pajarito

The Weather Channel online http://www.weather.com

Not offering an opinion. I just found this and though interesting. http://wilstar.com/holidays/easter.htm

It's hard to judge based on an article. You'd probably have to see it. However, it sounds more like a mockery of the real thing. Even if it wasn't meant that way. It certainly wouldn't be my idea of how to demonstrate the sacrifice of Jesus to a congregation. Sounds pretty silly and bizarre. Every group has their fruitcakes.

Man...I thought I did good with 131. You guys are smart. I don't feel so good anymore.

Dude! ... Those are NICE bunnies!!!

Good job!!! Impressive!

I agree. Ring it out! Learn everything about it. Just do it at a proper altitude.

Some of it hurt my brain. I'm not going to lie. But it was fun. I like that kind of stuff.

You've probably all seen this already. I'd never taken one. I usually don't see stuff like this till it's already been out for a while. I thought it was cool, though. I got a 131 out of a possible 140. It takes some time to do. I believe I spent about 45min. I like to take my time and recheck answers. http://web.tickle.com/tests/uiq/?sid=9&test=uiqogt

I’m sorry you don’t like my “canned” responses. I’ll be the first to admit that there are more learned people than I and who know much more in reference to this topic. I’m just putting forth some examples from others. Just because it came from a book and was written by someone else doesn’t make it invalid. I cited my post and made it quite clear that I didn’t author it. I personally believe that the proof for the existence of God is all around us and THAT, at least, has been made known to everyone (whether they chose to acknowledge it or not) but there is also the Bible. I know that you would have to first believe that it is accurate and all that before you would accept it as proof. However, if you did, you’d know that Jesus claimed the existence of God, claimed that the Bible is the written word of God, and validated his statements by his sinless life, teachings, prophesies, miracles, death and resurrection. Therefore, there is, AT LEAST, a basis for the belief in a God. God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites; ‘I am’ has sent me to you. Exodus 3:14 God “just is.” You don’t have to understand it. You just need to know it. I would say the universe couldn’t have the same properties of God (Just be in existence) because of intelligent design. I just can’t accept the fact that something without a thought process of some kind could have made the things in the universe develop like they have. The complexities are just too great for me to rationally think that it “just happened.” I like your choice of words when you add “less complexity.” I think God as a theory wins over the universe “just is” theory exactly because of its complexity and the chances that it would “just happen” the way it did. I completely disagree. If you say “we do not know” you “believe” that you don’t know. Sort of like, if you chose not to decide, you’ve still made a choice (in your belief). Believing that something is not so is also very much a belief. You’re taking a stand either way. I'd say that to believe that this all just happened by chance is a HUGE leap of faith.

Very well said. I agree. I'd still like to hear someone's answer to BikerBabe's question below:

You have a very good imagination, though. You should write a book like everybody else right before the election and make some money.

Agnosticism – I Do Not Know If God Or gods Exists Agnosticism says, “I do not know if God or gods exist.” Some agnostics believe that it is not possible to know if a divine “being” or “beings” exist. Their view is that one cannot know anything about these matters. On the other hand, there are those agnostics who think that knowledge about God is possible, yet they are not convinced that there is enough evidence to prove the case. Whatever the exact position may be, an agnostic claims no knowledge, one way or the other, about the existence of God.

Quoted again from "When Skeptics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. I like their explanations. If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? Everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn't have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of causes that would never answer the question. As it is, we can't ask, "Who caused God?" because God is the first cause. You can't go back any farther than the first. If God created all things, then how did he create himself? Again, only finite, contingent beings need causes. Necessary beings don't. We never said that God is a self-caused being. That would be impossible. There are only three possible kinds of being: self-caused, caused by another, and uncaused. Which are we? Self-caused is impossible with respect to existence; we can't bring ourselves into existence. Uncaused would mean that we are necessary, eternal, infinite beings, which we are not; so we must be caused by another. If we are caused by another, what kind of being is He? Again, self-caused is impossible; if He were caused by another, that leads to an infinite regress; so He must be uncaused. No statements about existence are necessary. Some critics have attempted an ontological disproof of God by saying that we just can't talk about God in terms of necessary truths. However, the statement itself appears to be a necessary statement about God saying that such statements can't be made. Now either it is a necessarily true statement or it is not. If it is, then the act of asserting it proves it to be false, for it says that such statements are impossible. If it is not necessarily true, then some necessary statements are possible and the objection vanishes. Let's just be fair: if they can make negative statements about existence (God does not exist), then why can't we make positive ones?

Even in your examples, people don't want to perform the action of killing "themselves." In war, there is extreme guilt felt by most when forced to kill the enemy even though it is justified. In capital punishment executions, automatic mechanisms were developed so that no individual would be expected to pull the lever or pull the trigger, etc. Inherently, we know killing is wrong even though it is sometimes necessary.

Who set this moral code that you mentioned into action in the beginning, though? I mean, did we all just get monumentally lucky that it turned out the way it did for the betterment of mankind through evolution? I would think we would have killed each other off from the start.

Most people around the globe, I dare say, think it's morally wrong, though. Wouldn't you agree?

You're giving very small examples (exceptions). I'm saying generally. Think big.

I have no idea why or how God does what he does in this matter. I do believe, however, that people are born with an inherent knowledge of what is right or wrong. I also believe that people will always have the tendency to act selfishly according to their nature. Not that they always will do so, but that they lean in that direction.

http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/index.asp I haven't read it yet but I heard that it is excellent.

If you believe your last statement above, then you're not an Atheist. Atheism Or Theism – I Know Whether God Or gods Exist Contrary to agnosticism, which says it does not know, are theism and atheism. Both of these groups claim to have knowledge about the existence of a supernatural being or beings. The atheist knows that God or gods do not exist. The theist knows that God or gods do exist. Secondly, why are moral laws, generally speaking, around the globe basically the same? Why wouldn't a culture on one side of the world be different from one on the other?

[bold]Argument from Design:[/bold] - All designs imply a designer. - There is great design in the universe. - Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe. * Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; paintings imply artists, etc. * Also, the greater the design, the greater the designer.

Here's another perspective. The following is from "When Skeptics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. It is an argument that the cause of the universe must be moral, in addition to being powerful and intelligent. - All men are conscious of an objective moral law. - Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver. - Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver. In a sense, this argument also follows the principle of causality. But moral laws don't describe what is; they prescribe what ought to be. They are not simply a description of the way men behave, and are not known by observing what men do. If they were, our idea of morality would surely be different. Instead, they tell us what men ought to do, whether they are doing it or not. Thus, any moral "ought" comes from beyond the natural universe. You can't explain it by anything that happens in the universe and it can't be reduced to the things men do in the universe. It transcends the natural order and requires a transcendent cause. Now, some might say that this moral law is not really objective; it is nothing but a subjective judgment that comes from social conventions. However, this view fails to account for the fact that all men hold the same things to be wrong (like murder, rape, theft, and lying). Also, their criticism sounds very much like a subjective judgment, because they are saying that our value judgments are wrong. Now if there is no objective moral law, then there can be no right or wrong value judgments. If our views of morality are subjective, then so are theirs. But if they claim to be making an objective statement about moral law, then they are implying that there is a moral law in the very act of trying to deny it. They are caught both ways. Even their "nothing but" statement requires "more than" knowledge which shows that they secretly hold to some absolute standard which is beyond subjective judgments. Finally, we find that even those who say that there is no moral order expect to be treated with fairness, courtesy, and dignity. If one of them raised this objection and we replied with, "Oh, shut up. Who cares what you think?" we might find that he does believe there are some moral "oughts." Everyone expect others to follow some moral codes, even those who try to deny them. But moral law is an undeniable fact.

You replied to me but what you quoted is not mine. Jakee said that.

If the universe somehow just created itself, how do account for the apparent intelligent design theory?