# Is God Really THAT Full of Himself?? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 4, 2015, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186 "2015-03-04T07:43:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/101 "2015-03-05T16:49:58Z")
> [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > I have nothing but contempt for the Bible as a holy book; for Christians who try to pass it off as the holy word of God to the exclusion of everything else; for the ridiculous idea that God cannot forgive sins even when He wants to because He’s bound by some moronic moral code that would stain His honor if He simply forgave people their sins instead of all this hokum of having to make a blood sacrifice out of Son in order to permit Him to forgive sins if people will accept His Son as Savior. Do you think you are going to get anywhere if you have contempt for the people you want to convince? Or is it just mental masturbation you are going for here? And considering you have conflated two vastly different atonement theologies before (and here, so it is Calvin’s penal substitution or Anselm’s satisfaction theory or Patristic ransom theory that you believe that all Christians hold - because it can’t be all 3), why am I not surprised that you cannot conceive of any other atonement theology? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/102 "2015-03-05T17:24:42Z")
> [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > But we forget that it goes much deeper than just the first humans. I mean isn’t it odd that 95% of the food that evolved just happens to contain all the nutrients the human and animal bodies need? That processes developed within the organs to create tens of thousands of catalytic conversions to process these foods; that the plant kingdom evolved in the same rough hierarchy as the animal kingdom; that both work synergistically with each other to supply the needs of the other? Doesn’t all this strike you as being so well-planned (minus a few defects) that it just couldn’t have all come together so beautifully all on its own. Just one element developing at the wrong time could have thrown the whole process into total disarray resulting in the whole thing dying out. You really, really should read the book. When a new type of plant developed, animals who had mutations to allow them to get nourishment from that plant would have a reproductive advantage, and spread. Fruits evolved so that they were attractive to animals, who would eat them, and their seeds, and spread the seeds far and wide - and supply fertilizer too. Some biologist can correct the details, but in the Midwest there was some insect which ate buds from a tree, and whose reproductive cycle was tied to the date in the spring when that budding happened. When apple trees were planted they budded at another time. The insects, who could use apple trees also, speciated into a variety which bred at the time of the original tree and another at the time of the apple tree. No planning or design was required. Small reproductive advantages have big impacts. BTW, if we were planned, how come it took almost a billion years for us to show up? Why the dinosaur dead end (besides producing birds, that is.) How come we are so badly designed? None of these things are a problem with purely natural evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/103 "2015-03-05T17:26:45Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Aaaand yet another American that hasn’t got the first clue about evolution. > Don’t you guys have a national school curriculum? How come there is so much ignorance on the subject? No. Even worse, we have Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/104 "2015-03-05T17:31:00Z")
> [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > Okay, I may be throwing out a confusing stew here. Let me be clear. > > I am a deist. I believe with all my heart there is a higher power somewhere out there who set all this up, but then dismissed Himself to let natural laws govern this mess. None of it makes any sense down here, children get raped, brutalized tortured and then murdered while God stands idly by. I can’t explain this except it’s how life would operate if there WERE no God. So with God or without God everything stays the same. The only thing that keeps me being a deist (and I’ve come pretty close to giving it up, believe me) is the persistent belief that something had to bring this universe into being. I can’t accept it happened spontaneously by itself. If you can’t believe the universe came into being spontaneously, how come you believe that some god did? As for evolution, if your god started the Big Bang, how come life on earth couldn’t evolve just the way evolution says it did? In fact, why couldn’t it start from chemicals? Why does your god care about us in particular, or any life? Maybe it cares about life someplace else and we’re still accidents. You feeling uncomfortable about the naturalistic explanation does not cut it as a refutation. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/105 "2015-03-05T18:52:12Z")
If God wants unconditional love, he should go down to the pound and get himself a nice dog. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/106 "2015-03-05T19:16:53Z")
I rarely get into these kinds of arguments, since the absence of any kind of God is so obvious to me, but I hate this particular argument: “Oh, the Universe is so complicated that it could not possibly have evolved, so a God must have done it!” You cannot sit there and posit that an infinitely complex Universe was made by a God and then not even attempt to answer who made the God? Where did the God come from? What is the God? He is also infinitely complex; was there another God before Him? And before that one? Seriously, everyone who thinks life can’t evolve should take a step back and study abiogenesis. People have made some excellent points in this thread, particularly how freakin short of a time we have been around. There is nothing to say a massive extinction event isn’t coming up in our future, and indeed, it seems likely. Let’s hope we have left the planet by then! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/107 "2015-03-05T19:34:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What is an artist without an audience? A waiter? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/108 "2015-03-05T19:38:34Z")
> [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > You got me. > [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > Yes, maybe I was exaggerating. > [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > Let’s look at the quote which, if you want to get picky, you’re right shouldn’t be in quotes: It’s rather remarkable how many of your factual claims turn out to be wrong and how few turn out the be right. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/109 "2015-03-05T19:44:06Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, you can’t accept that the universe just spontaneously happened - but you have no problem with the idea that God just spontaneously happened? Likewise, you stumble over the idea of a cow stomach capable of breaking down plants into nutrients being the result of natural processes because it would take such an improbable sequence of events to arrive at an organ that can do that process that someone must have done something to start it off. But have no problem with God being able to create matter out of nothing? What processes were necessary for him to develop _that_ ability, and who set _those_ processes in motion? Simple logic is not a Creationist’s strong suit. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/110 "2015-03-05T19:57:44Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Simple logic is not a Creationist’s strong suit. To be fair nothing that he has said makes him seem like a Creationist by any reasonable definition. Theistic evolution yes. First cause, yes. But Martin Gardner more or less believed the same stuff. Not that it is justified. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/111 "2015-03-05T20:11:22Z")
> [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > ooooookay, let’s take these one by one: Yes, let’s. > [@](#): > > You got me. it’s 1 Corinthians. Checking Bible Hub somehow the words got jumbled and spit out the wrong epistle. But isn’t this really like semantics? Does it really matter which epistle Paul’s words come from. Isn’t the message still the same? Doesn’t this become just petty nitpicking to divert attention away from my point? :dubious: No, you’re still wrong. As I explained clearly, the quote that you claimed came from Romans, does not come from Romans, and it also does not come from 1st Corinthians or anywhere else in the Bible. It comes from your imagination. And since I’ve thoroughly debunked your entire point, you’re not going to get anywhere by claiming that I’m trying to divert attention away from your point. > [@](#): > > **Do you dispute that pagan rituals of human sacrifice to appease the gods’ anger dates back to when civilization began?** I mean without going into a lot of useless rhetoric that diverts attention away from my point, can you just give a simple yes or no? Yes, I dispute that. Rituals of human sacrifice existed in many civilizations, but I’m not aware of any evidence that they “date back to when civilization began”. There’s decent evidence of human sacrifice being practiced by the ancient Aztecs, Mayans, Hawaiians, Celts, Carthaginians, Phoenicians, and perhaps a few others. Human sacrifice was not practiced within the Roman Empire in or shortly after the life of Jesus in the 1st century AD, and thus the topic is obviously irrelevant to the study of Jesus’s life or the development of the gospels. I’m sure it’s not necessary to remind you that in your previous thread about the life of Jesus, you made numerous claims about events in the Gospels being copied from pagan mythology. For instance, you claimed that there was a myth of Bacchus turning water into wine. Other posters asked you to provide evidence that this was true; you first tossed out a list of books that you hadn’t actually read. Other posters, who had read those books, quickly pointed out that they didn’t say what you claim they said. Shortly after that, you ceased posting in that thread, having not provided the slightest tidbit of evidence to support any of your claims. Do you really want to embarrass yourself all over again with yet another untrue claim about the gospels being copied from pagan sources? There are books that are used in academic settings for study of the gospels. I’d recommend [_The Fortress Introduction to the Gospels_](http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Introduction-Gospels-Allan-Powell/dp/0800630750/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425585968&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Fortress+Introduction+to+the+Gospels), by Mark Allan Powell, but there are plenty of others. None of these books make any mention of any part of the gospels being copied from pagan mythology, because no part of the gospels were copied from pagan mythology. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/112 "2015-03-05T20:40:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because it’s **willful** ignorance. First, Protestant Christianity – which was the founding religious culture of America – is based on Bible study as the foundation for all doctrine, and such study by its nature contains an impetus towards a literalist view of the Scriptures; if we toss out Genesis, where will it end? Second, viewed a certain fundamentalist/evangelical way, evolution undermines the very basis of the Christian narrative, which begins with the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden – that is the source of Original Sin. All humans since have been born damned, and deserving damnation. Jesus died as a substituted human sacrifice to redeem the sins of humanity; only through Him can a soul be saved. But if the Fall never happened, why is Christ’s sacrifice even necessary? What’s the point of it? Therefore, some kinds of Christians, and we seem to have more of that kind in America than anywhere else, view evolution as not merely a false theory but a Satanic plot to undermine Christian faith. And, [studies show people tend to ignore facts that contradict their cherished beliefs](http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/facts_do_not_matter_the_depressing_science_that_explains_vaccine_trutherism_partner/). ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/113 "2015-03-05T20:54:07Z")
> [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > You’re saying Jesus said this 30 years or something before Paul, but how do we know that? What proof do you offer that Jesus said he was a ransom other than dragging out Mark, which was written 40 years after Jesus supposedly said it. I maintain, because there is no writing to the contrary, that the idea of Jesus as a ransom started with Paul; that before Paul the idea of Jesus being a ransom had no currency at all. If the idea started with Paul in Corinthians and it’s just a few decades before the temple is destroyed, then that is any rational person’s definition of an idea being in embryonic form. For starters, do you even know what the phrase “an idea in embryonic form” means? The way that you’re using it here implies that you don’t. To say that an idea is “in embryonic form” has nothing to do with the length of time that idea has existed; it means the idea is undeveloped or rudimentary. ([Look it up](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embryonic?s=t)) As I explained in my previous post, Paul actually wrote the longest, most detailed passage about justification through Christ in the entire Bible: 11 chapters on the subject. Therefore by definition the idea was not in embryonic form prior to the destruction of the Temple; it was fully developed prior to the destruction of the Temple. And thus the argument in your OP is false, QED. Now regarding the question of whether Jesus claimed to offer forgiveness of sins, anyone can see that you’re using a double standard in the paragraph I just quoted. On the one hand, you’re demanding that I produce “proof”, while on the other hand you see no need to provide any proof; you merely “maintain” something and then act as if it’s true. It’s a thin rhetorical technique that’s obviously not going to fool anyone. Mathematicians and lawyers are highly focused on proof, historians are not. We discussed this at length in your previous thread, so you don’t have much excuse for continuing to be unaware of it. A scholarly article about ancient history rarely uses the word “proof” because there’s no way to prove that any person in the ancient world did or said anything; historians can only offer evidence and discuss the strengths or weaknesses of that evidence. The four gospels were all written roughly 30 to 70 years after Jesus’s earthly life, with Mark at the early end of that range. As you know, most ancient biographies and histories were written centuries after the events that they describe. That means that the gospels are, by ancient standards, an excellent historical record. In addition, Paul verified his teaching by discussing it with the apostles; he says so in Galatians 2. So then Paul ensured that his doctrine, which included justification through Christ, was in agreement with what the Apostles had taught since the beginning. So while you say that “there is no writing to the contrary”, in fact there is a lot of writing to the contrary: the four gospels and Pauline epistles. It would be accurate, on the other hand, to point out that there is exactly zero writing supporting your version of events. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/114 "2015-03-05T20:55:27Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Uh, no. Western medicine existed long before 150 years ago. You may disagree with many of the methods used by doctors in earlier centuries and have quite reasonable grounds for doing so, but doctors certainly existed in those centuries. Look at life expectancy, it didn’t start to pick up until the 19th and 20th centuries. Modern medicine started in the mid 1800s with the advent of germ theory, antiseptics, advances in A&P, anaesthesia, etc. Life expectancy at birth in pre-historic time and ancient rome was something like 18-35. Now it is about 80. I have no idea how accurate this chart is. [![](https://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/1995/eae240014000001.gif) ](https://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/1995/eae240014000001.gif) Doctors existed in other countries sure, but that is like saying having a variety of crappy bikes for 6000 years, then having improving degrees of cars for 150 years is all just under the heading of ‘transportation’. A 2015 Honda is not the same as a crappy bike with the wheels falling off. And post 19th century medicine is not the same as medicine before in effectiveness. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You are throwing together a lot of claims here, and not making them specific. “For the vast majority of human history people were illiterate and sick”. Are you saying all people were illiterate and sick, or just some people? I’d imagine that at any moment in history, most people were not sick. Certainly if you’re saying that a majority of people were sick, the onus is on you to justify it. As for being illiterate, literacy rates varied greatly by place and time. While I personally enjoy being literate, I don’t suppose that the billions who lived in pre-literate societies were unhappy as a result. > > Laying aside whether the “half died young” claim is true, the notion that a person who dies before 10 can’t learn any lessons is debatable, to put it mildly. Further, one must also consider whether such a person could teach, as well as whether he or she could learn. I do not think it is debatable. In medieval times kids may go to work at age 6, but the brain needs time to develop to learn how to handle life. A person who dies at 5 or 8 is not going to have enough time to ‘learn lessons’ as their brain and social skills and life circumstances haven’t advanced enough. Seeing how literacy only came into being a few thousand years ago, and only became widespread in the last few hundred years yes I am claiming most people have been illiterate. And any god that asks/demands that I be an illiterate farmer in a world w/o medicine and human rights isn’t a god worth listening to, it is a god worth actively defying. Seeing how in the 21st century lots of people still have health problems (physical and mental) I am certain the rates were much higher before public health, medicine & nutritional science and back when predators, environmental harm, harsh physical labor and violence were more common. I fail to see why that is controversial. If I can find some ‘cites’ that most people had to deal with injuries and illness in prehistoric and pre-industrial times I will dig them up. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/115 "2015-03-05T20:57:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > None of these books make any mention of any part of the gospels being copied from pagan mythology, because no part of the gospels were copied from pagan mythology. Well, John was apparently influenced by Greek **philosophy.** ---
**Author:** ![OffByOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@OffByOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OffByOne)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/116 "2015-03-05T21:15:49Z")
> [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > Doing some heavy reading today as I usually do and contemplating the failures of Christianity as a substantive religion to believe in, I came across a common complaint that non-Christians like to make: > > So we have a God as defined by Christianity who’s sole reason for making the universe and us was to give His only Begotten Son a big backyard to play in and an earthfull of pet humans that Jesus could demand worship from for Himself and His Old Man under threat of eternal torment if we don’t comply with the “worship Us for all eternity–or else”. > > I used to buy into this scenario as a young Christian but as an old Christian it started making less and less sense to me and now I just cannot see any rhyme or reason to it. > > I did have a lightbulb moment listening to a Richard Carrier debate today when he pointed out that the likeliest explanation for the whole “Jesus died as atonement for our sins” thing came into sharp focus when he alluded that it wasn’t until AFTER the destruction of the temple in 70 AD that the Jesus-as-atonement really got into full swing, and it made perfect sense to me why it had to happen AFTER the destruction, not before: > > Before the destruction of the temple animal sacrifice was still going on to atone for sins so there was no need for Jesus to assume an atonement role–the animal sacrifices took care of that. It wasn’t until after they had no temple to make animal sacrifices in that they had to find a different way to atone for their sins. Someone looked at Jesus’ crucifixion and said, "Hey why not make this Jesus guy a kind of perpetual sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, then we don’t need the temple anyway and we can just forget about all these animals we have to slaughter day after day to atone for our sins? Why are we wasting good meat, all these turtledoves we could be cooking and eating instead of burning them to a crisp and wasting? > > So the brilliant idea comes into existence: we don’t have the temple anymore; there’s nothing we can do about that–the Romans won’t let us build another one; let’s just adopt the idea that Jesus is our perpetual sacrifice for everlasting atonement and bingo both problems–the problem of no temple and no way to sacrifice–is completely solved. > > I suddenly comprehended a large part of the divine puzzle: God now has a reason to demand us to worship His Son–because His Son gave His life as a ransom for our sins as stated in Mark (written, conveniently AFTER the temple’s destruction) so now we owe Him the debt to believe in Him or face eternal death in hell. > > Honestly, the whole concept is so ridiculous, slip-shod, so stupidly thought out it just screams “idiocy”. > > Why can’t we just have a God who created the heavens and the earth, set natural laws into motion to govern things, put us on this earth to start a growing process spiritually that is just the first step in an eternity-long program to grow towards Oneness with God. > > So much simpler, don’t you think? Even simpler is no god(s). ---
**Author:** ![SeekerofTruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@SeekerofTruth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeekerofTruth)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/117 "2015-03-05T23:57:33Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > Whoa, that’s interesting - deists are really hard to come by these days! > > Would you consider opening a “I’m a Deist - Ask me anything” thread? Sure, but I’m not an expert. Deism is just a comfortable, sensible (to me) medium between the two extremes. It explains a lot that cannot be explained by atheism or theism. Sure. I’ll open it 2nite. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SeekerofTruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@SeekerofTruth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeekerofTruth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/118 "2015-03-06T02:13:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you can’t believe the universe came into being spontaneously, how come you believe that some god did? > As for evolution, if your god started the Big Bang, how come life on earth couldn’t evolve just the way evolution says it did? In fact, why couldn’t it start from chemicals? Why does your god care about us in particular, or any life? Maybe it cares about life someplace else and we’re still accidents. > > You feeling uncomfortable about the naturalistic explanation does not cut it as a refutation. Several have asked, “If not the universe, then why not God?” type of questions. I’ll address that. It works the opposite, “if people can believe the universe spontaneously arose, then why can’t they believe God did too?” But evolutionists/atheists want to have it both ways. They want to say “The universe is fully capable of popping into existence all on its own, thank you” but they refuse to entertain the notion that if the universe could, then maybe so could God. As a deist I believe God always was. There’s no need to speculate on who made Him. Just the fact the universe is here in all its complexities, including life forms that have evolved from two dead atoms coming together to innumerable complex life forms which perform thousands of unimaginably complex chemical functions ever second of the day to keep the organism alive. It’s easy for an atheist to say, “It just happened without a god’s help” but I don’t think they realize the gravity of such a simplistic statement. But then they say, “Well, do you realize the gravity of your simplistic statement, ‘Yes, a God did it’ ?” I always fall back on the watch on a beach metaphor because it’s easier to think someone invented the watch than to think the watch evolved by itself. And then I think of the PowerBall metaphor. Sure, if you want to believe it’s perfect possible for a 20 YO to win the Powerball every week for the next 3,120 weeks of his life right in a row–not likely but possible, then I have to respect your belief in such supernatural events. For me it takes less faith to believe in God than it takes to believe all this sprung up out of nothing. Someone asked, “If God did all this, then how come it took a billion years to get here?” Good question. I’ve often wondered that myself. Now I’m going to go out on a limb and stir the stew up and raise a lot of guffaws even more when I say that another reason I believe in God is all the work MD’s and psychiatrists are doing on NDE’s—luminaries like Kenneth Ring, Pim van Lommel, Sam Parnia, Bruce Greyson, Michael Sabom, Peter Fenwick, and a whole slew of others who are arduously studying the survival of consciousness after death, not to mention Dr’s like Mary Neal, an orthopedic surgeon who describes herself as about the most concrete practical-thinking person in the world who would never in a million years give credence to any theory of survival of the mind after death. But now she’s going around lecturing about her NDE and saying “It’s as real as anything I’ve ever experienced.” She also admits that the death of her son was no surprise to her because it was revealed to her during her NDE that this would happen and it did. I just don’t see a woman as practical as Mary Neal believing in this stuff unless she experienced something very profound. ---
**Author:** ![SeekerofTruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@SeekerofTruth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeekerofTruth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/119 "2015-03-06T02:20:34Z")
Remember, the evidence includes people who were able to say with precise detail what was going on in the OR and who was saying what to who while these people were clinically dead. That in itself is proof enough that something beyond the natural is going on here. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186/120 "2015-03-06T03:11:50Z")
> [@SeekerofTruth](#): > > Several have asked, “If not the universe, then why not God?” type of questions. I’ll address that. > > It works the opposite, “if people can believe the universe spontaneously arose, then why can’t they believe God did too?” But evolutionists/atheists want to have it both ways. They want to say “The universe is fully capable of popping into existence all on its own, thank you” but they refuse to entertain the notion that if the universe could, then maybe so could God. “Maybe so” necessitates “maybe not” too. Since there’s absolutely no need to posit a god in this process, why do it? It adds nothing to the narrative except an unnecessary and inexplicable complication. > [@](#): > > As a deist I believe God always was. There’s no need to speculate on who made Him. In fact you have a need to \*not \*speculate on who made him, because if you did your belief system would fall to the ground. > [@](#): > > It’s easy for an atheist to say, “It just happened without a god’s help” but I don’t think they realize the gravity of such a simplistic statement. But then they say, “Well, do you realize the gravity of your simplistic statement, ‘Yes, a God did it’ ?” No-one here has called the god hypothesis simplistic (which means “overly simple”). Quite the opposite - it is one step too complex. How can you fail to grasp this? You are positing an unnecessary entity. > [@](#): > > I always fall back on the watch on a beach metaphor because it’s easier to think someone invented the watch than to think the watch evolved by itself. And then I think of the PowerBall metaphor. Sure, if you want to believe it’s perfect possible for a 20 YO to win the Powerball every week for the next 3,120 weeks of his life right in a row–not likely but possible, then I have to respect your belief in such supernatural events. For me it takes less faith to believe in God than it takes to believe all this sprung up out of nothing None of this has anything to do with how abiogenesis or evolution works. Really, nothing. You are making a fool out of yourself here, like Clint Eastwood arguing with an empty chair. No-one holds the position you are arguing against. No-one thinks watches appear self-assembled, and most especially no-one thinks that “all this sprung up out of nothing” - except you, who thinks your god did so. Please please please read the book you’ve been recommended; you cannot argue usefully against evolution until you understand it. You are just wasting your time posting this specious nonsense, with which you will - quite literally - convince no-one. > [@](#): > > Now I’m going to go out on a limb and stir the stew up and raise a lot of guffaws even more when I say that another reason I believe in God is all the work MD’s and psychiatrists are doing on NDE’s—luminaries like Kenneth Ring, Pim van Lommel, Sam Parnia, Bruce Greyson, Michael Sabom, Peter Fenwick, and a whole slew of others who are arduously studying the survival of consciousness after death, not to mention Dr’s like Mary Neal, an orthopedic surgeon who describes herself as about the most concrete practical-thinking person in the world who would never in a million years give credence to any theory of survival of the mind after death. But now she’s going around lecturing about her NDE and saying “It’s as real as anything I’ve ever experienced.” She also admits that the death of her son was no surprise to her because it was revealed to her during her NDE that this would happen and it did. I just don’t see a woman as practical as Mary Neal believing in this stuff unless she experienced something very profound. **kanicbird**? Is that you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-god-really-that-full-of-himself/714186.md?page=7)