Creationism / Kreationismus

[Elvain]

...Religion exists because from the beginning of time, men have realized that the world could not have just appeared, and that something Supernatural had to have made it. And also because men realized that there must be something more to life than just this.
Well, I completely agree, with one very important change. Replace the word "realized" by "thought", especially in the second usage..
They thought because they couldn't imagine it being diferent. Now when we have ways how to imagine the origins of the world, we do it.

A: "How is it possible that the world exist?"
B: "It works perfectly, it is created by God"
A: "Works perfectly? And what about the millions innocent people who were killed?"
B: "it was a test for those who survived. We shold follow this God because he's so powerfull and will protect us!"
A: "and will he really protect us? and will he also protect those good people who don't know him?"
B: "if we will follow his orders, he will never turn against us. And those who are good will come to follow his orders."
A: "and what are the orders?"
B: "I know them, I will tell you when it's the time."
A: "and how can you know them?"
B: "He told me those orders and asked me to tell them to you when it's the right time"
A: "And when will the time come?"
B: "Be calm. He will tell me to reveal them and then I will tell you."

could you tell me who is B?
and what about this dialogue

A: "How is it possible that the world exist?"
B: "I don't know. But it is here and it works fine"
A: "Works fine? And what about the millions innocent people who were killed?"
B: "some people are bad and they kill the others. I know one guy who is able to protect us, he has really good weapons to protect us"
A: "and will he really protect us? and will he also protect those good people who don't know him?"
B: "if we will follow his orders, he will never turn against us. And those who are good and wise will all once find him and come here to live wel under his protection and follow his orders"
A: "and what are the orders?"
B: "I know them, I will tell you when it's the time."
A: "and how can you know them?"
B: "He told me those orders and asked me to tell them to you when it's the right time"
A: "And when will the time come?"
B: "Be calm. He will tell me to reveal them and then I will tell you."

and now, who could be B?

Different ideas came about in different cultures, with most believing in an after life, and others believing in re-incarnation. ... Granted, not every religious belief system can be true. But neither can they all be false.later I will prove they all can be

look that in diferent societies Gods looked like the men who created the systems, that they were symbolized by strongest local animals or elemnts
The first laws of Jews fitted perfectly to nomadic society, then when they became urban population, the God "changed" them to fit urban society, right? It was God, not people.
How better we are then the first peoples led by Abraham that we have right to know absolute truth and absolute moral values while they didn't and they payed eye for eye, death for death?
Why the Good God gave us something they didn't have? Why the first religious orders include such punnishments like stoning etc. and we don't? The God thought they deserve it? Why? how is it possible that nomadic muslims have the punnishments almost the same as nomadic Jews used to have, while the Jews already turned to have them little diferent (once they setteled down in cities)?


I'm not sure I entirely understood what you were saying in that second question...:confused: simple. Doubts, which are origins of science are forbidden by religion. For science doubt is the first step. For religion it's weakness or sin.

I can agree with that. But, on the other hand, you do have to believe in the validity of the "facts" that support a scientific theory.yes, you have right not to believe that when I hold a knife covered with blood over a guy who was killed by a knife that I didn't murder him.
You have right not to believe because you have deep feeling I am a good guy. And yes, I am good guy, but he attacked me and I found my life worthy enough so I did it to save it.

My only problem is when people say, "The big bang is how it happened, and you don't need to learn any other possible way". I would make the same objection if you replaced "big bang" with "Divine Creation". ...That's the problem. We all are just humans and we NEED answers to be satisfied.
Once it was proven that the species evolve in time so they were not created as we know them, a question emerged.
How they emerged here? When there was no creation, how did the world Started?
Such questions can never be answered by science because we can't find proofs for them.
Big bang is the same Bull**it as Divine creation. It is something to answer inanswerable question. It is a myth, an unprovable theory.

But be carefull not to confuse Big Bang theory and theory of Evolution. They are two completely diferent theories you tehd to confuse one with each other because you don't like them. Just like fanatics often confuse themselves with true believers. Both cases are very often among religious people while retional people admit they might not know the absolute truth.

There are many who would beg to differ. I am one of them. When I pray, I can feel something extra-human around me. I can "feel" God's presence when I talk to him. I can feel His presence in an even more powerful way than I can feel the wind. And many other Christians would say the same thing.Sometimes EVERYONE feels such things. I do too, but to have some deep mystic experience does not prove that there is God or whatever we think it is. That just proves we have ability to have mystic experiences.
Women have very deep pain every month while the men don't. Does it mean 1) there is some Super-pain causing it?
2) that Some Super-being considers them as worse being so they deserve it?
3) is it caused by some proceses in their bodies?
For all of human history except last 100 years (please don't take the number literary!) people thought it is 1 or 2. Though today we know that they were wrong. Or do you disagree? Now I will use one of your above citations apd prove it wrong:
Granted, not every religious belief system can be true. But neither can they all be false.So they are all right, so menstruation and pains during childbirth are caused because women are evil, right?

this means when humans, even in diferent in diferent civilizations all get to approximately same reasoning of things they may be wrong. Why? Because the gods are wrong?
no, just simply because at the times when religious orders were made up by the men, they didn't have enough knowledge so they were all wrong

I do not argue that "we have to be a product of an intelligent mind". I argue that as there is not enough proof in any direction, and since my heart of hearts tells me to accept creationism, I accept it. Not "just because", but because I feel a deep conviction to believe that God made me. Just as there are many who feel a deep conviction that they are just random mistakes, and not beings made with Love.but I feel deep conviction that there is no God though it would be very easy for me to interpret all complicated situations of my life through him.
We tend to interpret crucial moment of our lives as religious or whatever signs because we are in need to interpret everything we don't understand

I'm sorry, but the only "proof" ever discovered of Evolution was later proven to be falsified evidence. My question is, "If there is so much proof of Evolution, why do scientists feel the need to 'create' missing link fossils and such?"1) which proof you mean. Could you give me exact information how, when and by who it was proven wrong?
2) why they need to "create" missing links? because they are humans.
Imagine. You have a picture with you having 3 apples. Now you have just one apple. But you don't remember having 2 apples. This is missing link. YOu have no data of the time between you had 3 apples to now. Does it mean you did not have 2 apples between the time of the picture proving 3 and actual situation of having one?
ok, let's think about possible reasons. That means you create the missing link. But then someone tells you there was a camera shooting the room which shows you you have eaten one apple 2 hours ago and then you had 2 apples. And then you have eaten also the second apple so now you have just one. Better technology proved your "theories to be wrong.
That's how the things happen :wink:

That's just it. You should not doubt yourself without good reason. I do my very best to only speak what I believe in my heart of hearts, my "conscience". And Martin Luther was right when he said, "To go against conscience is neither right nor safe".but I have good reason which is backed by my conscience that there is no God. I wish to have my life easily interpreted by some simple explanation. There is a God who wishes these things to happen. But I have deep feeling there is no god so I doubt. It is the same way that leads You to God. The same way leads you To him and me From him. it's weird, isn't it? does it mean one of us is better or worse?

If science doesn't believe in absolute truths, then why is it that almost every Evolutionist I've heard tells me that "Evolution is true, so just accept it. And Christianity is wrong. So just accept it."? Shouldn't they be saying, "Well, the evidence supports Evolution, at least, we think so, but we can't prove it true..."?Why? because evolution (don't confuse evolution with Big Bang!!!) is backed by scientific proofs, while Creation is proved by nothing but "deep feelings". And SOME proofs are always more than NO proofs. So people who are not perfect use imperfect words and they say "it is true" because it is easier to say than "it is much more likely to be true than..."

I believe that the scientists of the 16th century had it right when they realized that religion is not the be all end all of knowledge (as was previously thought) or that science is the be all end all of knowledge (as is now thought)What?
you think science thinks it is now end of all knowledge? It again proves that you have no idea of what the science is.
I will repeat myself but:
1) science knows there are some things which cannot be answered by it (how did the world created). But still some scientists try to answer those questions. Though they apply methods of science for most of their researches for this single case they become myth-makers.
2) science knows that NOW we have actual knowledge. It can be proven wrong or right in the future.
Got it?

And that is why it needs the stability provided by Faith.right. But that does mean that the system will soon not correspond with the actual situation.
So it is good to think that Women feel pain because they are worse than men, because they are evil? Just because stable tradition of all cultures all around the world thought it since the beggining of human existence? Just because such interpretation established stable system?

I was simply replying to the idea that some people believe the earth to be a mere 5000 years old. The three most common dates for Creation that I've seen from Creationists are:
1: c. 3700 B.C.
2: 4004 B.C.
3: c. 5490 B.C.you probably didn't read my question properly. I want to see how was that number counted. You claim you know the exact result so I ask you to show me how did you get it. Exactly. Is it so hard to understand?
And please don't tell me you don't know the exact way. Because if you don't know the exact way how can you be sure the exact date is right?

But, without God, what need is there of morals?what is the need? you really need God to answer this question? Use your brain first please
so the morals are here because of God, right? isn't it that humans were doing wrong things which had to be forbidden?
And without God, is there really anything that can define right or wrong?use your brain and you will find many things, really "wink". Even in this post you have several examples.

I believe the Bible to be the inerrant and fully inspired Word of God, without a single error in it. And please note...I take it into account.
Though doubting, you concluded that every single word in the Bible is inspired by the God and so every single word is true(in the context of other words surrounding it in the Bible, of course). Right?

I need to know if you are opened for a discussion about it. Because I think I am able to find part which are proven to be wrong. I need to know if you are opened to discuss about it, because otherwise it would be waste of my time to find you things you will refuse because you believe the Bible is right and all things that don't correspond with it are false

If religion was really made up by man, then how is it that the 20th century (the first century where Atheism became a strong belief) was the bloodiest century known to man, and that it was Adolf Hitler, a follower of the teachings Nitsche (the guy who said that God is dead) was one of the most terrible men ever to live on the earth?
1) does it really cause one each other? a man created religion so when religions ruled the world, less people died than when people created "godless religions" (yes, nazism and communism are considered as godless or secular religions) = Men invented a sword. Men also invented a bomb. Men invented 2 things, one is more effective one is less. bombs are more effective so they can kill much more people. And both can be used by good people for good just like they can beused by bad people for bad things.
2) do you really need me to answer you this question?
Ok, I will use my brain and try to give you some of reasons:
a) if 5 billions of people live on Earth, it's natural that the number of dead people is higher than if 1 billion lives = if there is a war between 2 countries with total population of 100 millions it is natural that it will be much more bloody than war between 2 tribes having together 10000 population, is it right?
b) development of weapons. An Atomic bomb or tank can kill much more people than a sword and much faster, don't you think?
c) in all periods of human history, innocent civilians were being killed during wars. In all wars brutal force used by any side killed many people, no matter if used by religious people or atheists (btw, if atheist is one who doesn't believe in any religion, it means Stalin was strongly religious man, just like Hitler)

Anyway. Have you any single idea why Nietzsche, one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th century waid "God is dead"? Have you ever red any single link of and Nietzsche book? Do you have an idea how Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche?
The connection between Hitler and Nietzsche is much much weaker than between Holy Inquisition or 30 years war and Jesus (and furthemore, Hitler never killed in the name of Nietzsche and he was Roman catholic and the pope silently agreed with his practics. How can one respect an institution that did NOTHING against known genocide of millions of innocent people? how can one respect the Holy Church which claims to represent the God on this world?)
I have read every book of the Bible up to Isaiah, as well as the four Gospels (and I'm currently working on Isaiah), [QUOTE]so when you know the Bible so well, you will probably help me. In which part the Bible refers about teh Assyrians please?

[QUOTE=crusaderknight]Um... no. God made life of this planet, and on no other.are you sure? and what if actual sonde on Mars finds clear evidence of life there somewhen in history?
Will you say that it was some Evolutionarist who flied there and put there something which is originated on Earth?
And wat if this happen some time later? Compared to the largeness of the Universe we know not even one small village on earth. How can we know that across the river there is no other tribe?
I'm not saying there is some, but how can we know? We may BELIEVE there is no töther life, but at the moment when we know such small part, we can never KNOW it for sure.

You know what, I'm going to laugh in my grave the day mankind reaches another galaxy and this scene transpires:
Lieutenant, "Captain, we've just scanned every galaxy in our cluster. There is no such thing as life beyond earth."
Captain, "Well I'll be! Them Christians were right when they said earth-based lifeforms were the only things God made!"and what if they wil say Them Muslims? would it be wrong? or them Jews? or...?
That day the people could assume: there is no life outside Earth. But this single thing, will it prove that there is God? How could it?


But my question is, how many scientific "facts" do you accept on faith because there really isn't any proof of them? Do you believe the earth has a molten core? We don't know for sure. The way everything works, we *think* that the core is molten, but for all we know it could be only semi-liquid or something. We don't know for absolute sure that the core is molten.and that's it!
We don't know it for sure, the way everything works makes us think it is like this. But we don't know. So here I end.
Can I know it? No, ok, let's go on.
What is the origin of the World? Can we find how it was created? NO.
So it means it was created by God, right? :lol:

Pretty much. Every single "proof" of a missing link was made up. And if God ever really made dinosaurs (personally, I believe that he made the fossils so that one day we could have fossil fuel, but I don't believe that they ever really lived) they all died in the great flood.:lol:you should write fairy tales, mate :go:
--
The Crusades, yes. At first. The Crusades were a counter-strike to the Muslim invasions of Christendom and the butchery of Christians.counter strike? I seriously doubt.
It was intended to protect Holy Places of Christianity by christians.

The inquisitions were also good, at the start. The inquisition was created to root out and destroy heresy before it led too many people astray. you are wrong. Inquisition was first made in Spain to control the muslims who converted to christianity if they do all required rituals and if they secretly don't do muslim rituals and if they don't keep islam in their hearts.
What's good on that?
and if it was against heresy. What's so bad on having personal interpretation of the Holy Book? Does it make anyone Worse than those who follow the Church and kill innocent people in the name of it? ANY church including Lutheran! and don't make ma laugh claiming that Luterans didn't kill innocent people because of their diferent faith.
Onlything that was edangered by heresies was social order, not Goodness.
Anyway, Lutheranism was also considered as heresy, does it mean that inquisition was good untill it turned against good lutheranism? :lol:

It was not wrong for those slave owners who treated their slaves like Christian brothers to own the slaves (because they did not abuse them, misuse them, harm them, or mistreat them in any way) please tell me what is so Christian on capturing someone and selling him to muslim merchant? knowing well what will be his fate. Those Christians harmed those people much more than their muslim owners, how greatly Christian it is! :bowdown:

Likewise, slavery is not bad, it is how you treat your slaves. On the next point, women were treated very terribly outside of Christendom, and in fact, in the early days of Christianity especially, as well as after the Reformation, women were treated better than their pagan counterparts.well, after reformation maybe. So the God let christians to live wrong for centuries and then, He who is outside time, realized that it is the right time to tell Holy Martin Luther to change it, right?
It's really strange that this all happened in the time when european societies were in large process of changes.
And on your last point, far more people have been killed by Atheists in this century alone than were killed by religious people in the past, so I guess that makes modern Atheists even worse, eh?
Wrong. If you look at who were the bigget murderers they all were very religious people (including Hitler and other Nazi ideologues!) They were, CHRISTIANS, followers of Jesus Christ.
Do you know why the Jews were picked to be eliminated before Poles and Czechs? Among other reasons also because Poles and Czechs were christians.
How Atheist they were!

[Richard]

Hmm I want to apologise about my last post, I kind of lost it. But it is so inrritating to find a person in todays world that is so blind as to still believe Slavery is a good thing and that the crusader/inquisitions were just causes. :nono: :angry:
If a mod feels the need to delete that post, do it.

Elvain you also forgot to mention some things that contributed to so many dead people during the early 20th century.
1) There hadn't been any big wars since the end of the Napoleonic wars, yes there were some wars, such as the Crimean war and the oriental crisis, But over all, the European Continent lived in relative peace for almost 100 years.

2) the Industrial revolution, Great boost of production = more goods = made prices drop, poor people could afford to eat a little better, new medicide and ways to stop and control diseases were developed.
All this led to an increase of life rating, leading to drastic population growth.

Also with the Industrial revolution came new techs, Bigger Deadlier weapons. The slow Napoleonic rifles came to an end and machine guns appeared. The short range cannons became absolite with the development of longer range, bigger artillery. The cavarly was a joke compared to the tanks and ofcourse, the new cavarly of the sky.

Bigger population ment more people that could fight and Die. Bigger deadlier weapons ment higher causalitie %. Also, By the end of WW1 a new deadlier disease appeared due to the bad conditions of the men fighting, the spanish avian flu, which alone killed between 20-40 million people worldwide.

[Doux]

Please support any fact you present with support.
Also, please, keep the discussion polite - religion or science, we're on Sunflowers' boards and Webbi reigns here with his Rules. And disregarding that, we're all individual humans who respect other humans and their ideas, aren't we?

Co-existance is possible
Science and faith can co-exist, can be believed in equally, without any problem. Many scientists have some form of faith, e.g. cosmologists thinking that there might well have been something before the Big Bang that 'set it up'. But there is a difference between faith in general and religion based on e.g. the Qur'an or the Bible.

Definitions (by Wikipedia):
Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

I can agree with both definitions, completely. I'd like to add to the deinition of science: The worth and amount of trueness of a scientific theory is based on
1. The simplicity AND accuracy with which it describes the world around us
2. Experiments: verification (an experiment confirms that the theory is accurate) and falsification (the theory has not yet been proven to be wrong/inaccurate with an experiment).
This implies that a scientific theory is regarded as accurate until the opposite is proven.

..to be continued..

[Angryminer]

@Doux: When speaking about "science" one should also raise a point that science seldomly presents itself as truth, but mostly as a model that describes reality (hopefully) well.
No one says that there are atoms. Things just behave as if they were composed of atoms (by now we can even visualise atoms in a layer of material). No one says that there is dark matter, things just behave as if it were there (which was recently confirmed through otherwise inexplainable observations).
Similarly scientists formulated the theory that the universe acts as if it was compressed to a very small state of excessive heat long ago, which we call the "big bang theory". By the way this theory fitted well to a reading of cosmological background radiation and could very well explain the cause of this otherwise inexplainable radiation and the slight differences in it's intensity.

To science it isn't important how things really are. It is more important to develop models that describe how things really are well. It could be god holding together atoms, but science doesn't care much about that. What science cares about is the mathematical/logical model that describes the reactions within an atom's nucleus and wether this model allows to make predictions that can be validated (which lead to quantum physics).
Similarly it could be god who carefully selects animals, shapes them over time and thus created all living things on earth. But that isn't very important in the eye of a scientist, because the model of evolution describes the happenings very well and allows to make certain predictions, even though these predictions aren't very precise due to the complexity of the matter.

Science doesn't say which way it is. Science says how it seems to be.

Angryminer

[Dobber]

Richard, there are very simple guidelines for this section of the forum. I haven't read the post you mention but if it did not violate the following quote from Webmaster's guidelines then you are okay!

hello!
the DMZ is for all topics like politics, religion and other high emotional or sensitive threads. but watch your tongue, be nice and tolerate other opinions. not every one on this planet shares the same values or views.
sarcasm should be visible as such, if used!

[Doux]

Angryminer - Well said.

[People's Republic of China]

Is it *possible* that God doesn't exist?"

If I may defer, here is an answer from one old medieval thinker, Thomas Aquinas. (from Summa Theologiae, 1a, 2, 1-3)

*(Thomas's method is: first, to lay out objections on an issue; second, to quote some authority whose view he agrees with - "On the contrary"; third, to lay out his own case - "I answer that"; and finally, to answer the objections.)

I may give him more space here from time to time.

----------------------------------



...there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the proposition “God exists” is self-evident?

(2) Whether it is demonstrable?

(3) Whether God exists?

*****************************************

Whether the existence of God is self-evident?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), “the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all.” Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

Objection 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word “God” is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word “God” is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition “God exists” is self-evident.

Objection 3: Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition “Truth does not exist” is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn. 14:6) Therefore “God exists” is self-evident.

On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” can be mentally admitted: “The fool said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as “Man is an animal,” for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: “Whether all that is, is good”), “that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.” Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Question [3], Article [4]). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature–namely, by effects.

Reply to Objection 1: To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man’s beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man’s perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

Reply to Objection 2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

Reply to Objection 3: The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.

*****************************************

Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Objection 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God’s essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says: “The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rm. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.

I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called “a priori,” and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration “a posteriori”; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply to Objection 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God”.

Reply to Objection 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

***************************************

Whether God exists?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Ex. 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.


-----------------------------------------

Thomas's answer is that God's existence is not self-evident to us - thus logically possible for God not to be, to our use of logic. Nevertheless, it is demonstrably certain - thus metaphysically impossible not to be, as shown through arguments from effect to cause. I tend to agree with both parts, as far as I can understand them.

As for the pushback "But don't they call it faith for some good reason?" he thinks that the existence of God may be considered one of the "preambles to faith," and as such can be known through G-d given reason, not just special revelation. But, he notes, this in no way prevents someone from believing on faith that which could perhaps also be known through demonstration, as this is fitting of all divine revelation (ST, 1a, 2, 2). The same truth can be possessed on a number of grounds or levels of certainty, though not by the same person at the same time.

As for the 5 approaches he presents for the existence of God, at least three kinds of problems may strike the modern reader: 1) his unscientific illustrations (so bad they are open to Monty Python-"Life of Brian"-style ridicule IMO), 2) difficulty with the way his same terms are often used today in very different ways, and 3) the seemingly strange transition at the end of each way to "This is what all men call God."

None of those problems are devastating however. That he is pre-scientific (in the sense we use the term "science" today) does not necessarily weaken his reasoning, and may even strengthen it (if objections from modern science cannot refute the argument). As for terms, they just need to be understood, like with any author; on this score, Thomas is far more clear than most, despite his age. The tacked-on comments were fitting for the time and his project (theology, not apologetics), whereas we can at least understand the import to be that certain attributes that we predicate of God enjoy that demonstration, though some still try even today to attribute them to something else. The arguments start with truths that self-evident and evident to the senses, and from this, through valid reasoning, arrive at conclusions which are highly significant.

I am certain that God exists - though it depends on the day as to whether this certainty is by faith or intellectual knowledge. Regardless, any solution on this sort of intellectual problem does not solve the constant struggle to trust Him. Instead it clarifies the struggle, because we can see better where the struggle actually lies. For many, an objective lack of certainty on God's existence is simply presupposed (in this doubting age) when approaching the deeper matter of whether or not to trust in and obey God; but that latter struggle is really a war of the wills, not a matter of neutral argumentation. On the former struggle, it seems that they are incorrect.


-From a friend of mine.
--
The 20th Century Paradigm Shift

One of the most remarkable discoveries has been made in the 20th Century that has surpassed all recorded history: the discovery that the universe is finite. The implications of this discovery have been staggering. Starting with Einstein in 1903, twentieth-century physicists have demonstrated that space-time and matter had a finite, simultaneous beginning. Just prior to this discovery, atheistic scientists and philosophers rested comfortably with the notion that the universe was eternal. Consequently enough, a universe without a beginning needed no cause - it just was. However, a universe that has a beginning either created itself (a logical and scientific absurdity) or it was caused to exist by a Being who preceded it. By definition, that means a transcendent Creator - One who exists outside time and space.

A Divine Message

A transcendent Creator presents some interesting possibilities. Because a transcendent Creator possesses the sufficient means to act in our space - time domain, He also has the capability to get a message to us. The Bible claims to be that message and authenticates that its text is a supernatural message from a transcendent Creator in several ways.

1) Scientific Accuracy

Because the Bible declares that God is omniscient (all-knowing), He possesses a perfect understanding of the physical universe. Consequently, we would expect any book claiming to be the Word of God to be 100 percent accurate when speaking on scientific issues. Indeed, the Bible is without error or contradiction when it speaks on scientific issues.

2) Scientific Foreknowledge

Throughout the Bible's text there are highly specific and accurate statements regarding the laws of physics, the nature of our solar system, the planet earth, and its life forms that were penned centuries before this scientific knowledge was discovered by the scientific community. This phenomenon, called scientific foreknowledge, is present throughout the text of the Bible and is a powerful hint of supernatural authorship.

3) Design Of The Text

Throughout the Bible the "fingerprints" of a supernatural message system can be found. Numerous design features in the Biblical text defy coincidence and demonstrate that the Bible, which consists of 66 books, penned by 40 authors over thousands of years, is an integrated message system.

4) Predictive Prophecy

Finally, because the Creator revealed in the Bible exists outside our space-time domain, He is able to "see," in effect, the beginning and end of our time domain simultaneously. The Bible authenticates that its message is of extra-dimensional origin through predictive prophecy; i.e., by writing history in advance. No other "holy book" on planet earth authenticates its message in these 4 ways.

The Skeptics' Bias

150 years ago most people in the western world believed that the Bible was indeed the Word of God. However, in the last 150 years liberal theologians, secularists, and the media have convinced many that the Bible is unreliable. Skeptics generally believe one or more of the following about the Bible:

1) The Bible's text has been severly corrupted over time by copying errors and deliberate changes.

2) The Bible is a scientifically inaccurate book filled with erroneous concepts such as a flat earth and geocentric universe.

3) Many believe that Bible prophecy is no more than history;.i.e, they believe that the Bible's prophecies were written after the fact.

4) Finally, many believe that the evidences of design are no more than a carefully designed hoax or simply the result of chance.

Ironically, astonishing evidence has gradually accumulated in the fields of archaeology, astronomy, physics, and biology which confirm the scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible, the supernatural origin of its text and the fact that it has been preserved virtually unchanged over two thousand years.

The Basics

1) When was the Bible written?

Old Testament/ Tanakh : Book of Job ~ 2,000 B.C., The Law ~ 1,500 B.C., Psalms ~ 1,000 B.C., The Prophets ~ 800-450 B.C.

New Testament : Synoptic Gospels ~ 50-65 A.D., Gospel of John/Revelation ~ 80-100 A.D., Epistles ~ 50-90 A.D.

2) Authored by The Holy Spirit

" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

" for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21

Aristotle's Dictum

Because of the supernatural nature of the Bible, skeptics often assume the Bible's stories are either embellished or wholesale fraud. To fairly examine the Bible we need to apply the same tests to the Bible's text that we would to any other ancient document. One of these principles, according to Aristotle, is to give the benefit of doubt to the document itself. Renowned theologian and Biblical scholar John Warwick Montgomery puts the principle this way : " One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or errors unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies."

The Manuscripts

The manuscript evidence for the antiquity and integrity of the Bible is overwhelming. There are thousands of manuscripts extant with a variation of less than .5 percent Some of the major manuscript finds of the Old Testament are as follows:

Old Testament: * 1776 ~ Benjamin Kennicott listed a total of 615 extant Hebrew manuscripts, * By 1890 there were a total of 731 manuscripts of the Old Testament published world wide. The oldest of these were from about the 9th Century A.D., * In 1890 the Cairo Geniza manuscripts were found in the attoc of a synagogue in Cairo, Egypt. Over 10,000 Biblical texts were discovered which were dated between the 10th and 12th centuries A.D.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovered in March 1947 by an Arab shepherd boy who was pursuing a lost goat. Generally regarded as the greatest manuscript discovery in history. * Thousands of manuscripts were found 11 caves, * Portions of every book of the Old Testament were discovered except the book of Esther, * They were written by a devout sect of Jews, the Essenes, between the 3rd Century B.C. and the 1st Century A.D.

Their Importance

1) The gap between the last prophet Malachi and extant manuscripts was narrowed from about 1400 years to as little as 150 years.

2) Demonstrated the reliability of the text. Regarding the reliability of the Old Testament as transmitted through time, Geza Vermes stated : "The Qumran Biblical documents cover the whole Hebrew Bible with the exception of the book of Esther, and are about one thousand years older than the most ancient codices previously extant. Experts concerned with the study of the text are now in a position to prove that the Bible has remained virtually unchanged for the last 2,000 years."

New Testament Manuscripts

Document Date Copies Purity

Homer's Illiad 800 B.C. 643 95

Herodotus 480 B.C. 8 ?

Plato's Tetralogies 427 B.C. 7 ?

Caesar's Gallic Wars 44 A.D. 10 ?

New Testament 50-95 A.D. 25,366 >99.5

Regarding the dating of the New Testament autographs (the original texts), the eminent archaeologist Wm. F. Albright stated: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80." In addition, it is a proven fact that 764 lines of the Illiad are questioned while only 400 words of the NT are in doubt.

Science And The Bible

For centuries skeptics have claimed that the Bible is inaccurate when it speaks of scientific phenomenon. However, not only is the Bible 100ccurate regarding scientific phenomenon, it also anticipates dozens of recent scientific facts thousands of years before their modern discovery. A partial list follows:

Twentieth Century Cosmology

Time, Space, and Matter Finite : Genesis 1:1, 1 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2

Expanding Universe : " Bless the Lord, O my soul! O Lord my God, You are very great: You are clothed with honor and majesty, Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain"... Psalm 104:1-2; Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 45:12

Stars Cannot Be Numbered : " As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me." Jeremiah 3:22

Sphericity Of The Earth : " It is he that sitteth above the circle (literally a sphere, 'Khug' in Hebrew) of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in..." Isaiah 40:22

In another remarkable verse, Job, the author of the oldest book in the Bible, seems to understand that the earth is a sphere:

" He has inscribed a circle (Khug) on the surface of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness." Job 26:10

Over 1,700 years after Job penned these words the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes (3rd Century B.C.) proved that the earth was indeed a sphere.

Elephants, Atlas, Turtles or Job : The ancients were fascinated with the question of earth's resting place. Some believed that it rested on elephants or on the backs of turtles. The Greeks believed that Atlas was the pillar upon which it rested. However, Job, who had "inside information," knew better. "He stretches out the north over empty space, And hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7

Twentieth Century Physics

Atomic Structure: " Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3

1st Law Of Thermodynamics: Genesis 2:2-3, Hebrews 4:3-4, Nehemiah 9:6

2nd Law Of Thermodynamics: Psalm 103, Isaiah 51:6, Matthew 24:35

Oceanography

Oceanic Currents: "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." Psalm 8:8, Isaiah 43:16

The fact that there are predictable oceanic currents or paths in the seas was not discovered until the 1840's by Matthew Fontaine Maury, yet it was anticipated nearly 3,000 years earlier by the psalmist.

Ocean Floor Mountains: " The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God." Jonah 2:5-6

The Water Cycle: The earth's water cycle, elucidated 300 years ago by Pierre Perrault and Edme Marriotte, demonstrated that oceanic evaporation was the source of rain clouds and river waters. This fact, and other aspects of global weather, was anticipated nearly 3,000 years earlier in the Bible.

Jet Stream ~ Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, Evaporation ~ Job 26:8, Eccl. 1:6-7, Amos 9:6, Source of River Water ~ Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, Fresh-Water Springs in the Sea ~ Job 38:16

Dinosaurs

In modern times, dinosaurs were discovered by an English physician named Gideon Mantell in 1820. However, 4,000 years ago Job describes anatomic features of ancient creatures which do not fit any contemporary animals. However, they do seem to fit what we know about some species of dinosaurs. ~ Job 40-41, Psalm 74:14, 104:26, Isaiah 27:1

Nuclear Physics

" But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3:10

Conclusion: The Bible is unique in many ways:

* The manuscripts are very ancient and have been preserved with unparalleled purity.

* It evidences a supernatural origin in its anticipation of contemporary scientific knowledge.

* The Bible proclaims a message of salvation which is based on faith and not good works.

* It is the only "holy book" that authenticates its message from a supernatural source.

Three Things God Can't Do

* He cannot lie, * He cannot learn, * He can't force you to love Him

Four Things God "Doesn't Know"

* He doesnt know a sin He doesnt hate, * He doesnt know a sinner He doesnt love, * He doesnt know an alternate path to His Throne but through His son, * He doesnt know a better time to accept Him than now!


Edit: removed the code tags I added, it made it to hard to read. - Dobber

[Elvain]

PRC, iwould it be possible to write shorter post where you point out the basic arguments of your post?

It is nearly impossible to read it all.

Also please, if possible respect that this forum is international and we are not perfectly skilled to read such high academic english (which maybe even 90% of Americans isn't able to read, maybe even you didn't read it all and just copied from somewhere?

thanks in advance
--

Four Things God "Doesn't Know"

* He doesnt know a sin He doesnt hate, * He doesnt know a sinner He doesnt love, * He doesnt know an alternate path to His Throne but through His son, * He doesnt know a better time to accept Him than now!
ok, so the God hates!
He loves Hitler!

Thanks I don't wish to find a patch to throne of someone who loves Hitler. No, thanks. I can forgive Hitler his sins, but no, never I can love him!

How can he know Time when he is out/above Time?

[Dobber]

My goodness, he wrote a book, maybe it should be code tagged for easier forum navigation.

[People's Republic of China]

Shoot, I didn't mean to post the whole thing. And I meant to put it on a different thread, stupid me. (I have these things sitting in MS Word, some I write, some I don't, so I just copy and paste.)


PS G-d does love Hitler, but Hitler didn't accept or repent, thus, Hitler is currently in hell, and will be for eternity.
--
Also, if G-d hated Hitler, he would also have to hate me or you or everybody else, because we've all screwed up and sinned. Admittably some more than others, but still, where does G-d draw the line?

[Elvain]

S G-d does love Hitler, but Hitler didn't accept or repent, thus, Hitler is currently in hell, and will be for eternity.
can you give me a proof that Hitler is in hell?

to be honest I can't know where he draws the line. I just find it weird.

You can send 6millions of people on death directly and other millions indirectly but still the biggest authority loves you. Great! So let's go and kill each other. HE loves us no matter what we do, right?

god believers say that atheism leads to chaos and hate between people. But what is this? Whatever you do, he will love you. You can destroy all life on the Earth and the biggest value - love - is still given to you.

[People's Republic of China]

G-d loves us all, but that still does mean He doesn't punish us. Hitler did some major sinning, but he (most likely) didn't believe nor did he ask G-d for forgiveness, nor did he repent. The Bible tell us that ALL have fallen short of G-d's glory (paraphrase), and that all must accept Jesus for Salvation. Simple really, no legalistic demands nothing. Hitler was no believer, and judging from his writings and speeches, an enemy of G-d. (I know your going to say, "how can someone be an enemy of G-d, and be loved by G-d"; I have an answer: G-d loves his enemies, same as everyone. Why: justice; if G-d wasn't impartial, we, the averagers, would be disadvantaged or judged unfairly.) (Hitler was human too).

PS1 Your parents love you, no; did they punish you when you disobeyed? G-d isn't called "the Father" for no reason. If his children disobey, he punishes them, not necessarily in this life (though sometimes it happens), but in eternity. Same with parents. They love us, but chastise us as well.

[Elvain]

G-d loves us all, but that still does mean He doesn't punish us. Hitler did some major sinning, but he (most likely) didn't believe nor did he ask G-d for forgiveness, nor did he repent.how can you know he didn't ask? And once he did ask for forgiveness and in the very end of his life he repented (what we of course can't know) he would have right to get His forgiveness. And if he didn't get it, where is His limit? how many millions, how many people? how many nights of asking for forgiveness?
Who knows if Hitler didn't regret his sins every night, but every morning he was again a slave of his own machinery which he couldn't change?

The Bible tell us that ALL have fallen short of G-d's glory (paraphrase), and that all must accept Jesus for Salvation. Simple really, no legalistic demands nothing. Hitler was no believer, and judging from his writings and speeches, an enemy of G-d.Have you red his speaches? He wasn't an enemy of God. From what we know he didn't spoke against him that the God is his enemy. Never. He was strong believer! I guess you confuse him with Stalin at this point

(I know your going to say, "how can someone be an enemy of G-d, and be loved by G-d"; I have an answer: G-d loves his enemies, same as everyone. Why: justice; if G-d wasn't impartial, we, the averagers, would be disadvantaged or judged unfairly.) (Hitler was human too). no I won't. Love your enemy, it is even what I try to do. And if not love, at least not judge him, because deep behind his treatment may be some deep goodness I am unable to see.

PS1 Your parents love you, no; did they punish you when you disobeyed? G-d isn't called "the Father" for no reason. If his children disobey, he punishes them, not necessarily in this life (though sometimes it happens), but in eternity. Same with parents. They love us, but chastise us as well.
yes. Of course, punnishment. But have you also heard about responsibility? The parents are responsible for their children. If Hitler was muslim we could easily say: he didn't follow the right path. But he was a christian! He followed the best possible religion which teaches about the best things. And his father did nothing to stop him. The father is responsible for that too.

Was it a revenge for his Son who was killed by the Jews who lost the right path?