Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[AgeofKnowledge]

In Christian doctrine, the magisteria of science and religion find harmony. The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science was decisively shaped by Christianity. Not only were most of the founding fathers of science themselves devout Christians but the Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish as Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo and that creation was rational and orderly and with effort could be understood by humankind asserted to be uniquely created in God's image and capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order.

In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable and that continues today.

Because the Christian founders of modern science believed that the heavens genuinely declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1), they possessed both the necessary conceptual framework and the spiritual incentive to boldly explore nature's mysteries.

According to Christian theism, God has disclosed Himself in two dynamic ways: through special revelation (God's redemptive actions recorded in the Bible "God's book") and through general revelation (God's creative actions discoverable in nature "God's world").

Despite taking courses in the history of science, few scientists seem to realize how the Bible and science worked together in Western civilization to define the historic methodology for observing, testing, and interpreting nature's phenomena, as well as so-called revelations from nature's God.

Testing before believing pervades both the Old and New Testaments and forms the heart of the biblical concept of faith. The Hebrew word for faith, 'emuna, means a strongly held conviction that something or someone is certainly real, firmly established, constant, and dependable. The Greek word for faith, pistis, means a strong and welcome conviction of the truth of anything or anyone to the degree that one places deserved trust and confidence in that thing or person.

In every instance, faith in the Bible connotes the response to established truth. Just as there is no faith, from
a biblical perspective, without an active response, neither is there faith apart from established truth(s).

The Scottish theologian Thomas Torrance has both written and edited book-length discussions of how Christian theology, and Reformed theology in particular, played a critical role in the development of the scientific method and the amazing advances achieved by Western science.

Now light is a form of energy and may be produced in many different ways, not just by sun and stars. Contemporary cosmologists say that the universe began with a hot big bang with an incredibly bright light that as the Universe expanded stretched so that it is now microwaves. Order began to appear and replace dark chaos.

Consider this blinding flash just one millisecond from the creation event generated by the sudden annihilation of all antimatter in the universe. A delicate balance of a billion and one particles to every billion antiparticles guaranteed the existence of matter in the later universe and the possibility of life on earth.

Now push back just a few dozen microseconds from the creation event, 0.00003 seconds from that creation event, protons and neutrons, antiprotons, antineutrons decomposed into even more fundamental particles called quarks. At one 10 billionth of a second, 0.0000000001 of a second, from the creation event the universe was too hot and too dense even for quarks to exist. At a hundred billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, .00000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second, from the creation event; the universe is too compressed for light to be possible. The universe is now completely dark.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1

God gave humanity a special revelation of what He did. Scripture gives thousands of wide-ranging scientific details on the origin, structure, and history of the universe, Earth, life, and humanity including the ability to investigate it further.

Off to lunch. Peace.

Which is all well and good 2000 years ago when no one knew anything.

But now we've learned so much more about the universe and how it works, statements such as "Let there be light" when the sun wasn't even yet created just won't cut it anymore.

 

[Jda016]

Oh, but you can if there is truly evidence for your claims. If, on the other hand, there is no evidence then your prophecy is self-fulfilling. It may be that for myself and the others to believe as you do we must first have as much faith in the scriptures as you do. You believe because you have belief in the stories scripture tells. In the absence of your faith in the holy texts we cannot follow the path you have taken.

When I read Genesis one I perceive an image of the world that is nothing like the world I live in. I think this text describes an ancient cosmological view of the world that is now defunct. This is the reason I must turn to science, but if you think the text is accurate then explain what I have misunderstood so that I can grasp it as you do.

I can not give you "proof." Thousands of testimonies of healings, miracles and deliverance don't sway you, Biblical prophecy you guys seem to think is all self-fulfilling, yet if you studied it, you would find that it was impossible for it to be self fulfilled. If God gave you a vision of himself, you would probably dismiss it as hallucination or caused by something bad you had to eat the night before.

I honesty don't know what it would take for you to believe. The cartoon Phil posted is actually quite accurate, because even if you saw the gates of Heaven, you would say, like the cartoon, "I don't believe it."

I may not understand everything in the Bible, but I don't have to. God has revealed Himself to me through His Son. I know he is real even more than I know the sun will rise in the east.

I have faith, but I can not give you faith.

You stop short because you see Genesis as defunct. You do not seek any further for God to make Himself available to you.

I think of this Scripture. "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6). I believe this is God's word for you.

if you will humble yourself each night, and get on your knees sincerely asking for the God of the Bible to reveal Himself to you, then I believe God will show you Himself in way that will convince you that no article, argument, journal, or conversation ever could.

This all you need to do and continue to do it till He reveals Himself.

This you will only do, if you truly want to encounter Christ. You have the choice in this. You can try it or not.

I also think of Naaman who was a great general of Syria. He had leprosy and wanted Elisha to heal him of it. Elisha servant told him that if Naaman would dip himself into the Jordan river 7 times, then he would be healed. Naaman was insulted that Elisha sent his servant and didnt come himself and he was even more insulted that he should dip himself in the muddy waters of the Jordan. However, Naaman's servant convinced him to do it, for what was the harm in it? Because Naaman obeyed, even if he didnt believe, God healed him of leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-19). You may even want to read the account.

You need simply to seek God out of obedience, even if you don't yet believe. Pray each night that the God of Jacob would make Himself known to you. You will find God on your knees, not in a debate or intellectual argument.

 

[Jda016]

Which is all well and good 2000 years ago when no one knew anything.

But now we've learned so much more about the universe and how it works, statements such as "Let there be light" when the sun wasn't even yet created just won't cut it anymore.

The Bible actually talks about the new Jerusalem in Revelation. It says we will have no need for a sun because God is light.

"There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 22:5).

When God says, "let there be light." He is talking about his presence entering into the universe he created, because he is light. The sun and moon and stars being created after are separate physical lights for mankind.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Your right about the getting through Genesis part.

That book has so many obstacles that I don't think I could ever overcome. It's got everything I keep bringing up. The talking snake, magic trees, giants, people living over 500 years, flaming swords, the whole Noah's ark thing to name but a few and I really can't get past that. And if the start of it all falls apart in my mind then I can't take the rest of it seriously. That's not me taking my usual potshots, just honestly saying I cannot believe it. I'm not making a choice not to.. I just can't.

 

[Jda016]

Your right about the getting through Genesis part.

That book has so many obstacles that I don't think I could ever overcome. It's got everything I keep bringing up. The talking snake, magic trees, giants, people living over 500 years, flaming swords, the whole Noah's ark thing to name but a few and I really can't get past that. And if the start of it all falls apart in my mind then I can't take the rest of it seriously. That's not me taking my usual potshots, just honestly saying I cannot believe it. I'm not making a choice not to.. I just can't.

That was a very open, honest, and heart-felt answer. Thank you. You were not "shooting from the hip" like you do with some of your remarks

I can understand why people get stuck on Genesis. Ultimately conversion comes through an encounter with Christ, not because everything in the Bible makes perfect sense. I still Don't fully understand Revelation, but I know that ultimately it is about Christ saving His people and removing satan forevermore. When you have Christ and I mean a true revelation of who he is and encountered him, the details begin not to matter so much.

I think one of the main ways this comes about is through the process I described to Cycel in my above post.

 

[nl]

Your right about the getting through Genesis part.

That book has so many obstacles that I don't think I could ever overcome. It's got everything I keep bringing up. The talking snake, magic trees, giants, people living over 500 years, flaming swords, the whole Noah's ark thing to name but a few and I really can't get past that. And if the start of it all falls apart in my mind then I can't take the rest of it seriously. That's not me taking my usual potshots, just honestly saying I cannot believe it. I'm not making a choice not to.. I just can't.

Then there are New Testament books like the Gospel of John. Jesus turns water into good wine instantly during the wedding reception at Cana (John 2:1-11). Normally, the time required to make wine varies from one month to several months or longer. The best wines take longer.

God made space. God made time. God is not constrained by either. If good wine could be made instantly, it becomes more reasonable to consider that a good heavens and good earth could be made in six days.

The wine had attributes as if it were much older. So does the universe.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

deepthought, I didn't link the progress of science to "religion." You did. I pointed out that modern science arose within and was materially aided by the Christian worldview which is singularly unique.

As historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki stated, science was "stillborn" to a material extent in other great civilizations outside of Europe because of prevailing ideas stifled scientific development instead of aiding them. His treatise on the subject includes a rather long list of these false religious system's mistaken assertions that include a cyclical approach to time as in Hinduism, an astrological approach to the heavens as in paganism, metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism),. etc...

Philosopher Greg L. Bahnsen argues not only that naturalism fails to justify its underlying presuppositions but also that naturalists illegitimately rest their scientific endeavors on Christian theistic principles. Naturalists borrow from Christianity. Consider this insightful observation by physicist and popular author Paul Davies:

"People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature the laws of physics are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."

One may wonder if modern science would have arisen had the dominant metaphysical views of the time been naturalistic and materialistic and able to sustain the scientific enterprise that Christian theism generated. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga states:

"Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism."

He goes on to state that some of the philosophical presuppositions foundational to the study of science include these: the existence of an objectively real world, the comprehensibility of that world, the reliability of sense perception and human rationality, the orderliness and uniformity of nature, the validity of mathematics and logic, etc...

These necessary preconditions of science are rooted in Christian theism's claims of an infinite, eternal, and personal creator who has carefully ordered the universe and provided man with a mind that corresponds to the universe's intelligibility. This Christian schema served as the intellectual breeding ground for modern science. It sustained science and enabled it to flourish.

Yet you have no problem brushing the reality aside and lumping Christianity in with say the religion of the Olmecs which is truly ignorant even for an atheist adhering to strict reductive materialism.

That's a type of fallacious disingenuous reasoning that atheists engage in which seems to spring from their illogical fear that once you accept any supernatural explanation then any supernatural explanation will do which is as ignorant as saying once you accept a natural explanation then any natural explanation will do. Obviously not. Obviously, only reasonable ones suffice. The presence of disagreement does not invalidate the possibility of truth.

I can simply turn it around. How can a world that is the product of blind, non-purposeful processes account for and justify the crucial conditions that make the scientific enterprise possible (and ultimately meaningful as all biological life will be extinct in the universe at a future point and unable to ever form again)? How does naturalism justify the inductive method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature, and the existence of abstract, nonempirical entities such as numbers, propositions, and the laws of logic if the world is the product of a mindless accident?

 

[JesusLives]

A Couple of Years Ago. Derren Brown hosted a program where he 'Predicted' the lottery numbers. But for legal reasons, he couldn't show the numbers until after the draw. Which he did a couple of minutes later. Showing the numbers after the draw was not nearly as impressive than if had done it before. But it was all a trick. That's what he does. The texts which make up the bible were written AFTER the events which occurred. If I describe teh current state of the world today it is a subjective journal. The world from my opinion. Even if the biblical texts were 100% accurate which we can not say, they were written by the flawed man. There is NO evidence they were influenced by an all powerful deity.

Personally. I have the opinion that if people ever went back in time and met the man known as Jesus, they would have a bit of a shock.

What about prophecies that were written about that were fulfilled after they were written and not before. Such as the books of Daniel and Revelation that have some that have been fulfilled and other prophecies yet to be fulfilled?

 

[JesusLives]

ME & VOID = MANKIND

Need for God = 0

Are we not mankind? Or are we as someone once compared me to, the antichrist

You just have not become aware of your need yet. We all need God and are lost without Him. You and I are both sinners the difference is I recognize my need and have accepted the gift of salvation and am forgiven. You just have not recognized your need yet. Once you do you will also be forgiven.

 

[JesusLives]

So because I can't believe in magic trees, flaming swords guarding paradise, talking animals and dead people coming back to life etc... Then I DESERVE eternal torture?

No - not for the reasons you listed, but because of refusal to accept God and the gift He has offered you to get out of this world filled with sin. You will have self fulfilled your ideas of nonexistence after you die. There will be a purifying fire that will cleans the earth at the very end of this world of sin God does not want you in it and He has provided a way out for you, but if you refuse the gift that is so freely offered to you in love - what more could God do for you? It would then be your choice not His. He gives each one of us free will to choose Him or to not choose Him. You must believe to receive it's just that simple.

I don't believe in an everlasting burning hell, I believe that once the fuel has been burned up the fire goes out and it nets non-existence for eternity. God is a God of love not torture. He is a God of justice. My bible says God is love.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the Bible with about 2000 of them fulfilled to the letter—no errors.

The rest reach into the future and may be seen unfolding. The probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten and since the prophecies are often independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 1 with 2000 zeros.

Sometimes, I visit sites where atheists have placed biblical prophecies that were fulfilled they don't believe were fulfilled due to either their misunderstanding, bias, or both and explain what the prophecy actually is and how it was actually fulfilled. Honestly, I've never met an atheist that truly understood Christian epistemology (even in the case of a few that have finished a divinity degree and then fallen away) though they all think they're experts for some reason as they push out one false assertion after another with respect to it.

What about prophecies that were written about that were fulfilled after they were written and not before. Such as the books of Daniel and Revelation that have some that have been fulfilled and other prophecies yet to be fulfilled?

 

[skipp]

Your right about the getting through Genesis part.

That book has so many obstacles that I don't think I could ever overcome. It's got everything I keep bringing up. The talking snake, magic trees, giants, people living over 500 years, flaming swords, the whole Noah's ark thing to name but a few and I really can't get past that. And if the start of it all falls apart in my mind then I can't take the rest of it seriously. That's not me taking my usual potshots, just honestly saying I cannot believe it. I'm not making a choice not to.. I just can't.

The world is a very mysterious place. Just think: In the 12th century the things that we take for granted today, such as cars, computers, cell phones, TV, tablets, etc, would have been seen as unbelievable and strange. They couldn't have comprehended a world with this type of technology in it. If you would have told them about it they would not have believed it. It would have been like magic for them. Humans have a very small and limited understanding and the universe is big and strange. We don't know everything there is to know. Who says that miracles couldn't happen?

 

[JesusLives]

But surely an all knowing god would know that the stories in the bible would be too much for some people to believe.

He's prepared to just let them burn an not attempt to intervene?

God did intervene when He sent Jesus to die for our sins. God has given everything to save us you just for some reason can't or won't accept it. If God became visible so you could see Him you would instantly die because nothing sinful can exist in His presence. So it's a catch 22 for you. I'm praying for all on this thread to be able to believe and receive.

 

[JesusLives]

Well, i'm a musician, composer, designer. These are roles I am paid for. So obviously people think me creative or I would be seeking another vocation. So I ask you. Is a creative mind a prescient? Here is a list of some famous theists:

Category:Atheist - Celebrity Atheist List

So in here you will find, artists, musicians, actors, writers etc. etc. Are all these people not creative? Lack imagination? When you look at the skies, you see God, I see a series of scientific explanations and questions. But no less wonder than yourself.

I love music is there any way you could post something you have done - I'd love to hear it.

 

[doseofreality]

The world is a very mysterious place. Just think: In the 12th century the things that we take for granted today, such as cars, computers, cell phones, TV, tablets, etc, would have been seen as unbelievable and strange. They couldn't have comprehended a world with this type of technology in it. If you would have told them about it they would not have believed it. It would have been like magic for them. Humans have a very small and limited understanding and the universe is big and strange. We don't know everything there is to know. Who says that miracles couldn't happen?

There is a problem with your argument, it uses hindsight.
Of course people in 12th century would not believe the technology of today if someone simply told them about it, nor should they. Without evidence backing up the claims they should not believe it, despite the fact it turns out to be true.

So regarding miracles spoken of in bible, sure they could have happened, but since the claims lack sufficient evidence they are not believable despite whether they may or may not have happened.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The High Middle Ages saw major technological advances which included windmills, large assembly lines, advances in printing, gunpowder advances, the astrolabe, spectacles, clock and odometer advances, modern paper manufacturing, magentic compasses, etc... which launched the age of exploration and the disciplines of philosophy and theology were already advanced.

They were already involved in technology advancement and had the same brains that we have today. Also note that since the time of Daniel (2nd century BCE), it had been clearly prophesied to them that "knowledge will increase" (Daniel 12:4).

I do not believe your assertion that inventors of the period would be incapable of believing that the technology we enjoy today would be impossible at some point in the distant future.

Furthermore, as someone who has both witnessed supernatural miracles and experienced one I view the evidence for them differently than you do.

As Walter C Kaiser wrote:

"The idea of firmly fixed 'laws of nature' belongs to Newtonian physics, not the world of relativity, which views laws as generalities covering observations to date. The issue for us, then, is whether there is evidence that there is a force (a spiritual force) which creates those irregularities in our observations of events that we term miracles.

The response of the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular is that there is. The basic spiritual force is that of God. He, Scripture asserts, is the only fully adequate explanation for the existence of the world. His personality is the only adequate explanation for the existence of personality in human beings. What is more, because he is personal he has remained engaged with this world. Some of his engagement we see in the regular events of “nature” (Col 1:16–17; Heb 1:3), while at other times he reveals his presence by doing something differently. It is those events that we call miracles.

A miracle has two parts: event and explanation. The event is an unusual occurrence, often one which cannot be explained by the normally occurring forces which we know of.

So, did miracles really happen? The answer is that, yes, a historical case can be made for their happening."

And I would add that they certainly still do though perhaps not to those who have chosen to deliberately separate themselves from God the miracle giver publicly denying even His existence.

There is a problem with your argument, it uses hindsight.
Of course people in 12th century would not believe the technology of today if someone simply told them about it, nor should they. Without evidence backing up the claims they should not believe it, despite the fact it turns out to be true.

So regarding miracles spoken of in bible, sure they could have happened, but since the claims lack sufficient evidence they are not believable despite whether they may or may not have happened.

 

[deepthought]

What about prophecies that were written about that were fulfilled after they were written and not before. Such as the books of Daniel and Revelation that have some that have been fulfilled and other prophecies yet to be fulfilled?

Can you quote those prophecies please? I'm just speculating at this point but unless I am about to be shocked, I will guess that these prophecies will in fact require quite an element of subjective reasoning as opposed to so an absolute prediction. Failing that, it comes back to my statement of 'even a stopped clock shows the right time twice a day'. It operates a long the same line of the infinite number of monkeys all randomly hitting keys on a keyboard would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare.

 

[deepthought]

deepthought, I didn't link the progress of science to "religion." You did. I pointed out that modern science arose within and was materially aided by the Christian worldview which is singularly unique.

As historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki stated, science was "stillborn" to a material extent in other great civilizations outside of Europe because of prevailing ideas stifled scientific development instead of aiding them. His treatise on the subject includes a rather long list of these false religious system's mistaken assertions that include a cyclical approach to time as in Hinduism, an astrological approach to the heavens as in paganism, metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism),. etc...

Philosopher Greg L. Bahnsen argues not only that naturalism fails to justify its underlying presuppositions but also that naturalists illegitimately rest their scientific endeavors on Christian theistic principles. Naturalists borrow from Christianity. Consider this insightful observation by physicist and popular author Paul Davies:

"People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature the laws of physics are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."

One may wonder if modern science would have arisen had the dominant metaphysical views of the time been naturalistic and materialistic and able to sustain the scientific enterprise that Christian theism generated. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga states:

"Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism."

He goes on to state that some of the philosophical presuppositions foundational to the study of science include these: the existence of an objectively real world, the comprehensibility of that world, the reliability of sense perception and human rationality, the orderliness and uniformity of nature, the validity of mathematics and logic, etc...

These necessary preconditions of science are rooted in Christian theism's claims of an infinite, eternal, and personal creator who has carefully ordered the universe and provided man with a mind that corresponds to the universe's intelligibility. This Christian schema served as the intellectual breeding ground for modern science. It sustained science and enabled it to flourish.

Yet you have no problem brushing the reality aside and lumping Christianity in with say the religion of the Olmecs which is truly ignorant even for an atheist adhering to strict reductive materialism.

That's a type of fallacious disingenuous reasoning that atheists engage in which seems to spring from their illogical fear that once you accept any supernatural explanation then any supernatural explanation will do which is as ignorant as saying once you accept a natural explanation then any natural explanation will do. Obviously not. Obviously, only reasonable ones suffice. The presence of disagreement does not invalidate the possibility of truth.

I can simply turn it around. How can a world that is the product of blind, non-purposeful processes account for and justify the crucial conditions that make the scientific enterprise possible (and ultimately meaningful as all biological life will be extinct in the universe at a future point and unable to ever form again)? How does naturalism justify the inductive method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature, and the existence of abstract, nonempirical entities such as numbers, propositions, and the laws of logic if the world is the product of a mindless accident?

A very well written post. Please excuse how long it took me to reply but I had to research some of the persons you quoted, their works and academic backgrounds. To be honest you are correct. Any theoretical scientist has to have a creative mindset in order to place themselves in a model beyond the immediate. The creative and theological mindset are comparable in this instance. Without that, some of the greatest postulations of our species would not come to light. However you have missed the next stage, which is to take the theoretical model and test it with observations and open it to public and/pr professional scrutiny. Herein lies the major difference between science and theology. Science is subject to change and evolution. Whereas the words of the bible, as is written in Revelations, shall not be changed. This always strikes me as strange considering the number of different interpretations (translations) available today not to mention the occasional continuity errors which occur in the texts.

There is not a fear of the supernatural, but more a realisation on the definition of the word.

"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

To attribute a quality of supernatural perception which would lead to research to turn it natural is nobel within science. But to accept something as being supernatural as a final status would be to accept that we will never understand it. For science this marks an end point of research, a statement that we fully understand something. No good scientist would ever make this claim. There are indeed many marvellous patterns to be found in the natural world. From Archimedes' discovery of the golden ratio (pre Christianity btw!) to the beautiful double helix of DNA. But does the fact that this patterns occur be resigned to supernatural or should the reasons behind these patterns be investigated? If it is supernatural then the answer has been found. This is a dead end to the scientific method. To accept the existence of such patterns yet deny explanations such as Darwin's theories of Natural Selection.

I don't think we brush aside Christianity in so much as accept it for what it is. A culmination of many historical viewpoints ranging from the Bronze age to the latter days of the Roman empire. A collection of teachings of a Jewish sect Rabbi massaged over time to imply divinity. Some nice ideas until someone turned them into a religion. I read it now in a similar manner to the works of the Brothers Grimm. A series of historical tales adapted with artistic license for dramatic effect. This is not brushing aside but more seeing something from a different angle. Should theology ever offer objective proof then i'm sure the world at large including even atheist scientists and philosophers would drop to their knees and acknowledge their error. However, to date, I see no signs that this will ever occur.

Truthfully, in the scale of the universe, every action, statement and thought we have is meaningless. But this little rock, this little lifespan and these little thoughts are all we have so why not make the most of them. As for it being an accident with near infinite improbability, does not that still, if purely on a mathematical plane, make more sense than an infinite supernatural being. After 9x10>9999 is still infinitely distant to infinity. Thank you again for a well written post

 

[deepthought]

I love music is there any way you could post something you have done - I'd love to hear it.

Yeah of course. If you don't mind I will PM you the details. I made the mistake of breaking anonymity on a forum like this once before and it cost me months of abuse from some rather unpleasant american fundamentalists.

 

[Cycel]

I can speak like Peter at Pentecost...!

I am curious. Does this mean you speak in tongues?