Can you explain the existence of God?

[mithrandir2001]

And I suppose it matters what you mean by "God"?

I do not believe in "God" in the Christian sense, i.e. some supreme being who had a human son to save humanity and who lives up in heaven behind pearly gates and judges people whether they can live with him in heaven or be banished to hell with Satan. If that's "God", no, I'm not into that.

But Optimus's definition - "I believe that this omnipresent, eternal, cause-less, creating, infinite primary energy is also sentient." - that's a bit different. Can I say truly I believe in "God" in this sense? I cannot venture an answer in the affirmative or negative, but it does not defy logic to me. It's far more defensible and likely to be true simply because it has no baggage or undue claims. This "God" has no name, if it is something that would need a name. It's just something that was there before us. I can live with that.

 

[voodooguy]

1) If you could prove the existence of God, religion would cease to be religion. God would become a curiosity of the natural sciences, and religion would be a branch of science. All faith would be destroyed. The religious experience would be destroyed.

2) Even if you could disprove the existence of God, the little Christian sheep would pay you no mind. They would call you a gosh darnit satanistic atheist and they would continue to herd into their churches every Sunday and they would continue to give money to televangelists. Trying to talk reason into a Christian is like trying to teach differential calculus to a duck. It is an exercise in futility.

 

[Optimus]

Well, first guys, this isn't a thread about religions and which one is right. Just about whether a deity could/might exist.

skace:


<< I'd say the athiest that made life better for millions of people through his/her work in a 3rd world country or an invention is 300x better than the religious person who spends his/her entire life ensuring eternal happiness for themselves. >>


I think god would likely agree that a non-believing good person who worked that hard to help people is better off than someone who helps no-one and looks only to self, even though they claim to believe. But then again, I believe faith without good works is no good.

Elledan:


<< What about the large number of existing and extinct religions? What happened to the gods of these religions which vanished? Did they just vanish together with the religions they belonged to? >>


IF a deity exists, our perceptions of it have no bearing on its existance. We can believe in a zillion things, but that does not rule out the existance of anything else, you know?


<< There are actually only two logical conclusions to be made:
- There do indeed exist supernatural beings or a supernatural force. At least some religions which have been created on this earth were inspired by this supernatural force, which would explain the concept of a god.
- There are no supernatural elements in this universe. Everything can be explained by science. Things we can not yet explain we'll be able to explain later when we acquire more knowledge. >>



Agreed.



<< Fact: Humans have always feared the unknown. In prehistoric times and in some places of this planet till recently, people have assumed that things like rain, wind, sun etc. are gods or are controlled by gods (e.g., the Greek religion).
No one we know of still worships the weather, because we can explain it. We've acquired knowledge and insight. >>


Again, the existance of a deity would be independant of however much humanity ran around in circles thinking the sky was falling. Proving humanity wrong would not invalidate the existance of a deity, just as it does not invalidate the existance of anything else we don't understand.


<< Assumption: with the increase of knowledge, Humans will lose their need to explain things they don't understand using metaphysical elements, because the amount of 'unexplainable' things decreases. >>


It is possible indeed that we will come to understand HOW everything works. Debatable is whether we can ever understand WHY. "Why", used in reference to "meaning" could well be the realm of deity. Or not. Point is... we have no idea. Perhaps we will one day discover once and for all that there IS some kind of deity? Or maybe death is that discovery? Reincarnation, an afterlife... all could exist, all could not.

As I said, until we know more, no belief either way is rediculous.

Remember... if there was ever a point where proof of the non-existance of god was possible, I'd listen. Until then, my belief is no more unprovable than any other.


<< If the assumption is correct, then one day Humankind will have no need anymore for blind faith and various ideologies, including religions. >>


Ah, but if a deity DOES exist, then we will still seek ways of understanding it. If we can ever proove one likely does NOT (in your example, prove/solve everything else) then we would need no understanding (religion).


<< This would also assume that another theory of mine, being that developing civilizations need some kind of (intolerant) ideology to help them structure their society, is correct. >>


Certainly - but a zillion erroneous religions would not invalidate the existance of one right one, if there is a deity and one religion had it right.


<< Judging from what we know at this moment, the second conclusion seems far more likely, mainly because it's based on observations and facts, while the first conclusion depends too much on fantastic elements, of which the existance is at best doubtful. >>


Well, you move more into the realm of religions there, but read my theory on the possible existance of god above - the belief that "god" is sentient is more faith based as its not directly observable, but is not far fetched in observations (heirarchy of existance, order from chaos, probibility, cause and effect).

Remember - there is SOMETHING out there, something that we cannot observe, that violates almost every law of physics (cause and effect, omnipotence, eternal, etc).


mithrandir:


<< There is nothing in your statements above that would prove offensive or troubling to the agnostic. Surely we cannot understand everything there is to know because we may just be the minutest little blip in the grander scheme of things. But what I simply cannot comprehend is how people migrate this simple, harmless "sentient being" idea into a fleshed-out faith. Something existed before the Big Bang. Sure, whatever, maybe, I cannot say yes or no. But then we get into this Jesus and Mohammad and whomever stuff and it's just too much for me. It's as if humans are trying to understand too much...make up things to help them understand, and then we worry about the details of tangibility (the prophets and the physcial miracles and what not) and start believing AS IF THEY WERE TRUE! >>


Again, I don't want this thread to turn into a religion debate when the author clearly started a debate on the simple existance of a deity. But if a deity exists then it would have properties that we would seek to understand. A religion is simply an "understanding", or attempt anyway, to understand, a deity.

If the deity wished to be understood, it would have to GIVE this understanding to humanity as we cannot observe it very well.



<< Ack, how the heck am I supposed to swallow some of this stuff? I remember CCD classes when the instructor told us how Jesus divided some fishes and bread and fed 5000 people with it. I kept asking HOW is that possible, but the instructor didn't know. Look, I'm not into that kind of stuff. I cannot dive blindly into hokus pokus or whatever you want to call it. I really don't want to shuffle into church and pray when I have no idea what I am supposed to pray to or about. >>



If it bothers you, then something is going on inside your head about it. I'm not trying to get wierd or psycho-analyzing here, but if people don't care, they REALLY don't care. Some posters here on AT don't believe in something yet post in EVERY single thread (I don't mean you). Something doesn't gel there. I don't like wrestling, so I never even open those threads.
And I think the whole "religion is a thread I have to save people from" is an excuse too.

Anyway - I'm not naming anyone, and don't want to start something.

But my pointed question would be "Why does religion take up so much of our thought if its just mumbo jumbo?" Why don't people debate the existance of Santa?

To get back to your point:

Religion happens if you start with a given (God Exists) and extrapolate an understanding from there. i.e. in a very simple version:

God Exists (starting point)
God Created (nature of god)
Intentional Creation/maintenance is likely an act of caring/love (observation)
God is likely a loving deity (conclusion 1)
Man can't directly observe God (observation)
Man was created with a built in desire to understand and seek God (observation)
Therefore God intended to be understood and sought out (intent of action, derived from result)
If God intends understaning, yet man cannot understand, God must reveal itself.
Direct revelation would override Free Will, an observable good.
Therefore God would have to indirectly reveal itself, in a way that could be freely chosen (Deciding God doesn't exist when he's stomping around isn't logical, eh?)
God communicating to any number of humans would have to be recorded to be shared.
Given man's ability to write, such a recording would need to be written.
Given God's intent to communicate, such a writing would need to be kept alive and available to all.
Therefore one of the sacred texts must be correct...

Bam - "religion".

The rest gets extrapolated from there, in the same fashion.

At any point in that process, you can stop and say "enough", but it leaves one without any sense of understanding (our goal). i.e. "OK. so there is a God, but who cares?"

And again, one can certainly deny the original "given".


It's a lot easier when you are non-religious. You don't worry about this stuff. Something happened; some things happen. That's about it.

 

[Optimus]

[q[1) If you could prove the existence of God, religion would cease to be religion. God would become a curiosity of the natural sciences, and religion would be a branch of science. All faith would be destroyed. The religious experience would be destroyed.[/i] >>



For God to prove, or allow absolute proof, would negate man's ability to exercise Free Will in terms of choosing to love God. We would become slaves, and that is an unloving and evil thing - not the realm of a "good" God. An Evil God would not have given us Free Will in the first place, so we are left with an "indifferent" God. And an indifferent God would liekly neither prove its existance, nor create us with a desire to seek him out - since he doesn't care.


<< 2) Even if you could disprove the existence of God, the little Christian sheep would pay you no mind. They would call you a gosh darnit satanistic atheist and they would continue to herd into their churches every Sunday and they would continue to give money to televangelists. >>


Sigh. I am not a sheep, despite what you would like to call me.

If anyone could really disprove the non-existance of god, within a good margin of proof, anyone in their right minds, including me, would listen. Of course there would be some who did not, but if you take the converse and have God prove its existance there would in turn be atheists who refused to believe as well.

It is a human trait, not a "christian" one.



<< Trying to talk reason into a Christian is like trying to teach differential calculus to a duck. It is an exercise in futility. >>



Please, by all means read and refute what I have presented in this thread. Use logic and reasoning, please.

Or are you only really here to insult? If you only came here to insult and not listen openly to others, are you not just as guilty as the "christians" you mock?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Science is an interesting faith. Usually, those who understand it the least have the greatest faith. Why do we think our little brains can understand all? Arrogance. We are limited beings. Look at a dog. Do you think by properly educating it, it will understand all we do? No, it has a limited capacity, Yet the difference between us and that dog isn't so great. We use the same mechanism to store memories, solve problems, etc. Since have with a brain a bit larger, we can qualify to be all knowing? Is there a God? I have no idea and neither do you. Would we know even if we saw God? If a fly lands on you, does it think Oh yeah thats a person, one of those tool using bipeds? It doesn't "get" it. Neither would we. The problem with God many have is that by definition, a god is superior in all things. Beyond us forever. And we don't like being limited do we? A chauvinism, but that is the nature of most people it seems.

 

[cuteybunny]

i thought it was already explained in the bible? those who question god basically doubt his existence.

 

[skace]

Optimus,

The problem I have with your logic is the underlying assumption that humans are at the peak of their knowledge. Science knows everything there is to know and if something doesn't fit within the laws set in motion now then that must prove the existence of god. The problem here is that laws in the world of science are constantly broken or built upon. All it takes to break a law is continually proven theory otherwise. I think I can safely say that as we progress more laws of science will adapt, expand and some even break.

How about this explanation? The big bang wasn't the start but the end. It was an alien-caused chainreaction of explosions born through galactic warfare with world-destroying weapons. Aliens were in the same stalemate with world destroying weapons as we are with nukes. Someone broke the stalemate and the chainreaction caused the destruction of the entire universe and the creation of our own.

The one thing I hate about people turning to a god to explain big bang or creation is that its so medeival. It's like we as a species havn't learned anything from history, we pinned things we couldn't explain on god back then and we still do it now. Back before people understood anything about space, they thought god lived in the sky. Now we know better, but since we don't know a whole lot about our creation, some people decide to pin that on god once again.

mithrandir2001,
Half the reason that tiny sentient becomes all sorts of gods with names / etc is because people cannot stand not having a name for something. The other half is to cover up instead of admit we didn't know. Instead of admitting we don't know where we came from or why this that and the other thing happened, lets make a big elaborate story that explains it all and hope someone buys it. Then lets bury it in books bigger than manuals and hope no one ever has the boredom to read the entire thing and rip it apart. Plus lets use a half ass translation of it since the original was written in another language which we don't understand. Bleh, I'll take the religion thats entire concept and history can be written on the back of a napkin please.

I've got a question for religions, how come every giant religious event and miracle has happened in the past. How come we never see an amazing miracle in the modern day world. You never see someone curing the blind and turning 1 piece of bread into 1000 these days, why not? Do all gods have an obsession with the past? Funny, I thought all gods didn't have a concept of time, which would mean that if they were going to perform miracles they would happen whenever. All religions live in the past, never in the current.

This post probably doesn't make sense when read all at once, somewhat jumbled my thoughts.

 

[EDoG2K]

what makes you think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution? 'god's own image'.. why are we the only species with the ability to do irreprable damage to our own habitat? We are slow, loud, and have bad vision. Sure we can make tools, but as a species, we're pretty wussy. What animals could i take one on one? maybe a pig??? definitely not a lion or anything big w/ sharp teeth.

 

[FlamingEightBall]

Everyone should believe in some sort of religion...it is food for the soul...besides look at today's society, we have more violence and drugs etc... and i believe that it is part to blame on the lack of religion in our country....I believe in god and if you do not then i feel sorry for you...someday you will meat your maker and either go to heaven or burn in hell.....so make the right decision in life.....

 

[linuxboy]

Can you explain the existence of God?

Sure. Everything is God. To think about a conceptual abstraction metacognitively is automatically to deny any possible existenz of an epistemic certainty based on direct perception of a totality. That is, the claim or non-claim is helpful as a matter of ascertaining certain characteristics of the interaction (or perhaps covariant transaction) between neuropsychophysical states but as a matter of epistemic certainty, it falls short due to circularity. My solution is simple: everything is God and nothing short of everything will really do. Since that is required (chaosed ordered chaos), the objective certainty of combined experiential and cognitive perception necessitates the existence of everything, that is, God.

Cheers !

 

[skace]

"But my pointed question would be "Why does religion take up so much of our thought if its just mumbo jumbo?" Why don't people debate the existance of Santa?"

Uh well this is a pretty easy question:
1) Because a major portion of the world doesn't believe Santa Claus truely exists.
2) Because Santa Claus isn't coined as the creator of everything and the truth behind all which is unknown.

These 2 points make for a huge reason why people feel the need to discuss religion. I don't see why that wasn't blatantly obvious. If tomorrow I woke up and everyone in my state completely and blindly believed in Santa, prayed to him on Sundays and were giving him money constantly, I'd feel interested in a discussion about him also.

"For God to prove, or allow absolute proof, would negate man's ability to exercise Free Will in terms of choosing to love God. We would become slaves, and that is an unloving and evil thing - not the realm of a "good" God. An Evil God would not have given us Free Will in the first place, so we are left with an "indifferent" God."

I still don't understand why proof of god would mean the demise of free will. What if proof of god also meant proof that heaven didn't really exist? What if proof of god meant he didn't really create us? He was just a superior being we've been praying to and in his free time he likes making crop circles in random southern states. Even if we had proof god existed, we still wouldn't be forced to follow him.

"And an indifferent God would liekly neither prove its existance, nor create us with a desire to seek him out - since he doesn't care."

By this are you assuming we have an innate desire to seek 'him' out? I believe we have an innate desire for knowledge and thus understanding the unknown it just so happens people choose to focus this desire for knowledge into a god since they are too tired of things they don't know. They want all their questions answered for them in a neat little bundle package. 'Knowledge to go', right next to Wendy's.

 

[dude8604]

<< <FONT face=Verdana size=1>Can you explain the existence of God? >>



No</FONT>

 

[skace]

"Everyone should believe in some sort of religion...it is food for the soul...besides look at today's society, we have more violence and drugs etc... and i believe that it is part to blame on the lack of religion in our country."

1. Whats a soul?
2. I don't know why you only dwell on the negative, perhaps your religion causes this but if you opened your eyes you would realize our society has more of everything, not just drugs and violence. We have better forms of media and communication for you to know about each act of violence and drug misuse. Without communication, you wouldn't know about half the things going on and would therefor think things were better than they were. Everything in life continues to grow and mature, violence is one of them and drugs arn't necessarily bad. It is the misuse of drugs that is bad (but I'm sure you may understand that). I'd like to thank religions for a good portion of violence as well, for in a world without religion perhaps more people would be doing something about violence instead of praying on sundays, blaming things on a god, using a god as an excuse, and looking forward to afterlife.

 

[Elledan]

Optimus,

I would like to reply to some more parts of your post, but I've very little time, so I'll just respond to your conclusion:



<< Remember - there is SOMETHING out there, something that we cannot observe, that violates almost every law of physics (cause and effect, omnipotence, eternal, etc). >>


"Something out there?" What's this? The X-files? Despite the excellent points you raised in your post, this conclusion seems to lack any connection with... well, anything you said before.

Something which "violates almost every law of physics"? You fall right back into metaphysics again. You've no observations, no proof to back up anything of this. Why even bother telling us?

BTW, terribly off topic, but interesting nonetheless: would a god realize that its existance is just as meaningless as the existance of anything else (Humans, life itself, the universe, galaxies etc.)?
After all, if you go far enough with your reasoning, there can be no meaning to anything which exists.

 

[Optimus]

Elledan:

Sorry, that was just a poor phrasing of the existance of a cause-less, omnipotent, eternal causer which I'd discussed earlier. To be truthful my fingers hurt by that point and I was trying to finish up. My points remain unchanged.

And I know what you mean about time to respond - skace has a bunch of stuff up I want to reply to but have not enough time right now (darn work! ).



<< BTW, terribly off topic, but interesting nonetheless: would a god realize that its existance is just as meaningless as the existance of anything else (Humans, life itself, the universe, galaxies etc.)?
After all, if you go far enough with your reasoning, there can be no meaning to anything which exists. >>



Well, a deity would have to be its own meaning and end to existance - i.e. supreme unto itself.

Or maybe the answer to your question is the why God created us - not that he needed us, or lacked us, but its god's nature to create. A builder.
Hmmmmmmm....



Too much thinking at end of day make Optimus brain go owie.

 

[udonoogen]

nothing i can say can make you change your mind unless you are willing to let your mind be changed.

but perhaps we can discuss who Jesus Christ was. he wasn't here eons ago (on earth that is). it was just a mere 2000 years ago ... the beginning of "time" on our calendars today. as a historical figure, there are few that would refute his existence. perhaps He wasn't God ... but to follow the logic of the writer CS Lewis ... then the other choices left are that he was either (2) a liar or (3) a lunatic.

if he is a liar, then he is the greatest liar of all time. a ton of people have followed in His teachings, trusted in His Word, and died for what they believed. perhaps He managed to pull the greatest hoax of all time. however ... one must further examine this situations should it be true.

Peter Schaff once wrote regarding this topic ... "How in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an imposter-that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man-have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed his own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of his people and ages?"

Lunatic. Compare the teaching of Buddha or Laotse with the teaching of Jesus. They taught a person to control his actions, but Jesus taught one to control his thoughts. He taught the purest and highest ethic. This is not the behavior of a mad man. He was always cool and controlled and never ever exhibited a behavior that could be considered lunacy.

His disciples were frightened and cowardly when Jesus was arrested, tried and crucified for His claims to be God. However, the disciples became bold, powerful, and effective evangelists who risked their own lives to proclaim that Jesus is God. Lunatics don't make such disciples and lunatics don't inspire cowardly people - lunatics just aren't taken seriously. If Jesus is not God, then we are forced to say that He is a mad man even though all the evidence says otherwise. Furthermore, lunatics don't inspire countless to give their lives for a something so ... "ludicrous." (very much the same way people probably wouldn't die for a liar)

People won't die for what they believe is a lie. The majority of the disciples died gruesome deaths. Skinning, stoning, beheading, cruxifiction. These men willingly died for truth. You can counter that argument with perhaps cultish groups such as those in Waco. The magnitude of the death of Jesus Christ, His eternal promise, and the truth overshadow any such events. There have been more books written about Jesus Christ, countless have died and will continue to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs, and perhaps no one can argue that He has had one of the most major impacts on our society (calendars, churches). Could this all stem from a liar or a lunatic? Perhaps ... but then I'd look into that one besides brashly answering a yes or no.

Therefore, if Jesus existed and told the truth, He is God and there is a God. That is the only other option. =)

But the mere existence or acknowledgement of God won't save. It's up to you ... whether or not you want to accept an undeserved grace. The choice is yours. Hope you find some answers in your searching.

(arguments from this post were shamelessly, probably poorly, adapted from writings of CS Lewis and my pastor ... read "Mere Christianity" ... great book =P)

 

[conjur]

Easy.

Going back to the time of Neanderthals thru the Roman Empire (and Greek) on over to the Native Americans and those living in Mesopatamia (sp?) and Egypt, the lack of scientific knowledge as to how the world worked (seasons, rain, lightning, volcanoes, floods, etc.) led to the creation in the mind of a higher being. What else would explain how things occurred?

All "Gods" and religions are based on ignorance of science.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

<< Easy. Going back to the time of Neanderthals thru the Roman Empire (and Greek) on over to the Native Americans and those living in Mesopatamia (sp?) and Egypt, the lack of scientific knowledge as to how the world worked (seasons, rain, lightning, volcanoes, floods, etc.) led to the creation in the mind of a higher being. What else would explain how things occurred? All "Gods" and religions are based on ignorance of science. >>



But how does this prove/disprove the existance of a god? You are answering the wrong question.

 

[conjur]

God is a figment of the imagination. Much like The Tooth Fairy.

 

[udonoogen]

"All "Gods" and religions are based on ignorance of science."

Your argument of Mesapatomian religions assumes that all religions are either one sole religion in different forms ... or they are all bunk. I believe in one God ... and not any others like a volcano god or something to that nature.

I believe in the quite opposite of your argument for I feel that science attempts to explain the work of God.


God is a figment of the imagination. Much like The Tooth Fairy.

I am sure that I would not want to die for the tooth fairy.

 

[Optimus]

<< Easy.
Going back to the time of Neanderthals thru the Roman Empire (and Greek) on over to the Native Americans and those living in Mesopatamia (sp?) and Egypt, the lack of scientific knowledge as to how the world worked (seasons, rain, lightning, volcanoes, floods, etc.) led to the creation in the mind of a higher being. What else would explain how things occurred? >>


Again, the existance of multiple erroneous religions does not invalidate the possible existance of a deity.


<< All "Gods" and religions are based on ignorance of science. >>


Please read my first post in this thread about the scientific evidence for a "god", and that the real debate is the sentience of such an existance.


<< God is a figment of the imagination. Much like The Tooth Fairy. >>


Please give some reasons/evidence/logical presentation of arguments. Thanks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ahh... I see you have no answer. It's ok to admit it. Don't worry about a thing.

 

[Optimus]

udonoogen:


<< I believe in the quite opposite of your argument for I feel that science attempts to explain the work of God. >>


Well, I might slightly disagree, depending on your meaning.

I believe science can answer the HOW, and spirituality answers the WHY (in terms of reason, intention, and meaning).

So science explains how God's creation works, and how we can use it to its fullest - while spirituality answers the "Why are we here?" and "Why be good?" type questions.

 

[conjur]

<<

<< All "Gods" and religions are based on ignorance of science. >>


Please read my first post in this thread about the scientific evidence for a "god", and that the real debate is the sentience of such an existance.
>>



From a post of yours:



<<

<< << There are actually only two logical conclusions to be made:
- There do indeed exist supernatural beings or a supernatural force. At least some religions which have been created on this earth were inspired by this supernatural force, which would explain the concept of a god
- There are no supernatural elements in this universe. Everything can be explained by science. Things we can not yet explain we'll be able to explain later when we acquire more knowledge. >> >>





Agreed. >>



That's essentially what I'm saying. We still do not understand how everything in our universe works. To blindly assume a supernatural being exists (and has always existed) is, imho, insanity. A debunk: God is said, in the Bible, to have provided manna from Heaven for the Jews escaping Egypt. Well, sorry, it was just edible leavings from insects indigenous to that area (learned that in a Scripture class in high school). Just one example of how man created the idea of a God because of a lack of scientific knowledge.


Oops...missed part of the quote.

 

[voodooguy]

<< Lunatics don't make such disciples and lunatics don't inspire cowardly people - lunatics just aren't taken seriously. >>



This is plain false.

Scientology members have collectively given billions of dollars of their hard earned money to a fradulent cult run by a lunatic called L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard is now dead, but the Scientology cult which he founded continues to hook in gullible people every day, and continues to part them with their hard-earned money, all the while telling them bad science-fiction stories that are supposedly the secret teachings of Scientology.

Even more to the point, a lunatic somewhere in California convinced hundreds of people (members of his cult) to cut off their testicles, ingest deadly poison, and go to sleep, waiting for aliens to pick them up. They all died. You may remember this as the famous Heaven Gate incident, they even had a website.

As you can see, lunatics have always, and continue to, set up cults. Lunatics have taken, and continue to take, advantage of gullible people. This sort of thing continues to happen even in the enlightened 21st century. In a prehistoric era without scientific and critical thought, it is quite easy to understand how Jesus fooled millions of people into joining his fradulent cult, into following his teachings, and so on.

What is quite amazing is that even thousands of years after the fact, people continue to be taken in. As PT Barnum once said: "There's a sucker born every minute."

Truer words were never spoken.