there's proof everyday of God, its right in front of you, its called The Universe "Made by God"
Gelasius
Oh good heavens no. That cant be correct. That would imply that the universe was designed and created by an entity.
Im sure its much more scientific to believe that in the beginning there was nothing and for some odd reason it exploded and became the something you see now.
Logic and science dictate that everything has a catylyst. Something does not evolve from nothing. The universe is a complex and intelligent design which requires that there be an intelligent designer period. This designer revealed himself to us through his people and his word that he has perfectly preserved through all these generations and will ontinue to do so until the saviors return and this world is judged.
You can choose to believe this or not and that is how we know that God loves us and wants our love in return. Ask yourself this question "What do I stand to gain by believing in and abiding in christ? What do I have to lose?" Anyone familliar with pascals wager will understand that no matter how much logic you apply to certain arguments there comes a point at which the person has to make a calculated leap of faith because they simply do not have enough information to prove it unequivocally.
The only way to know for certain is to die and see what happens next if anything. The inherent problem with that unfortunately is once you have crossed that barrier you forfeit your chance to choose.
But ofcourse, it is perfectly reasonable for to believe in an entity that is even more complex then the universe came out of nothing?
God always has been and always will be, he has no beginning or end, it is beyond comprehension to understand that cause everything we know and experience has a beginning and an end, thats why when someone dies our bodies can't process it and go into a mental overload cause we were created to never have an end we were programmed from the beginning to live forever thats why seperation is so hard.lemme ask you this can you comprehend eternity? Nope, there are some things man just can't comprehend it is beyond our finite minds. I can't explain how God exists he just does, and his word says he has always existed and always will exist.
there's proof everyday of God, its right in front of you, its called The Universe "Made by God"
Gelasius
Oh good heavens no. That cant be correct. That would imply that the universe was designed and created by an entity.
Im sure its much more scientific to believe that in the beginning there was nothing and for some odd reason it exploded and became the something you see now.
Logic and science dictate that everything has a catylyst. Something does not evolve from nothing. The universe is a complex and intelligent design which requires that there be an intelligent designer period. This designer revealed himself to us through his people and his word that he has perfectly preserved through all these generations and will ontinue to do so until the saviors return and this world is judged.
You can choose to believe this or not and that is how we know that God loves us and wants our love in return. Ask yourself this question "What do I stand to gain by believing in and abiding in christ? What do I have to lose?" Anyone familliar with pascals wager will understand that no matter how much logic you apply to certain arguments there comes a point at which the person has to make a calculated leap of faith because they simply do not have enough information to prove it unequivocally.
The only way to know for certain is to die and see what happens next if anything. The inherent problem with that unfortunately is once you have crossed that barrier you forfeit your chance to choose.
But ofcourse, it is perfectly reasonable for to believe in an entity that is even more complex then the universe came out of nothing?
Ahh therein lies the catch. He didnt come out of nothing. In order for something to begin there needs to be a cause. But when you reason that all the way back as far as you can we end up with something peculiar and unique its the uncaused cause. There has to exist somehing that simply always existed and is the cause for everything else that is.
Check out St Thomas Aquinas summa theologie for more.
wow, double standards hm? you try to dismiss a theory like the big bang because of your sense of logic, yet its perfectly fine to accept that an entity that is even more complex then the universe has always existed...
there's proof everyday of God, its right in front of you, its called The Universe "Made by God"
Gelasius
Oh good heavens no. That cant be correct. That would imply that the universe was designed and created by an entity.
Im sure its much more scientific to believe that in the beginning there was nothing and for some odd reason it exploded and became the something you see now.
Logic and science dictate that everything has a catylyst. Something does not evolve from nothing. The universe is a complex and intelligent design which requires that there be an intelligent designer period. This designer revealed himself to us through his people and his word that he has perfectly preserved through all these generations and will ontinue to do so until the saviors return and this world is judged.
You can choose to believe this or not and that is how we know that God loves us and wants our love in return. Ask yourself this question "What do I stand to gain by believing in and abiding in christ? What do I have to lose?" Anyone familliar with pascals wager will understand that no matter how much logic you apply to certain arguments there comes a point at which the person has to make a calculated leap of faith because they simply do not have enough information to prove it unequivocally.
The only way to know for certain is to die and see what happens next if anything. The inherent problem with that unfortunately is once you have crossed that barrier you forfeit your chance to choose.
But ofcourse, it is perfectly reasonable for to believe in an entity that is even more complex then the universe came out of nothing?
God always has been and always will be, he has no beginning or end, it is beyond comprehension to understand that cause everything we know and experience has a beginning and an end, thats why when someone dies our bodies can't process it and go into a mental overload cause we were created to never have an end we were programmed from the beginning to live forever thats why seperation is so hard.lemme ask you this can you comprehend eternity? Nope, there are some things man just can't comprehend it is beyond our finite minds. I can't explain how God exists he just does, and his word says he has always existed and always will exist.
Gelasius
God has never told you he exists. you believe in him because you are told to believe in him.
God always has been and always will be, he has no beginning or end, it is beyond comprehension to understand that cause everything we know and experience has a beginning and an end, thats why when someone dies our bodies can't process it and go into a mental overload cause we were created to never have an end we were programmed from the beginning to live forever thats why seperation is so hard.lemme ask you this can you comprehend eternity? Nope, there are some things man just can't comprehend it is beyond our finite minds. I can't explain how God exists he just does, and his word says he has always existed and always will exist. Gelasius
Good example of faith, and lack of actual facts.
Change my mind so much I can't even trust it My mind change me so much I can't even trust myself
God has never told you he exists. you believe in him because you are told to believe in him.
That's quite an assumption to be making. personally, I believe in God because I feel that it is the most logical conclusion that a person could come up with if they were to examine the universe and really probe deep down about the origin of life and time. It all has to origionate from somewhere, even Albert Einstein acknowledged that.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Actually Richard Dawkin's claim to fame is that he wrote several world renound books on genetics and environmental biology. Its not his fault that mainstream folks (especially christians) took no notice until they realised it challenged their beliefs.
He has 2 quotes that sum up my take on beleif completely and basically form my understanding of our reality.
1. "the idea of a supernatural creator undermines the elegant reality of the universe" Thats going on my headstone.
2. "We are all aetheists of some god, just some of use choose to take it one god further"
Every christian reading this thread thinks all other religions are nonsense. They are just completely incapable of applying the same train of thought to themselves.
Thats the delusion and your all welcome to wallow in it.
Actually Richard Dawkin's claim to fame is that he wrote several world renound books on genetics and environmental biology. Its not his fault that mainstream folks (especially christians) took no notice until they realised it challenged their beliefs. He has 2 quotes that sum up my take on beleif completely and basically form my understanding of our reality. 1. "the idea of a supernatural creator undermines the elegant reality of the universe" Thats going on my headstone. 2. "We are all aetheists of some god, just some of use choose to take it one god further" Every christian reading this thread thinks all other religions are nonsense. They are just completely incapable of applying the same train of thought to themselves. Thats the delusion and your all welcome to wallow in it.
I dare you to find someone who is not an avid student of genetics and DNA to knew of Dawkins prior to him opening his mouth about religion. It is true that he begun what is now known as "memetics" but go ask someone on the street what memetics is, I dare you.
The first quote is purely Dawkins trying to turn the tables on those who would say that our universe was designed. The elegant reality of Mr Dawkins' universe is the same as my reality of the universe, I have simply chosen to admit the obvious, Dawkins refuses.
The second quote is just semantics and word games. If Mr Dawkins wants to start calling Christians "atheist to all Gods but the one of Abraham and Isaac" and Muslims as "atheist to all gods other than Allah" (Which btw they are two different Gods if you would like to get into that debate with me) And to atheists as "atheist to all Gods of all religious beliefs" then he can do that if he wants to. He says this only to try and take away some of the stigma that comes with being an atheist. It has nothing to do with any actual logical belief of his.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Firstly.... that video on the previous page is an extremely average example of a Christian conversation. Terrifying, futile and bordering on insanity. Situation normal basically, it could go on forever and the only thing that would be resolved is the size of straight jacket needed to cart the loons away.
As for Dawkins.... well my wife is an honours student in genetics so I guess maybe thats why Ive known about him for like a decade. I dont anticipate many people outside science would have heard of him, but I would argue that because they are too busy reading fiction and not busy enough reading science. Its neither his fault nor his will to be famous or popular. Its the ironic result of challenging the fantasies of so many people. When you consider over 10 million Americans firmly believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, you can see what normal people are up against trying to get a sane message across.
So as far as personal aetheism goes.... Are you saying you believe in Buddah ? or Krishna or Rael's Elohim ?
Of course you dont. They dont make any sense to you. But your incapable of seeing the link between your inability to accept the thousands of other gods you could possibly believe in and your beleif in the one that you do.
The arguments that make people commit to those other gods are just as compelling as the arguments you use to convince people of yours.
Firstly.... that video on the previous page is an extremely average example of a Christian conversation. Terrifying, futile and bordering on insanity. Situation normal basically, it could go on forever and the only thing that would be resolved is the size of straight jacket needed to cart the loons away. As for Dawkins.... well my wife is an honours student in genetics so I guess maybe thats why Ive known about him for like a decade. I dont anticipate many people outside science would have heard of him, but I would argue that because they are too busy reading fiction and not busy enough reading science. Its neither his fault nor his will to be famous or popular. Its the ironic result of challenging the fantasies of so many people. When you consider over 10 million Americans firmly believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, you can see what normal people are up against trying to get a sane message across. So as far as personal aetheism goes.... Are you saying you believe in Buddah ? or Krishna or Rael's Elohim ? Of course you dont. They dont make any sense to you. But your incapable of seeing the link between your inability to accept the thousands of other gods you could possibly believe in and your beleif in the one that you do. The arguments that make people commit to those other gods are just as compelling as the arguments you use to convince people of yours. So why not Brahma or Crom for you ?? Why Jesus ?
Reread what I wrote about the "atheism shouldn't even be a word" issue. It's simply word games, it's an attempt by an atheist to take away some of the bad vibes that come with the word atheist. If you wish to start calling me "one who believes in the God of abraham and Isaac but not all the other ones" then you may do so, I will continue to call myself a Christian, and Mr Dawkins an atheist.
Why Jesus? Good question...because about a year ago I found out exactly what it was that Christians believe, and I found out exactly it was that evolutionists believe. And after a lifetime of being an evolutionist, I took a step back and said "this shit doesn't make any fucking sense" Yes, that's literally what I said, it was before I stopped cussing. From that point I decided to start learning as much as I could about both sides of the issue, and the more I learn, the more I become convinced and evolutionists, especially atheists, are some of the most lost people on this planet. Specifically Jesus though, it's something that I struggled with for a long time, to be able to say "yes I believe that Jesus died for my sins". There was a period in which I knew that the Bible was right about what it said in regard to the origin of our Earth, but I remained unconvinced as to the whole "personal savior thing" It's a process that takes a little bit of time to come to grips to, but when I stop and think about it, it certainly makes perfect sense, the need for a savior, and when that goes all tied up with what I begun to believe about a year ago, everything fits.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Wow thanks for sharing that.... its pretty interesting to me because im more or less the opposite.
I grew up in a Methodist household and spent much of my life up to about age 25 flitting from church to church trying to find the "spark" that would turn me into a complete believer. In fact I am still looking for that "thing" that people like yourself have discovered that allows you to switch from a reality based on knowledge and blanace of probability to a reality based on faith.
I am actually very spiritual, but in the same sense as Dawkins uses it. I find wonder beyond description in nature, but I find evolution explains it for me with a sufficient degree of credibility to remove any need for further explanation such as a creator.
I remain a "tooth fairy agnostic" (another Dawkinsism) in that I think evolution and the big bang theory stil leave loads of room for a creator. I mean if you understand the big bang theory then you understand that the universe exploded from an over compressed super singularity. The question still remains, where did the super singularity comes from ?
Equally religion does not provide all the answers because as others have pointed out God is a complex being, far more complex than the universe. If you accept the existence of a non created creator then evolution and the big bang should almost be boringly logical to anyone with an imagination active enough to accomodate religion.
So on balance.... when it comes to the choice between a scenario that suggests dinosaurs co-existed with man, or that fossils are planted in the ground by atheists and scientists to trick christians.... and the premise that
This
Became this
became this
Through countless millenia of biological, environmental and climatic triggers combined with random mutations.
If it were not for the fact that a fish does not posess the ability within its DNA to grow legs, and the fact that no organism has ever been known to aquire information that would change the animal (such as growing legs, as your series of pictures described) I would consider evolution to be a very plausable theory. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and evolution remains a complete 100% impossibility under current scientific knowledge about DNA. Which is why I fervently believe that an evolutionist or an atheist has FAR more faith than any kind of theist ever will.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If it were not for the fact that a fish does not posess the ability within its DNA to grow legs, and the fact that no organism has ever been known to aquire information that would change the animal (such as growing legs, as your series of pictures described) I would consider evolution to be a very plausable theory. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and evolution remains a complete 100% impossibility under current scientific knowledge about DNA. Which is why I fervently believe that an evolutionist or an atheist has FAR more faith than any kind of theist ever will.
You fail to understand that not every atheist believes in evolution. I think of it as a plausible explanation of how man became, but still a theory nonetheless. The reason religion goes on so strongly is because mankind wants to have all the answers to everything immediately. Personally, I'm fine not knowing at this point how the universe came to be, or how man came to be after the fact. Science will get it eventually, as its gotten nearly everything else that fairytales had previously given its "answers" for.
Tell me this... Why do you feel such a strong urge to know the answer to something that realistically has no impact on your life as it is, whatsoever. I'd like to know these things, sure, but not enough to look to the supernatural for guidance of it...
The early greeks and romans believed that the sun was actually a god pulling a fiery chariot across the sky, this provided some semblance of explanation for sunrise and sunset. How can you look at me with a straight face and tell me that your explanation of creation isn't the same thing?
I like to retain an open mind to things, certainly I hope for answers, but its not going to kill me not to have them. I don't believe in god, but I also don't believe 100% in evolution. Surely there are holes in the theory, as with many other great theories thoughout history, and sure, many were proven false throughout time, but many were eventually proven factual. Although I have almost no doubt in my mind that Darwin was correct in most of his assumptions of evolution, I also know he was wrong in at least some part of it.
So there you have it, I'm neither a theist or an evolutionist. Merely an open-minded individual, and I take pride in not being influenced too strongly by anything theoretical or hypothetical, or of anything in a book whose only evidence is in the book itself.
Eventually science WILL discover the truth behind the formation of the universe, the formation of earth and the beginning of life, and maybe in our lifetimes even. But I do know this: Once its been discovered religious officials will simply change (again) the way they tell you to think of the bible, and you'll simply have more and more Christians, Catholics and others simply telling you the bible isn't to be taken literally... But it wasn't all that long ago that it was. Christianity has evolved much in the same way that we did according to the popular theory, always finding ways to adapt, to keep you going to church and keep religious officials employed.
You fail to understand that not every atheist believes in evolution. I think of it as a plausible explanation of how man became, but still a theory nonetheless. The reason religion goes on so strongly is because mankind wants to have all the answers to everything immediately. Personally, I'm fine not knowing at this point how the universe came to be, or how man came to be after the fact. Science will get it eventually, as its gotten nearly everything else that fairytales had previously given its "answers" for.
I don't know that that is why religion goes on strongly, but you are entitled to that opinion. And I know that not every atheist believes in evolution, certainly such a large group of people would have more sense than that.
Tell me this... Why do you feel such a strong urge to know the answer to something that realistically has no impact on your life as it is, whatsoever. I'd like to know these things, sure, but not enough to look to the supernatural for guidance of it...
Because I believe, and have always believed that there is something more to this life than what we are able to percieve. I do not need to know all of the answers right now, but the origin of time and mankind is something that fascinates me.
The early greeks and romans believed that the sun was actually a god pulling a fiery chariot across the sky, this provided some semblance of explanation for sunrise and sunset. How can you look at me with a straight face and tell me that your explanation of creation isn't the same thing?
Because nowhere in the Christian Bible does it say anything close to that. Show me one piece of science in the Bible that has been disproven by modern science. You won't find one, the Bible does contain a small bit of science, and it's entirely accurate.
I like to retain an open mind to things, certainly I hope for answers, but its not going to kill me not to have them. I don't believe in god, but I also don't believe 100% in evolution. Surely there are holes in the theory, as with many other great theories thoughout history, and sure, many were proven false throughout time, but many were eventually proven factual. Although I have almost no doubt in my mind that Darwin was correct in most of his assumptions of evolution, I also know he was wrong in at least some part of it.
I don't see how you can seem to doubtful of evolution in one paragraph but then make the assertion that Darwin was correct in most of his assumptions. Darwin's theories have largely been disproven, things like the finches that he studied were shown to be speciation rather than evolution...yet it's still taught as evolution in text books...yay for evolutionist bias?
So there you have it, I'm neither a theist or an evolutionist. Merely an open-minded individual, and I take pride in not being influenced too strongly by anything theoretical or hypothetical, or of anything in a book whose only evidence is in the book itself.
I take pride in knowing that the evidence of the information in that book is not contained soley within that book. I've posted on dozens of occasions now showing the science and facts that back up what I believe in...these things have largely been ignored by the community of people that we have here, many of whom are "open minded"
Eventually science WILL discover the truth behind the formation of the universe, the formation of earth and the beginning of life, and maybe in our lifetimes even. But I do know this: Once its been discovered religious officials will simply change (again) the way they tell you to think of the bible, and you'll simply have more and more Christians, Catholics and others simply telling you the bible isn't to be taken literally... But it wasn't all that long ago that it was. Christianity has evolved much in the same way that we did according to the popular theory, always finding ways to adapt, to keep you going to church and keep religious officials employed.
As I said before, science will never discover the origin of the universe, because science is looking in the wrong places. Science has the information that they need, but most in the science community has chosen to ignore what evidence that they do have because it conflicts with preconcieved notions perpetuated by contemporary media and societal norms. Change the BIble again? In what respect has the Bible changed in regard to creation? I would love to konw that. I am not a Christian who will tell you that the Bible is not to be taken literally. I am a Christian who will tell you that the Bible is to be taken as absolute authority, and that the more you learn about the Bible, the more you will realize that it is not just a meaningless conglomoration of books written by people who wanted to control the lives of others. The Bible is far too complex and far too nuanced to have been written without some sort of intervention from something more brilliant than any of us can imagine. I think that you are making a lot of assumptions about how the Christian church has adapted. To some extent I agree though, it is sad that many Christians have abandoned some of their beliefs in favor of modern ideas about science...I am not one of those Christians.
on that note, I'm going to sleep, I have class early tomorow, goodnight.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
The bible cannot explain all things in science, its a collection of stories for living a moral and respectable life. It wasn't written to explain quantum mechanics or DNA sequences.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
The bible cannot explain all things in science, its a collection of stories for living a moral and respectable life. It wasn't written to explain quantum mechanics or DNA sequences.
I stopped reading when the author of the article cited the fact that stars are millions of light years away, the explanation to that is rediculously simple for creationists...however the distance of stars does pose an equally important problem for evolutionsts. I love how he conveniently left that out, after calling the problem that it poses for creaionists "embarassing".
The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.
(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.
The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9This is a light-travel–time problem.10
The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the ‘horizon’)11 So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe ‘know’ about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the ‘horizon problem’.12 Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to it, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date (see Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’ below).
In case you were wondering, the explanation that creationists use is that God literally pulled the light from the stars to the Earth, when the Bible states that he created the stars and the moon to rule the night time sky.
Also in case you were wondering...here is the explanation given by evolutionists...once again completely unsubstantiated by evidence, but here you are anyway:
Currently, the most popular idea is called ‘inflation’—a conjecture invented by Alan Guth in 1981. In this scenario, the expansion rate of the universe (i.e. space itself) was vastly accelerated in an ‘inflation phase’ early in the big bang. The different regions of the universe were in very close contact before this inflation took place. Thus, they were able to come to the same temperature by exchanging radiation before they were rapidly (faster than the speed of light1) pushed apart. According to inflation, even though distant regions of the universe are not in contact today, they were in contact before the inflation phase when the universe was small.
However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. A physical mechanism that could cause the inflation is not known, though there are many speculations. There are also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts—the ‘graceful exit’ problem.2 Many inflation models are known to be wrong—making predictions that are not consistent with observations,3 such as Guth’s original model.4 Also, many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.
Some astronomers do not accept inflationary models and have proposed other possible solutions to the horizon problem. These include: scenarios in which the gravitational constant varies with time,5 the ‘ekpyrotic model’ which involves a cyclic universe,6 scenarios in which light takes ‘shortcuts’ through extra (hypothetical) dimensions,7 ‘null-singularity’ models,8 and models in which the speed of light was much greater in the past.9,10 (Creationists have also pointed out that a changing speed of light may solve light-travel–time difficulties for biblical creation.11)
In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved.
answersingenesis.org
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Pure naturalism that has as its basis quantitative methodology can tell us about mathematical probabilities of cause and effect in the world. What it can't do is tell us what the world means, and what the relationships between phenomena mean.
Enter myth, religion, poetry, and mysicism. Without these things, you'd go even more insane than you would be under religion.
There has been no greater champion of atheists than Nietzsche. Yet even Nietzsche understood that if a person refuses to entertain myth, the person refuses to live a life of any meaning.
This is what atheists and religion bashers tend to neglect. If your explainations of reality devoid of supernatural causes was at all useful to human beings to accept as true, then nobody would have any need to believe anything different than what you claim.
Naturalism and science cannot replace what religion and myth does for human beings, human society, and consciousness. At best, it can explain to you that you are the 1 out of 10,000 people in a storm who get hit by lightning, or something to that effect. Yet that offers no help to you when you are the one hit, lying in your hospital bed in an IC ward, wondering why it was you, and not one of the other 9,999, who got hit.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I cant really participate in the discussion except to add the odd cool video
But Id like to say how much the debate has matured around here. This has been an excelletn read and more than a little of it has gone over my head.
Draenor wins the prize for most rational arguments in support of religion I have ever read.
DRAENOR FOR POPE!
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Originally posted by Razorback Draenor wins the prize for most rational arguments in support of religion I have ever read.
Agreed, props to Draenor.
Unfortunately, I haven't sought to enter this debate either.
I will say this, however. If you're arguing that a faith or something doesn't exist... take a nap or something. The reason I refuse (generally) to enter a debate against someone religious about their religion is that I can't prove that something did or does not exist. It's a logical impossibility (usually). Honestly.... exercising every bit of what I believe to be at least considerable knowledge, I cannot prove that the Headless Horseman doesn't exist.
Now with that said, the more compelling argument would be to prove that the Headless Horseman does, in fact, exist. Not that an argument about the Headless Horseman or God are the same thing, because, obviously, they're not, or else the proper nouns would be interchangeable.
Religious people think(or act like) it proves their theory(more like their acquired theory) right, when something real science tries to explain ain't plauseable, or perhaps have some holes. It doesn't.
Till there is evidence supporting devine interaction in the creation of the universe, I'll stay agnostic(leaning towards atheism).
Not being able to disprove something doesn't prove it, meaning as of right now, religious people have about 0 evidence that there is a god.
Religious people think(or act like) it proves their theory(more like their acquired theory) right, when something real science tries to explain ain't plauseable, or perhaps have some holes. It doesn't.
Till there is evidence supporting devine interaction in the creation of the universe, I'll stay agnostic(leaning towards atheism).
Not being able to disprove something doesn't prove it, meaning as of right now, religious people have about 0 evidence that there is a god.
That's a valid point. If some of the key parts of evolution theory can be disputed, it doesn't automatically mean that creationists are correct. Just because we only have two theories, doesn't mean if one is wrong, the other has to be right.
I'd have to argue with you on your second point though, that there is 0 evidence that there is a god. If you had said "proof" that would be a different matter. As far as evidence goes though, there's an enormous amount. The Bible itself contains eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus, and the miracles he performed. The way that so much in the universe seems to follow some kind of rules is evidence. The way that from the beginning of civilisation that humans have had the urge to worship something is evidence. The testimonies of hundreds of thousands of people of how God has moved in their lives and how they've witnesses changes in the people around them through contact with God is evidence. The way you may feel on reading the bible with an open heart and mind is evidence. Simply the amount of people on this planet who are religious is evidence, even if you assume they must all be mad, gullible or stupid, you also have to accept the possibility that perhaps many they weighed up the evidence themselves and have their own personal experiences.
Before you say that most of this evidence is anecdotal, I would remind you that 1. anecdotal evidence is still evidence and while maybe doesn't hold much sway to a scientist, is perfectly acceptable as evidence in a courtroom when trying to judge what is mostly likely to be the truth and 2. Most of what you believe as scientifically proven fact is also anecdotal evidence as far a your beliefs should be concerned unless you have actually done all the research yourself .
Comments
Oh good heavens no. That cant be correct. That would imply that the universe was designed and created by an entity.
Im sure its much more scientific to believe that in the beginning there was nothing and for some odd reason it exploded and became the something you see now.
Logic and science dictate that everything has a catylyst. Something does not evolve from nothing. The universe is a complex and intelligent design which requires that there be an intelligent designer period. This designer revealed himself to us through his people and his word that he has perfectly preserved through all these generations and will ontinue to do so until the saviors return and this world is judged.
You can choose to believe this or not and that is how we know that God loves us and wants our love in return. Ask yourself this question "What do I stand to gain by believing in and abiding in christ? What do I have to lose?" Anyone familliar with pascals wager will understand that no matter how much logic you apply to certain arguments there comes a point at which the person has to make a calculated leap of faith because they simply do not have enough information to prove it unequivocally.
The only way to know for certain is to die and see what happens next if anything. The inherent problem with that unfortunately is once you have crossed that barrier you forfeit your chance to choose.
But ofcourse, it is perfectly reasonable for to believe in an entity that is even more complex then the universe came out of nothing?God always has been and always will be, he has no beginning or end, it is beyond comprehension to understand that cause everything we know and experience has a beginning and an end, thats why when someone dies our bodies can't process it and go into a mental overload cause we were created to never have an end we were programmed from the beginning to live forever thats why seperation is so hard.lemme ask you this can you comprehend eternity? Nope, there are some things man just can't comprehend it is beyond our finite minds. I can't explain how God exists he just does, and his word says he has always existed and always will exist.
Gelasius
Oh good heavens no. That cant be correct. That would imply that the universe was designed and created by an entity.
Im sure its much more scientific to believe that in the beginning there was nothing and for some odd reason it exploded and became the something you see now.
Logic and science dictate that everything has a catylyst. Something does not evolve from nothing. The universe is a complex and intelligent design which requires that there be an intelligent designer period. This designer revealed himself to us through his people and his word that he has perfectly preserved through all these generations and will ontinue to do so until the saviors return and this world is judged.
You can choose to believe this or not and that is how we know that God loves us and wants our love in return. Ask yourself this question "What do I stand to gain by believing in and abiding in christ? What do I have to lose?" Anyone familliar with pascals wager will understand that no matter how much logic you apply to certain arguments there comes a point at which the person has to make a calculated leap of faith because they simply do not have enough information to prove it unequivocally.
The only way to know for certain is to die and see what happens next if anything. The inherent problem with that unfortunately is once you have crossed that barrier you forfeit your chance to choose.
But ofcourse, it is perfectly reasonable for to believe in an entity that is even more complex then the universe came out of nothing?Ahh therein lies the catch. He didnt come out of nothing. In order for something to begin there needs to be a cause. But when you reason that all the way back as far as you can we end up with something peculiar and unique its the uncaused cause. There has to exist somehing that simply always existed and is the cause for everything else that is.
Check out St Thomas Aquinas summa theologie for more.
wow, double standards hm? you try to dismiss a theory like the big bang because of your sense of logic, yet its perfectly fine to accept that an entity that is even more complex then the universe has always existed...Oh good heavens no. That cant be correct. That would imply that the universe was designed and created by an entity.
Im sure its much more scientific to believe that in the beginning there was nothing and for some odd reason it exploded and became the something you see now.
Logic and science dictate that everything has a catylyst. Something does not evolve from nothing. The universe is a complex and intelligent design which requires that there be an intelligent designer period. This designer revealed himself to us through his people and his word that he has perfectly preserved through all these generations and will ontinue to do so until the saviors return and this world is judged.
You can choose to believe this or not and that is how we know that God loves us and wants our love in return. Ask yourself this question "What do I stand to gain by believing in and abiding in christ? What do I have to lose?" Anyone familliar with pascals wager will understand that no matter how much logic you apply to certain arguments there comes a point at which the person has to make a calculated leap of faith because they simply do not have enough information to prove it unequivocally.
The only way to know for certain is to die and see what happens next if anything. The inherent problem with that unfortunately is once you have crossed that barrier you forfeit your chance to choose.
But ofcourse, it is perfectly reasonable for to believe in an entity that is even more complex then the universe came out of nothing?God always has been and always will be, he has no beginning or end, it is beyond comprehension to understand that cause everything we know and experience has a beginning and an end, thats why when someone dies our bodies can't process it and go into a mental overload cause we were created to never have an end we were programmed from the beginning to live forever thats why seperation is so hard.lemme ask you this can you comprehend eternity? Nope, there are some things man just can't comprehend it is beyond our finite minds. I can't explain how God exists he just does, and his word says he has always existed and always will exist.
Gelasius
God has never told you he exists. you believe in him because you are told to believe in him.Change my mind so much I can't even trust it
My mind change me so much I can't even trust myself
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
youtube.com/watch
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Actually Richard Dawkin's claim to fame is that he wrote several world renound books on genetics and environmental biology. Its not his fault that mainstream folks (especially christians) took no notice until they realised it challenged their beliefs.
He has 2 quotes that sum up my take on beleif completely and basically form my understanding of our reality.
1. "the idea of a supernatural creator undermines the elegant reality of the universe" Thats going on my headstone.
2. "We are all aetheists of some god, just some of use choose to take it one god further"
Every christian reading this thread thinks all other religions are nonsense. They are just completely incapable of applying the same train of thought to themselves.
Thats the delusion and your all welcome to wallow in it.
I dare you to find someone who is not an avid student of genetics and DNA to knew of Dawkins prior to him opening his mouth about religion. It is true that he begun what is now known as "memetics" but go ask someone on the street what memetics is, I dare you.
The first quote is purely Dawkins trying to turn the tables on those who would say that our universe was designed. The elegant reality of Mr Dawkins' universe is the same as my reality of the universe, I have simply chosen to admit the obvious, Dawkins refuses.
The second quote is just semantics and word games. If Mr Dawkins wants to start calling Christians "atheist to all Gods but the one of Abraham and Isaac" and Muslims as "atheist to all gods other than Allah" (Which btw they are two different Gods if you would like to get into that debate with me) And to atheists as "atheist to all Gods of all religious beliefs" then he can do that if he wants to. He says this only to try and take away some of the stigma that comes with being an atheist. It has nothing to do with any actual logical belief of his.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Firstly.... that video on the previous page is an extremely average example of a Christian conversation. Terrifying, futile and bordering on insanity. Situation normal basically, it could go on forever and the only thing that would be resolved is the size of straight jacket needed to cart the loons away.
As for Dawkins.... well my wife is an honours student in genetics so I guess maybe thats why Ive known about him for like a decade. I dont anticipate many people outside science would have heard of him, but I would argue that because they are too busy reading fiction and not busy enough reading science. Its neither his fault nor his will to be famous or popular. Its the ironic result of challenging the fantasies of so many people. When you consider over 10 million Americans firmly believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, you can see what normal people are up against trying to get a sane message across.
So as far as personal aetheism goes.... Are you saying you believe in Buddah ? or Krishna or Rael's Elohim ?
Of course you dont. They dont make any sense to you. But your incapable of seeing the link between your inability to accept the thousands of other gods you could possibly believe in and your beleif in the one that you do.
The arguments that make people commit to those other gods are just as compelling as the arguments you use to convince people of yours.
So why not Brahma or Crom for you ?? Why Jesus ?
Reread what I wrote about the "atheism shouldn't even be a word" issue. It's simply word games, it's an attempt by an atheist to take away some of the bad vibes that come with the word atheist. If you wish to start calling me "one who believes in the God of abraham and Isaac but not all the other ones" then you may do so, I will continue to call myself a Christian, and Mr Dawkins an atheist.
Why Jesus? Good question...because about a year ago I found out exactly what it was that Christians believe, and I found out exactly it was that evolutionists believe. And after a lifetime of being an evolutionist, I took a step back and said "this shit doesn't make any fucking sense" Yes, that's literally what I said, it was before I stopped cussing. From that point I decided to start learning as much as I could about both sides of the issue, and the more I learn, the more I become convinced and evolutionists, especially atheists, are some of the most lost people on this planet. Specifically Jesus though, it's something that I struggled with for a long time, to be able to say "yes I believe that Jesus died for my sins". There was a period in which I knew that the Bible was right about what it said in regard to the origin of our Earth, but I remained unconvinced as to the whole "personal savior thing" It's a process that takes a little bit of time to come to grips to, but when I stop and think about it, it certainly makes perfect sense, the need for a savior, and when that goes all tied up with what I begun to believe about a year ago, everything fits.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Wow thanks for sharing that.... its pretty interesting to me because im more or less the opposite.
I grew up in a Methodist household and spent much of my life up to about age 25 flitting from church to church trying to find the "spark" that would turn me into a complete believer. In fact I am still looking for that "thing" that people like yourself have discovered that allows you to switch from a reality based on knowledge and blanace of probability to a reality based on faith.
I am actually very spiritual, but in the same sense as Dawkins uses it. I find wonder beyond description in nature, but I find evolution explains it for me with a sufficient degree of credibility to remove any need for further explanation such as a creator.
I remain a "tooth fairy agnostic" (another Dawkinsism) in that I think evolution and the big bang theory stil leave loads of room for a creator. I mean if you understand the big bang theory then you understand that the universe exploded from an over compressed super singularity. The question still remains, where did the super singularity comes from ?
Equally religion does not provide all the answers because as others have pointed out God is a complex being, far more complex than the universe. If you accept the existence of a non created creator then evolution and the big bang should almost be boringly logical to anyone with an imagination active enough to accomodate religion.
So on balance.... when it comes to the choice between a scenario that suggests dinosaurs co-existed with man, or that fossils are planted in the ground by atheists and scientists to trick christians.... and the premise that
This
Became this
became this
Through countless millenia of biological, environmental and climatic triggers combined with random mutations.
Ill take Evolution everytime.
If it were not for the fact that a fish does not posess the ability within its DNA to grow legs, and the fact that no organism has ever been known to aquire information that would change the animal (such as growing legs, as your series of pictures described) I would consider evolution to be a very plausable theory. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and evolution remains a complete 100% impossibility under current scientific knowledge about DNA. Which is why I fervently believe that an evolutionist or an atheist has FAR more faith than any kind of theist ever will.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Tell me this... Why do you feel such a strong urge to know the answer to something that realistically has no impact on your life as it is, whatsoever. I'd like to know these things, sure, but not enough to look to the supernatural for guidance of it...
The early greeks and romans believed that the sun was actually a god pulling a fiery chariot across the sky, this provided some semblance of explanation for sunrise and sunset. How can you look at me with a straight face and tell me that your explanation of creation isn't the same thing?
I like to retain an open mind to things, certainly I hope for answers, but its not going to kill me not to have them. I don't believe in god, but I also don't believe 100% in evolution. Surely there are holes in the theory, as with many other great theories thoughout history, and sure, many were proven false throughout time, but many were eventually proven factual. Although I have almost no doubt in my mind that Darwin was correct in most of his assumptions of evolution, I also know he was wrong in at least some part of it.
So there you have it, I'm neither a theist or an evolutionist. Merely an open-minded individual, and I take pride in not being influenced too strongly by anything theoretical or hypothetical, or of anything in a book whose only evidence is in the book itself.
Eventually science WILL discover the truth behind the formation of the universe, the formation of earth and the beginning of life, and maybe in our lifetimes even. But I do know this: Once its been discovered religious officials will simply change (again) the way they tell you to think of the bible, and you'll simply have more and more Christians, Catholics and others simply telling you the bible isn't to be taken literally... But it wasn't all that long ago that it was. Christianity has evolved much in the same way that we did according to the popular theory, always finding ways to adapt, to keep you going to church and keep religious officials employed.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1t4sdgvy-pk
All notions of supernatural deities aside. I rule
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Check this out...
www.atheists.org/evolution/wild.html
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I stopped reading when the author of the article cited the fact that stars are millions of light years away, the explanation to that is rediculously simple for creationists...however the distance of stars does pose an equally important problem for evolutionsts. I love how he conveniently left that out, after calling the problem that it poses for creaionists "embarassing".
The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.
(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.
The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-travel–time problem.10
The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the ‘horizon’)11 So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe ‘know’ about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the ‘horizon problem’.12 Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to it, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date (see Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’ below).
In case you were wondering, the explanation that creationists use is that God literally pulled the light from the stars to the Earth, when the Bible states that he created the stars and the moon to rule the night time sky.
Also in case you were wondering...here is the explanation given by evolutionists...once again completely unsubstantiated by evidence, but here you are anyway:
Currently, the most popular idea is called ‘inflation’—a conjecture invented by Alan Guth in 1981. In this scenario, the expansion rate of the universe (i.e. space itself) was vastly accelerated in an ‘inflation phase’ early in the big bang. The different regions of the universe were in very close contact before this inflation took place. Thus, they were able to come to the same temperature by exchanging radiation before they were rapidly (faster than the speed of light1) pushed apart. According to inflation, even though distant regions of the universe are not in contact today, they were in contact before the inflation phase when the universe was small.
However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. A physical mechanism that could cause the inflation is not known, though there are many speculations. There are also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts—the ‘graceful exit’ problem.2 Many inflation models are known to be wrong—making predictions that are not consistent with observations,3 such as Guth’s original model.4 Also, many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.
Some astronomers do not accept inflationary models and have proposed other possible solutions to the horizon problem. These include: scenarios in which the gravitational constant varies with time,5 the ‘ekpyrotic model’ which involves a cyclic universe,6 scenarios in which light takes ‘shortcuts’ through extra (hypothetical) dimensions,7 ‘null-singularity’ models,8 and models in which the speed of light was much greater in the past.9,10 (Creationists have also pointed out that a changing speed of light may solve light-travel–time difficulties for biblical creation.11)
In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved.
answersingenesis.org
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Pure naturalism that has as its basis quantitative methodology can tell us about mathematical probabilities of cause and effect in the world. What it can't do is tell us what the world means, and what the relationships between phenomena mean.
Enter myth, religion, poetry, and mysicism. Without these things, you'd go even more insane than you would be under religion.
There has been no greater champion of atheists than Nietzsche. Yet even Nietzsche understood that if a person refuses to entertain myth, the person refuses to live a life of any meaning.
This is what atheists and religion bashers tend to neglect. If your explainations of reality devoid of supernatural causes was at all useful to human beings to accept as true, then nobody would have any need to believe anything different than what you claim.
Naturalism and science cannot replace what religion and myth does for human beings, human society, and consciousness. At best, it can explain to you that you are the 1 out of 10,000 people in a storm who get hit by lightning, or something to that effect. Yet that offers no help to you when you are the one hit, lying in your hospital bed in an IC ward, wondering why it was you, and not one of the other 9,999, who got hit.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I cant really participate in the discussion except to add the odd cool video
But Id like to say how much the debate has matured around here. This has been an excelletn read and more than a little of it has gone over my head.
Draenor wins the prize for most rational arguments in support of religion I have ever read.
DRAENOR FOR POPE!
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Unfortunately, I haven't sought to enter this debate either.
I will say this, however. If you're arguing that a faith or something doesn't exist... take a nap or something. The reason I refuse (generally) to enter a debate against someone religious about their religion is that I can't prove that something did or does not exist. It's a logical impossibility (usually). Honestly.... exercising every bit of what I believe to be at least considerable knowledge, I cannot prove that the Headless Horseman doesn't exist.
Now with that said, the more compelling argument would be to prove that the Headless Horseman does, in fact, exist. Not that an argument about the Headless Horseman or God are the same thing, because, obviously, they're not, or else the proper nouns would be interchangeable.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Religious people think(or act like) it proves their theory(more like their acquired theory) right, when something real science tries to explain ain't plauseable, or perhaps have some holes. It doesn't.
Till there is evidence supporting devine interaction in the creation of the universe, I'll stay agnostic(leaning towards atheism).
Not being able to disprove something doesn't prove it, meaning as of right now, religious people have about 0 evidence that there is a god.
That's a valid point. If some of the key parts of evolution theory can be disputed, it doesn't automatically mean that creationists are correct. Just because we only have two theories, doesn't mean if one is wrong, the other has to be right.
I'd have to argue with you on your second point though, that there is 0 evidence that there is a god. If you had said "proof" that would be a different matter. As far as evidence goes though, there's an enormous amount. The Bible itself contains eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus, and the miracles he performed. The way that so much in the universe seems to follow some kind of rules is evidence. The way that from the beginning of civilisation that humans have had the urge to worship something is evidence. The testimonies of hundreds of thousands of people of how God has moved in their lives and how they've witnesses changes in the people around them through contact with God is evidence. The way you may feel on reading the bible with an open heart and mind is evidence. Simply the amount of people on this planet who are religious is evidence, even if you assume they must all be mad, gullible or stupid, you also have to accept the possibility that perhaps many they weighed up the evidence themselves and have their own personal experiences.
Before you say that most of this evidence is anecdotal, I would remind you that 1. anecdotal evidence is still evidence and while maybe doesn't hold much sway to a scientist, is perfectly acceptable as evidence in a courtroom when trying to judge what is mostly likely to be the truth and 2. Most of what you believe as scientifically proven fact is also anecdotal evidence as far a your beliefs should be concerned unless you have actually done all the research yourself .