where was "god"?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Or god was never there, that too is a possibility I shouldn't have omitted.

Again though, I don't want to argue the existence or non-existence of god. Not interested.

What can't be denied is that we are humans living in a vast cosmos that we don't understand the tiniest fraction of. How else to make sense of anything but through speculation? Science begins with theories. Religion with stories. Why the war? A good theory can lead to great discovery. A good story can lead to great inspiration. And vice-versa.

Nothing wrong with that.

theres writings but in thousands of years there can be writings of david blaine.dynamo etc and they could be taking as gods cause of what they do and people will believe,just like today we believe in a god,jesus?but i have saw no proof whatsoever in it being a fact,if theres a god then hes going to have to show something for me to believe.

a reply to: stormson

I hear ya. It's almost like they're all just.... Made up. There's no consensus even inside the same churches. Even within the same families. It's like no one knows what they're talking about but they all swear up and down that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Hhhmmm.... I wonder.

Read THIS, it pretty much directly answers your questions.
If you want to get more into it, HERE is the rest of the book.

a reply to: stormson

No, when you said "popped into existence" what you really mean is the religion, not the god of the religion.

You have to distinguish between internal and external views of a given religion in Religious Studies, and when asking for an internal viewpoint (and that you did), then it does not make sense to disregard the internal viewpoints, and that of both the Torah and the Bible - and the Qur'an for that matter - is that God is much older than the scripture.

In other words, you cannot ask "Where was God" and dismiss the answer "according to scriptures..", but as I wrote earlier, it is completely valid to ask "where was the scriptures?"

And you have a good point in asking that, but you STILL have to accept the internal viewpoints, and the explanations that is given within the religion.

In Religious Studies the default position is that all religions are false and you could order religions by age, and you would then of course not use the dates the various religions themselves operate with. But you STILL would not date their age to the writing of the scriptures - it is fairly commonly accepted that the surviving scriptures and even orally passed down stories dates from a time when the given religion was already well established.

The Rigveda in written form is considered to be several hundred years YOUNGER than the Torah, after having survived for eons in oral form - and if you (as scholars) accept that to be true, you cannot completely rule out that also the (contents of the) Torah its written form. So that would be one answer to your valid question.

By the way, when speaking of Jehovah (as opposed to YHWH or Yahweh), you are speaking in Christian terms, and the N.T. Christian god is not (necessarily) a vengeful god.

originally posted by: kalunom
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Or god was never there, that too is a possibility I shouldn't have omitted.

Again though, I don't want to argue the existence or non-existence of god. Not interested.

What can't be denied is that we are humans living in a vast cosmos that we don't understand the tiniest fraction of. How else to make sense of anything but through speculation? Science begins with theories. Religion with stories. Why the war? A good theory can lead to great discovery. A good story can lead to great inspiration. And vice-versa.

Nothing wrong with that.

A story can lead to inspiration, and I will not disagree with that, but please give me theories and scientist researching them, that will give me much greater hope.

originally posted by: trollz
Read THIS, it pretty much directly answers your questions.
If you want to get more into it, HERE is the rest of the book.

Seriously, you send me to some religious website, and then have the audacity to post your IQ score, trust me bro, got you beat by 20 points +, you seriously need some new arguments.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: trollz
Read THIS, it pretty much directly answers your questions.
If you want to get more into it, HERE is the rest of the book.

Seriously, you send me to some religious website, and then have the audacity to post your IQ score, trust me bro, got you beat by 20 points +, you seriously need some new arguments.

The OP asked about religion, so I provided material with direct answers to his questions. Whether or not the material I provided is accurate is of course a matter of debate, but since you're so much smarter than me, please do go ahead and prove that the information I provided is not legitimate.
Really, go ahead. I'll welcome your coherent, intelligent thoughts on the book I linked to, whenever you're done being ignorant.
By the way, I highly doubt your claim of a 162 IQ when you're criticizing my intelligence for simply posting something related to religion... In a thread about religion, nonetheless.
Also, I haven't even argued anything.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe


A story can lead to inspiration, and I will not disagree with that, but please give me theories and scientist researching them, that will give me much greater hope.

I see well-respected scientists whom have made great discoveries later found to be either completely false or lacking in a real understanding of any given phenomenon. Most call this learning. And so, we move forward with new theories building on the old or sometimes throwing it all out and starting from scratch.

When a religion is found to be lacking or outright false, it tends to be dismissed altogether without any learning-curve allowed. Why the discrepancy? Religion, for me personally provides hope and direction just as science does. Both are fallible. We are still learning. On both sides of the coin.

a reply to: stormson

According to the Hebrew texts, the first man in existence was Adam and he spoke with God in the Garden in Eden.

There are many parallels between the Bible and Sumerian texts. Some say it is because the original Hebrew scribes took Sumerian myths and changed details to suit. Yes, that is possible, but also the opposite is possible, that Sumerians took Caananite legends (the Hebrews are descendents of Caananite tribes).

It is interesting to note that the Sumerian King Lists speak of 10 'generations' before the flood and so does the Genesis text. There are many other parallels which may lead one to conclude that both traditions were describing real events, filtered through their own cultural paradigms.

Some will no doubt quote the Enuma Elish creation and say that it pre-dates the Mosaic accounts. The thing is that the Enuma Elish is a Babylonian account, from after Babylon had conquered the Sumerian Empire. The truth is that all copies we have of the Enuma Elish probably post-date the Hebrew accounts as written by Moses.

So, in all likelihood (granting some latitude for originality to both parties), both accounts were contemporary with each other. Two different viewpoints on an already ancient tradition.

Also, in the Hebrew tradition, only God does supernatural things. The humans represented are constantly failing and very human, which adds some degree of reasonableness to their account.

Within the Hebrew account is a structure that suggests the use of clay tablets. Let me explain, Akkadian scribes used cuneiform writing where a stick or reed was sharpened at one end to produce a thin triangular profile. This profile was then impressed into small flat 'tablets' of damp clay. When the clay dried, the text was extremely durable.

The problem with this process was that long accounts had to be carried on multiple tablets. If the tablets were too large and thin, they'd break and if they were too thick, they'd be too bulky in general use. So the Akkadian scribes invented a system to ensure narrative flow and keep the tablets to a useable size.

Their method was as follows:

1. On the first tablet, they would put the authors name (or attribution, if a scribe was writing on behalf of someone else) at the end of the account.

2. On the next tablet, they would start with the last sentence immediately preceding the attribution from the previous tablet and would then continue the narrative. This tablet also ended with the attribution. Subsequent tablets would also be formatted in the same way.

In this way, tablets in libraries could be assembled in in narrative order.

Ancient Hebrew script is unlike cuneiform as it consists of flowing pictograms, best done with a stylus and some sort of pigment ink. Traditionally, Hebrew scrolls consist of high quality treated animal skins written on with ink. These skins can be sewn together and rolled up to produce portable documents of considerable length, overcoming the limitation of clay tablets, but increasing the cost of manufacture of inks and vellum, and further specialization of the tasks of a scribe.

In transcribing from tablets to scrolls, a good scribe would not edit the content, but would retain all the features of the text. In this case, there would be a structure consisting of a sentence, an attribution and then the sentence repeated.

In the Hebrew text of Genesis this structure evident, repeated at intervals that could reasonably indicate transcription from tablets.

It centers around the ancient word "toledot" which has been translated as "generations of". This mistranslation may have come about because in ancient Semitic tradition, people defined themselves by both their name and lineage. The translators, seeing an unfamiliar word, attempted to determine what the word may have meant by context and therefore have misunderstood the attribution, believed it was a genealogy.

If you wish to see this for yourself, every time in Genesis that it says "these are the generations of", look for a repeat of the sentence before (I believe it occurs seven times).

Additionally, if it were a genealogy, why was Abraham's left out? Surely that would have been the most important one. Instead Abraham's story is attributed to one of his sons.

The upshot of this is that the text actually is identifying the writer who was most likely the witness to the actual events. It isn't just legends passed down orally.

So, in answer to your post. Always there from day one according to our best information on the topic.

a reply to: stormson

you do realize that many biblical scholars think the book of job was written before the torah right. many think it was written in 1500 bc, and that the torah was written in ether 1450 to 1400. just going off what i can recall without looking them up.

then there was the oral traditions, which one could say started with adam and eve.

there are some who hold that all the ancient gods were fallen angels.

then you got your alien crowd.

another thing you may not have realized, is that Abraham was from Ur or some say Ura both were cites in Sumer/Mesopotamia, and we all know that they were a civilized culture long before the egyptians.

originally posted by: kalunom

originally posted by: BubbaJoe


A story can lead to inspiration, and I will not disagree with that, but please give me theories and scientist researching them, that will give me much greater hope.

I see well-respected scientists whom have made great discoveries later found to be either completely false or lacking in a real understanding of any given phenomenon. Most call this learning. And so, we move forward with new theories building on the old or sometimes throwing it all out and starting from scratch.

When a religion is found to be lacking or outright false, it tends to be dismissed altogether without any learning-curve allowed. Why the discrepancy? Religion, for me personally provides hope and direction just as science does. Both are fallible. We are still learning. On both sides of the coin.

I will agree, I see scientists fail with hypothesis's all the time, so either they retire, or search for a new theory. I see religion as backing the same philosophy consistently, even though it has been shown to be wrong, time and time again. Religion provides nothing for me, and while both are fallible, I will continue to believe in science.

I honestly hope your faith provides you peace in your life, that is important for all of us. I lost my faith many years ago, consider myself agnostic, am searching, and the amazing thing is, neither of us will ever know if the other is right. You, Sir, or Maam, have been an honorable conversational partner.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: trollz
Read THIS, it pretty much directly answers your questions.
If you want to get more into it, HERE is the rest of the book.

Seriously, you send me to some religious website, and then have the audacity to post your IQ score, trust me bro, got you beat by 20 points +, you seriously need some new arguments.

The OP asked about religion, so I provided material with direct answers to his questions. Whether or not the material I provided is accurate is of course a matter of debate, but since you're so much smarter than me, please do go ahead and prove that the information I provided is not legitimate.
Really, go ahead. I'll welcome your coherent, intelligent thoughts on the book I linked to, whenever you're done being ignorant.
By the way, I highly doubt your claim of a 162 IQ when you're criticizing my intelligence for simply posting something related to religion... In a thread about religion, nonetheless.
Also, I haven't even argued anything.

You link me to some website this is written chapter and verse, nothing I can find, tells me who it is written by. An undocumented source makes it illegitimate, just for starters.

Your intelligence is of no importance to me, but anyone who would post that their IQ = 142, COME AT ME BRO, seriously caused me to pause. If on a website like this, you have to announce your IQ to qualify arguments, then issues are present.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Seriously, you send me to some religious website, and then have the audacity to post your IQ score, trust me bro, got you beat by 20 points +, you seriously need some new arguments.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
If on a website like this, you have to announce your IQ to qualify arguments, then issues are present.

a reply to: stormson

What youre not getting? HE did leave a mark. A big one. Because YOU are discussing HIM here. Otherwise, you'd be talking about squirrels.....

a reply to: charles1952

as though population statistics of belief or percentages of beliefs held were any sort of indication as to the beliefs being FACTUAL...

Just because 90% of humanity believes something to be true isnt even an INDICATION of is truthfulness much less solid evidence that it is in fact true....

a reply to: stormson

Where was God?

Watching from behind the scenes as his creation destroyed itself without him...

Not talking about Jehovah or YHWH here either...

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Actually I think a lot of people are talking about HIM simply because others keep bringing him up and using his alleged Rule Book to justify all the stuff they're doing in his name.

Personally, I don't even like labeling this concept as HIM. Better IMO would be HER. Better still would be IT. But the best would actually be .

originally posted by: stormson
where was "god"?

If God were a member of ATS, his response might be something like this:

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of my earth? Tell me, since you're so informed! Job 38:4

originally posted by: stormson
I mean, if Im the only god, the one true god, I certainly would have left a mark, even in pre-history, yet we don't see it.

The truth is out there...but you will NOT find it inserted in between 30 second commercials for toothpaste and i-phones.

We see what we want to see:

I have a friend who turned to a seat mate who had just sat down and said in his English accent: “Particularly nasty weather? The woman immediately got up and went to the stewardess and complained. She asked to have her seat changed because the gentleman next to her said, “Tickle your arse with a feather?” We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear. www.joesugarman.com...

originally posted by: Murgatroid

I have a friend who turned to a seat mate who had just sat down and said in his English accent: “Particularly nasty weather? The woman immediately got up and went to the stewardess and complained. She asked to have her seat changed because the gentleman next to her said, “Tickle your arse with a feather?” We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear. www.joesugarman.com...

All the more reason not to rely on a handful of 2000 year old men who wrote down some stuff on a bunch of scrolls and hid them in caves. Who knows what mental problems they had or what kinds of "pipe weed" those guys were tokin on. Frankencense and myrh my butt. More like Frankenweed and myrhooms!!