wrong. I used to be, but now all I really care about is demonstrating that I can believe that there is a God and still have a brain. I'm giving an answer why I believe, no more.

I couldn't have said it better. Be wary, because the flesh is very, very potent as your enemy though. Paul wasn't kidding when he said to flee from sexual temptation. Don't let pride convince you that you are strong enough or you will fall. There's no may, you will. Doomsavenger, what if I were to tell you that I believe what my holy book says about premarital sex because I see how what is writen reflects reality?

Good luck Trapical. :-) I'm glad that there are people like you in the world... I hope to save lives truthfully, just in a different way. I want to offer meaning because I believe that "an unexamined life is not worth living." However I honor you because I believe that you will achieve your goal, and that through that many people will be touched and their lives will be made brighter. Thanks everybody who's posted! I'm enjoying it a great read and the insight into you as people that this is giving me.