Do you need answers?

[BlueSci]

There is something that I've often pondered and my recent conversation
with 4praise has brought it to my mind again. I felt that this was
deserving of it's own thread and I'd like to explore it with both
theists and atheists.

I have a hypothesis that what really separates theists and atheists is
the need for answers. Theists, in my experience, seem to have this
need to have answers for everything. This is evidenced in the
question that atheists so often get when we refute their beliefs and
that is, "Well, what is your answer, then?" Even if they don't have
an answer now, they believe they'll get answers to everything when
they get to heaven.

Atheists, on the other hand, seem much more comfortable with the fact
that we don't have answers for everything, and may never have them.
Personally, don't even want to have answers for everything because
that would mean that there would be nothing to be curious about,
nothing left to ponder, nothing to explore or learn about. It's the
main reason why heaven, as it's been described, has no appeal for me.
I can't imagine a more boring and dreary scenario than spending
eternity with nothing new to discover. That would be hell to me.
It's also why I find it hard to believe in an omniscient and eternal
god. I imagine that such a being would be bored to tears. And why
bother creating a universe when you already know everything that will
occur in it? I mean, if you already knew every word of a story before
you sit down to read it, why bother even opening the book?

So am I right in this? Theists, do you feel the need to have answers
for everything? Why do you think having all the answers would be
desireable?

Atheists, are you comfortable without having all the answers? Do you
think having all the answers would be desirable, or would you prefer
to always have some things left unanswered?

(BTW, I'm also posting this on AvC to get a wider sampling)

[random]

Can't really speak for them, but I think the answer is "no".
After all, even the things that are answered, are always left unknown,
it's just that in some topics, the "unknown" is traded with "God works
in mysterious ways" or something similar.

In subjects that are not related to God or religion in any way, I
don't think we are really that different from one another.

> Atheists, are you comfortable without having all the answers? Do you
> think having all the answers would be desirable, or would you prefer
> to always have some things left unanswered?

Depends on what topics.
In some things, I won't be satisfied until I solve everything, in
others I don't even bother.
Generally speaking for humankind, even if the point itself is
impossible, unreachable or just doesn't exist, I think we are trying
to reach the point where we know about everything.
Still, even if somehow we will have knowledge of everything (whatever
that means), individuals will always have unknown things in their
lifetimes.

> (BTW, I'm also posting this on AvC to get a wider sampling)

Saw it there first, but I copied the same answer here.

[Belly Bionic]

An excellent question. I would also have to say no. There are plenty
of things that I don't know, and I'm okay with that. I think one of
the hallmarks of atheism is not needing someone to tell you nice
stories to fill in the things you don't know. The idea that there may
not have been a definite beginning of the universe, and that
something, in some form, has just always existed is mind-boggling to
me. I can't quite wrap my head around that. However, I don't need to
convince myself that some magic man in the sky created everything.
It's okay for me to just not understand how such things could be. Not
understanding how it could be is what drives me to learn more, to try
to wrap my mind around the concept.

[4praise]

The subject line for this thread sounds like the title page of a
gospel tract :-)

> Theists, in my experience, seem to have this
> need to have answers for everything.

I don't know how you could get that from my recent posts.

I think that before you can address the issue of "answers" you have to
identify the "questions".

I think that the questions that most humans wonder about are:

- Why am I here? / What is my purpose?
- Why do I have problems?
- Can I overcome them?
- What happens after death?
- Will I see my loved ones again?

The debate between believers and none believers often centers on
creation or the resurrection of Christ - interesting topics, but not
really the foremost questions in most peoples minds (IMO).

Now, as to who "needs" answers more. I would say that it's a tie -
we're all human. Atheists and Theists both have developed answers to
those questions.

On Jul 23, 1:06 pm, BlueSci <blue...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Jim Gunson]

I see it sort of the other way round. Theists (myself included) ask
many questions which have no answers. Atheists don't ask these
questions, and moreover generally regard the questions as ridiculous.


Jim Gunson

[random]

I think we only ignore questions that are already built on
assumptions. For example "why did God put us here" is irrelevant
before we accept God exists.

If you mean something else, can you give some examples?

[Jim Gunson]

On Jul 24, 3:48 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:12 am, Jim Gunson <rong...@hotmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

> > I see it sort of the other way round. Theists (myself included) ask
> > many questions which have no answers. Atheists don't ask these
> > questions, and moreover generally regard the questions as ridiculous.
>

> I think we only ignore questions that are already built on
> assumptions. For example "why did God put us here" is irrelevant
> before we accept God exists.
>

Yes, you are correct. Religious questions are based on Religious
Faith,
which is an assumption.
Take one of the classic questions "Why does God allow such evil to
occur in the world ?". Theists struggle eternally with this question.
Atheists don't struggle because the question is meaningless for them.
They seem to think there is just the right amount of evil in the
world.


Jim Gunson

[random]

That part is right.

> They seem to think there is just the right amount of evil in the
> world.
>

That part is wrong.
There is no direct outside source of good and evil, but we still want
to minimize the damage in the world.

> Jim Gunson

[Dag Yo]

> I think that the questions that most humans wonder about are:
>
> - Why am I here? / What is my purpose?
> - Why do I have problems?
> - Can I overcome them?
> - What happens after death?
> - Will I see my loved ones again?

Not that atheists (much less those who would describe themselves as
anti-theists) are most people, but I dare say a good majority of those
who would call themselves anti-theists have completely satisfying
answers to all of those questions. I know I do.

[Belly Bionic]

It is rather ridiculous to ask a question when you've already decided
there's no answer to that question. Assuming from the start that the
question has no answer shuts down further questioning and searching
for answers. What's the point of that? If you're going to assume the
question has no answer, then the questions is nothing but noise.

[Belly Bionic]

Maybe you can answer one of the many questions I've got rattling
around in my head:

Why do so many theists such as yourself seem to be incapable of having
a conversation with atheists without taking these petty, childish
jabs? Seriously, we were having a perfectly lovely exchange of ideas,
and apparently that's unacceptable to you. Why is that?

[Jim Gunson]

On Jul 25, 1:39 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is rather ridiculous to ask a question when you've already decided
> there's no answer to that question. Assuming from the start that the
> question has no answer shuts down further questioning and searching
> for answers. What's the point of that? If you're going to assume the
> question has no answer, then the questions is nothing but noise.
>

It's not black and white. There are shades. There is a difference
between
a question not having an answer, and
1. there is an answer but you are unable to find it, or
2. you found the answer but don't have the ability to pass it on.


Jim Gunson

[Jim Gunson]

On Jul 25, 1:42 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe you can answer one of the many questions I've got rattling
> around in my head:
>
> Why do so many theists such as yourself seem to be incapable of having
> a conversation with atheists without taking these petty, childish
> jabs? Seriously, we were having a perfectly lovely exchange of ideas,
> and apparently that's unacceptable to you. Why is that?
>

You're right. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to set the teacups rattling in
this lovely new group.


Jim Gunson

[Ted Goas]

Damn that's a good question and one of the main reasons so many people
disagree when it comes to religion. I see I'm joining the party pretty
late and others have bounced ideas off each other, but I'd like to
answer your closing questions.

Atheists, are you comfortable without having all the answers?

Well, I'm pretty close to being an atheist and am perfectly fine with
not knowing. Though I can sympathize that it's more comforting having
an explanation for life's bigger questions, even if the explanations
aren't necessarily right. But it's also dangerous to think this way
since arriving at a conclusion often encourages a person to stop
thinking about these huge questions.

Do you think having all the answers would be desirable, or would you
prefer to always have some things left unanswered?

I'd be OK with having the answers if we were sure they are accurate.
Again, it's not an excuse to stop thinking about the topic, even if
it's been proven true at the time. It should be revisited and re-
questioned from time to time.

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

[thea]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think that the questions that most humans wonder about are:
>
> - Why am I here? / What is my purpose?

 

Dag Yo:  You asked the question and I will try to answer it. I am a Christian so I am giving my reasons.  Why am I here?  What is my purpose? 

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, made us for His Glory.  We were thought of *Before the Foundation of the Earth,* to be accepted through the Blood of the Cross, to be the *Praise of the Glory of His Grace* (Eph 1).  Now to explain in my own words:  When Satan sinned in the eons of time past, he got threw out of heaven.  When that happened, there were angels that sided with Satan and were tossed out of heaven at the same time.  So, because we know that there is no vacuum in space, then there cannot be any vacuum in heaven either.  So, God decided that HE would fill up heaven with a people, who got to heaven, not because of who they were (so they couldn't be proud like Satan had been) but because of the sacrifice that Jesus paid.  (There is a Gap Theory that teaches that there is a Gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 - this is where the dinosaurs disappeared, when and why). --thea

 

> - Why do I have problems?

 

I have to quote scripture, then I will tell you how this works:  *These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.  In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.*  (John 16:33)  Now for how this has worked out in my life.  When I became a Christian, I didn't know how to depend on Jesus to do anything for me.  I did everything for myself.  You know the old saying:  God helps him who helps himself!  No, God doesn't.  As long as I tried to do everything for myself, I just made bigger and bigger messes.  God only helps us when we rely on HIM to solve our problems for us.  When we ask Jesus for help, we find that Jesus opens the door and gives us a job to pay our bills.  We find that Jesus gives us knowledge to solve problems, that no one has previously solved, that makes the job easier for someone else.

I have problems so that I can learn to depend on Jesus to solve them. 

Jesus doesn't just give us money without our having to work for it.  What is really interesting about this was that one time I was listening to my Dad talk about how the Lord had furnished all of his needs.  I turned to my mother who taught school, and said, *Jesus always made me work for it.*  Mother told me, *Me too.*  But to Dad (who was retired), his needs were being supplied - Mother had a job!  thea

 

> - Can I overcome them?

 

My dad always used to come up to a stop sign on a cross street in the 1940's, and there would be a lot of cross traffic, and we had to wait.  He would also say, *It comes to those who wait!*  And sure enough, about the next car, we could go.  Never saw it to fail. 

My problems always seemed to stay put -- right there in front of me -- couldn't get around them -- until I learned to say, *Thank you, Jesus, for this problem.*  And then it seemed some other problem would come up and until I learned to say, *Thank you, Jesus, for this problem.* it just wouldn't go away.   Oh, I could do all the praying and pleading that I wanted to -- but I wasn't accepting the answer or solution to the problem, until I could say, *Thank you, Jesus!* before the answer arrived.  You see this is the *Sacrifice of Praise* that is talked about in Psalms and Hebrews. There are principles in the Bible that if we practice the principles, things work out for us easy. Every problem will stay right where it is, until you acknowledge Jesus as the author of the solution.  I have learned over time to constantly stay in the Praising Jesus mode, so to speak, because I have found that Jesus' solutions to my problems are so much better than the ones I could come up with.

One scripture which I use to get through my problems is Psalms 50: 14-15:  *Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High, And call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.* 

This worked for me over the years, and still does.  thea

> - What happens after death?

 

I will be honest.  I was introduced to this when my husbands grandmother died, and again when his father died.

It seems to me that about two weeks before you die you will know that you are dying.  It is not a premonition as we think of premonitions.  It is something where the dying are hearing relatives that have already died, or seeing childhood friends who are already dead.

My father in contrast, said he saw Jesus.  This was when he was in intensive care about two weeks before he died.

I know that the Bible teaches that there is a gulf between earth and heaven, and to get across the river of life, Jesus has to come for us.

When I questioned a nurse at the nursing home where my father-in-law had been, she said they saw this phenomena all the time. 

I am thoroughly convinced that there is life after death.  I also know, that I don't want to miss seeing Jesus.  thea

> - Will I see my loved ones again?

 

I think you will.  The Bible says there is a judgement.  The Christian's judgement is at the Bema Seat where we receive our rewards.  The Sinners judgement is Revelations where there is a parting between the good and the bad.

If your relatives are Christians and so are you, you will know each other in heaven.  thea

[Belly Bionic]

On Jul 25, 8:22 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, because we know that there is no vacuum
> in space, then there cannot be any vacuum in heaven either.  

Uh, thea...space *is* a vacuum. That's why it's often called "the
vacuum of space." Where on earth do you get the entirely wrong idea
that there can be no vacuum in space?

[Drafterman]

Obviously propoganda from Hoover in their attempts to monopolize the
vacuum industry.

[thea]

A space was opened up in heaven when Satan came to earth like lightning!  That space which he had formerly occupied is now going to be occupied by those who are chosen from Before The Foundation of the Earth (Eph. 1).  thea

[The Belly Bionic]

What? Is your reading comprehension really this bad? What does this
have to do with the fact that you said there can be no vacuum in space,
even though space is, in fact, a vacuum?

thea wrote:
> A space was opened up in heaven when Satan came to earth like
> lightning! That space which he had formerly occupied is now going to
> be occupied by those who are chosen from Before The Foundation of the
> Earth (Eph. 1). thea
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com
> <mailto:belly...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 25, 8:22 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com

> <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > So, because we know that there is no vacuum
> > in space, then there cannot be any vacuum in heaven either.
>
> Uh, thea...space *is* a vacuum. That's why it's often called "the
> vacuum of space." Where on earth do you get the entirely wrong idea
> that there can be no vacuum in space?
>

--
http://groups.google.com/group/debatereligion
For all your religious debate needs!

Food is Life: http://bellybionic.blogspot.com/

[thea]

I was meaning that you cannot go and take a planet out of the sky, with leaving a space to be filled up with something else.  (Making an analogy)  In just the same way, something in Heaven is missing, and so there is space for us to go to  -- thea

[The Belly Bionic]

If you could remove a planet from space, what would be left would be
more of the VACUUM that is space. You can very much have a vacuum in
space, because that's what space is. So what does any of this have to
do with your claim that you can't have a vacuum in space?

thea wrote:
> I was meaning that you cannot go and take a planet out of the sky,
> with leaving a space to be filled up with something else. (Making an
> analogy) In just the same way, something in Heaven is missing, and so
> there is space for us to go to -- thea
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:19 PM, The Belly Bionic
> <belly...@gmail.com <mailto:belly...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> What? Is your reading comprehension really this bad? What does this
> have to do with the fact that you said there can be no vacuum in
> space,
> even though space is, in fact, a vacuum?
>
> thea wrote:
> > A space was opened up in heaven when Satan came to earth like
> > lightning! That space which he had formerly occupied is now
> going to
> > be occupied by those who are chosen from Before The Foundation
> of the
> > Earth (Eph. 1). thea
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Belly Bionic
> <belly...@gmail.com <mailto:belly...@gmail.com>

> > <mailto:belly...@gmail.com <mailto:belly...@gmail.com>>>

> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 25, 8:22 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com
> <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>

> > <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com <mailto:thea.n...@gmail.com>>>

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Thea;

By way of prologue and out of sheer curiosity, do you EVER look up
whether your facts are in order before you opine on something? I ask
because your statement, quoted below, is not even wrong.

On Jul 25, 1:23 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was meaning that you cannot go and take a planet out of the sky, with
> leaving a space to be filled up with something else.

This is wrong on two counts and sadly so because a few minutes of
Googling would turn up the facts of the matter. If you took a planet
out of the sky two things would happen NEITHER of them remotely
resembling what you describe. So let's do a little thought
experiment. Let's say, for sake of argument, that Venus disappeared
out of its orbit. What would happen? What would we, here on Earth,
notice? What might intelligent astonomers, on some far-away planet,
notice?

To make it simple, we'll say that for no adequately explored reason
Venus simply *ceases to exist*.

The first thing is that Venus' mass would be gone from the solar
system. The warp in space-time that Venus creates would disappear.
Now, while this might have a slight effect on Earth's orbit it would
not be significant while still remaining trivial. Since we know that
gravity is the warping of space-time by mass, all of the planets in
the solar system have a *some* effect on all the other planets in the
solar system. However, because gravity is subject to the inverse-
square law, the effect drops off quickly as you move away from a
planet's center of mass. So Earth's orbit might be perturbed
slightly, it would not be changed so significantly that we would, for
instance, move out of our orbital position into Venus'. Thus is your
hypothesis disproven. What is more, because the space surrounding
Venus is already a vacuum nothing would rush in to fill it. There
would not be a 'hole' in space-time that needed to be filled, rather
space-time would simply not be warped as much in the region where
Venus formerly was.

Now, what might intelligent astronomers elsewhere in the galaxy
notice? Some N number of years later (where N is the number of light-
years our hypothetical astronomers are from Earth) they would notice,
presuming that they had been looking at our solar system for some
time, that the Sun's wobble had lessened just a tiny bit. (Recall
that all the mass in the solar system is pulling on all the other mass
in the solar system so the planets exert a gravitational pull on their
stars which cause them to wobble a bit which is the primary way we
detect the presence of other solar systems). However, if they had
NEVER looked at us until *after* Venus had disappeared the system as
it would be is what they would understand the system to have always
been. There would be no sign that Venus had ever existed.

Please note that at NO point in this scenario does a planet or any
other matter come in to take the place of the missing mass that was
Venus. It's just *gone*.

You are mistaking the statement 'nature abhors a vacuum', a statement
that is more or less true in the special conditions within an
atmosphere down a gravity well (see my post in AvC about locally true
statements) it is NOT true in space itself.

Cheers
DGG

 (Making an analogy)
> In just the same way, something in Heaven is missing, and so there is space
> for us to go to  -- thea
>

> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:19 PM, The Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What?  Is your reading comprehension really this bad?  What does this
> > have to do with the fact that you said there can be no vacuum in space,
> > even though space is, in fact, a vacuum?
>
> > thea wrote:
> > > A space was opened up in heaven when Satan came to earth like
> > > lightning!  That space which he had formerly occupied is now going to
> > > be occupied by those who are chosen from Before The Foundation of the
> > > Earth (Eph. 1).  thea
>

[thea]

DGG:  I was trying to make the point that in heaven there is space to be filled up with *us who were chosen Before The Foundation of the Earth* because Satan was cast out.  I was just trying to explain the *space* that we - you and I - are going to some day fill up.  I used the wrong wording, and I really don't know how to explain this in a more logical way.  thea

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Thea:

>>>So, because we know that there is no vacuum
in space, then there cannot be any vacuum in heaven either.<<<

These are your words. Unlike you, I can quote you directly and don't
have to make things up out of whole cloth. (I cannot help but notice
that you have still not admitted that you were wrong when you stated
that I believe in reincarnation but no matter.) You were talking
about space. Space IS a vacuum and your statements about what would
happen if a planet were taken out of the sky were factually in error.

I hear what you are saying about what you believe happened in a place
that doesn't exist to entities that don't exist. It is still
fantastical and nonsensical. Perhaps you cannot find a logical way to
explain yourself because what you are trying to explain is not, in the
least bit, logical.

Cheers
DGG

On Jul 25, 2:39 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DGG:  I was trying to make the point that in heaven there is space to be
> filled up with *us who were chosen Before The Foundation of the Earth*
> because Satan was cast out.  I was just trying to explain the *space* that
> we - you and I - are going to some day fill up.  I used the wrong wording,
> and I really don't know how to explain this in a more logical way.  thea
>

[rappoccio]

On Jul 23, 4:06 pm, BlueSci <blue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is something that I've often pondered and my recent conversation
> with 4praise has brought it to my mind again.  I felt that this was
> deserving of it's own thread and I'd like to explore it with both
> theists and atheists.
>
> I have a hypothesis that what really separates theists and atheists is
> the need for answers.

Good point. Many theists I know of will prefer a fabricated answer
above admitting they don't know.

> Theists, in my experience, seem to have this
> need to have answers for everything.  This is evidenced in the
> question that atheists so often get when we refute their beliefs and
> that is, "Well, what is your answer, then?"  Even if they don't have
> an answer now, they believe they'll get answers to everything when
> they get to heaven.

Not only that, they get really pissed off if we ask them how they know
that God won't punish them mercilessly for this ;)

[rappoccio]

Oh yeah, and no, I don't need answers ;)

On Jul 23, 4:06 pm, BlueSci <blue...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Dag Yo]

> Dag Yo: You asked the question and I will try to answer it. I am a
> Christian so I am giving my reasons.

Actually if you reread my post you'll see that I didn't actually asked
those questions; 4praise brought those up in an effort to make the
argument that jumping to conclusions is perfectly reasonable behavior.

On Jul 25, 8:22 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote: