Interesting happening...

Also my youngest child was not taken to a church to worship and religion not a topic in home, but she displayed a knowledge of knowing about God. Children know things.
It's amazing how well tiny children listen and pick up information. My parent's didn't talk about Santa Claus or god, but I recall that I knew about both of them from listening to neighborhood children and people, radio programs, relatives, etc. even when they weren't talking to me or even realizing that I was listening. I had already decided they were fairytales, but I still knew all about the stories of them. Occam God and Santa Claus are so much a part of the culture, a kid would have to be deaf and blind never to pick up on god and legends even if they come from a home where it isn't discussed or it's discussed differently. Kids have a hard time assessing this constant chatter. Most tend to go along with the crowd or pretend to. It probably comes from the same root as language. Put a kid who is young enough into an environment where the language is different than the parents' language and the kid will speak like the surrounding population, not like the parents. Most will not even have a detectable accent. Humans are very much affected by their surroundings. It takes a lot of maturity and intellect to assess community cultural beliefs and come to one's own conclusions. Maybe we have to imitate before we can effectively challenge common beliefs. Lois
However if they truly understand what the scripture is teaching they would not think in such harsh terms about God.
That's kinda the whole trick isn't it? Any attempt I've made to understand always ends with someone telling me I don't "truly" understand. Usually because I didn't "truly" believe before any attempt at understanding even began. That's backwards, and any statement about anything can be said to be true if you first believe that it is true, but only for those who choose to believe, which isn't how truth works. Welcome to the forum Jacko. Sorry I won't be putting the coffee on. One could as easily say that if people truly understood what critical thinking tells them they would not be so willing to accept the concept of any god. Works both ways. Lois
However if they truly understand what the scripture is teaching they would not think in such harsh terms about God.
That's kinda the whole trick isn't it? Any attempt I've made to understand always ends with someone telling me I don't "truly" understand. Usually because I didn't "truly" believe before any attempt at understanding even began. That's backwards, and any statement about anything can be said to be true if you first believe that it is true, but only for those who choose to believe, which isn't how truth works. Welcome to the forum Jacko. Sorry I won't be putting the coffee on. One could as easily say that if people truly understood what critical thinking tells them they would not be so willing to accept the concept of any god. Works both ways. Lois A question remains............ who put the original "idea of God" in the minds of people?
A question remains............ who put the original "idea of God" in the minds of people?
Peyote.
A question remains............ who put the original "idea of God" in the minds of people?
Human beings have had a near infinite number of ideas over our history. An idea does not need to come form an external source. They are the natural outcome of thought. God is simply the easiest answer to a complex universe for a mind that is still ignorant and immature in its understanding of the universe. If you don;t understand why it was sunny yesterday and a storm is blowing your house away today the easiest answer is to presume some supernatural being is behind it all. It requires no deeper understanding of the nature of the universe and anyone can have an answer then without having to study quantum mechanics

Advocatus, you ask, what do biblical principles have to do with the theory of evolution, and you also ask how this ties in with “morality"?
Firstly on the “theory of evolution"……………. Again, there are “preconditions" – things that have to be true in advance in order for knowledge to be possible. For instance, in order for us to have “intelligibility" we are barrowing the precondition of the Bible. One such biblical quote: Proverbs 1:7 – the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
For example, a person who’s arguing for air would have to use air to make an argument “against" air. The fact that he’s able to make an argument at all proves he’s wrong! This person is barrowing God’s laws of logic and scientific principles.
Now when talking about morality…………. How could we have right and wrong in a chance universe? The community does not develop these laws, there is a divine aught! A person can repeatedly says, we don’t need God to do good, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you (principles adopted by society) by those who decide what benefits society, HOWEVER relying of biblical presuppositions again. Additionally almost all laws are biblically based (10 commandments).
In conclusion as wild and crazy as this may sound to some, because biblical presuppositions exist one cannot argue against it, in any way, shape, or form. Additionally, “if the Bible were not TRUE", it would be impossible to prove anything.
Can you grasp that, truly a hard concept to swallow, or do you not have intelligibility? :slight_smile:

And again, that is why I am so perplexed by THIS knowledge. It is opening my mind on a dimensional level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MWgsAuk60
That is why I am here for the challenge. It appears to be God’s WORD that stands!

A question remains............ who put the original "idea of God" in the minds of people?
Peyote.Robert Anton Wilson agrees! He's also hypothesized that hallucinogens are what led us to organizing our various grunts into an actual language. I think that recent evidence about animal communication disproves this, but given that mind altering substances have played a large role in many religions, I don't think that its too much of stretch to believe that the accidental exposure to such things led to the formation, or at least some aspects of religion.
I don't think that its too much of stretch to believe that the accidental exposure to such things led to the formation, or at least some aspects of religion.
Depends on your definition of "stretch". This idea has been around for decades, but has never had any confirmation, no evidence, it has not been shown to have any predictive power. So, if you ignore all the scholarship, sure, you could believe it.
A question remains............ who put the original "idea of God" in the minds of people?
This is your best post so far. Why does it have to be a "who"? You also say that morality can't come from a "chance" universe. Why not? Morality is a set of ideas about cooperation and helping each other stay alive. It makes sense that a being that has been around long enough to develop a brain would do that. I have some problems with the word "chance", but we can get back to that later.

Oh my, the arguments for the existence of God are about as silly as they come. That’s one thing I admire about Kierkegaard, that at least he understood that and didn’t argue in that vein. If anyone it’s him I can respect, but all that other pseudo-scientific nonsense out there doesn’t even deserve a response.
Sure, God’s non-existence can’t be proven either, but an atheist is hardly interested in proving anything.

I don't think that its too much of stretch to believe that the accidental exposure to such things led to the formation, or at least some aspects of religion.
Depends on your definition of "stretch". This idea has been around for decades, but has never had any confirmation, no evidence, it has not been shown to have any predictive power. So, if you ignore all the scholarship, sure, you could believe it."No evidence"? What on earth do you mean? There's ample evidence that humans have used mind altering substances (or techniques, such as sweat lodges) as part of religious practice and that new beliefs have arisen because of the experiences of individuals while under the influence. Is that how religion first began? I don't know, and we're unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history. All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we've had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material. We'll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I've yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.
Jacko1 - 20 October 2013 07:24 AM A question remains…......... who put the original “idea of God" in the minds of people?
That is not the correct question to begin with. The question should read, "where did the original idea of "gods" come from"? And that is easy to answer. It started with fear of an unseen action by an unknown enemy. Thus thunder begat Thor (god of thunder) one of the oldest gods on record. Do you realize how many gods were created by humans to explain all natural phenomena? Hundreds of gods have existed since the dawn of ability to think in abstract terms. Yet even you will admit that all these gods were created from ignorance of the true causality of natural events and once these causalities were understood, the belief in these old gods became moot and relegated to mythology. To create a single Creator God is a refinement and last vestige of mythology, because it is the last natural phenomena which we have not yet been able to explain with certainty. But once we know the true causality of Creation, even this single God will be forgotten. But morals will never disappear, even without a God. Nature and Evolution have proven four fundamental survival techniques, all of which are learned skills. Only the instinct for survival seems to be hard wired and there is nothing divine about that. Yet almost all advanced animals display a certain morality, in accordance to their lifestyle. a) Herbivores,
Grazing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Grazing generally describes a type of feeding, in which a herbivore feeds on plants (such as grasses), and also on other multicellular autotrophs (such as algae)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing b) Carnivores,
Predation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In ecology, predation describes a biological interaction where a predator (an animal that is hunting) feeds on its prey (the animal that is attacked).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation c)Omnivores
Omnivore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia An omnivore /ˈomnɪvɔər/ meaning 'all-eater' (Latin, omni meaning "all" or "everything" and vorare meaning "to devour") is an animal that derives its energy and nutrients from a diet consisting of a variety of sources that may include plants, animals, algae and fungi.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore d) Symbiosis,
Symbiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Symbiosis (from Ancient Greek σν "together" and βίωσις "living is close and often long-term interaction between two or more different biological species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis All these traits are products of natural evolutionary processes. No divine intervention is necessary for all of it to work just fine. When we laid Thor to rest, did thunder disappear? When no one believed in Zeus anymore, did the oceans disappear? And so it is with God. If we no longer believed in God, would the universe disappear? Or would we suddenly start killing each other in the name of Atheism instead of the age old practice of killing each other In the name of God(s)? http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/godsmyth/a/102110-War-Gods-And-Goddesses.htm
... I don't know, and we're unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history. All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we've had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material. We'll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I've yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.
You've taken the argument from ignorance and made it sound almost scientific.
... I don't know, and we're unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history. All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we've had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material. We'll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I've yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.
You've taken the argument from ignorance and made it sound almost scientific.And you've failed to post anything to refute my comments.
... I don't know, and we're unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history. All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we've had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material. We'll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I've yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.
You've taken the argument from ignorance and made it sound almost scientific.And you've failed to post anything to refute my comments. May I ask what there is to refute that people got high on plants and mushrooms in days of old and had visions which they believed gave them access to the realm of spirits? This has been practiced for thousands of years. @Jacko1, Evolution is a process and does not need to have any presupposition other than what physics knows. The only argument that cannot be confirmed or refuted is Creation itself. There is evidence for the Big Bang, but that is no proof of God. That is just an assumption and quoting passages from the bible does not prove anything, other than what people of old assumed was the creative causality. But where is the evidence that your God is any different than Zeus or Odin? http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/religionmythology/a/042710_gods_and_goddesses_AtoZ.htm Actually mythology came closest in naming the initial state during the beginning, Chaos.
In both cases, chaos referring to a notion of a primordial state contains the cosmos in potentia but needs to be formed by a demiurge before the world can begin its existence. This model of a primordial state of matter has been opposed by the Church Fathers from the 2nd century, who posited a creation ex nihilo by an omnipotent God.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony) The strange thing is that atheists do not deny that the bible has some philosophical truths, but they are mixed up in all the speculation of origins, miracles, unseen voices, visions, angels, demons, but these things are biochemical functions of the mind which is the domain of science and that is why the bible cannot serve as authority on absolute Truth. Check out these mental illusions and you will see how easily the mind is fooled by it's sensory processing. http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Spinning_Dancer.php http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/opticalillusions1.php http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/lilac_chaser.php
Optical Illusions Further Explained An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that are deceptive or misleading. The information gathered by the eye is processed by the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. There are three main types of illusion - literal optical illusions that create images that are different from the objects that make them, physiological illusions that are the effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific type - brightness, tilt, color, movement, and cognitive illusions where the eye and brain make unconscious inferences.
http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/optical-illusions-explained.php Are these miracles or limitations of the mind to process sensory input?
Oh my, the arguments for the existence of God are about as silly as they come. That's one thing I admire about Kierkegaard, that at least he understood that and didn't argue in that vein. If anyone it's him I can respect, but all that other pseudo-scientific nonsense out there doesn't even deserve a response. Sure, God's non-existence can't be proven either, but an atheist is hardly interested in proving anything.
It has nothing to do with atheists not being interested in proving anything. It is impossible to prove something does not exist and no one is required to do so. We'll make a deal with you, though. If you think non-existence can be proven, prove that Thor or Zeus or any entity or object you choose does not exist. We'll use the same method you use to prove any god does not exist. Lois

Now here is a truly interesting find. Evidence!

1.8M-year-old skull gives glimpse of our evolution. The discovery of a 1.8 million-year-old human ancestor, the most complete ancient hominid skull found to date, captures early human evolution on the move.
http://news.msn.com/science-technology/18m-year-old-skull-gives-glimpse-of-our-evolution
... I don't know, and we're unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history. All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we've had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material. We'll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I've yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.
You've taken the argument from ignorance and made it sound almost scientific.And you've failed to post anything to refute my comments. And now you shift the burden of proof. I'm not sure I want to bother engaging with you.
Advocatus, you ask, what do biblical principles have to do with the theory of evolution, and you also ask how this ties in with “morality"? Firstly on the “theory of evolution"……………. Again, there are “preconditions" – things that have to be true in advance in order for knowledge to be possible. For instance, in order for us to have “intelligibility" we are barrowing the precondition of the Bible. One such biblical quote: Proverbs 1:7 – the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. For example, a person who’s arguing for air would have to use air to make an argument “against" air. The fact that he’s able to make an argument at all proves he’s wrong! This person is barrowing God’s laws of logic and scientific principles.
I'm sorry, but I still don't see what this has to do with the theory that species evolved over time. Science did not begin with the idea of God's existence. The theory of evolution is quite neutral with respect to God. It would compatible with the existence of God, but also compatible with the opposite. The principles of logic and scientific inquiry are NOT found anywhere in the Bible, so I don't know where you get the idea that we follow "God's logic" at all.
Now when talking about morality…………. How could we have right and wrong in a chance universe? The community does not develop these laws, there is a divine aught!
Sorry, Jacko, but it is not a chance universe. Whoever told you that was wrong. And that is exactly what I believe happened. The community DID develop principles of law and order all on its own, because such laws were needed for people to live together.
A person can repeatedly says, we don’t need God to do good, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you (principles adopted by society) by those who decide what benefits society, HOWEVER relying of biblical presuppositions again. Additionally almost all laws are biblically based (10 commandments).
But what I said was that our common cultural heritage of morality and human decency were written into the Bible. We're both saying the same thing. It's just that you claim the Bible came first, while I'm claiming morality came first. OK, what you really seem to be saying is that you personally don't spare any thought for any science that doesn't follow from the Bible. You have that right, of course. But excuse me for saying so, but that sounds like YOUR problem, not mine. :)