# Why are Christians' ideas of God erroneous? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2001, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838 "2001-10-11T18:10:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/81 "2001-10-16T12:11:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Edlyn \* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > > If God does not run the world in a just, fair and righteous manner, how can you say that He loves us all equally? > > > > Why have you presumed that God “runs the world”? > > I have presumed no such thing. It is my belief that no one runs the world, that it operates on its own. That was, as I explained, my post, Jab, and not Edlyn’s. But if you make no such presumption, why ask the question? Is your presumption that _we_ believe God runs the world? If so, you’re mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/82 "2001-10-16T12:15:38Z")
Caiata, What an inspiration you are! You might not call yourself Christian (and frankly, most Christians likely call me a heritic), but what is in your heart is the same as what is in mine. You remind me of Gaudere, and that is a very high compliment. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/83 "2001-10-16T17:23:10Z")
> [@](#): > > my beefs with the cross worshippers Uh, who said anything about worshipping a cross? Or is a cross-worshiper something like a cross-dresser or a transsexual? 😉 Like bowing down in the house of Rimmon? > [@](#): > > It’s not so much as that I believe christianity is evil. On the contrary, I believe that christianiy posseses many admirable traits, namely love thy neighbor, be good to people, etc etc. Good so far… > [@](#): > > It is more the pervasiveness of christianity in America which I find particularily irksome. This combined with the following reasons listed below sum up why I think christianity needs to go the way of the dodo. Okay, if it has “admirable traits,” then why would its “pervasiveness” be “irksome”? > [@](#): > > 1. Christianity’s identity crisis. One one end you have the whole based on love thing. But on the other hand, you have the whole fear-driven ‘avoid hell’ thing. These two cannot logically co-exist. It’s like all christians have this hidden motive to get to heaven, and that’s why they’re being nice. When I do a good deed, it’s to simply aid the world by being a good person, not to secure my place in the afterlife. I feel that existence based on fear (christian existence) is simply silly and outdated. Point taken. I think you can find a rather extensive discussion of this in studies of Christian ethics. One of the more competent theologians (Aquinas IIRC) suggested that the ideal motivation was based on love of God, but that He in his mercy accepted prudential motivations such as the fear of getting caught or the fear of Hell as acceptable justifications for being virtuous. > [@](#): > > 1. The whole ‘if you don’t believe then you’re going to hell’ thing. If you consider yourself a christian, then you have automatically subscribed to the belief that anyone who doesn’t believe in what you do is doomed to hell. Furthermore, you are therefore shitting on the beliefs on others, because no matter what they might believe, they are still going to hell, so ha ha ha. No. I consider myself a Christian. I do not believe in the second part. (Of course, on **your** definition I’m not a Christian, but I’ll leave discussion of that for later. Which means that your “furthermore” does not apply to me. > [@](#): > > This superiority complex cannot simply exist in a peaceful world. World peace or Jesus. The choice is yours. John Lennon said it **much** better. And it’s incumbent on **all** theists (Jews, Christians, Muslims, UUs, etc.) to recognize how religious arguments tend to get turned into wars, and to find ways to combat that tendency. > [@](#): > > 1. Lutheran, Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, Mormon… It’s goddamn 31 flavors of jesus. How could christianity ever take itself seriously as a wholewhen so many different sects exist. It makes no sense. I see. You are therefore saying that you are honorbound to like 'NSync since a majority of young people do, and differences in taste and opinion should not exist? > [@](#): > > 1. Ignorance. Man and dinosaurs co-existed? Please. Noah built an ark? Please. Evolution is completely false? Please. People actually believe this stuff. Christianity feeds on ignorance, or is it the other way around? Pardon me. I have a great deal of respect for reasonable skeptics such as **jab1** and **David B.** , and for the debating skills of atheists such as them and **Spiritus Mundi**. I do not therefore buy into every proposition they present for debate. And if some ignorant atheist or agnostic came along and began “debunking” something factual, such as the life and work of Francis of Assisi or John XXIII, as “obvious myths,” I would not therefore consider the three posters I named to be buying into that ignoramus’s arguments. Jack Chick and the Institute for Creation Research do not speak for me, or for the vast majority of Christians. If you want to argue this stuff, I can link you to a board where there are posters who believe it. Or bring an online friend who posts here and does believe it into the thread. But do not allege that _I_ think it because I call myself a Christian, nor all my fellow Christians whom I know do not. > [@](#): > > 1. The vocal ones. The ones who preach and pray. The ones who condemn others to hell in the name of God, while they’re busy stealing money or fondling altar boys. So sad. If you’ll look through the archives a bit, you’ll find a number of people ranting on these types. (I presume you mean the ones who preach and pray at people who aren’t interested or buying it, not those who preach sermons in churches to provide instruction and guidance to their fellowmen who wish to hear them, or those who pray for things like world peace and human brotherhood.) And you’ll find that among the ranters are most of this board’s active Christians, who are _at least_ as offended by Phelps, Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk as are the atheists and agnostics. It’s **our** God whose name those idiots are taking in vain, aftr all. > [@](#): > > 1. This right here: > [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0041/0](http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0041/0) 041\_01.asp Pardon me, but I didn’t open the link. Anyone who thinks Jack Chick speaks for Christianity as a whole apparently thinks that Andrew Sullivan speaks for the gay community, too. > [@](#): > > The good news is, Christianity is becoming less and less popular. Especially in Europe. People are realizing the utter ridiculousness of the whole thing. I recently read an article which said that Christianity is basically eliminated in England, much to the dismay of the Church. I find this extremely encouraging. The world is finally waking up and ridding itself of dogma. I have no doubt that this is spreading. I don’t consider that “good news.” (D’uh! 😉 But it’s good news that people who equate “being a Christian” with being good and not disturbing the peace, sleeping through a service twice a year to keep up appearances, are no longer trying to pass themselves off as believers in a system that holds nothing of interest to them. “Dogma”? Define what **you** mean by it and we may agree or disagree. > [@](#): > > \*\*\*my analysis on Polycarp \*\*\* > He is what I would refer to as a ‘relaxed christian’. He selectively chooses those areas of christianty that suit him best and adopts these. Any aspect of christianity that would otherwise impede his normal everyday life are discounted as silly and old-fashioned. Uh, I **do** feel relaxed and fulfilled being a Christian – that’s promised in Paul and John’s letters: stuff about “being filled with joy” and “the peace that passes understanding” and all that rot. :rolleyes: However, exactly where do you see me “selectively choos[ing] … areas of Christianity?” I see the Christian belief structure as demanding the acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Lord, and therefore in following **His** instructions for living. Not in turning off one’s brain and following the Bible as though it were literally true and inerrant in all its parts. Not in selective choice of which of His commands I’ll buy into and which are contrary to my personal prejudices, like _most_ vocal evangelicals seem to be pursuing. Not in buying wholesale into Scholastic theology or Tillichian deism with no thought given to the matter. Quite simply, and without rancor, show me a place where I’ve “selectively [chosen]” and I will repent of it. And thank you. But not on the basis of **your** definition of a “true Christian.” On mine. Or **Libertarian** ’s or **Triskadecamus** ’s or **Mangetout** ’s. I’ll give strong consideration to anything **Jodi** has to say on my errors. And if **Gaudere** or **Spiritus Mundi** or (particularly) **Mars Horizon** sees me as falling short of the goals I’ve set for myself, I promise to listen intently and change my behavior as indicated. > [@](#): > > In other words, he does the bare minimum in order for him to get to heaven. In the first place, I’m not doing a **damn** thing “in order to get to heaven.” In the second place, I’d be **very** intrigued by what you consider “a bare minimum.” And in the third place, what I **do** won’t get me anywhere but the grave. It’s God’s grace, shown through Jesus, that will save me if I persevere in following Him. > [@](#): > > Now one might think that I, one who is highly opposed to the presence of christianity, would prefer the relaxed views of Polycarp, in contrast to the more strict views of those who take the Bible seriously and try to adhere to all the tenets of christianity. > > But this is not so. I respect the fundamentalist christians a whole lot more than the fence-straddlers (hereafter referred to as the polycarps) who only subscribe to certain christian beliefs and claim to be christian. At least the fundamentalists have enough guts to devote their lives to an ideal. The polycarps, on the other hand, realize all the shortcomings of christianity, but for some silly (cowardly?) reason, still adhere to some christian teachings, probably out of fear of going to hell. These polycarps would be much better suited abandoning the silly christian dogma. The first 1.2 paragraphs make sense. Churchill reports that Stalin said he much preferred Conservatives to the left-wing British – he knew where he stood with them. Explain to me which beliefs I “only subscribe to” and which I reject, if you would. And found them on a contemporary analysis of what members of the Episcopal Church are expected to believe, not on what some fundamentalist told you are **his** ideas of what Christians believe. "At least the fundamentalists have enough guts to devote their lives to an ideal. " We agree here; I respect the devout fundamentalists of my acquaintance, while disagreeing in mutual respect with some of their thinking. But precisely how have you formed the conclusion that I have not devoted mine to an ideal? And how have you concluded that I am “silly,” “cowardly,” “afraid of going to Hell,” etc.? Quite simply: put up or shut up. > [@](#): > > I think most christians in America today are polycarps. They claim christianity because they are scared of what might happen if they disband it. There may be some truth here, taking the straw man you’ve made of me as symbolic of some people. But I’m not one of them. > [@](#): > > Cmon Polycarp. If you’re gonna be a christian, be a real christian. I’m trying. I wish some of the Bible worshippers would, too. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, you don’t seem to realize the mutual exclusiveness of reason and christianity. And your bare assertion of it will convince me? I’ve spent 40 years studying my faith and a variety of disciplines ranging from philosophy to cultural anthropology. I have not yet found them to be mutually exclusive – though some silly assertions made by some Christian leaders about their faith have had to be discarded. > [@](#): > > But I think you will soon. There’s hope for you yet Polycarp. I’ll be praying for you. Thank you. But, though you’ve been asked this elsewhere, I cannot help but wonder to whom you’re praying! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/84 "2001-10-16T17:42:58Z")
Poly, Here’s a pat on the back, a warm handshake, and a loving hug. And I think I can safely say that on behalf of 99% of the people at SDMB. God go with you always, my friend, my mentor, and my brother. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/85 "2001-10-16T21:26:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Is your presumption that _we_ believe God runs the world? If so, you’re mistaken. \*\* Then what do you believe? Please don’t be coy. And when I say “runs the world”, I mean the natural world; by that, any part of the world not directly affected by Man’s actions. (Does God keep the stars burning or do they burn on their own? Does God keep the planets orbiting their respective stars or is it natural law? Do you believe that God created the universe?) Oh, and does God decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? ---
**Author:** ![Caiata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e56c9b/32.png) [@Caiata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caiata)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/86 "2001-10-16T21:31:28Z")
_blushes_ Awww shucks, Lib … Gah … Um, thank you 🙂 _blushes more_ Gah! I’ll take your word on the Gaudere compliment as I’ve yet to see him post without wearing his Moderator Hat 🙂 Erm, and as far as that goes … I’m incredibly new here and I haven’t seen as much of Polycarp as many others have, but I have to agree with Lib. From what I _have_ seen of him, I already know I respect his faith and his demeanor, and I think that ES’s attack of his beliefs was wholly unwarranted. Polycarp, this atheist salutes you! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/87 "2001-10-16T21:49:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > Then what do you believe? Please don’t be coy. Please don’t be presumptuous, and then no one will have to start this process that you interpret as coyness, which is trying to dig out of you the fulness of whatever is your complaint du jour about people of faith. You’re the one who used the expression “runs the world”. If it is an ill-defined or nebulous phrase, you should have clarified it. So take your own advice in re being coy. (I know that it’s one of your favorite little tricks. 😉 A quick kick to the shin, then running away yelling, “Whah’d ah do?”) > [@](#): > > And when I say “runs the world”, I mean the natural world; by that, any part of the world not directly affected by Man’s actions. Do you think He came down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day? > [@](#): > > (Does God keep the stars burning or do they burn on their own? Does God keep the planets orbiting their respective stars or is it natural law? Do you believe that God created the universe?) You’ve lumped together three things, one of which does not belong. When you’ve explained to me how something — _anything_ — can arise out of nothing, _when nothingness itself implies the absence of any mechanism by which something may arise_, or else when you prove that the universe is eternal — then, and only then, will I acknowledge that the universe could have had anything other than a supernatural origin. > [@](#): > > Oh, and does God decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? No. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/88 "2001-10-16T21:55:28Z")
Caiata, Just so you know, I made that same mistake about Gaudere when I first ran across _her_. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Caiata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e56c9b/32.png) [@Caiata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caiata)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/89 "2001-10-16T22:05:59Z")
Gah again! Okay, I have a proposal! There should be a spot under the username - kinda like the “member/administrator” tag - that says “male” or “female”, 'cause damnit, you guys don’t have icons to go with your posting names and many use such gender-unspecific names! It causes newbs like me to screw up and stuff. _nods_ And uh. Sorry Gaudere. 🙂 Back to your regularly scheduled Christian/atheist discussion: ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/90 "2001-10-16T22:20:05Z")
Libertarian responds to the question: Oh, and does God decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? With No I would ask you to elaborate on this a little please. ---
**Author:** ![VileOrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9e8a1a/32.png) [@VileOrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VileOrb)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/91 "2001-10-16T22:39:48Z")
Hey **Poly** , I think my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle, or maybe you are already over your time alotment for this thread and decided to skip me. Anywho, if ya had some time, I’d love it if ya’d scroll back and check it out. You can skip the ForceFieldWorld part if ya want by just claiming “mysterious ways”. Thanks for the opportunity to get inside your head a bit. Feel free to question me about my beliefs if you so desire. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/92 "2001-10-17T00:28:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **Please don’t be presumptuous** Sorry. > [@](#): > > **You’re the one who used the expression “runs the world”. If it is an ill-defined or nebulous phrase, you should have clarified it. So take your own advice in re being coy.** I thought it was obvious what I meant. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And when I say “runs the world”, I mean the natural world; by that, any part of the world not directly affected by Man’s actions. > > **Do you think He came down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day?** 😕 I’ve heard the phrase before; I don’t see how it applies. > [@](#): > > **When you’ve explained to me how something — _anything_ — can arise out of nothing, _when nothingness itself implies the absence of any mechanism by which something may arise_, or else when you prove that the universe is eternal — then, and only then, will I acknowledge that the universe could have had anything other than a supernatural origin.** It’s very simple. The universe has always existed, but it has a tendency to change form. It didn’t always have stars and planets and other heavenly bodies. It was once tiny and extremely massive and energetic. For some reason we haven’t discovered yet, it began expanding. As it expanded, it cooled off, which is a perfectly normal phenomenon akin to the way refrigerator compressors work. Cooling off allowed the energy within the universe to form stars and planets. Fourteeen to fifteen billion years pass and here are the two of us arguing about how it happened. The universe could not have come from nothing because that would violate [the first law of thermodynamics](http://capita.wustl.edu/ME567_Informatics/concepts/thermo.html) which says that you can’t get something from nothing. So the universe must have always existed. But since it’s obviously expanding, it must have been much, much smaller in the distant past. Application of known physical laws and data gathered from experiment conducted in particle accelerators show that particles can come from energy, _but not from nothing._ Read Stephen Hawking’s _A Brief History of Time_ for more details. There was no “before” the Big Bang; spacetime (that is, _causality_) was created at the moment of the Big Bang. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking “What is north of the North Pole?” The question has no meaning. So what do you believe? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Oh, and does God decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? > > No. \*\* Then who does? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/93 "2001-10-17T19:17:26Z")
**Vile Orb** and **Mayor Quimby** : I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments; I was delayed by a sudden attack of **eternal stupidity**. 😉 Now then: > [@](#): > > How did you first aquire that faith or trust? How did you first achieve faith? Can it be duplicated? “When I was a child, I thought as a child…” 🙂 Seriously, I believed what I was taught in childhood, began asking questions and seeking out answers in my teens, etc., like most thoughtful people. I’d settled on a viewpoint that intellectualized the whole idea of God into a realm suitable for study but requiring no personal commitment, and attended an Episcopal church that expected no more and no less. And then, dealing with “spiritual gifts” in First Corinthians during the “evolution of the New Testament” section of a comprehensive four-year theology course for laymen (strongly recommended, available from the University of the South, Suwannee TN), I had what can only be described as an “encounter with God” in which I found him to be “real and present” – granted that this whole thing is subjective as Hell, I’m reporting my impressions – and suddenly the idea of Christianity as commitment to a Person and as a faith in which reason and emotion are equally yoked came alive to me. I remained in a sterile, emotion-deprived, intellectual mindset nonetheless, outside a bizarre evangelicalistic legalistic commitment to God and a hunger to learn more about “what all the shouting’s about,” for another eight years. Then my foster son came into my life – I firmly believe through God’s active intervention _sub rosa_ – and I was made whole. (That takes several paragraphs and an emotional striptease I’ve already done once and would prefer not to repeat to explain, so I’ll simply ask you to accept it as self-analysis.) In short, I found my way to love of God and then love of fellow man through experiential means. Yes, I’d say it can be duplicated. But for each individual on God’s time scale and not necessarily his own. (Social scientists have major problems with a subject base that is not usually amenable to structured experiment; experimental theologians have it **much** worse! :D) > [@](#): > > So, everyone’s souls are immortal? Don’t have a clue. I just know that He won’t give up, and He’s stronger than Death. I do not have any resolution to the Problem of Pain, other than what I’ve already had to say about it here and on other threads on this board. I am confident in God’s goodness, and that He allows evil to exist and to harm “the innocent” for His own reasons, which are, I believe, good ones, though not known to me. (That constitutes “trust,” and “faith” in the trust equivalent.) > [@](#): > > If I see Jesus the next time me and the woman are going at, I swear . . . Well, then, don’t cry out, “Oh, God, yes!” 😃 I’m going to bypass the Christianity/Paganism parallels discussion. There’s plenty of meat for a new thread, if people are interested, and I don’t care to ignore it or explain it away. But unless it’s a problem for a present-day believer that those parallels exist, I don’t see it as germane to this thread. (Though I guess a lot of other stuff equally off topic has already come in.) Please don’t think I’m upset by its being brought up; I just don’t want to wade through 14 pages worth of alleged parallels (some of which I’d admit the validity of and debate others) right now. **Homebrew** : Thanks for the good words and the excellent references. May I suggest Spong’s last two books (one brand new last month) as additional resources into “post-theistic theology”? **Caiata** : An insightful post. Thanks for posting it. **jab** : I think there’s a case of “rupture” here – you’re asking questions from a naturalist-refuting-superstition mindset, and **Lib.** and I are speaking from a quite different one. Quite simply, the world operates as it does because there are natural laws, discovered and discoverable by science, underlying its operations. We see God as the _source_ of those laws; I’m not sure you or any other philosophical Naturalist has explained their origins. (Does anyone else see a “ **Fenris** reveals the Universe’s Origin Story” tread in the offing? ;)) And the heaven/hell thing: Quite simply, that’s not our issue. You don’t believe in a God who somewhat nepotistically and irrationally sits on a Judgment Throne and sends people to eternal bliss or eternal torment. Neither do we. I think I speak for **Lib.** in saying that human beings judge themselves by the choices they make, and ultimately cut themselves off from all future potential and all present existence and die, or opt for a richer and fuller life in communion with a God who can transcend death. And that’s the explanation behind the God-in-judgment superstition. It goes as far back as _Deuteronomy_: “Behold, I set before you this day two choices: death and life. Therefore, choose life.” Got you on the “before the Big Bang” – we’re stymied by the need to express things in space/time terms. God created **at** the Big Bang – he was the _cause_ of it, though not _prior_ to it (when there was no time). Maybe, given your temporal stance on causality, “cause” isn’t the right word, but I’m sure you take my meaning. Putting the right words around this sort of conceptualization and avoiding spatiotemporally based metaphor is kind of like answering the questions of a genius three-year-old: “How hot is truth?” “How far is up?” “What color is love?” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/94 "2001-10-17T19:48:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > 😕 I’ve heard the phrase before; I don’t see how it applies. You are Thorizing God. > [@](#): > > It’s very simple. The universe has always existed, but it has a tendency to change form. It didn’t always have stars and planets and other heavenly bodies. It was once tiny and extremely massive and energetic. For some reason we haven’t discovered yet, it began expanding. As it expanded, it cooled off, which is a perfectly normal phenomenon akin to the way refrigerator compressors work. Cooling off allowed the energy within the universe to form stars and planets. Fourteeen to fifteen billion years pass and here are the two of us arguing about how it happened. > > The universe could not have come from nothing because that would violate [the first law of thermodynamics](http://capita.wustl.edu/ME567_Informatics/concepts/thermo.html) which says that you can’t get something from nothing. So the universe must have always existed. But since it’s obviously expanding, it must have been much, much smaller in the distant past. Application of known physical laws and data gathered from experiment conducted in particle accelerators show that particles can come from energy, _but not from nothing._ Read Stephen Hawking’s _A Brief History of Time_ for more details. > > There was no “before” the Big Bang; spacetime (that is, _causality_) was created at the moment of the Big Bang. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking “What is north of the North Pole?” The question has no meaning. > > So what do you believe? I believe that a tiny, extremely massive and _energetic_ universe _must_ expand. I believe that if there is a stasis, then there is no energy. And vice-versa. And therefore I believe that it did not just “sit there” and festate, since energy implies changes in state. I believe that if there was no time before the Big Bang, then there was _nothing_ before the Big Bang, because there would have been time even as the tiny universe produced energy. And I believe that if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there is necessarily a logical demarcation, a boundary where the universe began. I believe that if it could not have come about by any natural means, then Ockham’s Razor applies: it _must_ have come about by means that are _super_natural. That’s what I believe. > [@](#): > > Then who does [decide who goes to heaven or hell]? Those who “go”. They decide. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/95 "2001-10-17T20:57:29Z")
I believe I do not deserve to go to Hell. Therefore, according to **Lib** and **Poly** , I have nothing to worry about. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/96 "2001-10-17T21:05:21Z")
You’re nearly there. It isn’t what you believe you deserve, but what you desire. And it isn’t a matter of where you will go. Whatever you’ve chosen, you’re already there. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/97 "2001-10-17T21:43:02Z")
From a post I wrote over at [The Pizza Parlor](http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2748): > [@](#): > > From [The Five Ages of the Universe](http://www.powells.com/biblio/72400-72600/0684854228.html), 1999, by physicists Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin: > > > [@](#): > > > > Chaos rules. The underlying fabric of space-time is going crazy. Instead of exhibiting the usual three dimensions of ordinary space, with a natural and directed flow of time, space-time is a roiling, random and fluctuating froth that continually changes its geometry every 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds. (That’s Planck Time, the shortest possible length of time.) No clean separation of space and time is meaningful in **this ultra-high energy regime** of physical reality. Quantum mechanics and gravity engage in a cosmic battle with universal implications. > > (There’s more, but this paragraph includes my point.) I bolded that phrase because I want to make clear one important point: > > Energy is not nothing; it is something. Therefore, the Big Bang Theory does NOT say the universe came from nothing, it says it came from SOMETHING. As Einstein showed, energy can become matter and vice versa. > > Here’s another fact to boggle your brain: There really is no such thing as nothing. There is ALWAYS something, even if it is energy with no mass (or matter, if you prefer). Even a vacuum is something, namely particles and anti-particles coming into being and destroying each other almost immediately because there is no energy present to maintain their existence. (As long as the net gain in either mass or energy is zero, the 1st L.o.T. has not been violated.) This is referred to as quantum fluctuations, which is consistent with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. **Lib** , I do not believe I go anywhere upon the death of my body. I believe that I will simply cease to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/98 "2001-10-17T22:00:45Z")
Once more, it is not what you believe, but what you _desire_. And whatever that is, you already have it. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/99 "2001-10-17T22:48:22Z")
My beliefs and my desires are the same. So I already have oblivion? ---
**Author:** ![stephaniechandler632](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@stephaniechandler632](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stephaniechandler632)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838/100 "2001-10-18T03:51:08Z")
Excellent book written by an atheist who set out to prove the bible to be wrong fictional and inaccurate historically as well as philisophically: Evidence that demands a verdict. Can’t remember the author but could get it at [amazon.com](http://amazon.com) Anybody up for a book discussion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-christians-ideas-of-god-erroneous/86838.md?page=6)