SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Let me start off by saying that the strongest evidence that God, a Christian/Jewish/Muslim God, cannot exist, is pure logic, I will demonstrate below.

However, I am interested in to why you get angry with God? If you believe in free will, then God can have NO influence on anything in the world to make sure it is completely free, if you think everyone has a destiny that God shapes, he then predestines people for hell, which would seem completely contrary to God’ nature. To say that a little of both are true is simply a foolish escape from answering the question of whether free will exists or not.

But let’s look at God from a logical point of view.

We must accept a few things first, which should be acceptable to anyone who has taken a high-school science course, or who knows anything about anything.

First, we know everything in the universe that interacts is made of matter and energy. Anti-matter, dark-matter, etc, is all matter and energy nonetheless. This is a proven fact, and common sense for anyone. if you have proof otherwise, please let me know.

Secondly, because of this, in order to interact with the Universe, God must be made of matter and energy. if he is, he is bound by the laws of physics and the rules and laws of this world, because he is made of that which must obey them. This makes miracles and such impossible, because God cannot do these miracles.

if you say he lives outside of the world beyond all capacity, then you are also saying that he CAN NOT interact with the physical world. If so, miracles are still impossible, and praying, and other such acts asking him to intervene in life, are all fruitless, since it would not be within God;s power, which brings me to my next point.

Omnipotence, or being all-powerful, is a logically self-contradictory concept. It is impossible to do everything. We’ve all heard the common proposition “can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift?” It is perfectly valid, and shows how it is impossible to be able to do everything. Therefore, God logically cannot be all-powerful.

You could argue that God is not bound by logic, however that would be unfair of God. He must be bound by that which he creates, less he be an unjust God? Breaking his own rules doesn’t seem very fitting.

There are all kinds of arguments like ‘God is beyond our capacity to understand” and ‘God’s powers are too great” and these are all find arguments, however, these same people who propose these arguments claim to know how God thinks and works and what exactly it takes to go to heaven. This is to know the mind of God. So the argument is flawed at it’s core, beginning the question “Did you talk to God to find this out?” The answer is a determinative, “no.”

The logical contradictions God on and on in a myriad ways. I have simply put forward very basic concepts. I feel like many of the arguments here are really taken on a logical level, when logic is the most powerful tool to prove that God cannot exist.

Note: not written by me but it makes perfect sense, imo

But why is there more Matter than Anti-Matter?

From: Lee Lok Hin
But why is there more Matter than Anti-Matter?

Theres not? lol

God is allpowerful-omnipotent ect. And in the Bible it says, "You shall not test the Lord thy God" basically saying if you test him he, wont respond (on purpose), as it didnt require any faith. If you create a box are you confined by its walls? Can you interact with the things in the box?

In my opinion the church has an answer like the above for every tough question they can ever get asked…

From: n3ss3s
In my opinion the church has an answer like the above for every tough question they can ever get asked…

Well considering the Bible was written almost 2000 years ago i can imagine God has some incredible foresight ;)

From: The Claw

Secondly, because of this, in order to interact with the Universe, God must be made of matter and energy. if he is, he is bound by the laws of physics and the rules and laws of this world, because he is made of that which must obey them. This makes miracles and such impossible, because God cannot do these miracles.

Problem with this statement: We don't know all the laws of the Universe.

From: The Claw

if you say he lives outside of the world beyond all capacity, then you are also saying that he CAN NOT interact with the physical world. If so, miracles are still impossible, and praying, and other such acts asking him to intervene in life, are all fruitless, since it would not be within God;s power, which brings me to my next point.

I'm not understanding how something outside our world couldn't interact with the world. I'm outside of the internet, but I'm still interacting with it.

From: The Claw

You could argue that God is not bound by logic, however that would be unfair of God. He must be bound by that which he creates, less he be an unjust God? Breaking his own rules doesn’t seem very fitting.

And why doesn't it seem very fitting? I don't see why he has to be bound by the rules he created.

Can u see the wind?

Once upon a time a man didn't believe in god and asked questions just like yours, so he asked a muslim scientist how could it be?, he told him to meet him near the river next day.
Next day the man went there, and waited for the scientist, he waited and waited, until he saw a man, the man was the scientist, so he went to him and asked him why he ain't where they are supposed to met, (the scientist was filling a small hole with the water from the river), he said i will be there as soon as i filled the hole with the water in the river, then man got confused and said how are u going to do that? The scientist said, thats just like the questions you are asking, they are just too big for our brains.

Free will?

I guess you are talking about fate?
Logically, you can do whatever you want to, you are going to visit the mall today or not?, its all written down, just see fate as God/Allah's knowledge, everything you do is written down, even the wondering about going to the mall or not, also your desicion is written down, so basiclly EVERYTHING you do is Allah in know of.

Just remember, you say everthing is controlled by energy, ok, i am gonna ask you, who created the energy? it came from the sun? who created the sun?

It all returns to Allah - he simply created everything, and still controlling it, he provide it with power, to make it run, without that power we wont survive for 1 sec.

A closer look at that: The human, what's the difference between a dead man and an alive man?
- The power of moving, the power provided by Allah. Also called the soul.

I think it's very unlogically that there's no god. The most logical is that God exist

From: sirlaughsalot
God is allpowerful-omnipotent ect. And in the Bible it says, "You shall not test the Lord thy God" basically saying if you test him he, wont respond (on purpose), as it didnt require any faith. If you create a box are you confined by its walls? Can you interact with the things in the box?

You can probably open the box, and look outside of it - which is basically what that quote from the bible is telling you not to do. In other words, blindly follow what they say with blinkers and earmuffs on

hello Claw,

I would respond to your argument, but it seems like many others have and I will wait until you have responded to them. I am very glad to see that you have examined God and his existence to even say he doesn't exist. There are many people who are indifferent about this issue and don't care whether he exists or not, which in my opinion is the worst position possible.

Best regards,

-corn77

From: The Claw
You can probably open the box, and look outside of it - which is basically what that quote from the bible is telling you not to do. In other words, blindly follow what they say with blinkers and earmuffs on

Actually not, it simply says do not say "well if God does this when i do that then He exists"… You didnt even answer my arguement, simply start a new one that has been beaten to death which is common belief but quite untrue, it takes more "outside the box" thinking to believe in what is (in your opinion) Illogical. So why make the "Think outside the box" arguement when you are trying to prove with logic that God does not exist which is very "inside the box" thinking

Nobody wants to respond to my post?

From: xabdullahx
Nobody wants to respond to my post?

Who created Allah / God? If everything as we know it had a beginning, Allah or God must have had one too, right?

EDIT: I like this page, too.

From: Method
Who created Allah / God? If everything as we know it had a beginning, Allah or God must have had one too, right?

EDIT: I like this page, too.

But at the same time any other beliefs have the same flaw, it is extremely hippocritical to attempt to use that arguement but be guilty of the same flaw. To me it is easier to have a creator who always has been and always will be who created all of this than to have matter just burst forth. It is simply a preference I suppose.

From: xabdullahx
Can u see the wind?

Once upon a time a man didn't believe in god and asked questions just like yours, so he asked a muslim scientist how could it be?, he told him to meet him near the river next day.
Next day the man went there, and waited for the scientist, he waited and waited, until he saw a man, the man was the scientist, so he went to him and asked him why he ain't where they are supposed to met, (the scientist was filling a small hole with the water from the river), he said i will be there as soon as i filled the hole with the water in the river, then man got confused and said how are u going to do that? The scientist said, thats just like the questions you are asking, they are just too big for our brains.

Free will?

I guess you are talking about fate?
Logically, you can do whatever you want to, you are going to visit the mall today or not?, its all written down, just see fate as God/Allah's knowledge, everything you do is written down, even the wondering about going to the mall or not, also your desicion is written down, so basiclly EVERYTHING you do is Allah in know of.

Just remember, you say everthing is controlled by energy, ok, i am gonna ask you, who created the energy? it came from the sun? who created the sun?

It all returns to Allah - he simply created everything, and still controlling it, he provide it with power, to make it run, without that power we wont survive for 1 sec.

A closer look at that: The human, what's the difference between a dead man and an alive man?
- The power of moving, the power provided by Allah. Also called the soul.

I think it's very unlogically that there's no god. The most logical is that God exist

This post provides no arguements for God other than "it must be true because I know no different". It's simply restating the teachings of your religion.

From: senrath
Problem with this statement: We don't know all the laws of the Universe.

We know a fair few of them…enough to know that matter and energy cant just be created from no where, people cant fly, people cant be reborn etc. Which is why miracles are impossible…unless youre saying theres some magical law of the universe we're not aware of yet which states that all these things can happen?

From: senrath
I'm not understanding how something outside our world couldn't interact with the world. I'm outside of the internet, but I'm still interacting with it.

Its talking more interdimensional than just our planet. As in, if God could intereact with us, he must be in the same 3 dimensions as us - not in any more or less, or others. And if he does that, he's bound by the rules of the 3 dimensions. Which makes all these miracles impossible, because we are bound by the laws of the dimensions.

From: senrath
And why doesn't it seem very fitting? I don't see why he has to be bound by the rules he created.

Because if hes not hes unjust. I'm not well versed on that point but apparantly god is meant to be fully just and fair (which can be disproven at any instant by looking at the world around us)

From: corn77
hello Claw,

I would respond to your argument, but it seems like many others have and I will wait until you have responded to them. I am very glad to see that you have examined God and his existence to even say he doesn't exist. There are many people who are indifferent about this issue and don't care whether he exists or not, which in my opinion is the worst position possible.

Best regards,

-corn77

Please do, like I said in my first post this wasn't written by me but it seems to make sense so I'll attempt to argue it as though it was my own.

From: sirlaughsalot
Actually not, it simply says do not say "well if God does this when i do that then He exists"… You didnt even answer my arguement, simply start a new one that has been beaten to death which is common belief but quite untrue, it takes more "outside the box" thinking to believe in what is (in your opinion) Illogical. So why make the "Think outside the box" arguement when you are trying to prove with logic that God does not exist which is very "inside the box" thinking

I'm not saying to "think outside the box". You made the analogy of creating a box and being able to interact with it. Sure, you can interact with stuff inside the box, but I'm not sure what you mean by confined by its walls. Can you break them down? Open the lid? What I meant by my statement was, you quoted "You shall not test the Lord thy God" and then explained it - that to me is basically a cheap admission by the church that theres no way to prove god. Which in turn goes to "dont question the existence of god, he wont show him self anyway" to "dont question" to "blindly follow because we say it's right and you cant prove us wrong". How on Earth can you believe in something which the CREATORS of it (the churches, popes, whatever) have admitted theres no proof that it actually exists, and no way to proove it? That seems highly illogical. And don't say faith….if you're gonna use the wall of faith to block my arguments then theres no point in me even posting any further. This thread is about logic

I was simply saying if you can interact with stuff inside the box, provided that outside the box is still the same 3 dimensions you can interact with stuff outside the box too, and by the bible using the "if you try and talk to him, he'll ignore you so just trust me on this one" arguement it seems to be trying to confine you to inside that box.

From: The Claw


We know a fair few of them…enough to know that matter and energy cant just be created from no where, people cant fly, people cant be reborn etc. Which is why miracles are impossible…unless youre saying theres some magical law of the universe we're not aware of yet which states that all these things can happen?

We used to also KNOW that the Sun orbited the Earth.

From: The Claw

Its talking more interdimensional than just our planet. As in, if God could intereact with us, he must be in the same 3 dimensions as us - not in any more or less, or others. And if he does that, he's bound by the rules of the 3 dimensions. Which makes all these miracles impossible, because we are bound by the laws of the dimensions.

Again, can't prove this. We don't know all of the laws of the dimensions.

From: The Claw

Because if hes not hes unjust. I'm not well versed on that point but apparantly god is meant to be fully just and fair (which can be disproven at any instant by looking at the world around us)

Eh, I don't remember ever learning that God was fully just and fair.

I don't think god will ever be proven one way or another.
To prove god exists would end religion.
Religion wouldn't be a thing you choose anymore, it would be a fact.
I don't go around "believing in pencils", because I can easily see that pencils exist.
So if you could prove god to exist, that would seem to contradict a lot of things told in the bible.
You are supposed to have "faith" that he exists, but you can't have faith in something already proven.
There couldn't be a hell, because the bible says if you accept god (something like that…) you will go to heaven.
Everyone will accept god if it is fact, meaning no hell.

If god is disproved, religion will still end.
If you can prove something doesn't exist no one will believe in it.
This also shows that nothing out there yet has actually disproven god's existence.

There is really no way to prove god doesn't exist 100%.
In theory you could prove that he does exist, assuming he does.
But like I said, proving that wouldn't work either.
It would be kind of like a paradox.
So neither way is going to happen IMO.

From: senrath
We used to also KNOW that the Sun orbited the Earth.

Again, can't prove this. We don't know all of the laws of the dimensions.
Eh, I don't remember ever learning that God was fully just and fair.

I'm failing to see your point. Yes, we used to believe the heliocentric model of the universe but that doesnt mean that miracles can exist. We don't know all of the laws of the dimensions but its obvious that things cant 'step down' dimensions, an analogy would be humans travelling and moving in a 2D world, couldnt be done. If you don't understand why, I won't be able to explain it to you…its like, trying to go "live" on a piece of paper. And I'm sure theres a quote saying that God is meant to be loving and caring and fair etc.

From: almost
I don't think god will ever be proven one way or another.
To prove god exists would end religion.
Religion wouldn't be a thing you choose anymore, it would be a fact.
I don't go around "believing in pencils", because I can easily see that pencils exist.
So if you could prove god to exist, that would seem to contradict a lot of things told in the bible.
You are supposed to have "faith" that he exists, but you can't have faith in something already proven.
There couldn't be a hell, because the bible says if you accept god (something like that…) you will go to heaven.
Everyone will accept god if it is fact, meaning no hell.

If god is disproved, religion will still end.
If you can prove something doesn't exist no one will believe in it.
This also shows that nothing out there yet has actually disproven god's existence.

There is really no way to prove god doesn't exist 100%.
In theory you could prove that he does exist, assuming he does.
But like I said, proving that wouldn't work either.
It would be kind of like a paradox.
So neither way is going to happen IMO.

Just because religion has hundreds of inherent logical fallacies - a few of which you just listed - doesn't prevent a conclusion from ever being made. Theres no way to 100% disprove god, the religious leaders are too smart for that as shown above: "lol, if you try and talk to god hes gonna ignore you so just trust us that hes there alright" and other things. But you can come pretty close to disproving he does exist, using logic as shown in the first post

From: The Claw
I'm failing to see your point. Yes, we used to believe the heliocentric model of the universe but that doesnt mean that miracles can exist. We don't know all of the laws of the dimensions but its obvious that things cant 'step down' dimensions, an analogy would be humans travelling and moving in a 2D world, couldnt be done. If you don't understand why, I won't be able to explain it to you…its like, trying to go "live" on a piece of paper. And I'm sure theres a quote saying that God is meant to be loving and caring and fair etc.

My point is that just because we think we know something, doesn't mean we're right. As for us moving on a 2d plane? Just because we can't do it now with current technologies doesn't mean we won't be able to do it at some point in the future.

Logic is logic, and always will be.
It isn't proof.
If we based the reality of things on logic, I can think of millions of things that would suddenly not exist.
I wouldn't exist.
It makes no sense to me that I came from a sperm cell and I started off the size of my fist.
But it is proven, no matter how illogical.
Logic is also an opinionated thing.
Some might want to think that starting out as a cell is totally logical.
Another reason why logic can't be used to prove things.

Oh and I also notice you have stayed away from the proof that he COULD exist.
It is out there.
There is more proof out there that he does (by far) than that he doesn't.

the bible says if you withdraw before coming, the girl wont get pregnant.

From: sirlaughsalot
Well considering the Bible was written almost 2000 years ago i can imagine God has some incredible foresight ;)

From: senrath
My point is that just because we think we know something, doesn't mean we're right. As for us moving on a 2d plane? Just because we can't do it now with current technologies doesn't mean we won't be able to do it at some point in the future.

Pretty sure it's physically impossible.

From: The Claw

I'm not saying to "think outside the box". You made the analogy of creating a box and being able to interact with it. Sure, you can interact with stuff inside the box, but I'm not sure what you mean by confined by its walls. Can you break them down? Open the lid? What I meant by my statement was, you quoted "You shall not test the Lord thy God" and then explained it - that to me is basically a cheap admission by the church that theres no way to prove god. Which in turn goes to "dont question the existence of god, he wont show him self anyway" to "dont question" to "blindly follow because we say it's right and you cant prove us wrong". How on Earth can you believe in something which the CREATORS of it (the churches, popes, whatever) have admitted theres no proof that it actually exists, and no way to proove it? That seems highly illogical. And don't say faith….if you're gonna use the wall of faith to block my arguments then theres no point in me even posting any further. This thread is about logic

I was simply saying if you can interact with stuff inside the box, provided that outside the box is still the same 3 dimensions you can interact with stuff outside the box too, and by the bible using the "if you try and talk to him, he'll ignore you so just trust me on this one" arguement it seems to be trying to confine you to inside that box.

Usually you are outside of a box when you "create" it, I was saying if you created a box and are outside of it you could still interact with the stuff inside the box and still be outside of it (partway at least), and you could destroy the box at any time, ect…

It isnt a "cheap admission" it isnt like God never interacts, simply dont say "If God exists he will stop this pencil from hitting the ground" it doesnt work that way because God wants you to have FAITH. Yes i said it the evil word, that is what all of this boils down to is faith, that is what the whole Christian belief is about. That is what all religions are about, you cannot prove it and you dont want to prove it, God does not want to be proven.

From: The Claw
Yes, we used to believe the heliocentric model of the universe but that doesnt mean that miracles can exist.

Unless I'm behind the times, I'm pretty sure that people still believe in the heliocentric model of the universe.

You believe in God, Jezus and the Holy spirit, or you believe in a big bang.
I don't believe it's by a big bang then even a God would be more realistic.
I mean how the fuck can make some big bang a cell and into human and then make stuff like computers and stuff; Darwin even recalled his theory and started believing in God. I got a believe of zero, still I go to church.

It's your choice, I can only warn you; I can't convict you.

~Hermpie

From: The Claw
Pretty sure it's physically impossible.

Yes, and as I said before people were pretty sure that the Sun orbited the Earth. They were pretty sure that maggots were spontaneously generated from meat. They were pretty sure of a lot of things that were proved incorrect.


I'd also like to take this time to point out that it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

From: bullzeye95
Unless I'm behind the times, I'm pretty sure that people still believe in the heliocentric model of the universe.

he probably meant geocentric, was a slip of the tongue.

From: Hermpie
You believe in God, Jezus and the Holy spirit, or you believe in a big bang.

no-one believes in the big bang,
people believe in evidence, which points towards big bang.

everyone believes in evidence (even religious people)

when you wonder what happened to your pie that went missing, and you see footprints, you conclude that the dog ate it. thats believing in evidence.

it would be stupid to go up to a jury and say "i dont believe in evidence, i have faith that this man dodges taxes"

From: Hermpie
I don't believe it's by a big bang then even a God would be more realistic.
I mean how the fuck can make some big bang a cell and into human and then make stuff like computers and stuff;

evidence isnt like religion.
religion has to be simple enough for the masses to understand, otherwise it will die out.

but the evidence for the big bang is quite complicated, and to fully understand it you need to do some quite serious maths.

From: Hermpie
Darwin even recalled his theory and started believing in God.

this is completely false, there is no evidence for it (although maybe that doesnt matter for you)
this rumour was started soon after darwin died and all his relatives denied it, even his wife who was actually catholic.

in either case, even if darwin did recall his theory, it wouldnt make it any less valid.

From: Yakman
he probably meant geocentric, was a slip of the tongue.

Bullzeye isnt religious :P

From: Yakman

no-one believes in the big bang,
people believe in evidence, which points towards big bang.

everyone believes in evidence (even religious people)

when you wonder what happened to your pie that went missing, and you see footprints, you conclude that the dog ate it. thats believing in evidence.

it would be stupid to go up to a jury and say "i dont believe in evidence, i have faith that this man dodges taxes"

The problem is with our evidence you would simply dismiss it as "loony" or "there is some natural explination"

From: Yakman

evidence isnt like religion.
religion has to be simple enough for the masses to understand, otherwise it will die out.

Religion isnt simple, not even close, it CAN be simple but if you actually think about it, it is a very complex issue that various theologians argue about a lot.

From: Yakman

but the evidence for the big bang is quite complicated, and to fully understand it you need to do some quite serious maths.

So then the "Scientists" behind it all can make whatever result they want to because very few other people understand it…

From: Yakman

this is completely false, there is no evidence for it (although maybe that doesnt matter for you)
this rumour was started soon after darwin died and all his relatives denied it, even his wife who was actually catholic.

in either case, even if darwin did recall his theory, it wouldnt make it any less valid.

That may be false but at the same time take a look http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i6n.htm

From: The Claw
This post provides no arguements for God other than "it must be true because I know no different". It's simply restating the teachings of your religion.

Huh? if my topic doesnt make sense yours dont either :eek:

From: Yakman
he probably meant geocentric, was a slip of the tongue.




no-one believes in the big bang,
people believe in evidence, which points towards big bang.

everyone believes in evidence (even religious people)

when you wonder what happened to your pie that went missing, and you see footprints, you conclude that the dog ate it. thats believing in evidence.

it would be stupid to go up to a jury and say "i dont believe in evidence, i have faith that this man dodges taxes"




evidence isnt like religion.
religion has to be simple enough for the masses to understand, otherwise it will die out.

but the evidence for the big bang is quite complicated, and to fully understand it you need to do some quite serious maths.




this is completely false, there is no evidence for it (although maybe that doesnt matter for you)
this rumour was started soon after darwin died and all his relatives denied it, even his wife who was actually catholic.

in either case, even if darwin did recall his theory, it wouldnt make it any less valid.

Everytime the same song you rip sentences out of a text and you rape ehm without good arguments…

your post doesn't makes 1% sence if you read the whole block I have written.

~Hermpie

God does not want to be proven.

Exactly.
Assuming god exists, you wouldn't be able to prove his existence because he doesn't want that.

You can either believe in god, or believe that everything is… just here.
It just… made itself?
I don't even know of any other theory for how everything got here.
The big bang could explain how the earth and the living things on it came about, but how did all the energy and space come about that made the big bang?
I believe in god mostly because it would be ignorant to say we all got here just because, and everything was just always in existence.

I don't want to argue just one side, I have found that trying to argue both sides to something will allow you to see which one is the truth.
You have a very valid point with this-

However, I am interested in to why you get angry with God? If you believe in free will, then God can have NO influence on anything in the world to make sure it is completely free, if you think everyone has a destiny that God shapes, he then predestines people for hell, which would seem completely contrary to God’ nature. To say that a little of both are true is simply a foolish escape from answering the question of whether free will exists or not.

I can't decide if free will exists or not, or how it works.
It seems to be beyond our understanding.

From: almost
Exactly.
Assuming god exists, you wouldn't be able to prove his existence because he doesn't want that.

You can either believe in god, or believe that everything is… just here.
It just… made itself?
I don't even know of any other theory for how everything got here.
The big bang could explain how the earth and the living things on it came about, but how did all the energy and space come about that made the big bang?
I believe in god mostly because it would be ignorant to say we all got here just because, and everything was just always in existence.

I don't want to argue just one side, I have found that trying to argue both sides to something will allow you to see which one is the truth.
You have a very valid point with this-

I can't decide if free will exists or not, or how it works.
It seems to be beyond our understanding.

That's exactly what I meant/was saying ;)

Last post here,

~Hermpie

From: almost

I can't decide if free will exists or not, or how it works.
It seems to be beyond our understanding.

It is a very tricky subject, that I have given some thought. I believe that God knows what deicisions we are going to make, they arent predestined per-se he just knows us so well that he can tell what will happen in the future. So he does not control us to do things but rather knows what we will do. Even still why would all the bad people (who will continue) to be bad stay on this earth? I think that everything happens for a reason, that person who does bad things may indirectly lead someone to Jesus… Thats my 2 cents on the matter…

From: sirlaughsalot
God is allpowerful-omnipotent ect. And in the Bible it says, "You shall not test the Lord thy God" basically saying if you test him he, wont respond (on purpose), as it didnt require any faith. If you create a box are you confined by its walls? Can you interact with the things in the box?

Hello sirlaughtalot,

I know this is a previous post, but I wanted to make a comment/argument on the verse (Deut 6:16) you used to argue that God will respond on purpose when we test him. There is nothing in that verse that says he will not respond to testing him. It simply states, "16. Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah. 17. Be sure to keep the commands of the LORD your….". You must also remember that God is speaking to his own people (Isreal), and that they already know that he exists, not to people who do not believe in him.

What I am trying to say is that He will not respond to us, not based off us attempting to test him, but according to our standing before him. to prove my point, these verses speak of our position before God intervenes with his chosen people. -> Isaiah 64:4-6. -> Romans 3:11-18. ->Jeremiah 5:28-29. ->Jeremiah 6:10. Here are just a few, but there are plenty more. I assume that you knew and understood this, but I just ask that you be careful with using to word of God as a tool for arguing. It is right to do so, but please make sure your right. Our God wants us to be honest, and Im not saying you werent.

Best regards,

corn

From: sirlaughsalot
It is a very tricky subject, that I have given some thought. I believe that God knows what deicisions we are going to make, they arent predestined per-se he just knows us so well that he can tell what will happen in the future. So he does not control us to do things but rather knows what we will do. Even still why would all the bad people (who will continue) to be bad stay on this earth? I think that everything happens for a reason, that person who does bad things may indirectly lead someone to Jesus… Thats my 2 cents on the matter…

hello again, :-)

Free will subject, always interesting to discuss. I am always filled with joy to see someone who is commited to speak about their beliefs. :) It is true that God (in the context of Christianity and Bible) knows every thought or action we will do. It is simple defined to be so in terms of God's character. verses below. v

Psalm 147:5, Isaiah 40:14, Psalm 44:21, Luke 16:15, Act 15:8, Genesis 6:5, Romans 8:27. Most of these verses refer to the heart. The heart described in the bible, flows all of actions, thoughts, desires, and motives behind everything a man does. and so, when God knows everything about our hearts, he knows what he will happen.

From: xabdullahx
Huh? if my topic doesnt make sense yours dont either :eek:

Hi xabdullahx, :-)

It is cool to see a muslim here as I am always delighted to discuss God with them. Welcome. :-)

But it seems that statement is simply incorrect. It is honestly an arrogant and an ignorant statement.

From: corn77
Hello sirlaughtalot,

I know this is a previous post, but I wanted to make a comment/argument on the verse (Deut 6:16) you used to argue that God will respond on purpose when we test him. There is nothing in that verse that says he will not respond to testing him. It simply states, "You shall not..". You must also remember that God is speaking to his own people (Isreal), and that they already know that he exists, not to people who do not believe in him.

What I am trying to say is that He will not respond to us, not based off us attempting to test him, but according to our standing before him. to prove my point, this verse speaks of our position before God intervenes with his chosen people. -> Isaiah 64:4-6. -> Romans 3:11-18. ->Jeremiah 5:28-29. ->Jeremiah 6:10. Here are just a few, but there are plenty more. I assume that you knew and understood this, but I just ask that you be careful with using to word of God as a tool for arguing. It is right to do so, but please make sure your right. Our God wants us to be honest, and Im not saying you werent.

Best regards,

corn

You know your Bible :)… I couldn't remember the exact context, thank you for that.

From: Hermpie
Darwin even recalled his theory and started believing in God.

I call major BS. Where'd you hear that one? (Ofc I know the rumor is circulating, but I'm wondering how someone could make that statement convincing enough that someone actually believes it)

From: corn77
Hello sirlaughtalot,

I know this is a previous post, but I wanted to make a comment/argument on the verse (Deut 6:16) you used to argue that God will respond on purpose when we test him. There is nothing in that verse that says he will not respond to testing him. It simply states, "16. Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah. 17. Be sure to keep the commands of the LORD your….". You must also remember that God is speaking to his own people (Isreal), and that they already know that he exists, not to people who do not believe in him.

What I am trying to say is that He will not respond to us, not based off us attempting to test him, but according to our standing before him. to prove my point, these verses speak of our position before God intervenes with his chosen people. -> Isaiah 64:4-6. -> Romans 3:11-18. ->Jeremiah 5:28-29. ->Jeremiah 6:10. Here are just a few, but there are plenty more. I assume that you knew and understood this, but I just ask that you be careful with using to word of God as a tool for arguing. It is right to do so, but please make sure your right. Our God wants us to be honest, and Im not saying you werent.

Best regards,

corn

Lol, away with your god, man I couldn't picture reading the bible.
I mean I can read big books but only if the story is good.. something tells me the story of the bible isn't exactly exciting or w.e

From: bullzeye95
I call major BS. Where'd you hear that one? (Ofc I know the rumor is circulating, but I'm wondering how someone could make that statement convincing enough that someone actually believes it)

hi bullzeye,

I have heard the rumor as well. Even if it is true, it is of no use as Yakman stated previously. I havent seen proof of it either of Darwin refuting evolution. ;)

corn

From: sirlaughsalot
You know your Bible :)… I couldn't remember the exact context, thank you for that.

Hi again,

You are welcome. :-) God has shown me a lot over the past year, the need and preciousness of the Bible. I have only been a Christian for about a year and a half now, but God has been oh so gracious to me. Some of the verses, I simply looked around for, I didnt memorize or anything.

corn

From: Hugolord
Lol, away with your god, man I couldn't picture reading the bible.
I mean I can read big books but only if the story is good.. something tells me the story of the bible isn't exactly exciting or w.e

Hi Hugolord,

I dont know if you would consider yourself a Christian or not and thus I continue cautiously. I assume you arent. In the context of reading the bible for just to be exciting/interesting is a shallow motive indeed. And if it was based off that motive I would never read it. I understand and everyday need to realize that this simple book and yet complex book, is life and food to christians. It changes us. I know this sounds wierd to you and I dont expect you to understand it as I do. But, for me, I believe that it is the very Word of God and that is what the bible claims to be. That their is not one flaw in it and that it is alive and true today. Sure their can be plenty of arguments flown over to that statement I just made, but I do believe it and I see its truth everyday. And God has shown me that.

Best Regards,

corn











Off to homework~

From: sirlaughsalot
The problem is with our evidence you would simply dismiss it as "loony" or "there is some natural explination"

its not true that academia discriminates against religious people.
Gregor Mendel who founded the science of genetics was a monk.

From: sirlaughsalot
Religion isnt simple, not even close, it CAN be simple but if you actually think about it, it is a very complex issue that various theologians argue about a lot.

you can easily get the gist by knowing very little, the theologians are just working out the finer details.
also the bible contradicts itself, so many things are unable to be found out.

you never get any revolution in your understanding that changes the whole way you look at it.

in science it happens, Maxwell, Einstine, Darwin and Mendel were all revolutionaries.

religions are memes, and if they were too complicated to understand they would die out.

From: sirlaughsalot
So then the "Scientists" behind it all can make whatever result they want to because very few other people understand it…

thats not how it works.
scientific works are published in peer-reviewed journals, this means all other scientists can look at it and comment. In the same way that people post scar scripts in this forum.
if there is a mistake or fraud, it would be found out.

lets suppose for a moment that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy of all scientists to promote the big bang theory. All it would take is one person to learn some physics and mathematics, and they could blow the conspiracy out of the water.
All sciences these days rely massivly on maths, and 1+1 = 2 no matter how much faith, belief or propaganda you happen to have.

From: sirlaughsalot
That may be false but at the same time take a look http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i6n.htm

that page is nothing to do with darwin recanting on the deathbed, it seems to be about a type of bacteria which intelligent design proponents believe is irreducibly complex.
Such claims have been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers.

it seems to go along the lines of "Theory A is wrong, therefore Theory B must be correct"


intelligent design in general gets blown out of the water when you look at some features in nature are so badly made that such an engineer would have to be completely retarded.

I would like to quote this guy who explains it quite nicely.

From: Goldenmane
God, if he exists, is a fcuking incompetent. I wouldn't hire him to build a bookcase.
(Of course, if I did, he'd build it just big enough to hold one book… and that book wouldn't be Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.)

If everything in this universe has an opposite, logic must have an opposite, no? Try proving this problem being illogical, without just saying "because it is so", as that would be the logical answer to solving this problem illogically…

From: Yakman
its not true that academia discriminates against religious people.
Gregor Mendel who founded the science of genetics was a monk.

What did I say that made you think that?

From: Yakman

you can easily get the gist by knowing very little, the theologians are just working out the finer details.
also the bible contradicts itself, so many things are unable to be found out.

You seem to bring up that a lot, and if you dont bring up specific instances then I cannot know what you mean…

From: Yakman

that page is nothing to do with darwin recanting on the deathbed, it seems to be about a type of bacteria which intelligent design proponents believe is irreducibly complex.
Such claims have been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers.

it seems to go along the lines of "Theory A is wrong, therefore Theory B must be correct"


intelligent design in general gets blown out of the water when you look at some features in nature are so badly made that such an engineer would have to be completely retarded.

I would like to quote this guy who explains it quite nicely.

I didnt say it did but in many ways he does recant it, just not on his deathbed.

That isnt even close to being true, what is made on this earth badly that doesnt fit in with anything else?

I don't mind peoples religion or beliefs, what I do mind is when people try to force each others beliefs on one another. I think it's good that people have faith, because everyone has to believe in something to live a healthy life, be it themselves, a religious figure, another person, or even a piece of cheese.
It's just a human necessity. I personally do not believe in God or any religious figure, but I am glad that it exists to keep people at bay. God helps those who believe, so logically, god exists if you chose to believe it exists. If you chose not to believe in it, god does not exist. God is human faith, in my opinion. Humanity has the power to fight diseases, fight anything. If you give up, you die, if you fight, you live. Survival of the fittest.
Just how I view religion and religious people, in a nutshell, I could write a book on my opinions of everything. :P

From: sirlaughsalot
You seem to bring up that a lot, and if you dont bring up specific instances then I cannot know what you mean…

ok, iv got one here, its about god being visible or not

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

From: sirlaughsalot
That isnt even close to being true, what is made on this earth badly that doesnt fit in with anything else?

a bit of googling found this and I've got my own to add.

why do men have nipples? its a pointless waste of resources.
human eyes have blind spots. why cant they just see properly?


its not intelligent design, more like stupid design.
in some places anyway, in other places the 'design' is quite good. Its obviously not made by design but by natural selection.

I actually read a story about a man that breast-fed his baby after his wife died. It may have been fake, I'm not sure.

And I know we have blind spots, but where exactly are they? I can never seem to find them..

From: 1337w33d
I don't mind peoples religion or beliefs, what I do mind is when people try to force each others beliefs on one another. I think it's good that people have faith, because everyone has to believe in something to live a healthy life, be it themselves, a religious figure, another person, or even a piece of cheese.

Hello 1337w33d,

I appreciate your input on this matter and I care about what you believe. But, to me it seems that you are trying thrust your beliefs into us by saying we shouldnt "force" our beliefs down others throats. This is contradicting/against to my own beliefs and not just my own beliefs, but all christians. I am commanded as a Christian, by God to tell others about this "new life" or about Christianity, about the Christ, which I am glad to obey. I said all of these in order for you to understand what I mean. They are all basically the same, just in different terms.

I know this is your opinion, but that very belief for us to go against is disobediant to a christians life. I am not saying we should force it down peoples throats, we are not commanded to do that, lol. We are commanded to share the gospel with people, to give up our lives to them, so that some might be saved. It is anyone's real choice to accept Christianity or to utterly reject. In Christianity, anyone who actually becomes a Christian (not everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually one, in sense of the bible), becomes a Christian by the power and drawing of God.

Thanks for the input,

corn

From: Yakman
ok, iv got one here, its about god being visible or not

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

Hello Yakman,

I am greatful that you prove your points with scripture as I know from God that the word of God (bible) has supernaturally changed my own life. but I dont want to go too far into this issue, unless you are interested, nonetheless I continue.

The issue of seeing God and not seeing God is very blatant and at the same time difficult in the bible. I would say that these verses in no way contradict each other, but help put God in a better picture and more beautiful picture of who He is. Those who have "seen" God in the bible, have only seen small parts of God not a whole and even those cases were rare and somewhat very different. Oh how great it would be to see God!

(Exodus 33:23, Moses only saw God's back and even in this case, Moses must have been supernaturally strengthened to survive seeing God and I will explain this a lil later)

(Genesis 32:30, Jacob was wrestling with God and in this case God was in the form of a man and even this time Jacob had to of been supernaturally strength to be with God)

(Exodus 33:11, In this verse, it could mean just a conversation, Moses prob did see God, but of course, everytime God has shown himself to people, he always shows just a portion of himself and not the whole. Because in the context of the bible, God is infinite, and to show someone something infinite in a worldly perspective is quite overwhelming if youd ask me)

Previously I had said that Moses and Jacob had to of been supernaturally strengthened to see a part of God. And I will briefly explain that. In the context of the bible, Men are wicked and broken away from God because God is holy, good, perfect and men are evil, wicked, and dirty (lol). God's own character and beauty would kill anyone who would look upon him (including Jacob and Moses), so God had to supernaturally strengthen them inorder for them to survive it. I hope this isnt comfusing to you in anyway and as of now I am lazy atm and I dont want to pull up scripture to confirm my point. But, if you do want verses, just ask and Ill be happy to provide. And in terms of Exodus 33:11, it just makes sense for someone who gazed upon God would utterly die.

John 1:18 and 1 Tim 6:16 really dont contradict with the others either. It does not say he is invisible in any sense. Again, I would go back to (in the context of the bible) one, Men don't deserve to see God, two God selects those to somehow see him and even in that, he must supernaturally strengthen them, and three God is infinite, beautiful, worthy, glorious, and it would make sense that a God would hide himself from people that rebel against him.

I have not seen God and I am open to say that. :-) But, that doesn't mean anything. I also kind of want to cut this short, because I have to do homework.

I hope you understood it in a sense. Thanks for reading my talking/typing. :-)

corn

Hello corn77

Its quite intresting that you see the bible having a positive effect on you, but I see it as having a negative effect.

From: corn77
Those who have "seen" God in the bible, have only seen small parts of God not a whole and even those cases were rare and somewhat very different.

I have to disagree with you about this part.

john 1:18 says, "No man hath seen God at any time.", but it doesnt mention anything about seeing god only in parts.
I think that if you saw any part of god, even if you only saw his toenail, it would make john 1:18 be false.

moses saw his back, and jacob actually wrestled with god. The bible doesnt give much details, but i think jacob and god would have seen a lot of each other, as they wrestled all night (until daybreak)

I guess god could have been wearing a hooded robe so jacob wouldn't see any part of him, but equally, god could have wrestled in speedos.

If you look at modern-day wrestlers, they do show a lot of their body. Not only because they get quite sweaty, but because their opponent can then see the expression on their face, which might make him scared or whatever.


Incidently, if god is all knowing, why did he ask jacob for his name?
i guess it could be some kind of rhetorical question, to get the conversaion flowing perhaps, but im still not convinced.



as for the part about god sighting being rare, that doesnt matter at all.
if someone says "all swans are white", it only takes the sighting of one black swan to disprove it.
it doesnt matter if black swans are very rare, the statement "all swans are white" is still false.
I hope i havent confused you here, but i wanted to point out a possible misunderstanding.


The part about god being infinate and man not deserving to see him is irrelevant to if men or women can see god or not.

From: bullzeye95
I actually read a story about a man that breast-fed his baby after his wife died. It may have been fake, I'm not sure.

And I know we have blind spots, but where exactly are they? I can never seem to find them..

Fake, because males simply lack the neccessary biological makeup to do that (unless he was taking stacks of estrogen or something, even then its unlikely), and about 10 degrees in front of you from each eye if you take looking straight ahead as the normal, but the brain compensates by combining the other images from the other eye. But the fact still remains it's completely unneccessary - why not just have eyes without blindspots?

On another note, I don't personally think we'll get anywhere arguing about verses in the bible/koran/whatever else, as they are written in such a way that they are so open to interpretation by anyone, that it ultimately comes down to personal opinions or choice in which way to read it. Us athiests read and apply what it says directly to the world around us, which makes it seem so absurd (a man coming alive after 3 days of being dead? cmon now); while theists take a more spiritual viewpoint and account for it as a miracle. Due to this, we can't really use the bible's teachings to prove or disprove anything.

This leads me to my next point though - WHY would the bibles (probably other holy scriptures but im not familiar with any others) be written in such a way? Why would they be left with so many seemingly contradictory statements, and leave it pretty much completely open ended? Because it allows them a back way out when what theyre saying is disproved by science, and it also allows people to take their own spin on whats written. I have yet to meet 1 fundamentalist christian, all of the christians/catholics I know have similar core but ultimately different beliefs - such as believing in evolution and the big bang but saying god made it happen, among others.

That's one of religions strongest selling points - it can be tailored to fit anyone's own "wish" to what it can mean, and can also be tailored to refute any arguments - or contradictions - that arise. As seen in the last couple of posts. The fact that its so open ended seems to be a pretty big point, because surely, if this guy talked to god, or jesus, or whoever, then surely they would be able to give us something concrete instead of all this wishy washy stuff, right?

Secondly, because of this, in order to interact with the Universe, God must be made of matter and energy. if he is, he is bound by the laws of physics and the rules and laws of this world, because he is made of that which must obey them. This makes miracles and such impossible, because God cannot do these miracles.

I disagree. For all we know, God could just be a fourth dimensional being. Sounds crazy, I know. But I can make a 2 dimensional person on Paint without being bound the its restrictions can't I?

Omnipotence, or being all-powerful, is a logically self-contradictory concept. It is impossible to do everything. We’ve all heard the common proposition “can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift?” It is perfectly valid, and shows how it is impossible to be able to do everything. Therefore, God logically cannot be all-powerful.

You're trying to describe something infinite with finite values. infinite+5 = infinite. How the hell? OMFG MATHZ IS FAKE. CONSPIRACY!!!11 No.

why do men have nipples? its a pointless waste of resources.
human eyes have blind spots. why cant they just see properly?


its not intelligent design, more like stupid design.
in some places anyway, in other places the 'design' is quite good. Its obviously not made by design but by natural selection.

I'm Christian but I don't disagree with evolution. Put it this way, God blew into the dust or whatever to create man. Man may have evolved from the dust mites or whatever. Corny, but hey ;)

This leads me to my next point though - WHY would the bibles (probably other holy scriptures but im not familiar with any others) be written in such a way? Why would they be left with so many seemingly contradictory statements, and leave it pretty much completely open ended?

The Bible is not one "book" but a collection of them by many different people. Unless of course someone had the ability to write at the same time with different handwriting hundreds of miles away from each other.

I disagree. For all we know, God could just be a fourth dimensional being. Sounds crazy, I know. But I can make a 2 dimensional person on Paint without being bound the its restrictions can't I?

No, you can't. It's still 3D, just very thin.

I'm Christian but I don't disagree with evolution. Put it this way, God blew into the dust or whatever to create man. Man may have evolved from the dust mites or whatever. Corny, but hey ;)

So you're saying that you believe we "evolved" from dust, just to say you believe in evolution? =/

From: Ramage
I disagree. For all we know, God could just be a fourth dimensional being. Sounds crazy, I know. But I can make a 2 dimensional person on Paint without being bound the its restrictions can't I?

As I said to the other post attempting to fight this point, if you dont understand how extra-dimensional beings cant interact with our dimensions then I cant explain it to you. And if they did we wouldnt be able to perceive them at all. Therefore according to the bible god is not an extradimensional being since apparantly people have spoken to him, and jesus is supposedly his son, so….

From: Ramage
You're trying to describe something infinite with finite values. infinite+5 = infinite. How the hell? OMFG MATHZ IS FAKE. CONSPIRACY!!!11 No.

Just because somethings infinite it doesnt mean it disobeys logic =\ thats what this whole thread is about. If god is "infinite", explain to me what that actually means? An infinite source of energy? Infintesimally big? Infintesimally small? Infintesimally strongl? Infintesimally stupid? Whatever it is, it still obeys logic.

From: Ramage
I'm Christian but I don't disagree with evolution. Put it this way, God blew into the dust or whatever to create man. Man may have evolved from the dust mites or whatever. Corny, but hey ;)

This is what I meant by what I said above, about people taking their own interpretations on religion to "make it fit" or "make it make sense". You can see how stupid the whole adam and eve situation is so you change the teachings of the religion to make it more sensible in your opinion. You can believe what you want, but that almost certainly makes it incorrect.

From: Ramage
The Bible is not one "book" but a collection of them by many different people. Unless of course someone had the ability to write at the same time with different handwriting hundreds of miles away from each other.

I know, whats your point? "The Bible" is a collective term for the holy books endorsed by the christian/catholic church, and I was using it as such. You just did too. "The Bible is not one "book" but a collection……" Also, what you said was in no way a rebuttal to what I said. You simply stated a well known fact irrelevant to what I said, because they are endorsed by the churches, they have been read millions of times by millions of people, you would think that at some point all the contradictions would be removed. Unless the contradictions are there DELIBERATELY to allow people to "change" the way they see religion so that it will always be able to make sense in a world constantly progressing thanks to science and logic.

From: corn77
hi bullzeye,

I have heard the rumor as well. Even if it is true, it is of no use as Yakman stated previously. I havent seen proof of it either of Darwin refuting evolution. ;)

corn



Hi again,

You are welcome. :-) God has shown me a lot over the past year, the need and preciousness of the Bible. I have only been a Christian for about a year and a half now, but God has been oh so gracious to me. Some of the verses, I simply looked around for, I didnt memorize or anything.

corn



Hi Hugolord,

I dont know if you would consider yourself a Christian or not and thus I continue cautiously. I assume you arent. In the context of reading the bible for just to be exciting/interesting is a shallow motive indeed. And if it was based off that motive I would never read it. I understand and everyday need to realize that this simple book and yet complex book, is life and food to christians. It changes us. I know this sounds wierd to you and I dont expect you to understand it as I do. But, for me, I believe that it is the very Word of God and that is what the bible claims to be. That their is not one flaw in it and that it is alive and true today. Sure their can be plenty of arguments flown over to that statement I just made, but I do believe it and I see its truth everyday. And God has shown me that.

Best Regards,

corn











Off to homework~

I don't believe in it.
I don't believe in god.

Best Regards,

Hugo

From: The Claw
As I said to the other post attempting to fight this point, if you dont understand how extra-dimensional beings cant interact with our dimensions then I cant explain it to you. And if they did we wouldnt be able to perceive them at all. Therefore according to the bible god is not an extradimensional being since apparantly people have spoken to him, and jesus is supposedly his son, so….

Jesus is his son but its not like God had sex with Mary…

From: The Claw

Just because somethings infinite it doesnt mean it disobeys logic =\ thats what this whole thread is about. If god is "infinite", explain to me what that actually means? An infinite source of energy? Infintesimally big? Infintesimally small? Infintesimally strongl? Infintesimally stupid? Whatever it is, it still obeys logic.

What his point is, is you are trying to define an infinite being through finite means, which is, quite simply impossible, its like trying to find the end of the number line…

From: The Claw

This is what I meant by what I said above, about people taking their own interpretations on religion to "make it fit" or "make it make sense". You can see how stupid the whole adam and eve situation is so you change the teachings of the religion to make it more sensible in your opinion. You can believe what you want, but that almost certainly makes it incorrect.

That actually isnt true if you ACTUALLY READ The Bible you will see that its story of creation is very clear. The only real room for interpritation you have there is how long it took, as 7 "days" to us and God are or could be very different.

From: The Claw

I know, whats your point? "The Bible" is a collective term for the holy books endorsed by the christian/catholic church, and I was using it as such. You just did too. "The Bible is not one "book" but a collection……" Also, what you said was in no way a rebuttal to what I said. You simply stated a well known fact irrelevant to what I said, because they are endorsed by the churches, they have been read millions of times by millions of people, you would think that at some point all the contradictions would be removed. Unless the contradictions are there DELIBERATELY to allow people to "change" the way they see religion so that it will always be able to make sense in a world constantly progressing thanks to science and logic.

The Bible isnt endorsed by the Christian/Catholic Church, it formed the Christian/Catholic Church. You bring up a very valid point that they would be removed (as to fool people into believing it) so why arent the supposed "Contradictions" removed? Because there are none, they may seem like it on the surface but in fact arent.

Why do you people care? Seriously? Answer that question before you go farther.

From: R0b0t1
Why do you people care? Seriously? Answer that question before you go farther.

What do you mean "you people"?!? Lol jk… When people attack my beliefs I feel a need to defend them…

@Claw,

Galactorrhea or a search on lactating male disorder will show that males can in fact breast feed (it is just very rare).

Also any being that exists in a dimensions exists in all other dimensions below it.

If 1D is just a line, 2D is on one plane, and 3D is many planes…

Any 3D object is bisected by an infinite amount of flat planes. A 2D plane is crossed by an infinite number of infinitely small lines. So in theory, if a being was in a higher dimension than our own it would be able to easily affect ours just as I can easily affect a stick figure on a piece of paper. I would go totally unnoticed to that stick figure unless I was in his plane and then only an infinitely thin section of me would be in his dimension. So it would be easy for a being in a higher dimension to not be easily discovered.

Read The Boy Who Reversed Himself

It's just a fiction, but the theories hold logical water.


As to the topic of a god… I'm done with those. I think people need to stop trying to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. You know for yourself if a higher power exists. That should be enough. It should be obvious by now that no matter what "proof" you offer it is still going to be countered by brainwashed nonsense or opinions. Because all you are offering is opinions. If it was proven beyond a doubt, there would be no religion…(rant on religion restraint)

P.S. God is not just. Corn77 tells me that god believes that all sins are equally detestable. This includes the comparison of white lies and murder. Nothing against corn he's just interpreting the bible.

From: R0b0t1
Why do you people care? Seriously? Answer that question before you go farther.

Obviously some people do care or they wouldn't be arguing about it. History shows that people care too much (religious war/persecution). My answer = no, but others are religiously obligated to argue…

From: Aser

As to the topic of a god… I'm done with those. I think people need to stop trying to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. You know for yourself if a higher power exists. That should be enough. It should be obvious by now that no matter what "proof" you offer it is still going to be countered by brainwashed nonsense or opinions. Because all you are offering is opinions. If it was proven beyond a doubt, there would be no religion…(rant on religion restraint)

I actually have to agree with you…

From: Aser

P.S. God is not just. Corn77 tells me that god believes that all sins are equally detestable. This includes the comparison of white lies and murder. Nothing against corn he's just interpreting the bible.

That doesnt mean God is not just. The fact is Sin is Sin no matter what, and the tiniest smudge will keep you out of heaven just as much as a "bucket of mud"… That is what he means by that…

From: Aser

Obviously some people do care or they wouldn't be arguing about it. History shows that people care too much (religious war/persecution). My answer = no, but others are religiously obligated to argue…

Idk if you are reffering to me or Christianity in general or other religions, but as a Christian it does not (to my knowldege) say explicitly in the Bible that i have to argue with people who disagree with me. Personally I have strong convictions and that is why i argue with people.


I have decided from now on I will keep my posts on these kinds of threads to a minimum, they make me pretty upset as noone will change their beliefs anyway…

I'd also like to reiterate something, since no one seems to have noticed it in the last post I made. You cannot prove something doesn't exist.

From: senrath
I'd also like to reiterate something, since no one seems to have noticed it in the last post I made. You cannot prove something doesn't exist.

I may have read wrong since I'm tired and it's bloody hot but how do you know God doesn't exist? How do you know electrons exist? Or even your brain?

From: sirlaughsalot




That doesnt mean God is not just. The fact is Sin is Sin no matter what, and the tiniest smudge will keep you out of heaven just as much as a "bucket of mud"… That is what he means by that…



Idk if you are reffering to me or Christianity in general or other religions, but as a Christian it does not (to my knowldege) say explicitly in the Bible that i have to argue with people who disagree with me. Personally I have strong convictions and that is why i argue with people.

Ok…in my opinion it is not just to put liars in the same boat as murderers. Feel free to interpret justice as you feel fit.

I wasn't targeting you or christianity specifically. I was pointing out that it is ridiculous that people kill because of a conflict of beliefs that cannot be proven. They kill over opinions. I was targeting anyone who has ever hurt another because of an argument over whether god exists or not. If you have never purposely done that then you are definitely exempt.

This is to no specific target.
I just hear people say "I believe that I need to save you from sin" or the like. I'm tired of that. Let me go to hell. I may believe you are going to hell but I don't slam it in your face and hate you for it.

This religious arguing doesn't help the community at all. We should stop posting confrontational religious argument threads. It's getting to the point of group flaming.

From: Ramage
I may have read wrong since I'm tired and it's bloody hot but how do you know God doesn't exist? How do you know electrons exist? Or even your brain?

Yeah, I think you read that a bit wrong. I'm saying that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, not that God doesn't exist.

From: Aser

This religious arguing doesn't help the community at all. We should stop posting confrontational religious argument threads. It's getting to the point of group flaming.

I dont think this is confrontational at all. I also think that this thread was intended for a mature discussion/debate. If you find yourself getting to the point where you want to start flaming, then stop posting because you obviously cant handle it.

I find these threads are very nice in opening my mind to new ideas and outlooks on life in general. Just because someone doesnt "switch sides" after one of your posts doesnt mean that the seed isnt planted in that person. These threads sometimes allow people to stop and think twice about their beliefs, which intern will make them more knowledgeable about their own beliefs and the whole debate in general.

Back on topic….

Have any of you guys thought that maybe there was scientific explanations for the "miracles" in the bible, and that the people in those times referred to them as "miracles" or "magic". Just a thought…

From: Aser
Ok…in my opinion it is not just to put liars in the same boat as murderers. Feel free to interpret justice as you feel fit.

You still seem to be missing the point. None of us can acheive perfection that is required to get into heaven. So we need God to forgive our sins (Past and future) and have the Holy Spirit enter our lives. That is why they are the same thing, because it doesnt matter if you kill 5000 people or steal a loaf of bread, without the Holy Spirit you will not go into heaven. In addition, sin is not only about your actions, your thoughts as well, so lust is sin, if you wish to murder someone then that is the same as murdering them.

From: Aser

I wasn't targeting you or christianity specifically. I was pointing out that it is ridiculous that people kill because of a conflict of beliefs that cannot be proven. They kill over opinions. I was targeting anyone who has ever hurt another because of an argument over whether god exists or not. If you have never purposely done that then you are definitely exempt.

I agree that religion does start a lot of wars. But has Christianity recently started wars? Other than the Crusades, which was actually done for various other reasons, the Europeans didnt like how close the Muslims were getting so they decided to try to drive them back.

From: Aser

This is to no specific target.
I just hear people say "I believe that I need to save you from sin" or the like. I'm tired of that. Let me go to hell. I may believe you are going to hell but I don't slam it in your face and hate you for it.

That is actually not Biblical, if you have what is called a "hard heart" all I am commanded to do is to tell you about the Bible and try to soften your heart, not force you or guilt you into anything, rather just tell you it is there.

Hello all,

Busyness in school is annoying at times, but nessesary. I wish to respond to some of your comments especially Yakman's, but can't atm. I am sorry for the inconvience. I hope you all understand. I hope to respond this weekend, when my homework is somewhat manageable. But, keep the discussion coming. :-)

btw, sirlaughsalot, thank you for developing my discussion for me as I was gone. That is what I mean. That no matter what sin we commit, it is still eternally offending to God. Who will punish it, because he is just, he cannot allow any evil, even a white lie, to be with him. The question is then, how can God be just and forgive people who do evil daily including me? (I'm not trying to pinpoint anyone if it sounds like it)

God is so good. :-)

-corn

Im not going to bother to read the whole thread. However…what does god have to do with science?

Thanks :)

i just wanna throw this proof into the arena and see how you guys take it.
it relies on

(a) God created the world and (b) God is greatest.
no christian, jew or muslim will disagree with the above?


1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being—namely, one who created everything while not existing.
5. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

Ergo:
6. God does not exist.

From: sirlaughsalot

That is actually not Biblical, if you have what is called a "hard heart" all I am commanded to do is to tell you about the Bible and try to soften your heart, not force you or guilt you into anything, rather just tell you it is there.

And when it is done many times and by more than one person I consider that shoving it in my face. Nobody is going to make me feel guilt about my religion and nobody is going to be able to change my views on my religions except myself.

I would never try to coherce someone to change religions. I'm not saying that you have done that, but I know people who have and do.

From: kingarabian
However…what does god have to do with science?

Thanks :)

it is His enemy.
if you attack science, you help God.

From: Yakman
it is His enemy.
if you attack science, you help God.

Um…no…

Many scientists attack other scientist's theories and reaserch. This could be because they have a different theory or reaserch result. It doesn't always have to be helping god if you attack science.

I could say that science is lame because it helped to develop weapons of mass destruction. I'm not saying that god is good because he didn't develop weapons of mass destruction.

From: Yakman

4. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being—namely, one who created everything while not existing.

I'm really not seeing how this part works. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, and can't interact with things that do exist.

From: senrath
I'm really not seeing how this part works. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, and can't interact with things that do exist.

Yes, but you can interact with the absence of something. I cannot be affected by sex in my life because it doesn't exist. I can be affected by the absence of sex in my life by porn and being depressed.

So by something not existing it is interacting with things that do exist.

This is what I meant by what I said above, about people taking their own interpretations on religion to "make it fit" or "make it make sense". You can see how stupid the whole adam and eve situation is so you change the teachings of the religion to make it more sensible in your opinion. You can believe what you want, but that almost certainly makes it incorrect.

The thing is, the actual teachings are solid, straight to the point. But then you get people trying to find flaws in the story which has it's ambiguities but what we Christian believe without a doubt because of faith.

Also, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew mindset is very different from the Western one.

Sorry if I'm not making sense, 3 days of standing for 12+ hours and a lack of sleep and food :p

Ok, here we go.

Bible teach - good. Bible tell story of creation - bad.

From: The Claw
This post provides no arguements for God other than "it must be true because I know no different". It's simply restating the teachings of your religion.



We know a fair few of them…enough to know that matter and energy cant just be created from no where, people cant fly, people cant be reborn etc. Which is why miracles are impossible…unless youre saying theres some magical law of the universe we're not aware of yet which states that all these things can happen?



Its talking more interdimensional than just our planet. As in, if God could intereact with us, he must be in the same 3 dimensions as us - not in any more or less, or others. And if he does that, he's bound by the rules of the 3 dimensions. Which makes all these miracles impossible, because we are bound by the laws of the dimensions.



Because if hes not hes unjust. I'm not well versed on that point but apparantly god is meant to be fully just and fair (which can be disproven at any instant by looking at the world around us)



Please do, like I said in my first post this wasn't written by me but it seems to make sense so I'll attempt to argue it as though it was my own.



I'm not saying to "think outside the box". You made the analogy of creating a box and being able to interact with it. Sure, you can interact with stuff inside the box, but I'm not sure what you mean by confined by its walls. Can you break them down? Open the lid? What I meant by my statement was, you quoted "You shall not test the Lord thy God" and then explained it - that to me is basically a cheap admission by the church that theres no way to prove god. Which in turn goes to "dont question the existence of god, he wont show him self anyway" to "dont question" to "blindly follow because we say it's right and you cant prove us wrong". How on Earth can you believe in something which the CREATORS of it (the churches, popes, whatever) have admitted theres no proof that it actually exists, and no way to proove it? That seems highly illogical. And don't say faith….if you're gonna use the wall of faith to block my arguments then theres no point in me even posting any further. This thread is about logic

I was simply saying if you can interact with stuff inside the box, provided that outside the box is still the same 3 dimensions you can interact with stuff outside the box too, and by the bible using the "if you try and talk to him, he'll ignore you so just trust me on this one" arguement it seems to be trying to confine you to inside that box.

You would agree that it is highly illogical to believe in something you cannot see, right?

Well in science, scientists believe in atoms. Can we see atoms? No. But scientists believe in them, and know they are there. Scientists may say that there's proof that they exist, but religious people say that there's proof of god as well because he sent Jesus to save us all. Why is believing in one proven thing right but believing in another proven thing wrong?

The point I'm trying to make that every subject has illogical beliefs… Even science.

From: JAD
Why is believing in one proven thing right but believing in another proven thing wrong?

I'm not sure if it's what you meant, but I'm wondering how you think Jesus saving people is proven?

Also, it's not necessarily illogical to believe in something that you can't see. It's illogical to believe in something you can't interact with (physically) and observe.

One thing that I think of when people talk about how you cannot see something that still exists, is that all of those have an effect things. Wind makes leaves in trees move, you can drink water, but there is nothing tangible or concrete about god.

I agree entirely with you, God is just a figment of one persons imagination - but it gives people hope and structure. However, your arguement is wrong.

From: The Claw
Secondly, because of this, in order to interact with the Universe, God must be made of matter and energy. if he is, he is bound by the laws of physics and the rules and laws of this world, because he is made of that which must obey them. This makes miracles and such impossible, because God cannot do these miracles.

About matter, dark matter and anti-matter etc, it is only a theory - not evidence just to let you know.

From: bullzeye95
I'm not sure if it's what you meant, but I'm wondering how you think Jesus saving people is proven?

Also, it's not necessarily illogical to believe in something that you can't see. It's illogical to believe in something you can't interact with (physically) and observe.

When I said proven, I should have said there is proof. There is proof that jesus walked this earth. You may think that it's false, but the bible is proof.

Misspoke.

From: JAD
When I said proven, I should have said there is proof. There is proof that jesus walked this earth. You may think that it's false, but the bible is proof.

you have to look at the bible as you look at any other historial text.

who wrote it? why? when? where they neutral bystanders or where their writings coloured by some kind of agenda?


when you read a newspaper article written in germany in 1935, that is by no means proof that jews cut up rats to make sausages.


you might as well say the 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' is proof that the land of Narnia exists.

When God drops acid, does he see people?

From: Yakman

you might as well say the 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' is proof that the land of Narnia exists.

You mean it isn't?! Aw, man, that's a bummer.

From: JAD
You may think that it's false, but [H]the bible is proof.[/H]

Says you. I must have missed the news that fictional books now count as proof. If I wrote a paper that said I had an IQ of 600 and called it proof you would dismiss it. Written words do not count as proof. They might count as supporting evidence (maybe less than that) but what other situation would you consider written word as proof?

Here's one for you…

You owe me $500.01. Is that proof that you do?

From: Yakman
you have to look at the bible as you look at any other historial text.

who wrote it? why? when? where they neutral bystanders or where their writings coloured by some kind of agenda?


when you read a newspaper article written in germany in 1935, that is by no means proof that jews cut up rats to make sausages.


you might as well say the 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' is proof that the land of Narnia exists.

It's not like that at all. How do we know that there were "midevil times" where people fought battles with bows and arrows and swords. I wasn't there, you weren't there, why do people accept that that was how it was back then? It's because people who were there wrote about it or told people from generation to generation. It all comes from people who were there, whether they are making true or false claims of something happening.

Comparing the bible to a fictional book is completely obsurd. The writer of the book you speak of doesn't claim to be from Narnia. The people who wrote the bible claim to be there, and are pretty much historians if you think about it. They wrote about what happened. It's just about believing in what they claim to have seen.


@Aser, I didn't say that it proved it to be true, it's just evidence. Do you think that more people would believe in god with or without a bible? I would think that if there wasn't a bible then less people would believe in him. It's evidence because it was written by people who were there at the time.

(fake scenario)
Aser, you stole my Runescape account. If I posted on the forums stating this, some people may put this forth as proof that you are a scammer. If WT-Fakawi posted here that you stole his Runescape account, even more people would believe that you are a scammer. Many people would believe him, even if it didn't happen.

My point is that the bible is evidence because people state that they saw this happen. And many people believe them. If you had a more convincing story of me owing you 500$ then maybe more people would believe you too and that could be used as proof…

Hello all,

I feel like I come in the worst of times for some reason. I am always glad to talk with you all when I have time. Here i go! :-)

The bible is a very necessary thing to discuss, because their are a lot of opinions on its liability and truth. Obviously, Christians believe the bible to be true while non Christians do not. I can not simply say that the bible is true to someone who believes the bible to be false or made up. This is simply an illogical approach and it will go nowhere in the discussion to further help understand eachothers beliefs/etc…

I wanted to start this way, to help all of us to begin to cope with one another's beliefs and be interested in them. Yes us "Christians" belief the bible to be true and good and perfect, and I want to show all of you why I believe that to be. And I want you all to tell me why you dont believe it to be true and what you to belief to be true and why.

We can not just making broad statements that only make one another angry. We must consider each others beliefs and speak in light of that, with respect and patience. I dont mean to be "preaching", but I can see it even in my own chatting.

To me, what I have been seeing is worthless discussions and I dont want to point fingers at anyone as I will not, but what I want to see us grow in more, is for all of us to get in an attitude that we are all together searching for this ultimate "truth" out there. There has to be. We are all looking, sure we are in different beliefs/positions.

I hope some of my words are a help to someone.

I am always glad to speak with u all.

umwog
corn

Claw, you might have a highschool knowledge of science, but you honestly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to christianity…..

Sure it's all well and good to say "I assume you have scientific knowledge at a highschool level" but that's useless if you have no knowledge on the other topic you're talking about.

Here, let me prove to you how much better Mars Bars are for you than Brocolli.
I've chopped up mars bars into microscopic pieces, inspected every ingredient and what it does for you and your body, although i've never actually looked at brocolli before, actually I don't even know what it is. but that doesn't matter…..

Fail…

If you're going to say he's wrong, at least say what he's wrong about, and correct him.

JAD, how do you know that the bible is a record? Could it not just be a lesson?

From: JAD
How do we know that there were "midevil times" where people fought battles with bows and arrows and swords. I wasn't there, you weren't there, why do people accept that that was how it was back then?

Comparing the bible to a fictional book is completely obsurd. The writer of the book you speak of doesn't claim to be from Narnia. The people who wrote the bible claim to be there, and are pretty much historians if you think about it. They wrote about what happened. It's just about believing in what they claim to have seen.


@Aser, I didn't say that it proved it to be true, it's just evidence. Do you think that more people would believe in god with or without a bible? I would think that if there wasn't a bible then less people would believe in him. It's evidence because it was written by people who were there at the time.

The difference in the bible proving god's existence and books proving that the medieval times happened is the amount of evidence and references. The bible is one book. There are thousands of books on medieval times and styles of architecture and so on.

C.S. Lewis didn't claim to be from Narnia either, just wrote a book about it. Just because the people wrote it as fact doesn't mean that it is. They could have wrote a book that was full of lies. There is nothing to stop them. It would have been followed if they would have included a few popular myths in it. Look at how many people believe in urban legends now.

I believe that you said it was proof…

Why is believing in one proven thing right but believing in another proven thing wrong?

When I said proven, I should have said there is proof.

If are saying that the bible is proof or evidence (whichever word you want to use) of god's existence, you would have to acknowledge all other religious books as true. How would the bible be some miracle special case? If writing something down when you are there and saying it is true and the word of god told you to write it constitutes reliable information then the Koran, Torah, Bhagawat Geeta, Tripitaka, and Jataka are all true. So is every single religion's book.

It is impossible that they are all true. There are too many contradictions. So by your logic all religion is false.

Why is everyone referring to the bible? You guys do know that every year there is a new addition of the bible right? So that means the bible aint in god's words. Its in the words of how people want it. One verse in the bible states that you need to worship god, and another states you need to worship jesus. Very indirect.

From: Aser
The difference in the bible proving god's existence and books proving that the medieval times happened is the amount of evidence and references. The bible is one book. There are thousands of books on medieval times and styles of architecture and so on.

C.S. Lewis didn't claim to be from Narnia either, just wrote a book about it. Just because the people wrote it as fact doesn't mean that it is. They could have wrote a book that was full of lies. There is nothing to stop them. It would have been followed if they would have included a few popular myths in it. Look at how many people believe in urban legends now.

I believe that you said it was proof…




If are saying that the bible is proof or evidence (whichever word you want to use) of god's existence, you would have to acknowledge all other religious books as true. How would the bible be some miracle special case? If writing something down when you are there and saying it is true and the word of god told you to write it constitutes reliable information then the Koran, Torah, Bhagawat Geeta, Tripitaka, and Jataka are all true. So is every single religion's book.

It is impossible that they are all true. There are too many contradictions. So by your logic all religion is false.

They're not all true, but they all count as evidence that one or the other is right… In court, a witness is counted as evidence, or proof. Doesn't mean that the witness isn't lieing, but they still count as proof.

From: kingarabian
Why is everyone referring to the bible? You guys do know that every year there is a new addition of the bible right? So that means the bible aint in god's words. Its in the words of how people want it. One verse in the bible states that you need to worship god, and another states you need to worship jesus. Very indirect.

About that last part, the Bible also states they're the same person.

From: senrath
About that last part, the Bible also states they're the same person.

Oh…okay, interesting….

JAD, your reference to the Bible being evidence is absolutely lost in the fields.
Medieval times aren't only know for being written in the books, so the thing about medieval could be bogus is in no way evidence for the Bible being true.

Medieval times can be proven physically, unlike God or the Bible. We've discovered old fortresses and dug up culture from that time.
Unless you can go dig up a piece of God in France, dated 4 quadrazillion B.C., they can't be compared.

And no, the 4 who wrote the Bible (or how many they were) were not historians. Their histories were very similar, yes, but that could be faked as easy as 3 friends saying they saw an U.F.O.. They weren't "kind of historians" either.
None of the real historians living in the same time, wrote of miracles of lay-on-hands, walking on water. Not even Jesus is ever mentioned in their texts.

Another thing that has crossed my mind about this religion thing. If God created the world so long ago, why come he waited so long to play the triumph-card Jesus?

Religion is beginning to make me mad. I can't handle the fact that some people still cling to the explanation that have been proven wrong countless times. What's so holy about a Pope who re-takes bishops into his church, who have said things like this:
"Harry Potter is a devil!"
"Hurricane Catrina hit New Orleans because of the amount of wrong-believers"
"The tsunami hit Asia because of the devilish tourism"

And what kind of super-holy servant finds it HOLY to have unwilling sex with his altar-boys? It's about time we ditch the church.

From: King of Knives
And what kind of super-holy servant finds it HOLY to have unwilling sex with his altar-boys? It's about time we ditch the church.

wtf that is messed up… what church did that?

From: mormonman
wtf that is messed up… what church did that?

Roman Catholic, I'm ashamed to say.

Proof that God doesn't exist: /b/

From: R0b0t1
Proof that God doesn't exist: /b/

You could also take that as proof that there is no such thing as human intelligence or decency, and those do exist (albeit not in large quantities).

From: senrath
You could also take that as proof that there is no such thing as human intelligence or decency, and those do exist (albeit not in large quantities).

(not agreeing at all if god exits or not exits but….)

Intelligence and decency is a state of mind we live by our standards. We declare that someone is smarter then others, we say if billy held the door open for miss paul he would be decent.

From: King of Knives
JAD, your reference to the Bible being evidence is absolutely lost in the fields.
Medieval times aren't only know for being written in the books, so the thing about medieval could be bogus is in no way evidence for the Bible being true.

Medieval times can be proven physically, unlike God or the Bible. We've discovered old fortresses and dug up culture from that time.
Unless you can go dig up a piece of God in France, dated 4 quadrazillion B.C., they can't be compared.

And no, the 4 who wrote the Bible (or how many they were) were not historians. Their histories were very similar, yes, but that could be faked as easy as 3 friends saying they saw an U.F.O.. They weren't "kind of historians" either.
None of the real historians living in the same time, wrote of miracles of lay-on-hands, walking on water. Not even Jesus is ever mentioned in their texts.


Religion is beginning to make me mad. I can't handle the fact that some people still cling to the explanation that have been proven wrong countless times. What's so holy about a Pope who re-takes bishops into his church, who have said things like this:
"Harry Potter is a devil!"
"Hurricane Catrina hit New Orleans because of the amount of wrong-believers"
"The tsunami hit Asia because of the devilish tourism"

And what kind of super-holy servant finds it HOLY to have unwilling sex with his altar-boys? It's about time we ditch the church.

Hello King of Knives,

My name is corn77 of course, as I always like to introduce myself to those I discuss with, because I just like to know people and hear of their beliefs. I am encouraged by your questions and statements and I encourage you to continue in this discussion.

I like to first state plainly that the being of God can not be physically dug up as you stated, this is simply impossible.
In terms of the bible.. Of course the things of the bible do go very far back in time farther than most written accounts of things. These are in fact very reliable and can be trusted in many different ways of examining the bible. It has been tested in historical sense of time and is very accurate. There is even a people group that was never discovered and was thought to not exist for sometime, this people group was named in the old testament and were discovered sometime in the past century, I dont want to go into this to honestly save me some time. There are many other things that I could go into about the bible, how it is accurate about the nature of man and how they behave. Natural wisdom.

Of course many of the things of the bible that incorporate God in the history seem ridiculous to believe, but to the people of the old testament, this was a common belief and obvious to them. To an atheist these things seem ridiculous; and even this very statement is brought up in the bible. The bible even tells the behaviors of nonbelievers and believers, something that I have confirmed to be true. I also could include that I have seen the bible prove true in my own life, seeing the whole picture of the bible and what it proclaims not only makes a lot of sense. The bible also gives me great joy to read and think about. To Christians, the bible is the very word of the living God. It gives me so much excitement.

The bible could be considered proof of God's existence, but I dont like to use it. I like to use experience. Our everyday experience in life. When we think, feel, etc.. What we live for.

From: King of Knives

Another thing that has crossed my mind about this religion thing. If God created the world so long ago, why come he waited so long to play the triumph-card Jesus?

Great question. I will attempt to answer this the best I can throught the knowledge God has given me.

I could simply say because God planned to. In the new testament it is shown that God had planned since before creation that he would send Jesus Christ into the world to defeat sin within his body and bring his children life. This can be seen even in the old testament that God had pre planned to send son. It was no surprise to God.


I will stop here for now, it is getting quite late on my side. Have a good day. I am greatful to share my thoughts with you all.

corn

From: corn77
Hello King of Knives,

My name is corn77 of course, as I always like to introduce myself to those I discuss with, because I just like to know people and hear of their beliefs. I am encouraged by your questions and statements and I encourage you to continue in this discussion.

I like to first state plainly that the being of God can not be physically dug up as you stated, this is simply impossible.
In terms of the bible.. Of course the things of the bible do go very far back in time farther than most written accounts of things. These are in fact very reliable and can be trusted in many different ways of examining the bible. It has been tested in historical sense of time and is very accurate. There is even a people group that was never discovered and was thought to not exist for sometime, this people group was named in the old testament and were discovered sometime in the past century, I dont want to go into this to honestly save me some time. There are many other things that I could go into about the bible, how it is accurate about the nature of man and how they behave. Natural wisdom.

Of course many of the things of the bible that incorporate God in the history seem ridiculous to believe, but to the people of the old testament, this was a common belief and obvious to them. To an atheist these things seem ridiculous; and even this very statement is brought up in the bible. The bible even tells the behaviors of nonbelievers and believers, something that I have confirmed to be true. I also could include that I have seen the bible prove true in my own life, seeing the whole picture of the bible and what it proclaims not only makes a lot of sense. The bible also gives me great joy to read and think about. To Christians, the bible is the very word of the living God. It gives me so much excitement.

The bible could be considered proof of God's existence, but I dont like to use it. I like to use experience. Our everyday experience in life. When we think, feel, etc.. What we live for.



Great question. I will attempt to answer this the best I can throught the knowledge God has given me.

I could simply say because God planned to. In the new testament it is shown that God had planned since before creation that he would send Jesus Christ into the world to defeat sin within his body and bring his children life. This can be seen even in the old testament that God had pre planned to send son. It was no surprise to God.


I will stop here for now, it is getting quite late on my side. Have a good day. I am greatful to share my thoughts with you all.

corn

Thanks for the proper introduction, it's rare these days.

Anyway, let's get on with the debate.

There are many other things that I could go into about the bible, how it is accurate about the nature of man and how they behave. Natural wisdom.

To be frank, I believe the wisdom is quite obvious. Any semi-intelligent person could foresee that a guy would accept an offer of great temptations.

Of course the things of the bible do go very far back in time farther than most written accounts of things. These are in fact very reliable and can be trusted in many different ways of examining the bible. It has been tested in historical sense of time and is very accurate.

Some of this is of course right. It may contain reliable information from that time, but just because some of it is true, doesn't mean everything is.

An analogy would be Harry Potter. Harry Potter perfectly depicts the "normal" world that can be perceived as boring. With bad adoption-parents and being supressed (This shows some of the natural wisdom the Bible also has). But this tale of averageness doesn't prove that he departs from Kings Cross in London, so he can attend a Wizarding-Education in the outbacks of the country on a huge boarding school.

The bible could be considered proof of God's existence, but I dont like to use it.

It could also be considered as the diametrical opposite. The misinterpretations of the astrological allegories.

The bible even tells the behaviors of nonbelievers and believers, something that I have confirmed to be true.

Again, the behavior of the non-believers is easily foreseeable. I could write a story, right now, explaining how I am God. It should be predictable, if not common sense, that somebody would attempt to prove I am not.
So of course that would prove the Bible's predictions correct, but I doubt they are the words of God.

I could simply say because God planned to.

This is called "going the easy way" (Not directed at you). Those who wrote the Bible, could easily explain how their all-knowing God could plan our every move, and act according to that.
But writing about an omnipotent entity, and having him foresee all the days of the world doesn't prove the work of God or Jesus.

It's no more different than me, writing my above-mentioned story where I am God.
I could then explain how I foresee that somebody will try to prove, that I am not God.

Would that make me God?


Have a nice day aswell, corn :)

From: corn77


I like to first state plainly that the being of God can not be physically dug up as you stated, this is simply impossible.

How do you know that God cannot be dug up? Isn't a commonly known 'fact' that mortals cannot understand the god(s)?

From: corn77


It has been tested in historical sense of time and is very accurate.

Source please.

God exists because everything doesnt happen by accident or by the act of science or coincidence.

From: kingarabian
God exists because everything doesnt happen by accident or by the act of science or coincidence.

My dick is 72in because I folded it in half.

>.> that wasn't off topic AT ALL.. >.<

http://i44.tinypic.com/5vtbww.png

Clearly, they weren't compelled.

Therefore the Christian God as depicted in the Bible and his son Christ must be false.

If there is no creator then tell me how life came to be. The big bang theory is one that is most widely accepted in science today, merely because they are looking for anything they can hold on to, no matter how far fetched to avoid admitting there might be a god or creator. Theres a reason why its a thoery and not a law it has flaws, major flaws. gravity is a law because 100% of the time you can see it work here on earth. the big bang theory while creative (no pun intended) lacks some pieces, the major one of which is it is impossible for a large mass of matter to have exploded and created life, now Im not dismissing the theory completely, one could even argue that a creator built this mass of matter and detonated it, But I am insisting that it alone could have not created life, it could have created all of the solar system in which we live but there is not one single case in nature where life could be created from lifeless matter, scientists have attempted this experiment and (from what I remember hearing about it) were able to succeed at minimal levels, an excellent breakthrough from them but still no life was created without an outside hand.

God cannot be fathomed because of our brains primal construction, one theory on this is that our brain is made to filter out useless information, as an overload of information might conflict with our instincts, and at the dawn of man our need for the brain was not to conteplate infinate values, but to hunt for survival. if you do not believe it is possible for god to exist you are just as big a closed minded fool as one who believes there is no other possibilty besides the one god they werte raised believing. take the math equation 0.9 repeating is exactly equal to 1 this can be proven mathematically but requires the use of infinate values.

we need to face it, as of now there is no argument for or against god that has not been raised at one time or another. believers can say i believe this prove me wrong, non believers can say the big bang theory or w/e prove me wrong. This is the complete wrong attitude to have we are at a complete standstill, we need to take what we know and try to prove them right, and In the quest for proving gods existance, or the event of the big bang we will eventually uncover which one is which, and why cant gods existance walk hand in hand with a big bang. we need to realise our beliefs are what they are it's a part of us, but we have to be open to other facts if facts are uncovered. Truth is truth, facts are facts, theories are theories and laws are laws. believers should be working with scientists theories need to be scrutinised from all angles and tested and not dismissed on personal beliefs, if this were to happen Im sure someday we would uncover what we all are dying to know, how was life created? what happens after death?
either way this turns out we can all learn one thing from religeon and that is morals values.

I have so much more to write as Im a keen philosopher but I jist realised how much I wrote so thats it for tonight :D

From: tazzin44

God cannot be fathomed because of our brains primal construction, one theory on this is that our brain is made to filter out useless information,

Stated very well, even if that is not how you meant it.

Google the Big Bounce Theory. It is the latest in scientific creation theories.

You say that we shouldn't believe in the big bang theory because it is only a theory, but religion is less than a theory because it is unfounded by scientific information.

Life is just chemical reactions. Sure the chemicals have to be mixed perfectly in the right environment, but considering the size of the universe you can almost guarantee that certain 'anomalies' would occur.

From: tazzin44

we need to face it, as of now there is no argument for or against god that has not been raised at one time or another. believers can say i believe this prove me wrong, non believers can say the big bang theory or w/e prove me wrong. This is the complete wrong attitude to have we are at a complete standstill, we need to take what we know and try to prove them right, and In the quest for proving gods existance, or the event of the big bang we will eventually uncover which one is which, and why cant gods existance walk hand in hand with a big bang. we need to realise our beliefs are what they are it's a part of us, but we have to be open to other facts if facts are uncovered. Truth is truth, facts are facts, theories are theories and laws are laws. believers should be working with scientists theories need to be scrutinised from all angles and tested and not dismissed on personal beliefs, if this were to happen Im sure someday we would uncover what we all are dying to know, how was life created? what happens after death?
either way this turns out we can all learn one thing from religeon and that is morals values.

I totally agree with you on this point. The only problem is that 'true' believers will interpret their religious book to the word. Because science isn't the word in the book they will decide that it is wrong.

The 'science believers' will be mad at the religious people for not seeing what is 'obviously true and proved by science many times' and will then reject the beliefs of religion.

This will cause tensions between the two groups who eventually get tired of the circular arguments and decide to lash out violently, and all that does is cause more problems.

The new philosophy that needs to be adopted by all…

"Even though I may not believe what you do, I respect that you are a person with the right to think for yourself. As long as you respect my right to have my own beliefs, I will respect yours." - Me

It may sound really cheesy, but think about it. Wouldn't it work out better if everyone just avoided trying to force thoughts on others if everyone is just going to get mad in the end.

Sure polite discussion is alright. The only problem is that it never stays that way. Someone always gets their feelings hurt and starts being hurtful. In almost all of these threads someone will say "My religion tells me that you are evil because you don't follow me, so I have to kill you or convert you" this makes the athiests angry. They tell the person to die, and then everybody starts taking sides.

In summation, arguing about opinions doesn't work if both parties are unwilling to yield somewhat.

Even though I may not believe what you do, I respect that you are a person with the right to think for yourself. As long as you respect my right to have my own beliefs, I will respect yours." - Me

EXACTLY!not just this quote but most of your points I completely agree with… its late and Im tired so I wont go completely into detail again

but I chose this quote of yours because it remionds me of what I say
"I have my belief, you have yours, I can argue mine, just as you can argue yours, I cannot prove mine, and you cannot prove yours, you cannot disprove mine, and I cannot disprove yours, we are at a scientific theological standstill, we must all give way to reason as it is brought up, consider it with the others belief system before we consider it with ours. HIPOCRACY DOES NOT MAKE YOU A FIRMER BELIEVER NOR A MARTYR, if you wish to make your views heard and accepted you must be willing to here the views of others."

Life is just chemical reactions. Sure the chemicals have to be mixed perfectly in the right environment, but considering the size of the universe you can almost guarantee that certain 'anomalies' would occur.

saying this has no basis in an argument of this depth, not because I believe your wrong, but because it involves probabilities, the odds of that happening are like all of the pieces to a watch created in different corners of the world, through a series of strange circumstance coming together and hitting each other just right that the become a working rolex watch, very improbable but 'but considering the size of the universe you can almost guarantee that certain 'anomalies' would occur' :D

I would also Like to point out that not all religeons are as they seem, for instance, the most powerful church, the roman catholic church has its foundation not on jesus as they use the name but on a very different man, well baby, it is also the source of easter eggs (now I havent read about this in a long time but Im sure you could look it up to find anything Im missing) but sometime (all I know is it was late in the B/C old testament times for a biblical time point) there was a mother who had a baby and claimed it to be the son of god, but she claimed this for her own glory so the only way to get to god was through her ( where hail mary's and praying to mary came from) this was the birth of what was called the mother son cult, and as I said before I forget why but they painted eggs on the holiday we now call easter, well along come roman times religeon is christianity is spreading, somewhere along the way this cult which so easily mimicked christianity was taken in mainstream in rome this is why despite claiming to be a denomination of christianity they blatantly break some christian rules (forget which verses but call no man father ( not referring to bilogical father, means it in a mentoring type way) their preists are called on as what again? as well as non shall come to the father except through the son, they pray to mary not jesus…in fact jesus doesnt get to much credit in the roman catholic faith due to his mommy stealing it all.

Agood note to follow when deciding for youself what to belive - does it contradict itself, any religeon that contradicts itself could not be ruled by an infinate omnipotent being because he would lack thecapabilites of such a human forgetful trait

in buddhism the buddha says 'believe nothing, no matter hwrere you read it, or who said it, no matter if I said it, if it does not agree with yopur own reason and your own common sense'

From: Widget
http://i44.tinypic.com/5vtbww.png

Clearly, they weren't compelled.

Therefore the Christian God as depicted in the Bible and his son Christ must be false.

While funny, I'm not entirely sure how that proves anything.

Haha oh you funny lot…

You could argue that God is not bound by logic, however that would be unfair of God. He must be bound by that which he creates, less he be an unjust God? Breaking his own rules doesn’t seem very fitting.

It would be unfair of God to have a set of rules for something but to not follow them himself? Eh?! How about playing a game like Warhammer. I've never played it but I know that there are rules that limit the way in which you can move characters around. Does that mean that if I created and played Warhammer then I should role a dice before I walk anywhere?!

Psychedelics riiiiight? :D

I was wondering this the other day. Do all of you that don't believe in god/Jesus celebrate new years? Would you still consider the current year 2009 years After Death? I even know some people that don't believe in god but still celebrate Christmas, so I was just curious.

From: JAD
I was wondering this the other day. Do all of you that don't believe in god/Jesus celebrate new years? Would you still consider the current year 2009 years After Death? I even know some people that don't believe in god but still celebrate Christmas, so I was just curious.

AD doesn't mean After Death… it means Anno Demini… translated to year of our lord..

If there is no creator then tell me how life came to be. The big bang theory is one that is most widely accepted in science today, merely because they are looking for anything they can hold on to, no matter how far fetched to avoid admitting there might be a god or creator.

Right.. because a god that just decided to creat everything isn't far-fetched.

Theres a reason why its a thoery and not a law it has flaws, major flaws.

Bet you can't name one.

gravity is a law because 100% of the time you can see it work here on earth.

Gravity is a theory >.<
Also, definition of theory: "In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis."

the big bang theory while creative (no pun intended) lacks some pieces, the major one of which is it is impossible for a large mass of matter to have exploded and created life […] there is not one single case in nature where life could be created from lifeless matter

You say that, but don't back it up in any way.

scientists have attempted this experiment and (from what I remember hearing about it) were able to succeed at minimal levels, an excellent breakthrough from them but still no life was created without an outside hand.

Scientists don't have hundreds of millions of years. They've had maybe a decade at most (just a guess, I might be off).

From: JAD
I was wondering this the other day. Do all of you that don't believe in god/Jesus celebrate new years? Would you still consider the current year 2009 years After Death? I even know some people that don't believe in god but still celebrate Christmas, so I was just curious.

Yes, I celebrate new years. It's the accepted year worldwide. Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists alike all celebrate it (or at least recognize it). Also, the year is based on Jesus's birth, not death; AD means Anno Domini [edit: oh, was already mentioned]. Not that it really matters. And I celebrate Christmas, but not for the original reason. I just celebrate it to see my family and have fun. That's all it is to me.

wow.. you people talk about this a lot.. haha I think it's kinda funny.. (no offense)
so.. this is just something that is weird to me (it's about Christian people I know).. all of them that go to church regularly and believe a lot about God and the Bible always say that because I believe that the Big Bang happened (even though I think their had to be SOMETHING else that caused it.. not just a small golf ball sized pile of matter) I don't believe in God.. then they say "if you don't believe what I say I will hurt you".. to me that doesn't seem very Christian.. because God/Jesus/Bob/whoever you feel like is someone who oversees you or whatever you want to think should wan't to hurt people for thinking.. :\

and also.. if it went from 1BC to 0AD.. then everything after 0 is "the Year of Our Lord".. >.> so is Jesus like.. hella old? :p

sorry.. just had to say it.. :D

From: 99_
wow.. you people talk about this a lot.. haha I think it's kinda funny.. (no offense)
so.. this is just something that is weird to me (it's about Christian people I know).. all of them that go to church regularly and believe a lot about God and the Bible always say that because I believe that the Big Bang happened (even though I think their had to be SOMETHING else that caused it.. not just a small golf ball sized pile of matter) I don't believe in God.. then they say "if you don't believe what I say I will hurt you".. to me that doesn't seem very Christian.. because God/Jesus/Bob/whoever you feel like is someone who oversees you or whatever you want to think should wan't to hurt people for thinking.. :\

and also.. if it went from 1BC to 0AD.. then everything after 0 is "the Year of Our Lord".. >.> so is Jesus like.. hella old? :p

sorry.. just had to say it.. :D

Is it possible that you were completely wasted when you made that post? I didn't understand even half of that post… lol :p

I understood it.

I do celebrate New Years and I don't believe in the christian god. The current P.C. standard is now something along the lines of C.E. or Current Era.

I do not celebrate christmas. I celebrate Winter Solstice on christmas day because of family reasons. Just remember the christians copied the idea of a winter holiday from the 'barbarian' pagan religions.

They replaced a pagan holiday with Christmas, and I can't remember what time of year it was, but Jesus was supposedly born during the "rainy season" (I think it's late summer/fall)

M Theory and Quantum Loop Theory and most variations that use an infinite-universes explanation say that there's, well, infinite universes. The odds of us being created by accident are infinite to infinite (though debatable) and in all the universes we don't exist in we don't exist in to realize that we dont exist. What I'm trying to say is that we'd exist in the universe that's "perfect" for us because we can't in one that isn't. If the gravitational constant goes off in a universe, then whatever, there just won't be any humans in that universe :)

From: Widget
They replaced a pagan holiday with Christmas, and I can't remember what time of year it was, but Jesus was supposedly born during the "rainy season" (I think it's late summer/fall)

my church actually believes that Christ was born on April 6…

From: mormonman
my church actually believes that Christ was born on April 6…

Honestly, Does it matter when Christ was born day-wise? To me, the only critical matter was if he was born, this makes all the difference. And he was. I do not mean to seem irritated or angry with you, but what day in the year seems irrelevant. Sure most Christians as myself celebrate his birth in December, but thats not the point.

corn

Guys don't try and discredit science…everything in science is peer-reviewed, so if all the scientists in the world agree on something you can pretty much guarantee it's correct or is the best idea we have of it at the time. Plus it's all based on physical evidence and data, not faith (eg someones imagination after taking a high dose of DMT or LSD, true story btw, heaps of ancient tribes and shit used to take it for "religious experiences"). JAD, yes, we can see atoms. Ever heard of an electron microscope?

From: The Claw
(eg someones imagination after taking a high dose of DMT or LSD, true story btw, heaps of ancient tribes and shit used to take it for "religious experiences").

false: lsd was synthesized in 1938 and DMT was fiurst synthesized in 1931 therefore ancient tribes had no way of accessing these potent drugs, tribes in south america however had peyote, mescaline, ayahuasca, morning glories, salvia divinorum, etc the amount of hallucinogens found naturally occuring where the bible took place is minimal ( If I remember correctly it's a type of treebark found way further south in the congo area)

From: tazzin44
Theres a reason why its a thoery and not a law it has flaws, major flaws.

you've gravely misunderstood the meaning of the word 'law' in a scientific context.
a law is an observation that follows a mathematical relationship.

for example, most gases obey Boyle's Law, which is that if you double the volume of a gas, the pressure will half.
Do note that not all gases follow this law, this is unlike laws of the land, where everyone has to follow them.

there is also the inverse square law, gravity follows this it seems. It states that if you double the distance, the force felt by two bodies drops by a quarter.


bare this in mind with this next thing

From: tazzin44
gravity is a law because 100% of the time you can see it work here on earth.

gravity is not a law, in fact the word 'gravity' is quite vague.
gravity obeys an inverse square law, and is directly propotional to the two masses, but it is not itself a law.

so what is gravity? why is gravity? what is its nature? how does it work? where does it come from?
the answers to many of these questions where not known until the start of the 20th century, and some of them are still not known today.
gravity does not fit into the current Standard Model of physics.


physics concerns itself with more much advanced matters then 'things fall down'.

From: The Claw
JAD, yes, we can see atoms. Ever heard of an electron microscope?

you're quite right in saying this, but i think the attidute is wrong.
theres many things you cannot see, but we're all certain they exist.

for example, we cant see electrons.

also, you couldnt see atoms until the electron microscope was invented, but people were certain that all matter is made of atoms a century or so before.

i would much prefer if you replaced the word 'see', with 'observe'.

you can observe electrons so its alright then.



I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no point in attacking science.
Just because you've found a small irrelevant thing which doesnt work is no reason to abandon science, which has answered so much, and jump ship to religion, which has never answered anything significant.

i agree with you, science should not be attacked because with science (although it doesn't seem anywhere in the near future) the answer to the burning questions of life after death, religeon and many other philosophical questions will be found.

Science and philosophy go hand in hand, philosophers dream up theories on what makes things happen or why science attacks them[the theories](not in a bad way) and proves the theory or disproves it, if the theory is disproven then new theories are made and the cycle continues till the answer is found. there is no logical proof that god(or rather, a creator) does not exist, just like there is no logical proof that he does not, it is a stalemate imo the beauty of the natural world seen scientifically (atomic structures, the brain, survival instincts, the infinate space of the universe, etc) show signs leaning towards the idea of an omnicient being(s) merely because of the compexity of everything down to the tiniest electron but this is not conclusive evidense for or against it.

The nature of the bible never contradicting itself surely must deserve some credit, as over the ancient times the completed works starting in genesis and ending in revelations was written by many hands all under the same inherent directions and not once does it contradict itself, as well as the old testament while in its hebrew text (known as the torah if im not mistaken) has had secrets revealed since the discovery of technology(again thanks science;p) what are known as bible codes, prophesies hidden within in the text that foretold future events (the only two I can remember were the assassination of an israeli president as well as the sinking of the titanic) again not conclusive evidense of the existance of a creator just another point for it.

As I have said before this debate is at equilibrium there is no science that cannot be negated by religeon or can be proven, just as there is no religeon that can prove the existance of their creator but for religeon there is evidense supporting it, miraculous things have happened over the ages that can be attributed to luck, coincidence or divine intervention however you take it the suppernatural does occur.

i agree with you, science should not be attacked because with science (although it doesn't seem anywhere in the near future) the answer to the burning questions of life after death, religeon and many other philosophical questions will be found.

Science has already answered all of those questions. Life after death is a negative.

The nature of the bible never contradicting itself surely must deserve some credit

Who told you the bible never contradicted itself? >.<

the old testament while in its hebrew text (known as the torah if im not mistaken) has had secrets revealed since the discovery of technology(again thanks science;p) what are known as bible codes, prophesies hidden within in the text that foretold future events (the only two I can remember were the assassination of an israeli president as well as the sinking of the titanic)

You can take any book and find "prophesies" in it. You're bound to find some kind of "prophesy" in anything if you are persistent enough to find it. Coincidence.
Also, technology was never discovered.

there is no science that cannot be negated by religeon

You mean by creationists saying "you're wrong, our god is real," or what?

there is no religeon that can prove the existance of their creator but for religeon there is evidense supporting it

Name some of this evidence, because I can't think of any.

miraculous things have happened over the ages that can be attributed to luck, coincidence or divine intervention however you take it the suppernatural does occur.

I challenge you to find ONE supernatural thing that has ever happened.

From: bullzeye95
Science has already answered all of those questions. Life after death is a negative.

Really? Life after death was disproven by which study?

From: bullzeye95
Life after death is a negative.

I also would like to see a source for that one please.

@tazzin- The use of LSD and DMT have probably greatly affected the religious views of many people. Even if they were not available to the ancient tribes, they still had mind altering substances. That was the point of Claw's post I believe.

I don't have a particular source, but nobody has found any evidence of a soul, without which you couldn't live on..

From: bullzeye95
I don't have a particular source, but nobody has found any evidence of a soul, without which you couldn't live on..

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

From: tazzin44
false: lsd was synthesized in 1938 and DMT was fiurst synthesized in 1931 therefore ancient tribes had no way of accessing these potent drugs, tribes in south america however had peyote, mescaline, ayahuasca, morning glories, salvia divinorum, etc the amount of hallucinogens found naturally occuring where the bible took place is minimal ( If I remember correctly it's a type of treebark found way further south in the congo area)

I know LSD wasnt around back then, hence the "and shit" part of my post. Shrooms were naturally occuring around parts where the bible occured, cant back it up with anything but I read a post on some forum once that showed proof…but the fact is there were alot of psychs around back then as you said - mescaline (peyote and mescaline, dunno why you listed it twice in a row), DMT (ayahuasca and the drug found in treebark, which is also in treebark and other plants worldwide), salvia etc which would of definately had an impact on the writings of religion. Why do people have "religious experiences" when they take these drugs? Because the people who decided what a religious experience was, back in the day, were on these drugs…..its not like "take these drugs and have a visit from god", more like "take these drugs and the somewhat normal effects from them are what we've decided to name 'religious experiences' "

If there is a creator, why are these types of drugs illegal? If the creator really did give us a way to talk to him or w/e through taking these drugs, why are they so relatively unknown? Why don't the churches use them today? Etc etc. Point is, "religious experiences" are all in the mind.

From: Yakman
you're quite right in saying this, but i think the attidute is wrong.
theres many things you cannot see, but we're all certain they exist.

for example, we cant see electrons.

also, you couldnt see atoms until the electron microscope was invented, but people were certain that all matter is made of atoms a century or so before.

i would much prefer if you replaced the word 'see', with 'observe'.

you can observe electrons so its alright then.

Yea I forgot my conclusion lol. Which is - even if we cant see stuff with our own eyes, if science says its there for sure then you can bet anything they've proven it experimentally beyond doubt. Unlike, say, a higher being - no proof whatsoever. So no point at all in trying to discredit/attack science cause its basically the best of our knowledge at the time.

From: senrath
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Scientists have even nearly completed mapping out the entire brain and have still found nothing. After all the studies done on bodies, I'd think that if there is anything to be found, it would have been found. If there is a soul, it has to be made of matter just like everything else, and therefore would have been found if it exists.

From: bullzeye95
Scientists have even nearly completed mapping out the entire brain and have still found nothing. After all the studies done on bodies, I'd think that if there is anything to be found, it would have been found. If there is a soul, it has to be made of matter just like everything else, and therefore would have been found if it exists.

Which doesn't mean there is no such thing as a soul. I'll say it again, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean we won't find it later.

I'll also state once more, you cannot prove that something doesn't exist.

Has anyone here mentioned String theory yet?

I know LSD wasnt around back then, hence the "and shit" part of my post. Shrooms were naturally occuring around parts where the bible occured, cant back it up with anything but I read a post on some forum once that showed proof…but the fact is there were alot of psychs around back then as you said - mescaline (peyote and mescaline, dunno why you listed it twice in a row), DMT (ayahuasca and the drug found in treebark, which is also in treebark and other plants worldwide), salvia etc which would of definately had an impact on the writings of religion. Why do people have "religious experiences" when they take these drugs? Because the people who decided what a religious experience was, back in the day, were on these drugs…..its not like "take these drugs and have a visit from god", more like "take these drugs and the somewhat normal effects from them are what we've decided to name 'religious experiences'

just because they were available and are usd in some religeons does not mean that everyone who has a religious experience is on pshycoactive hallucinogens, in every religeon known that uses these as spiritual aids it is mentioned in their writtings, not once is their found in the bible a reference to drugs ( I looked thoroughly to argue smoking pot to my parents years ago btw ) also I mentioned peyote and mescaline seperatley because peyote does contain mescaline it was used by some tribes exclusively over other cacti such as the san pedro. however they did not have mushrooms ( beacuse the well known magic mushroom is from mexico, and other types of phscho-active mushrooms require forests with certain types of trees that do not grow in the fertile cresent where the jewish and christian religeons stem from ) there is a debate over some of these mushrooms if they are the soma from the hindu texts and they are much farther north and even closer to the habitat of these mushrooms.

Science has already answered all of those questions. Life after death is a negative.

thats an awefully unheard of study then, where is the conclusive data from the studies that show 100% without a doubt there is no existance after death? do you honestly think that if this information had been found to be true all organized religeons would have been shut down by now?

Who told you the bible never contradicted itself? >.<

by this statement Im guessing youve never read the bible before, isnt that fairly hipocritical, denouncing a religeon that you know nothing about claiming you know facts about how it cannot exist yet you know absolutely nothing about it? I emplore you to read the whole thing cover to cover bring a fine tooth comb so you can bring yup any discrepencies, tell me if you find 1 single contradiction, do you think that if the bible was not as sound as it was people would still have faith, they might some people are sheep, but there is brilliant scientists that standup for it, and they have found evidence for it.

You can take any book and find "prophesies" in it. You're bound to find some kind of "prophesy" in anything if you are persistent enough to find it. Coincidence.
QUOTE]

ok then, go out by a copy of oliver twist or something and find me a prophesy, if your bound to find anything instead go out find me the day Im going to die hidden in the texts of a book, you'll find it if you're persistant enough. stupid argument, you can't base things this widescale of probability as I have said before, find me facts that you can find this in any book in your local library.

You mean by creationists saying "you're wrong, our god is real," or what?

no, but is that anydifferent than scientists saying you know what? i just don't think god exists, i don't see him, but I cant prove he isnt real, but I say he's not and I haz a Phd. I mean Archaeoligcal(W/e ) digs have proven stories form the bible occured surely that gives it integrity, scientists say hmm you know what we kinda look like monkeys, zomg hax monkeys have almost the same chromosones as us, we surely evolved from them, cant be proven, religeon has another theory and that we werre created, cant be proven wouldnt you say thats pretty even for both sides?

Name some of this evidence, because I can't think of any.

well if you are the one supporting the scientific proof there is no god, why dont you go out and search for evidence and why dont you look at both sides, you look for evidence of no god without even knowing the nature of him, the nature of the religeon anything about the religeon, history about the people who founded the religeon, why dont you try to prove there is a god? wouldnt that be better, because its impossible to prove that something doesnt exist in a universe we are just beginning to learn about we don't even understand or know anything for fact beyond the smallest bits of the universe, we havent even left our galaxy, people havent even gotten farther than the moon (correct me if im wrong on this one)… so tell me why can't an omnicient being exist in a world with infinate time and space?

I challenge you to find ONE supernatural thing that has ever happened

how about the creation of life out of lifeless matter? thats pretty miraculous to me… how about if you want better evidence you go on google and search it because i gaurentee you'll find at least 100 creditable sources (millions of u creditable ones) and you look for evidence yourslef because obviously your goal is to argue off of points that have all been made before nothing new is in this argument, you are holding onto the tinyiest fragments of an argument you can because you, just as i, do not have any conclusive proof of the existance of a creator, but why dont you go look, because its obvious you wont take my world for it even if I copy and paste every website there is as evidence (i dont say proof, I* admit it cant be proven, Im not sure why you deny that it cant be disproven, as of right now nobody knows for sure)

Im not saying it will never be proven Im just saying the obvious that we are nowhere close to an answer one way or the other

From: tazzin44
not once is their found in the bible a reference to drugs





ok then, go out by a copy of oliver twist or something and find me a prophesy, if your bound to find anything instead go out find me the day Im going to die hidden in the texts of a book, you'll find it if you're persistant enough. stupid argument, you can't base things this widescale of probability as I have said before, find me facts that you can find this in any book in your local library.

Just because the bible doesn't say something happened doesn't mean that it didn't.

You are not important enough to have a prophecy totally based on you. As to your statment of wanting proof…I want proof that you can't find these things in the library. See it works both ways.

From: tazzin44
thats an awefully unheard of study then, where is the conclusive data from the studies that show 100% without a doubt there is no existance after death? do you honestly think that if this information had been found to be true all organized religeons would have been shut down by now?

the theory of evolution has been around for 200 years, and has been massively accepted for 50 years.
Yet religion and creationism still exists.

the problem is that some people simply dont care about the logical truth, and will cry fowl against evolution because it goes against their dogma.

From: tazzin44

by this statement Im guessing youve never read the bible before, isnt that fairly hipocritical, denouncing a religeon that you know nothing about claiming you know facts about how it cannot exist yet you know absolutely nothing about it? I emplore you to read the whole thing cover to cover bring a fine tooth comb so you can bring yup any discrepencies, tell me if you find 1 single contradiction, do you think that if the bible was not as sound as it was people would still have faith, they might some people are sheep, but there is brilliant scientists that standup for it, and they have found evidence for it.

let me google that for you

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

From: tazzin44
ok then, go out by a copy of oliver twist or something and find me a prophesy, if your bound to find anything instead go out find me the day Im going to die hidden in the texts of a book, you'll find it if you're persistant enough. stupid argument, you can't base things this widescale of probability as I have said before, find me facts that you can find this in any book in your local library.

i wont look in Oliver Twist but i will link you to somebody who's done proper systematic research on the subject.
it was concluded that bible codes are nothing special or spiritual.

http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.ss/1009212243

From: tazzin44
no, but is that anydifferent than scientists saying you know what? i just don't think god exists, i don't see him, but I cant prove he isnt real, but I say he's not and I haz a Phd.

its very different.
its so different that i dont think you've quite gotten you're head around it.

scientists and anyone who says that stuff generally knows of evidence to support themselves.

creationists have nothing but their own blind faith, 2000 years of indoctrination and a book which they absolutely refuse to think critically towards.

From: tazzin44
well if you are the one supporting the scientific proof there is no god, why dont you go out and search for evidence and why dont you look at both sides, you look for evidence of no god without even knowing the nature of him, the nature of the religeon anything about the religeon, history about the people who founded the religeon, why dont you try to prove there is a god? wouldnt that be better, because its impossible to prove that something doesnt exist in a universe we are just beginning to learn about we don't even understand or know anything for fact beyond the smallest bits of the universe, we havent even left our galaxy, people havent even gotten farther than the moon (correct me if im wrong on this one)… so tell me why can't an omnicient being exist in a world with infinate time and space?

it is not up to people it prove that god doesnt exist, it is up to believes to prove he does exist.

in the same way, it is up to Standard Model-ists to prove that the Higgs Boson does exist.
that is why they built the Large Hadron Collider. If the Standard Model is shown to be wrong, they will just accept it and move on.

Faith-heads will never do this, because there is no possible experiment that can justify their dogmas.

From: tazzin44
how about the creation of life out of lifeless matter? thats pretty miraculous to me…

obviously its miraculous to you because you havent studied biochemistry or a similar natural science involving life, if you did you would see life is nothing special and not worth this worship that you give it.


you remind me of those chemists in the middle ages who believed all matter was split into living (organic) which had a "life force", and not living (inorganic) which did not.

this was discredited when Friedrich Wöhler first synthesized urea (an "organic" compound) from "inorganic" molecules.

chemistry has moved on from believing in life forces, if it hadnt, you wouldnt have nylon, polyester, paracetamol and countless other things that make your life comfortable today.

You should move on too, but i know you wont because you love The Book.


(note: organic chemisty is studied today, but it shares nothing with its 19th century counterpart, the name is only there for historical reasons)

i never once claimed to not listen and accept both sides of of the coin, I believe with faith, yes, that does not mean i blindly follow the words of the bible in literal sense.

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

this is from unfamiliarity of the religeon. The belief is of a trinity, god the father , god the son and god the holy spirit, 3 omniscient beings that make up the body of the whole, god the father is an unseen force and cannot be seen for the mind cannot fathom it so instead he sends things that the mind can understand

Q.

Critics have charged that passages such as John 1:18, Exodus 33:20, and Genesis 32:30 contradict one another. In John 1:18, the apostle wrote: &#8220;No one has seen God at any time.&#8221; In Exodus 33:20 God said to Moses: &#8220;You cannot see My face; for no man can see Me and live.&#8221; But Genesis 32:30 records Jacob as saying: &#8220;For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.&#8221; Have John and Moses&#8212;two of the most influential writers in the Bible&#8212;contradicted each other as infidels and skeptics have suggested?

A.

No, they have not. The Bible is internally consistent, and does not contradict itself. The &#8220;contradiction&#8221; is the result of the passages being taken out of the context in which they were written originally. For example, consider the following two statements. Joe is rich; Joe is poor. Do these statements contradict one another? Not necessarily. Is it not possible that Joe could be rich spiritually but poor physically? Renowned Bible scholar R.A. Torrey noted:


We must remember first of all that two statements which in terms flatly contradict one another may be both of them absolutely true, for the reason that the two terms are not used in the same sense in the two statements (1907, p. 80).
That is exactly what has happened in texts such as John 1:18 and Genesis 32:30. The passages seem to contradict one another, but when considered in their appropriate context they do not because they are not speaking of God being &#8220;seen&#8221; in the same sense. Several illustrations of this principle can be found in Scripture.

First, consider Moses &#8220;seeing&#8221; God in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2ff.). He saw a fire on the side of a mountain. When he went to investigate, he saw a bush that burned but was not consumed. As he observed this unusual sight, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, &#8220;Moses, Moses!&#8221; And Moses said, &#8220;Here I am.&#8221; Then the voice from the burning bush echoed: &#8220;I am the God of your father&#8212;the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob&#8221; (Exodus 3:6a). The text indicates that &#8220;Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God&#8221; (3:6b).

As Moses spoke to the burning bush on the mountainside, was he addressing God? Indeed he was, as the passage clearly teaches. But does the passage also teach that as he looked at the bush, Moses was fearful because he considered it &#8220;seeing&#8221; God? Yes, Exodus 3:6b so states.

When Moses looked upon the burning bush, did he actually &#8220;see&#8221; God? No. He saw an image that we as humans can comprehend. The bush was a representation of God&#8212;an occasion where something took God&#8217;s place.

Second, consider Job&#8217;s &#8220;seeing&#8221; God in a whirlwind (Job 38:1ff.). Job made a wrongful boast that landed him in serious trouble with God. Suddenly (and unexpectedly) a whirlwind appeared before Job&#8212;from which the voice of God echoed: &#8220;Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me&#8221; (Job 38:2-3). Job looked at the whirlwind and heard God. But was God really in the whirlwind? Did Job actually see God when he looked into this magnificent force of nature? No. Instead, Job saw a manifestation of God that a human could comprehend. The whirlwind &#8220;took God&#8217;s place.&#8221;

Third, consider Jacob&#8217;s &#8220;seeing&#8221; God as he wrestled with an angel (Genesis 32:24-30). He wrestled from night until daybreak with this heavenly being and eventually said: &#8220;I have seen God face to face.&#8221; Was it really God that Jacob saw? No, he did not see God but instead witnessed a representative of God. A similar example can be found in the case of Manoah (the father of Samson), recorded in Judges 13. In this instance, the text says that Manoah and his wife were visited by the &#8220;Angel of the Lord&#8221; (13:13) who informed them of their son&#8217;s impending birth. Afterwards, Manoah said: &#8220;We shall surely die because we have seen God! (13:22). Again, it is necessary to ask: Was it really God that Manoah and his wife saw? No, they did not see God but instead witnessed (just as Jacob had) a manifestation of God via the angel. [NOTE: A fascinating parallel can be seen in Gideon&#8217;s statement in Judges 6:22 when he cried: &#8220;I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face.&#8221;]

What, then is the explanation of the alleged contradiction between passages such as John 1:18, Exodus 33:20, and Genesis 32:30? How can the Scriptures state that &#8220;no man hath seen God&#8221; (John 1:18) or that &#8220;no man shall see Me and live&#8221; (Exodus 33:20), while stating elsewhere that Jacob saw God &#8220;face to face&#8221; (Genesis 32:30) and that Manoah and his wife had &#8220;seen God&#8221; (Judges 6:22)? E.G. Sewell provided a partial answer to this kind of question when he wrote:


When Jacob is represented as saying he saw God, it was only an angel of God that appeared to him in the form of a man. In Hosea it is called an angel so that in that case Jacob did not see the face of God at all, but only an angel of God (1921, p. 274, emp. in orig.).
An illustration of this very point can be found in the incarnation of Jesus. The apostle Paul, in discussing Christ&#8217;s deity, noted that as a member of the Godhead, Jesus had existed throughout eternity and possessed &#8220;equality with God&#8221; (Philippians 2:5-6). He also discussed the fact, however, that Christ&#8212;Who had existed in heaven &#8220;in the form of God&#8221;&#8212;took on the &#8220;likeness of men&#8221; (1:7) while He was on Earth. Was Christ equal to God? Yes, He was. Did men see Christ during His earthly ministry? Yes, they did. Did they therefore &#8220;see&#8221; God? Yes, indeed. But did they see God&#8217;s true image (i.e., as a spirit Being&#8212;John 4:24), or did they see instead an embodiment of God as Jesus dwelt here in a fleshly form? The answer is obvious from John&#8217;s explanation in the first few verses of the first chapter of his Gospel. All this makes it clear that while Jesus is God, He also became a man &#8220;so that in history he might reveal the God whom no man has ever seen&#8221; (Pack, 1975, p. 39).

So the next time someone takes a two- or three-word quote from the Bible in an attempt to make the point that the text contains contradictions, we can be sure that in all likelihood it is not a proper quote (i.e., considered in its context). We can keep the improper interpretation from spreading by studying the &#8220;problem passage&#8221; and pointing out the correct context. When we prevent the interpretation offered by atheists, then they have nothing to use to prove their point that the Bible has contradicted itself.

REFERENCES

Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).

Sewell, E.G. and David Lipscomb (1921), Questions Answered (Nashville, TN: McQuiddy).

Torrey, R.A. (1907), Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).

obviously its miraculous to you because you havent studied biochemistry or a similar natural science involving life, if you did you would see life is nothing special and not worth this worship that you give it.

obviously you have misinterpreted my statement I am not classifying things into inorganic and organic matter Im saying take something not alive and make something alive out of it it cant be done

So the first problem that the materialist has in his attempt to explain the creation of life from chemicals is that he doesn't know what life is. He can't define life. So this is the point which unfortunately very few people bring up. There's a lot of discussion about the mathematical improbabilities of life being created from the chance combination of chemicals. There's a lot of discussion. Those who are not in agreement with the materialists usually base their arguments on this point: that mathematically it's extremely improbable that life could be created from matter. It's improbable that life could be created from matter in only those, that short a period of time or something. But our point is a little different here. It's very different. Our point is that there's absolutely no evidence: number one, that the material scientists even know what life is, what to speak of their being able to claim that it's been created by matter in the past or that they will create it in their laboratories in the future. And secondly, since there is no evidence whatsoever that life can be or ever has been created from the combination of chemicals, then it's not correct to say, "It's improbable that life would ever be so created from chemicals.&#8221; It's not correct to say that. To say that something's improbable means that it is possible. I can say that it's improbable for something to happen only if it's possible for that to happen. But since there's no evidence, there's no evidence whatsoever that life is created from chemicals, it's wrong to say it's improbable. It has to be said that it's impossible. There is no evidence that life has ever been created from matter either in the laboratories of the scientists who have all the chemicals in the world at their disposal. They have all the chemicals available, why can't they create life in their test tubes? Why can't they create life? They have not created life. There is no evidence anywhere that life comes from matter. So if there's no evidence that life can come from matter or that life comes from matter then there's no question of it being improbable. It's not even possible. There's no evidence that it's even possible.
-Siddhaswarupananda - founder of Science of Identity Foundation

another talks about the miller experiment that combined chemicals and electricity precursers to amino acids were formed

The amino acids that formed in the Miller experiment were not those that can produce life. There were 50% left handed and 50% right handed amino acids. For amino acids to produce life there must be 100% right handed amino acids. Even so, the other gases and compounds produced in Millers experiment would not have supported life.
It has long been established that his experiment was not successful.
This below was said in another blog last year:
Miller assumed that earth's primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because he later said, "The synthesis of compounds of biological intrest takes place only under reducing conditions."-The origins of Life on Earth by Stanley Miller & Lesile E. Orgel p.33

But apperently there is a dilemma for evolution.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays"Francis Hitching
Source(s):
http://www.smithlifescience.com/MillersE…
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?…

heres one more on evolution

Origin of Life - Origin of Species and Modern Day Science Class
Spontaneous Generation was disproved as the Origin of Life in 1859. Ironically, it was this same year that Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published. From this work arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); (5) Macro Evolution (the origin of major kinds); and (6) Micro Evolution (the variation within the kinds). Only the sixth phase has been observed and documented. The first five are merely assumed. Interestingly, the fourth assumption is the old doctrine of Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic matter (a rock). The sadly comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life

im not saying anything about evolving species amonst themselves(ie adaptation) but anything else cannot be proved.

chemistry has moved on from believing in life forces, if it hadnt, you wouldnt have nylon, polyester, paracetamol and countless other things that make your life comfortable today.

so are you saying that chemists no longer believe in the existance of life?

indeed that their result merely reflects on the choices made in designing their experiment and collecting the data for it. We present extensive evidence in support of that conclusion. We also report on many new experiments of our own, all of which failed to detect the alleged phenomenon.

that is a passage from your proof that the bible codes dont exist, or are at least of no value, the only thing this proves is that to get the answer you want set up the experiment strategically to your advantage.

that post was almost entirely made up of copypastes, I'm wondering if you think for yourself at all.

From: tazzin44

this is from unfamiliarity of the religeon. The belief is of a trinity, god the father , god the son and god the holy spirit, 3 omniscient beings that make up the body of the whole

that would be fine if all those quotes were from the new testament, but they are not.
jewish people do not believe in the trinity.


1

From: tazzin44
I am not classifying things into inorganic and organic matter

2

From: tazzin44
Im saying take something not alive and make something alive out of it it cant be done

sentance number 1 contradicts sentance number 2.

you've talked about how "something not alive" cannot become "something alive"
this means you've made two catagories of "something", things which are alive and things which are dead.
in other words, the two catagories are "organic" and "inorganic"

you're pursuing a pseudoscience called vitalism. It was discredited a century ago.

But in exactly the same situation as evolution. If the evidence contradicts The Book, then the evidence must be wrong.

From: tazzin44
so are you saying that chemists no longer believe in the existance of life?

that was never said.

what was meant is that chemists no longer believe that life is anything special, they do not believe in a vital element, a spark or a soul.

To chemists, life is simply a long list of chemical reactions. The same science governs all things.

that post was almost entirely made up of copypastes, I'm wondering if you think for yourself at all.

it was copy and pastes to provide information, i do not pretend to be smarter than I am, I use smarter peoples research to backup the beliefs I hold, Because I believe in an organised religeon, obviously I am incapable of thinking for myself, just as you rely on the research of others to base your beliefs, this debate is not about attacking people personally it is about debating the existance of a higher being, something which honestly can't be debated with a winning side, because science has not proven or disproven it therefore if people with a far superiour grasp on all these concepts cannot do anything to prove or disprove we certainly will not do any good here

that would be fine if all those quotes were from the new testament, but they are not.
jewish people do not believe in the trinity.

did you read the information I gave, this is not about the jewish faith because some of those quotes did come from the new testament therefore the jewish faith is not a valid argument here.

sentance number 1 contradicts sentance number 2.

again you are misunderstanding me, I am not up to speed on the technical terms throughout history on chemistry, a reason why I relied on sources, but what I was saying was something with life cannot be created by something without a lifeforce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
so are you saying that chemists no longer believe in the existance of life?

that was never said.

what was meant is that chemists no longer believe that life is anything special, they do not believe in a vital element, a spark or a soul.

To chemists, life is simply a long list of chemical reactions. The same science governs all things.

if chemists do not believe life is anything special but a series of chemical reactions, then what could have sparked the chemicals that started life, again read the information I provided you with, it hasnt been proven, it can't be proven as of yet. the debate is not what life is as determined by chemists, but what created this life.

But in exactly the same situation as evolution. If the evidence contradicts The Book, then the evidence must be wrong.

never once did I say this, nor did I discredit information using scriptural passages, I used other scientific studies, it is clear that you are so intent on merely attacking those who clearly less able to think for themselves because they can believe in something, again this debate was never for attacking people it was for discussing the existance of something that honestly cannot be scientificaly proven, or disproven, every argument has a rebutle we are at an equilibrium, if you want to attack me personnaly for my beliefs learn my beliefs first, ive never said them, Ive only backed up a religeon, ive never said I dont believe in evolution, in fact Im a firm believer that creatures have developped over time, or in the case of humans we are doing the opposite, we are deteriorating genetically, which with the devlopment oif the study of genes may be reversed, just because we have the most knowledge ever does not mean people of this day are the smartest of anytime, but thats offtopic.

im done with this thread now Ive said my standpoint, made my arguments, made my rebutles, and Ill state my beliefs now (Im a christian of the baptist denomination, as well as a buddhist not a religeon but a belief system of morals and lessons) theres is nothing I can say or that can be said to me that has not been argued many times, if anyone feels like looking up there argument google it youll find just as many things crediting as discrediting, you'll never find answers if you don't look at and understand both sides. I bid you all fairwell from this thread

*bangs his head against a wall*

If you people'd stop paying attention to the words, but the ideas behind the words…

Good bye Tazzin,

Thanks for discussing while I was away. It is interesting to see another Christian here. I hope and have been praying that God would somehow use the words we speak on this forum and he has answered generously, I am so thankful for the Love and faithfulness of God that is so incomparable to any earthly thing imaginable.

and; Hello all,

It is hard to see all the misunderstanding that going along as we discuss our own beliefs and attempt to explain why we believe what we believe. It saddens me, but I know that this is exactly what God knew and told us would happen.

In terms of God's perspective, if he does exist then it wouldn't matter if men "denied" him or "disproved" him in their own minds, he would still exist. This is of course is a simple statement, but I say it to give you a different look at it. God doesn't have to prove himself to anyone. The God of the bible is described as the most unique being ever, Even the human names we call him are not worthy of his true identity. They are simple human representations and words in-order-to help our limited minds to somehow understand the eternal being and character of this God. My knowledge of God is very shallow in the midst of his unending being for it is impossible on this earth to understand all of him, sure I may be able to draw a picture of an old man or some visual representation that the world brings to make fun of God, but it honestly means nothing, God is looked at as a small and stupid thing and even something imaginary, but that does not mean that he is those things. I do not mean to sound angry at anyone, but this is what my heart wanted to let out at this time. Just some thoughts of my own. :-)

I kind of wanted to look at this present state of humanity/time. We are far more technologically advanced than ever before in all of time. This is obvious of course. But, why are their missing holes in many of our sciences. I say this in terms of details. Look at an atom per say. We have observed, we have found most of the current atoms. We know there are Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons. These are all very big discoveries. I am stating all the obvious. But there is something missing, How in the world does it all stick together? Yes we have a word for it. "Bond". And yes the protons and electrons work nicely because they are of different charges, but what in the world is keeping the protons and neutrons together. I realize that professors and books will tell you that neutrons help stick them together but I would ask how do they do it. what causes that? It is far beyond our reach.

I am not trying to bash all of science, because it has helped us in developing new things, health, development, industry. I also wanted to state that I respect and honor all the hard work that has gone into the field of science. but I feel that it is trusted too highly in things that cannot be reached or explained. What if all this look into evolution is worthless? what if it isnt true? I say this only to instigate thinking, nothing more.

Humans are flawed, this of course is true. We have a sense of cruelty toward another and everything else. The bible would say that we have become this way through our own rebellion of a perfect and life giving God and thus God has turned himself away from us because we have chosen to do it, and that now it is our own nature to behave this way because we naturally hate God and others. Evolution would say, it is apart of our nature/Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection, we have developed this behavior over many years. I ask this, what is the final result, what is the ideal behavior that evolutionary improvement will lead to? Is there such a thing?

Another question is, who is right? That was a rhetoric question, unless you would like to answer it, then I cant stop you. :-)

One more paragraph for me. If this God does exist, if the claims of the Judeo-Christian God are true, than all value, purpose, and life are centered upon Him. It is all about Him and everything that has been done was under his control. Every human is accountable to the rebellion they had towards God and God will be the one who calls the shots. If he doesn't exist, then life is meaningless and there is no point to live. no purpose in life, unless it is centered around the individual, which is temporary, it will not last.

I made all of these different topics to give a wider variety of thoughts throughout life/God/beliefs to make it more interesting and to see a bigger picture of things.

It is a pleasure to speak with you all.

-corn

I agree with your post about how alot of the arguments are due to misunderstandings, but you then go on to do the same thing:

I kind of wanted to look at this present state of humanity/time. We are far more technologically advanced than ever before in all of time. This is obvious of course. But, why are their missing holes in many of our sciences. I say this in terms of details. Look at an atom per say. We have observed, we have found most of the current atoms. We know there are Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons. These are all very big discoveries. I am stating all the obvious. But there is something missing, How in the world does it all stick together? Yes we have a word for it. "Bond". And yes the protons and electrons work nicely because they are of different charges, but what in the world is keeping the protons and neutrons together. I realize that professors and books will tell you that neutrons help stick them together but I would ask how do they do it. what causes that? It is far beyond our reach.

Quarks do. Which are made of baryons, mesons, and gluons among other things, which are probably made of strings. This might all sound crazy, but they have the mathematical proofs and are working on getting the physical evidence (Large Hadron Collider). Even after reading your post about what god is to you, science still seems more believable :)

From: corn77

If he doesn't exist, then life is meaningless and there is no point to live. no purpose in life, unless it is centered around the individual, which is temporary, it will not last.

The actions that we make today will affect the thoughts and actions of future generations. We are a lasting legacy through history. I find a reason to live even though I don't believe in your god. You don't have to believe in god(s) to believe in an afterlife.

I find that a more fulfilling life can be lived if we just accept that we don't know what will happen at death and live like there is nothing after. Don't put things off that you might get to do in heaven or your next life. Do them now and enjoy it. Life is great. It isn't the torture that your soul must endure to be worthy of heaven like some people would have you believe.

From: Aser
The actions that we make today will affect the thoughts and actions of future generations. We are a lasting legacy through history. I find a reason to live even though I don't believe in your god. You don't have to believe in god(s) to believe in an afterlife.

I find that a more fulfilling life can be lived if we just accept that we don't know what will happen at death and live like there is nothing after. Don't put things off that you might get to do in heaven or your next life. Do them now and enjoy it. Life is great. It isn't the torture that your soul must endure to be worthy of heaven like some people would have you believe.

I agree with you here. There is always a reason to live for even if it is not for an afterlife.

This is not directed to anyone:

However some people (a lot of people) need faith that there is something beyond this life in order to keep going. You may stereotype these people as the ignorant religious masses following their religion like a herd of sheep, but there are thousands of people in far worse situations than people like us.

Think of the all the people starving in the world. Think of all the people who have had to live through war, destruction, and chaos. I highly doubt that these people will be thinking about living life to the fullest in order to leave their legacy for future generations. Religion gives people hope. Not all people need religion to keep going, but it definitely helps those who do need it.

Here's my opinion on the subject for what it's worth:

I believe that God does not exist in the physical universe. As Claw stated there is no mathematical or scientific proof of him existing. Perhaps he is an urban legend, a myth. Perhaps thousands of years ago man created the idea of God to unify mankind under one supreme ruler; God. Or perhaps God is merely the collective will of all of his believers.

Thus poses the question: If God does not exist, who or what created the physical universe? The Big Bang theory, The Bouncing Universe, and The Protouniverse are all valid arguments, although we can only infer such theories as this.


There are thousands of what-if's on the subject of God and the creation of the universe. I prefer not to spend my time theorizing on the creation of our physical universe. I'd much rather be actively living in it than pondering it's existence.

Is it possible for God to create something so heavy, that he can't lift it?

Sorry for being a bit offtopic, it's just a little paradox one of my friends reminded me of. Omnipotency vs omnipotency… interesting, eh?

EDIT: Apparantly Claw said it on the first page aswell :(

Lets get a priest and a Scientology recruiter in here.


This thread would be EPIC WIN.

From: Aser
The actions that we make today will affect the thoughts and actions of future generations. We are a lasting legacy through history. I find a reason to live even though I don't believe in your god. You don't have to believe in god(s) to believe in an afterlife.

I find that a more fulfilling life can be lived if we just accept that we don't know what will happen at death and live like there is nothing after. Don't put things off that you might get to do in heaven or your next life. Do them now and enjoy it. Life is great. It isn't the torture that your soul must endure to be worthy of heaven like some people would have you believe.

Hello Aser,

I would agree that I/we dont know everything what will happen after we die and I honestly wouldnt want to, it would scare the crap out of me and also give me great joy.

Life is great, but my definition of life and your life is different. I believe that the definition of life is God himself and that I can enjoy this life from now til forever. But, I can only enjoy him through the Christian Gospel, which is Jesus Christ.

Everything I want to do in this life, is live in light of what calls me to do, to love God and love people. Many people think this is just made up of rules and burdensome things. But God in the richness of his wisdom and love has made it so that his true children will joyfully obey what God commands us, because it is fun, it is enjoyable, it gives me so much joy to know God. Yes we fail at truely following it, yes will not always desire to follow it. But, God will change us as we continue in Jesus Christ.

I ask you this, if God is not the center of your reason to live as you stated. Then what is? Is it to enjoy life?

I hope to help you understand my point of view.

thanks for reading.

-corn

From: The Claw
I agree with your post about how alot of the arguments are due to misunderstandings, but you then go on to do the same thing:

Hello Claw,

Its good to see you again.

I am trying to understand what you said here. Could you show me how? I feel that the statement I said about misunderstanding does not match your understanding of that statement, and If need be I can explain about that later.

From: The Claw

Quarks do. Which are made of baryons, mesons, and gluons among other things, which are probably made of strings. This might all sound crazy, but they have the mathematical proofs and are working on getting the physical evidence (Large Hadron Collider). Even after reading your post about what god is to you, science still seems more believable :)

I have heard about string theory and quarks and such. I do not mean to discredit them. The statement here doesn't seem to answer my question. I asked about the ability of neutrons to "stick" protons to each other. We all understand , Are you stating that Quartz is what causes the bonding of Neutrons and Protons? It is amazing about the strings, quarks, baryons, mesons, and gluons and I do not doubt that these things exist, honestly I do not care. I am not a scientist and I do not want to sound like one. I am a simple college student.

I understand, I do not want my own beliefs to solely infuence you and they will not. I want the revelation of God to change beliefs/thoughts. That is how I became a christian, I did not believe God, he was worthless to me, I ignored his presence, he was a small thing in my own mind. He came to me and changed the crap out of my life. Of course, this is done by his terms and not my own, and thus I will continue to ask him and wait for him to work in people's lives like my own.

I hope that helps. Thanks for reading. :-)

corn




What ever belief you hold to be true, believe it not just from what everyone tells you, but from a cluster of things (research, thoughts, experience, revelation, hearing other beliefs) . passionately live based off that belief, if that belief is real to you, then you should live because of that belief and not based off another. What is real must be precious and of worth great value, therefore seek after it. Investigate, ask questions, look into it.

From: King of Knives
Is it possible for God to create something so heavy, that he can't lift it?

Sorry for being a bit offtopic, it's just a little paradox one of my friends reminded me of. Omnipotency vs omnipotency… interesting, eh?

Urgh, that kind of thing makes my head hurt just thinking about it. Kinda like the irresistible force vs the immovable object.

From: R0b0t1
Lets get a priest and a Scientology recruiter in here.


This thread would be EPIC WIN.

LOL agreed.

From: corn77
Hello Aser,

I ask you this, if God is not the center of your reason to live as you stated. Then what is? Is it to enjoy life?

I hope to help you understand my point of view.

My reasons to live are: sex, drugs and rock 'n roll, in that order…

Beyond that, I live in the hope that I can create/begin the path to a future for man/woman kind where he/she transcend arguments and conflict and live in tranquility.

Many people believe that I am a bad person because I believe in taking full pleasure in life. You want something why not have it (with the limit of not hurting others)? Basically you could say that I am addicted to life. My definition of life being the here-and-now.

You may think that you will receive 10x better pleasures and reward in that afterlife, but I don't. I have this one chance to experience this lifetime before I move on to who knows what. I want to make the best of it while I am here.

…

I can understand you views, and I respect them. I don't care what anyone believes as long as those beliefs don't cause others harm.



To the neutron thing - isn't the 'glue' of the universe something like strong and weak nuclear force? That's what I remember from science, but we have 25 year old text books here in Idaho, so that could be way out dated.

From: corn77
Hello Claw,

Its good to see you again.

I am trying to understand what you said here. Could you show me how? I feel that the statement I said about misunderstanding does not match your understanding of that statement, and If need be I can explain about that later.

I have heard about string theory and quarks and such. I do not mean to discredit them. The statement here doesn't seem to answer my question. I asked about the ability of neutrons to "stick" protons to each other. We all understand , Are you stating that Quartz is what causes the bonding of Neutrons and Protons? It is amazing about the strings, quarks, baryons, mesons, and gluons and I do not doubt that these things exist, honestly I do not care. I am not a scientist and I do not want to sound like one. I am a simple college student.

corn

What I meant was you say that alot of arguements are brought on by misunderstandings, which is true, but then you argue a point which is inherently flawed due to your own misunderstandings of the current scientific models (through no fault of your own lol)

The funny thing is I went on to misunderstand your question, I thought you were asking about what makes up the protons or neutrons, instead of saying that science doesnt know how protons stick together. Thats even easier though, its the strong nuclear force. Either way the arguement was flawed :p

From: The Claw
What I meant was you say that alot of arguements are brought on by misunderstandings, which is true, but then you argue a point which is inherently flawed due to your own misunderstandings of the current scientific models (through no fault of your own lol)

The funny thing is I went on to misunderstand your question, I thought you were asking about what makes up the protons or neutrons, instead of saying that science doesnt know how protons stick together. Thats even easier though, its the strong nuclear force. Either way the arguement was flawed :p

It was not the best argument and it was flawed. I can be open and admit this. I did not look it up, I simply used my own common chemistry knowledge. Of course I am flawed and limited to knowledge, just like all of you. But, I do think that my argument can be more viable if and only if I stated it more clearly and that it was looked at a different point of view, which I didnt and thus I apologize for its unclarity.

At the moment I will not bring up any other "argument" just because I do not feel like it(lol) and it is always good for me to point out a wrong in my own life. I simply felt an inclination to admit my flaw and failure to you all. That is all, I believe. :-)



corn

From: corn77
It was not the best argument and it was flawed. I can be open and admit this. I did not look it up, I simply used my own common chemistry knowledge. Of course I am flawed and limited to knowledge, just like all of you. But, I do think that my argument can be more viable if and only if I stated it more clearly and that it was looked at a different point of view, which I didnt and thus I apologize for its unclarity.

At the moment I will not bring up any other "argument" just because I do not feel like it(lol) and it is always good for me to point out a wrong in my own life. I simply felt an inclination to admit my flaw and failure to you all. That is all, I believe. :-)



corn

Don't be sorry. A Christian admitting a flaw in his argument. That's revolution in the Science vs. Church discussion!

Let me point one thing out here: If you ask a scientist where all the material that made up the singularity of the big bang came from, they would tell you "The laws of physics break down at the beginning of time" or "There was no time before the Big Bang" which sounds a lot like

From: The Claw
'beyond our capacity to understand'

and

From: The Claw
'powers are too great'

to me.

rabcarl, you've confused not understanding with not knowing.


see this thing

if you ask a mathematican "what happens at x= 0", they will say something like "it breaks down there"

does that mean you dont understand a hyperbola? no, it just means that has those properties.



it is accepted now that you cant know the position and velocity of an electron at the same time, regardless of how good your measuring equipment is.

does that mean we dont understand electrons? no, it just means that electrons obey the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.




even though science cannot yet answer some questions, that is no reason to turn to religion which has never answered anything of significance.

I disagree with you here. I think the whole point of religion is that it does answer the unanswerable questions we all face. The whole point of religion is to answer such questions as :What happens when we die? and How did we all get here? Being a Christian I know that religion can provide answers to these questions; you just might not agree with or believe the answers they give.

And I think that my previous point is still valid. There's no way we can say 100% scientifically what happened billions of years ago. No one was there to see it happen, it's all open speculation with one theory as good as the next. Therefore, people must have faith in whatever answer they choose to explain the beginning of existence, whether that is an explanation related to science or belief in a Creator. My point before was that it's easy to scoff at people who say "We just don't understand some things about God." I know for a fact humankind will never fully prove what happened at the beginning of time, hell we can't even prove some things happened a year ago!

And with regard to what you said before, I mean, those are all theories. No matter how good a theory is, it's not proof. Take a look at the Newtonian principals of gravity. Aside from a few tiny miscalculations, everything in the universe could be explained by these calculations for hundreds of years. But even as accepted a theory as that was proven to have deep flaws by Einstein. So no matter how much we try, there are still going to be things that we will never know or at least never be able to prove 100%, which is why I think religious views are as valid as scientific ones when it comes to answering speculative questions like this.

From: rabcarl
So no matter how much we try, there are still going to be things that we will never know or at least never be able to prove 100%, which is why I think religious views are as valid as scientific ones when it comes to answering speculative questions like this.

The difference between religion and science is, religious people say "this is true because you can't prove me wrong," while scientists say "I think this is true, and this is why I believe it to be true."

From: rabcarl
I disagree with you here. I think the whole point of religion is that it does answer the unanswerable questions we all face. The whole point of religion is to answer such questions as :What happens when we die? and How did we all get here? Being a Christian I know that religion can provide answers to these questions; you just might not agree with or believe the answers they give.

they dont give answers, they just assert and speculate.
some scientific answers are as strange as any religious ones, but the difference is that scientific answers just work.

it seems you christans dont care about whats true, you only care about being comforted.
neuroscience suggests that you do not survive your own death, but christians and some other religious people dont like that at all, its too bleak. So they come up with some paradise where you go when you die.

you seem to believe that god would make the entire universe and place his chosen race on a typical planet, around a typical star, in the outskirts of a typical galexy.

you're like a child that believes the whole world revolves around them, and disappears when he closes his eyes. Grow up.

From: rabcarl
And I think that my previous point is still valid. There's no way we can say 100% scientifically what happened billions of years ago.

you're wrong there, i can present a counterexample

we have built a time machine to actually see what happened then.
its called the telescope.

light from distant objects take many years to get to us, when we look at the most distant things, we're actually looking back in time.

some light started its journey 13 billion years ago.

so there

From: rabcarl
No one was there to see it happen, it's all open speculation with one theory as good as the next.

thats wrong because some theories have more to back them up then others.

with your logic, the theory that the USA was founded by chickens would be on equal footing with the theory that it was founded by Benjamin Franklin and the rest of them.

but the chicken theory has very little backup, especially since the signature at the bottom of that page says 'B. Franklin' or something.

so that makes the rest of your point invalid.

From: rabcarl
And with regard to what you said before, I mean, those are all theories. No matter how good a theory is, it's not proof.

ask yourself if your theory works.
in the same way that the heliocentric theory works better then the geocentric theory, scientific theorys work better then religious ones.

From: rabcarl
Take a look at the Newtonian principals of gravity. Aside from a few tiny miscalculations, everything in the universe could be explained by these calculations for hundreds of years. But even as accepted a theory as that was proven to have deep flaws by Einstein.

this is wrong, and it also has nothing to do with your follow up.
just because there was one particalar scientific revolution does not show that all science will be overthrown as you're suggesting.

and since we're on the subject,
Newton's laws showed some cracks many years before Einstine, they failed to accuratly predict the orbit of mercury for example.
also, Maxwell's electromagnetic equations contradicted Newton's equations of motion when applied to light. (i.e. Newton says you can catch and overtake light if you travel fast enough, Maxwell says you can never do this)

From: rabcarl
I think religious views are as valid as scientific ones when it comes to answering speculative questions like this.

well you're wrong,
religious answers have flaws that scientific answers do not.

the universe is expanding, religious answers cannot explain that because they suggest god made the universe X years ago and it has not changed since then.

but the biggest flaw with religious answers is that they start with the answer and then try to make it fit the evidence.
it should go the other way around.


scientists saw the expanding universe and concluded that in the past it must have been smaller then today. The volume of the universe is increasing.

so was there a point when it was as small as it gets? when the volume was zero?
taking only the expanding universe figures, some simple maths shows that the universe had zero volume around 13.6 billion years ago.

so you see that method? you start with evidence and observation
1. the universe is expanding
and then use it to come up with a theory that explains it
2. the universe started from an event called the big bang


this flowchart shows the differences quite nicely

From: Yakman
they dont give answers, they just assert and speculate.
some scientific answers are as strange as any religious ones, but the difference is that scientific answers just work.

it seems you christans dont care about whats true, you only care about being comforted.
neuroscience suggests that you do not survive your own death, but christians and some other religious people dont like that at all, its too bleak. So they come up with some paradise where you go when you die.

you seem to believe that god would make the entire universe and place his chosen race on a typical planet, around a typical star, in the outskirts of a typical galexy.

you're like a child that believes the whole world revolves around them, and disappears when he closes his eyes. Grow up.





you're wrong there, i can present a counterexample

we have built a time machine to actually see what happened then.
its called the telescope.

light from distant objects take many years to get to us, when we look at the most distant things, we're actually looking back in time.

some light started its journey 13 billion years ago.

so there



thats wrong because some theories have more to back them up then others.

with your logic, the theory that the USA was founded by chickens would be on equal footing with the theory that it was founded by Benjamin Franklin and the rest of them.

but the chicken theory has very little backup, especially since the signature at the bottom of that page says 'B. Franklin' or something.

so that makes the rest of your point invalid.





ask yourself if your theory works.
in the same way that the heliocentric theory works better then the geocentric theory, scientific theorys work better then religious ones.





this is wrong, and it also has nothing to do with your follow up.
just because there was one particalar scientific revolution does not show that all science will be overthrown as you're suggesting.

and since we're on the subject,
Newton's laws showed some cracks many years before Einstine, they failed to accuratly predict the orbit of mercury for example.
also, Maxwell's electromagnetic equations contradicted Newton's equations of motion when applied to light. (i.e. Newton says you can catch and overtake light if you travel fast enough, Maxwell says you can never do this)







well you're wrong,
religious answers have flaws that scientific answers do not.

the universe is expanding, religious answers cannot explain that because they suggest god made the universe X years ago and it has not changed since then.

but the biggest flaw with religious answers is that they start with the answer and then try to make it fit the evidence.
it should go the other way around.


scientists saw the expanding universe and concluded that in the past it must have been smaller then today. The volume of the universe is increasing.

so was there a point when it was as small as it gets? when the volume was zero?
taking only the expanding universe figures, some simple maths shows that the universe had zero volume around 13.6 billion years ago.

so you see that method? you start with evidence and observation
1. the universe is expanding
and then use it to come up with a theory that explains it
2. the universe started from an event called the big bang


this flowchart shows the differences quite nicely

I was gonna reply to rabcarl myself, but then scrolled down and saw this post, so I'll just leave it at a +1

From: King of Knives
Don't be sorry. A Christian admitting a flaw in his argument. That's revolution in the Science vs. Church discussion!

Hello KOK,

Possibly not a revolution, I am open to admit my flaw because I am human just like you. I do not want to be someone that seems to have all the answers because I dont, and of course you don't. Arguments vary from there effeciency with communicating its point, I felt my point was valid, but I started it without proper detail and examination and thus devalued the point totally. I do feel that I am responsible to make my points as clear as possible, and at that point I felt that it wasnt and thus I apologized to you all. I hope to continue this discussion in the future. :-)

best regards,

corn

From: Aser
My reasons to live are: sex, drugs and rock 'n roll, in that order…

Beyond that, I live in the hope that I can create/begin the path to a future for man/woman kind where he/she transcend arguments and conflict and live in tranquility.

Many people believe that I am a bad person because I believe in taking full pleasure in life. You want something why not have it (with the limit of not hurting others)? Basically you could say that I am addicted to life. My definition of life being the here-and-now.

You may think that you will receive 10x better pleasures and reward in that afterlife, but I don't. I have this one chance to experience this lifetime before I move on to who knows what. I want to make the best of it while I am here.

…

I can understand you views, and I respect them. I don't care what anyone believes as long as those beliefs don't cause others harm.



To the neutron thing - isn't the 'glue' of the universe something like strong and weak nuclear force? That's what I remember from science, but we have 25 year old text books here in Idaho, so that could be way out dated.

Hello Aser,

I appreciate your honesty with my question(s). And I hope that by these discussions we can just get to know each other more. Feel free to ask me questions as you feel led.

Something I want to bring up is the defining questions to examine why we have a reason to live, why we have purpose. Let us consider a defined Judeo-Christian God that exists defined by the bible. If this Judeo Christian did exist as stated in the bible, then he did create the universe and everything in it ( I am not trying to prove God's exist at this point, just to define the example ). In the bible God reveals the reason he created everything, including man. An example of this can be found in the book of Isaiah, Isaiah 43:7.

"…everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made."

The reason I point out this is to show you that if this God does exists, he created us for his glory and that the ultimate purpose for our life is to glorify God. When I say glorify, I wanted to define it for you if there was an miscommunication. glorify is to extol, praise, or worship. This can be seen as an entire life of this purpose. What I am trying to say is that this God who made everything for that reason and that this is not our purpose. What does that mean? Does that mean that God doesn't exist because it is not followed?

I would say that this is not the case, God could allow such things to occur despite the reaction of people, we live in a fallen world according to the bible one that is in total rebellion to God. This would mean that we are living our lives despite the ultimate purpose God has commanded everyone to follow, and that every other purpose that exists is for one worthless and two finite. We are living in total rebellion to that standard God has placed. I want to show everyone that we are rebellious towards this God. In the character and attributes of God, it is shown that He is to be exaulted above all things and that he is worthy of all our obedience to this command, despite how we feel about it. He is also defined as the most pleasureable being and that through Him, all pleasures come forth. It is considered evil in the eyes of God to regard anything he had made more valuable than Himself, because of its ultimate comparison.

Let me give a rough example, lets say I love to eat poop with whip cream(lol), Of course if I would to compare this as food would be considered ultimately disgusting and uneatable, but I simply love to eat poop, you know it has some whip cream on top that gives it such a delcious taste, it is all I have ever known. And I eat it all the time, if I was offered some 5 star Bar'B'Q Prime Ribs, this food would be considered much greater to eat this more tasty and nutrious type food. I tried it, and I was just blown away by it, I had never tasted anything more delicious in my life and it actually helped sustain my body! This can be somewhat compared to the pleasures and joy in knowing God through following the purpose he has given all men to live by and the unfilling and honestly worthlessness of worldly pleasures.

Some thoughts for you all. Feel free to leave comments about it, questions, what ever. :-)

Thanks for reading

corn

I think it is people's definition of God that is wrong. If you think about it, we have no control in our lives. Everything is destined to happen based on the chemical composition of our brains and of the universe. My brain is composed a certain way that made me think about this, which also made me decide to post it here. Now you will think about it and make a decision on whether you agree or not based on the composition of your brain.

I believe the composition and laws of the universe are what govern our lives and "destiny." In a way, this could be called God…

From: Macrosoft
I think it is people's definition of God that is wrong. If you think about it, we have no control in our lives. Everything is destined to happen based on the chemical composition of our brains and of the universe. My brain is composed a certain way that made me think about this, which also made me decide to post it here. Now you will think about it and make a decision on whether you agree or not based on the composition of your brain.

I believe the composition and laws of the universe are what govern our lives and "destiny."

this belief seems to be very similar to one which was popular, especially in france around the 18th century. Its called Determinism.

it says similar to what you said, given accurate enough information, measurements and physical laws, everything in the universe is predictable, including human behaviour. Which implies there is no free will.

however, with the discovery of the randomness of radioactive decay, quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Schrödinger's cat and choas theory. It became clear that not everything can be predicted or determined like that.

i guess you will believe in determinism if you want, but the evidence doesnt support it at all.
(hey, that doesnt stop people believing in god)

Before I explain everything point by point, please keep an open mind. Usually in these kinds of posts no one has an open mind about what the other is saying. I had an open mind about what you posted, but found that everything was explainable.

From: The Claw

However, I am interested in to why you get angry with God? If you believe in free will, then God can have NO influence on anything in the world to make sure it is completely free, if you think everyone has a destiny that God shapes, he then predestines people for hell, which would seem completely contrary to God’ nature. To say that a little of both are true is simply a foolish escape from answering the question of whether free will exists or not.

God does give free will. You have free will to obey him and love him. He does not predestine people to hell because while he knows the future of your willingness to accept him, he leaves it up to you to decide fully. You can say "well why did he create me if he knew I was going to hell?" (I've asked the same question), but you got to remember. You're the one deciding to love him or not. Call it unjust, I don't understand it either. Personally it makes me angry, but I need to ponder over it more.

But let’s look at God from a logical point of view.

We must accept a few things first, which should be acceptable to anyone who has taken a high-school science course, or who knows anything about anything.

First, we know everything in the universe that interacts is made of matter and energy. Anti-matter, dark-matter, etc, is all matter and energy nonetheless. This is a proven fact, and common sense for anyone. if you have proof otherwise, please let me know.

Secondly, because of this, in order to interact with the Universe, God must be made of matter and energy. if he is, he is bound by the laws of physics and the rules and laws of this world, because he is made of that which must obey them. This makes miracles and such impossible, because God cannot do these miracles.

if you say he lives outside of the world beyond all capacity, then you are also saying that he CAN NOT interact with the physical world. If so, miracles are still impossible, and praying, and other such acts asking him to intervene in life, are all fruitless, since it would not be within God;s power, which brings me to my next point.

In some points you are right, but the most of it is wrong. Let me first say that God rarely (if ever) intervenes in our lives. This is Old Testament thinking. In the old testament god did intervene, and the world was much different. When people take the occurrences of the Old Testament and apply it to todays world (the New Testament) then people get confused and start to believe they can pray and ask for things. God doesn't change his mind or do anything because you pray. I myself (A devout creationist) feel like praying is almost futile. I'm not the best Christian and many Christians would scold me for saying such things (the Christian church can be quite harsh sometimes) but they haven't convinced me otherwise.

Now, the points that you are wrong. It God made the universe then he would most certainly be able to alter it. This logic is flawed. It would be to say that a programmer can not add to or adjust his program just because he does not reside inside the computer. If God had to abide by the rules he created, then he wouldn't be God, would he? The image of God is confused with an old man with a white beard who is slightly balding who sits at a desk on a cloud by a golden gate determining whether people can go in or not. God HAS NO form. He is without mater, space, and outside the laws of time and physics. He is infinitely everywhere, even when no space existed. He resides outside time and all things, it is for you to comprehend this.

Omnipotence, or being all-powerful, is a logically self-contradictory concept. It is impossible to do everything. We’ve all heard the common proposition “can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift?” It is perfectly valid, and shows how it is impossible to be able to do everything. Therefore, God logically cannot be all-powerful.

"When did you stop beating up your sister? Yes or No?"

Does the question make any sense? No it doesn't, this question doesn't require a yes or no answer, just like your question doesn't require a yes or no answer. It must be explained. The answer to my question would probably be something like- "I never beat up my sister!". And the answer to your question is that this kind of question isn't fathomable. That is like saying, "Which is longer, a line or a ray?". It's like dividing by 0, your calculator would read "Syntax Error". Well if you ask this question it's like dividing by 0, while it makes sense to you, in reality it's not a valid question. Right now, I'm reading "Syntax Error".

You could argue that God is not bound by logic, however that would be unfair of God. He must be bound by that which he creates, less he be an unjust God? Breaking his own rules doesn’t seem very fitting.

This is your opinion and isn't for you to decide. When God created gravity he didn't say "aww crap, now I gotta fall!". Saying he must be bound by the laws of physics is completely illogical.

There are all kinds of arguments like ‘God is beyond our capacity to understand” and ‘God’s powers are too great” and these are all find arguments, however, these same people who propose these arguments claim to know how God thinks and works and what exactly it takes to go to heaven. This is to know the mind of God. So the argument is flawed at it’s core, beginning the question “Did you talk to God to find this out?” The answer is a determinative, “no.”

We cannot understand Gods ways completely because he didn't tell us. And if he did you cannot be sure we could comprehend it (maybe that's why he didn't tell us). I'm not claiming to know how God thinks, if anyone does spit in there face for me and call them a liar. Probably like you, I hate 95% of Christians (or maybe you hate all of them). I find Christians ignorant and close minded. But just because most Christians are stupid doesn't mean you can say Christianity is false. And God left us the key to Heaven in the Bible. It tells us exactly how to get to Heaven. And DONT listen to the STUPID Catholics, they are the worst people on the planet. They don't even read the Bible! They make up stuff all the time.

The logical contradictions God on and on in a myriad ways. I have simply put forward very basic concepts. I feel like many of the arguments here are really taken on a logical level, when logic is the most powerful tool to prove that God cannot exist.

Logic is also the most powerful tool to prove God MOST CERTAINLY exists. And I can explain it very easily. But to save you the time of reading it, I will give you a 3 minute video. It's very short and it explains everything fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c&feature=channel_page

If you want me to replay you must address all my points and the video. Too many times in religious debates is that the Atheist side doesn't address all the information and they just pull out new information. I call this being a coward and I assume they acknowledge my points are correct.

Let the sparks fly.

hmm, well that whole theory came from scientific justification. If it can be proved incorrect by science then I guess ill have to think about it a little more

are you sure radioactive decay etc. are completely random? or does it just appear to be so to human eyes. I believe string theory suggests that the whole universe is made up of vibrating strings of energy and that these vibrations of these strings may appear random, yet they are influenced by the 11 dimensions that they exist in. (I did a project on String Theory in 7th grade and interviewed a Harvard professor, yeah, im that cool :))

then again, i think string theory was created to unite the randomness of quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of general relativity.

i cant really remember lol…

I'd like to stick my own five cents into this discussion.
They way I feel is, if there is a God out there,
than for me its much better than coming from a big bang or what not.
If I have a hierarchy over me,that's loving me as His creation,made in His own image,than I feel much better here,like I am part of something much bigger and better than the usual scientific cycle of being born,and living until you die . The thing is,God is good,and I really don't see why anyone would even bother trying to find logical proof that He isn't real. The Claw,you,and everyone else here is entitled to their own opinion,and that's how it should be. That's why I don't like religion,because then you have to believe how they tell you to believe.

whoaaaoa this is so deep o.O but think about it. Nothing harms you, it doesnt change much if u believe in jesus, buddha, etc.

From: staznpride
whoaaaoa this is so deep o.O but think about it. Nothing harms you, it doesnt change much if u believe in jesus, buddha, etc.

I agree, a lot of people live their lives normally without giving much thought about some higher authority. But the thing is, if there is a punishment such as hell,then its a few decades of good life,and then horrible eternity.
Personally, spending an infinity in hell strikes some fear, but also makes you wonder if it's just something religions use to get a following.

From: chewgun
I agree, a lot of people live their lives normally without giving much thought about some higher authority. But the thing is, if there is a punishment such as hell,then its a few decades of good life,and then horrible eternity.
Personally, spending an infinity in hell strikes some fear, but also makes you wonder if it's just something religions use to get a following.

Hell is non-existent.

From: Harry
Hell is non-existent.

So you think God is non-existent either?

exactly. Religion=war

Secondly, because of this, in order to interact with the Universe, God must be made of matter and energy. if he is, he is bound by the laws of physics and the rules and laws of this world, because he is made of that which must obey them. This makes miracles and such impossible, because God cannot do these miracles.

There's your first flaw GOD in any sense is not bound by any limits he is the beginning and the end. He is not bound by laws or time. Even scientists now are just learning the "ideas" and "theory" behind quantum physics and mechanics, even some of Einstein's theories have been proved wrong through the use of logic. If you think logic can solve every situation or problem you'll only make a fool of yourself….

I do not only believe in _g_od (note: lowercase) but i know _it_ (note: not he/she) exists.

When we are talking about a god thats something like the bible says, we are talking about an ultimate supernatural being. Thus god, as we define it, could not be noticed, if god didnt want to.

A scientist, who does not believe in powers beyond our imagination, is not a real scientist. A real scientist would think about these facts:

- If we compare the age of the universe to a year, the time human has existed is maybe a few milliseconds. (just my own approximation, calculate if you want to)
- We are small. We are so small, that the biggest 'structures' in space are so big to us that none of us can really even imagine it.
- We haven't been further than a few thousand kilometers from our own planet. I would not say that's much of an achievement, considering the size of the universe.

So basically, if you say that there is no god, you say that you, human, are the wisest being of the universe. I think it is ridiculous to even think that human mind would be so clever, that it could actually prove everything in this universe.

Dunno if you got my point :P

( Before I start, nice topic!! :) )

Now, why is it so hard for one to believe in God? You'll believe basically something as simple as an advertisement on the T.V , would you not? How do you know its true? After all it is just another person describing it… Same with God, except there are tons of proof, proof stated in the Holy Books them selves and then later discovered that it were true recently. Why is it soo hard to believe a Man/Woman who has spent a lifetime studying these Holy Books, and support there statement with facts all around?


Now lemme state some proof

Quran' :
Surah 78, Ayah 6-7 : "Have we not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as pegs?
Surah 16, Ayah 15 : "And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you."

Now expansion of these two line, It is stating that Mountains themselves hold the earth into position, for if it were not for those Mountains the Earth would be unstable/unsteady and would be devoured into the universe. This was proven as FACT just a few years ago by Geologists and Scientists. Google it if you don't believe me.

Quran' :
Surah 39, Ayah 5 : "He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions). He makes the night overlap the day and the day overlap the night"
Surah 79, Ayah 30 : "And the earth, moreover, hath He made egg shaped."

Another PROVEN fact not too long ago, In these lines Allah says how he made the the day overlap the night and vice versa. This is proving that It states the Earth is a sphere, because if it were FLAT then how would it be possible for it to overlap each other..? And then the next line just states is ALOT clearly, stating the exact shape of the earth. PROVING: Earth is not a perfect spehere, but it is flattened at the poles making is almost a shape of an egg. THIS WAS PROVEN AND PHOTOGRAPHED BY ASTRONAUTS AND SCIENTISTS! Google if you do not believe me!

—

Well these are just two of the tons of proof and facts written in these Holy Books, which are thousands of years old! I'm a Muslim therefore I know not much of the facts in other books besides the Quran', Although there are some facts stated in the Quran' but I'm 99.9999999% sure there are breathtaking facts in the Bible and in the book of Judaism!

Now I got a question for any non-believer, How to *HECK* do you think people 2000 thousand years ago knew all these facts when, forget about instrumental tools, they didn't even have electricity! They hardly knew how use a wheel for Christ sake! xP (OK, maybe they did but still!)

From: marpis
So basically, if you say that there is no god, you say that you, human, are the wisest being of the universe.

You assume that there are no other life forms anywhere in the universe.

From: Nadeem


Quran' :
Surah 39, Ayah 5 : "He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions). He makes the night overlap the day and the day overlap the night"
Surah 79, Ayah 30 : "And the earth, moreover, hath He made egg shaped."

The thought that Earth is spherical was around long before the Torah, Bible, and Quran. It goes back even before Greece. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth:

Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)

Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

* Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9-21)
* Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
* The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31-298a10)

That is just one example. There are many more listed.

Also, though the earth isn't perfectly round, it's not really shaped like an egg either..

From: bullzeye95

The thought that Earth is spherical was around long before the Torah, Bible, and Quran. It goes back even before Greece. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth:

That is just one example. There are many more listed.

Also, though the earth isn't perfectly round, it's not really shaped like an egg either..

Nice did not know that :P
But as far as for the egg shape, It more like an ostrich's egg shaped kinda, because it is said that the poles are flattened on the Earth, and there isn't really any other shape that it is similar too…

Nonetheless, the mountains are a hard one, unless I'm a bit wrong once again?

you can't explain things with logic, logic is an opinionated belief.

All I can say is there will never be an answer that will satisfy everyone until God comes back.
I believe in God.
I also believe everyone can get something positive out of the New Testament of the Bible whether you believe in God or not. Jesus' teachings are in genius.

From: josh81193
you can't explain things with logic, logic is an opinionated belief.

logic is the only thing that can be trusted
everything else is false

From: Macrosoft
logic is the only thing that can be trusted
everything else is false

Eh, not really. More like everything else is biased. Logic backed by facts is unbiased and can be trusted so long as there are no fallacies (circular logic, etc.)

groog, i will rise to the challange, but remember I'm not the same person as The Claw, so you may find we have different styles of reasoning.

i would like to ask you this.
Suppose that god exists, which god?

why do you believe in the Judaeo-Christian god instead of say, Allah, Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

From: groog

God does give free will. You have free will to obey him and love him. He does not predestine people to hell because while he knows the future of your willingness to accept him, he leaves it up to you to decide fully. You can say "well why did he create me if he knew I was going to hell?" (I've asked the same question), but you got to remember. You're the one deciding to love him or not. Call it unjust, I don't understand it either. Personally it makes me angry, but I need to ponder over it more.

you call this an answer? you havent put any point forward and you've just admitted you dont know.
you havent answered The Claw's point at all.

From: groog

In some points you are right, but the most of it is wrong. Let me first say that God rarely (if ever) intervenes in our lives. This is Old Testament thinking. In the old testament god did intervene, and the world was much different.

it doesnt matter that he only rarely intervenes, miracles form a massive part of the christians religon.
mary giving becoming pregnant while being a virgin was supposedly a miracle for example.

miracles are extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary.
no such evidence has even been brought forth, so the logical rational mind has to assume that miracles never happened.

From: groog
God HAS NO form. He is without mater, space, and outside the laws of time and physics. He is infinitely everywhere, even when no space existed. He resides outside time and all things, it is for you to comprehend this.

this sounds like you've defined god out of existance.
the universe is everything, and if god is outside the universe, he is nothing.

At best, he is completely irrelevant, at worst he is non-existent.



this is quite an annoying problem with talking about god, he doesnt actually have a definition that everyone agrees on, so if you show one definition to be wrong, people will just switch to another definition.
Or to put it another way, you cannot kill that which doesnt exist.

From: groog
"When did you stop beating up your sister? Yes or No?"

Does the question make any sense? No it doesn't, this question doesn't require a yes or no answer, just like your question doesn't require a yes or no answer. It must be explained. The answer to my question would probably be something like- "I never beat up my sister!". And the answer to your question is that this kind of question isn't fathomable. That is like saying, "Which is longer, a line or a ray?". It's like dividing by 0, your calculator would read "Syntax Error". Well if you ask this question it's like dividing by 0, while it makes sense to you, in reality it's not a valid question. Right now, I'm reading "Syntax Error".

the question does make sense, it just rests on an assumsion that you used to beat up your sister. That assumsion is false, for me at least.
But the question still makes sense.

From: groog
We cannot understand Gods ways completely because he didn't tell us. And if he did you cannot be sure we could comprehend it (maybe that's why he didn't tell us). I'm not claiming to know how God thinks, if anyone does spit in there face for me and call them a liar. Probably like you, I hate 95% of Christians (or maybe you hate all of them). I find Christians ignorant and close minded. But just because most Christians are stupid doesn't mean you can say Christianity is false. And God left us the key to Heaven in the Bible. It tells us exactly how to get to Heaven. And DONT listen to the STUPID Catholics, they are the worst people on the planet. They don't even read the Bible! They make up stuff all the time.

I'm not sure what your point is in this bit, it seems to me to be a wishy-washy way of saying you agree with The Claw.

From: groog
Logic is also the most powerful tool to prove God MOST CERTAINLY exists. And I can explain it very easily. But to save you the time of reading it, I will give you a 3 minute video. It's very short and it explains everything fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c&feature=channel_page

If you want me to replay you must address all my points and the video. Too many times in religious debates is that the Atheist side doesn't address all the information and they just pull out new information. I call this being a coward and I assume they acknowledge my points are correct.

that video had many mistakes and logical fallacies.


He says "matter cannot be created or destroyed, scientists have tried to do this and failed"

I guess that guy is ignorant of the advances in physics in the last 150 years.

matter is destroyed all the time, not only is it destroyed in the heart of nuclear weapons and power stations, it also happens naturally in the core of the sun and every star in the sky.
When a radioactive nucleus decays, some of its mass is converted into energy.

matter is also created in high energy particle accelerators.

it all comes down to Einstine's famous equation, E = mc²


I should have stopped watching after this, but i carried on.



Another thing the guys does is start an infinate regress.
"what created the universe?", "what was the first cause"

and then invoked God to terminate this infinate regress.

however, this is a fallacy, it answeres absolutly nothing because you're still left with the question of what created or caused God.


your so-called "explains everything" video shows absolutly nothing.

Your brain is god.

From: Widget
Eh, not really. More like everything else is biased. Logic backed by facts is unbiased and can be trusted so long as there are no fallacies (circular logic, etc.)

ima have to agree with macrosoft, science is at best only a measurement of the universe. and with human hands and human tools there is 100% chance of error. now maby the error is only gonna be .0000000000efinity1 but still. and also the whole how do we know what were seeing is real theory. i mean maby this is all a dream drempt up by some big crazy turtle as hes flying through the sky ;]

From: lancerawks
ima have to agree with macrosoft, science is at best only a measurement of the universe. and with human hands and human tools there is 100% chance of error. now maby the error is only gonna be .0000000000efinity1 but still. and also the whole how do we know what were seeing is real theory. i mean maby this is all a dream drempt up by some big crazy turtle as hes flying through the sky ;]

Haha, I love that one,bro!
but c'mon,a Turtle?
Science is just a way of seeing the universe from a technical perspective,rather than a religious one,and have mathematical equations translate into what we are and have around us. Seriously,scientists try to explain just about anything with a long-ass chalk-written equation on a black board!
I like each and every one of us being the centers of our own universes,entitled to our own opinions :cool:

From: The Claw
in order to interact with the Universe, God must be made of matter and energy.

Ok just to start off, Everything is fated. Not in the sence that God has some mystical power that draws everything in one direction but because the way your body was built predetermins how you think.. which predetermins what you do. So its not that you were destined to be a Macroer and never play Runescape legit, and every time you try to play legit Fate will throw something at you and tell you to macro.. its that the way you were made (which you have no controle over) destins you for a roll in this universe.

ok so now that the domino effect is understood, if God made the universe, he made everything 'destined' in the way that he wanted it. i mean realy, couldnt God not only make something but to set it up nicely so that when those dominos fall they fall how he wants?

this being said, you can see there is no actual need for god to 'interact' with our universe. ofcourse i said 'interact' because since we only exist in the 3D world our perspective dosnt alow us to experiance what its like to live outside of space/time and so to an entity who lives in 10D world, and is able to be in every moment, and because the blocks fall the way he wants them to as he is experianceing them, you could say maby he is interacting with us in a way.

From: The Claw
“can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift?”

all i can say is my friends a hard core agnostic and dosnt belive in God, and agrees with me that this is a silly question :P lol
the answer is oviously NO. every rock he makes he can lift, which makes him omnipotant.

From: The Claw
You could argue that God is not bound by logic, however that would be unfair of God. He must be bound by that which he creates, less he be an unjust God? Breaking his own rules doesn’t seem very fitting.

Sorry this sounds realy silly to me. the laws of the universe have nothing to do with morality.

just – adjective 1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.

From: The Claw
There are all kinds of arguments like ‘God is beyond our capacity to understand”… This is to know the mind of God. So the argument is flawed at it’s core, beginning the question “Did you talk to God to find this out?” The answer is a determinative, “no.”

by definition anything that is God would be outside our relm of understanding. We understand him by what he did, and only through that we are able to know his mind. This one reason why i freaking hate christians that are against science. i just feel like slaping em around. If God realy did make this universe then the more of his creation we study the closer we are to understanding him.

also IF God is real, and christianity is his religion, and the bible is truth, then it is the mind of God. and im pretty sure most christians do learn all that go to heavan when you die and the rest from the bible.

From: The Claw
logic is the most powerful tool to prove that God cannot exist.

good job (Y) i agree with you :D but i would go further and say logic is the only way to prove that god does or does not exist. I mean even if god came down from the sky and said HAI DER in a thick german accent, how do you know somone didnt just stuff a magic mushroom down your throat? Nope i shall never belive/disbelive in something as important as God if only scientific evidence backs it up.

who started the big bang who started the first little specks that created our universe: the sun Earth all the other planets? How could the Earth just of "happened" and is now the great thing it is today. The Earth is even able to heal it self from pollution and some man made problems.

How could this have happened so perfectly without the help of a greater force?

From: chewgun
Haha, I love that one,bro!
but c'mon,a Turtle?
Science is just a way of seeing the universe from a technical perspective,rather than a religious one,and have mathematical equations translate into what we are and have around us. Seriously,scientists try to explain just about anything with a long-ass chalk-written equation on a black board!
I like each and every one of us being the centers of our own universes,entitled to our own opinions :cool:

haha yes everyone is entitled to there own opinion. you can respect everyones right to have an idea but you dont have to respect there idea. cause comeee on some people are stuipd as shit.

and thanks x] i love dem flying turtles <3

Edit:

From: fireninga88
who started the big bang who started the first little specks that created our universe: the sun Earth all the other planets? How could the Earth just of "happened" and is now the great thing it is today. The Earth is even able to heal it self from pollution and some man made problems.

How could this have happened so perfectly without the help of a greater force?

energy came from another universe in which the laws of physics dont say that things can just pop out of no where. this is a theory ive always had, and even though no one listens to me cause it sounds so silly i think it beats alot of other theorys that materialists have thought up about the origines of the universe

From: lancerawks
ima have to agree with macrosoft, science is at best only a measurement of the universe. and with human hands and human tools there is 100% chance of error. now maby the error is only gonna be .0000000000efinity1 but still. and also the whole how do we know what were seeing is real theory. i mean maby this is all a dream drempt up by some big crazy turtle as hes flying through the sky ;]

science is as wierd and wonderful as any fairy tale, but the difference is that science just works.

your little ideas about flying turtles may be fun, but they dont solve any problems.


science produces food and clean water for millions, it builds you a home to live in and a computer for when you're bored. If you become ill, you use science to cure yourself.

your flying turtle does non of that.

From: lancerawks
Ok just to start off, Everything is fated. Not in the sence that God has some mystical power that draws everything in one direction but because the way your body was built predetermins how you think.. which predetermins what you do. So its not that you were destined to be a Macroer and never play Runescape legit, and every time you try to play legit Fate will throw something at you and tell you to macro.. its that the way you were made (which you have no controle over) destins you for a roll in this universe.

i strongly suspect you've got absolutly no evidence that "everything is fated".
The burden of evidence lies on you for this.

From: lancerawks
all i can say is my friends a hard core agnostic and dosnt belive in God, and agrees with me that this is a silly question :P lol
the answer is oviously NO. every rock he makes he can lift, which makes him omnipotant.

do you realise you've just walked straight into The Claw's hands?

let Z be a rock so heavy that god cant lift it.

since god cannot create Z, he is not omnipotent.

From: lancerawks

energy came from another universe in which the laws of physics dont say that things can just pop out of no where. this is a theory ive always had, and even though no one listens to me cause it sounds so silly i think it beats alot of other theorys that materialists have thought up about the origines of the universe

the reason no one listens to you is that your theory raises the question of where did that universe come from?

you havent solved the problem of the first cause, you've just added something else to the back of the queue which still requires a first cause.

Ok first of all im pissed cause i had writen out some very long explanations/answers and then accedentaly pressed backspace at the wrong time and whent backwards in my history -.- but oh well ill re type it shorter.

From: Yakman
science is as wierd and wonderful as any fairy tale, but the difference is that science just works.

your little ideas about flying turtles may be fun, but they dont solve any problems.


science produces food and clean water for millions, it builds you a home to live in and a computer for when you're bored. If you become ill, you use science to cure yourself.

your flying turtle does non of that.

ok the turtle was just an example. all i was saying is that your sences can lie to you, we dont know 100% if the universe we experiance is real. and because of that science cant realy be 100% truth and therefor logic is the way to go when you are trying to determin such important things like Gods existance. look up Bertrand Russell (i think its this guy.. might be wrong) if you want to look more into that phylosiphy.

From: Yakman
i strongly suspect you've got absolutly no evidence that "everything is fated".
The burden of evidence lies on you for this.

blahhh this is the one i had such a good explanation for. heres the short version

if i drop a ball, with physics equations i can calculate eveyr single state and rate that the ball passes through space/time. because of that i can predetermin exactly where the ball will fall before i even let go. In this way The universe was predetermined even before it was let go, the variables that made up the big bang / what ever may have started this universe shape what came out of it. and because of this everything is fated.

the only reason i can see that you may not agree with me is that you think God screws around with things and changes our universe. but i thought you were an athiest…

From: Yakman
do you realise you've just walked straight into The Claw's hands?

let Z be a rock so heavy that god cant lift it.

since god cannot create Z, he is not omnipotent.

let Z be a rock so heavy that god cant lift it.
because god cannot create Z, he is omnipotent

thats how i see it, because the fact that God cant stop being omnipotent dosnt make him any less omnipotent. its just word games that people play around with trying to use screwd up logic

From: Yakman
the reason no one listens to you is that your theory raises the question of where did that universe come from?

you havent solved the problem of the first cause, you've just added something else to the back of the queue which still requires a first cause.

haha you oviously didnt understand what i had said

a universe that DOSNT follow the laws of physics that say energy cannot be created or distroyed would not need a first cause. Ofcourse it is speculation to say that alternate universes follow differant physical laws than ours does, though if there is an infinate number of alternate universes then i dont think it would be wrong to say taht an infinate number of them follow differant physical laws.

From: lancerawks
ok the turtle was just an example. all i was saying is that your sences can lie to you, we dont know 100% if the universe we experiance is real. and because of that science cant realy be 100% truth and therefor logic is the way to go when you are trying to determin such important things like Gods existance. look up Bertrand Russell (i think its this guy.. might be wrong) if you want to look more into that phylosiphy.

Define "real". What we say we know describes the world and universe around us, so for our intents and purposes we say we know it. Big deal if we are a giant turtle's dream, the fact exists that the rules work for whats currently applicable to us so it makes no difference if its real on a grander scale.


blahhh this is the one i had such a good explanation for. heres the short version

if i drop a ball, with physics equations i can calculate eveyr single state and rate that the ball passes through space/time. because of that i can predetermin exactly where the ball will fall before i even let go. In this way The universe was predetermined even before it was let go, the variables that made up the big bang / what ever may have started this universe shape what came out of it. and because of this everything is fated.

the only reason i can see that you may not agree with me is that you think God screws around with things and changes our universe. but i thought you were an athiest…

As Yakman said a page back to a similar post:

From: Yakman
this belief seems to be very similar to one which was popular, especially in france around the 18th century. Its called Determinism.

it says similar to what you said, given accurate enough information, measurements and physical laws, everything in the universe is predictable, including human behaviour. Which implies there is no free will.

however, with the discovery of the randomness of radioactive decay, quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Schrödinger's cat and choas theory. It became clear that not everything can be predicted or determined like that.

i guess you will believe in determinism if you want, but the evidence doesnt support it at all.
(hey, that doesnt stop people believing in god)

From: lancerawks
let Z be a rock so heavy that god cant lift it.
because god cannot create Z, he is omnipotent

thats how i see it, because the fact that God cant stop being omnipotent dosnt make him any less omnipotent. its just word games that people play around with trying to use screwd up logic

The very fact that god cant make a rock he cant lift shows that he cant do everything, and thus is not omnipotent. I have no idea what you mean by "because the fact that God cant stop being omnipotent dosnt make him any less omnipotent", because the example used was showing that he isn't omnipotent.

From: lancerawks
haha you oviously didnt understand what i had said

a universe that DOSNT follow the laws of physics that say energy cannot be created or distroyed would not need a first cause. Ofcourse it is speculation to say that alternate universes follow differant physical laws than ours does, though if there is an infinate number of alternate universes then i dont think it would be wrong to say taht an infinate number of them follow differant physical laws.

Yeah its possible and likely that an infinite amount of universes exist but its still just metaphysics. No evidence for it at all apart from the rules of probability, who knows there could be some limitation for an amount of stuff to be able to be made. For all we know theres nothing outside our own universe even. So it's just speculation at the moment.

Tag team arguing :norris:

Define "real". What we say we know describes the world and universe around us, so for our intents and purposes we say we know it. Big deal if we are a giant turtle's dream, the fact exists that the rules work for whats currently applicable to us so it makes no difference if its real on a grander scale.

oh yeah i agree, i mean oviously science is very benificial to us but we were talking about seeking truth about God, thats why i brought that up, not because it realy makes a differance to our lives but it is something you should throw into the equasion when surching out the truth.

hmm yeah about the randomness your right, i forgot about that X] thanks. but isnt the chaos theory very predictable aswell as radioactive decay..? Entropy is just the theory that everything likes to regress to a more chaoitc state, not a random state.. maby im wrong though.

ok and what i was saying with the omnipotence, dosnt it sound very silly to say:
that because an omnipitant entity cant stop being omnipitant that its not omnipitant.
the fact that it cant stop being omnipitant MAKES it omnipitant. it is difficult to understand its cool if you dont. i think the problem is that the english language just wasnt made to talk about phylosiphy

yeah i agree with you lol, i know we cant know but its just my little way of explaining the unexplainable the best i can. not saying its right but its just another theory, and i personaly think it makes much more sence than the big bang just happening out of no where. and you might say well no one belives that but beliveeee meee i know athiests who do :P

From: R0b0t1
Ok, here we go.

Bible teach - good. Bible tell story of creation - bad.

agreed

But i still think that people should act good on their own will, not on the fear of going to hell…

i agree macrosoft. the kind of morality that says im going to be good because i know ill get in trouble if i dont is so imature. its the kinda thing you would excpect from a child as hes contemplateing steeling a cookie. true morality is when your good for the sake of not wating to hurt others.

And actualy about the bibles acount of creation:
[taken from biblegaitway.com]

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

"let the land produce living creature".. that sounds a hell of alot like.. EVOLUTION. *gasps*

so yeah when ever christians say there is no room for evolution within the bible, well they must just be shmokeing something.

From: Macrosoft
agreed

But i still think that people should act good on their own will, not on the fear of going to hell…

Well, I think this message kind of contradicts itself.
You see, I believe that most people are afraid of going to hell, yet it is their own free will to decide whether to go the hell or not, so wouldn't it not be an act of fear, but of free will to decide what is better for you?

well what i think macrosoft meant is act good because you want good for others, not because your being selfish and thinking how its going to hurt you if you dont act good.

if you have a radioactive nucleus, its impossible to know whether it will decay this second, or decay in 10 years time, the process is random and unpredictable.

radioactive decay can actually be used as a hardware random number generator.

:norris:

From: Starbridge
Well, I think this message kind of contradicts itself.
You see, I believe that most people are afraid of going to hell, yet it is their own free will to decide whether to go the hell or not, so wouldn't it not be an act of fear, but of free will to decide what is better for you?

dont you think that isnt actually free will then, only an illusion of free will.

say i came up to you and held a gun to your head, saying i will shoot if you dont dance a jig or something.

of course you have the free will to not obey and be shot, but no rational person will do this, you actually have no free will there.



i use this a lot with political discussions, like capitalism says you can either work or you can die.

no rational person will choose to die, so captalism gives you no choise but to work.

From: lancerawks
i think the problem is that the english language just wasnt made to talk about phylosiphy

Not so. The problem is that you are not clearly defining what 'omnipotent' means.

Specifically, if the meaning of 'omnipotent' includes 'the ability to do anything', then that definition includes the creation of logically non-nonsensical situations, such as the existence of square circles, invisible pink unicorns and honest politicians (ok, I just threw that last one in for fun).

Rationally you cannot have a square circle (without employing irrelevant syntactic trickery of the sort that would declare a toroid with a square cross section a 'square circle') because squareness and circleness are necessarily mutually exclusive.

You might declare that the God you believe in can create situations in which such logical impossibilities are in fact possible, and you would absolutely be within the realm of real religion to do so, but you also exit the realm where rational discussion can be held.

If in the idea of 'omnipotent' you include a constraint thusly: 'able to do anything that is not a logical impossibility', you exclude such nonsense as square circles but apparently leave open questions like 'can God create a bowl of Jello so big that even He cannot eat it all?' After all, there is nothing inherently illogical about a universe-sized bowl of Jello, is there?

Beyond the flip answer that 'there is always room for Jello', you still find that such a question is excluded by your constraint on what is possible for an omnipotent being. The mere existence of a quantity of Jello in excess of what God Himself could consume constitutes an illogical situation, by virtue of God's omnipotence and this definition of omnipotence, no such quantity can exist. This is not a limit on the power of God, but on the meaning of omnipotence.

In a larger context, the idea that any statement about the universe at large can be show to be true exclusively through logical means is absurdly foolhardy. To do so implies that the one doing the reasoning has absolutely excluded the possibility of there being information that would invalidate any of the foundations of his reasoning. This is clearly not the case now, and is likely to always remain so.

Further, proof in God's existence would eliminate much of the need for faith which is itself considered by many to be a defining characteristic of many religions. Why this is so can be left open to debate, but it is very clear that religion most certainly does not suffer from the general inability of rational discourse to pin down the nature or even reality of God. Quite the opposite in fact, it celebrates the fact and uses it to great effect.

My personal opinion on the matter is that anyone who claims the positive belief that gods do not or can not exist is making a worse mistake than those who claim faith that God does exist.

Worse in what way? The faithful do not generally employ the artifice of reason or knowledge to found their claim. They know and generally acknowledge that proof is unavailable (it would not be faith if there was proof). An atheist making a positive claim that gods can be shown not to exist generally does not claim faith as the reason. He applies all manner of rational and logical argument, and then, in complete denial of the limitations of those tools, makes a leap of faith to an absolute claim of knowledge.

In truth no one who understands the philosophy of science would claim that gods are absolutely not possible. They may present a very solid case with multiple lines of reasoning showing that evidence for the existence of gods is insufficient to justify rational belief, but this can in no way be construed, within the bounds of scientific principles of knowledge, as actual factual knowledge that gods cannot exist.

No scientific reasoning can ever reach that level of absolute certainty because it is explicit within the philosophy of science that there exist facts we do not yet know that may effect what we think we know now. Until such time as we can show that we know without flaw absolutely every bit of information in existence, we cannot claim that gods do not exist.

Thus, to claim under the authority of science that gods do not exist is to, in fact, simply expose one's own ignorance of what science can and cannot do.

Congratulations if you made it this far and actually read all of that with a critical and open mind. Please graduate to talk.origins.

From: Yakman
if you have a radioactive nucleus, its impossible to know , considering our current and glaringly incomplete and sometimes self-contradictory body of knowledge about how the fine details of subatomic physics work, developed over a mere 100 years or so, whether it will decay this second, or decay in 10 years time, the process is , within the current bounds of our limited ability to measure and predict, random and unpredictable.

There, fixed that for you.

no rational person who is operating under artifical and unrealistic notions of existing capitalistic societies, rationality and definitions of 'work', which in fact vary greatly from person to person, will choose to die, so captalism gives you no choise but to work.

And that too.

And by the way, capitalistic systems are not exclusive of humanitarian support systems. Many organized religions exist within capitalistic systems and provide systems wherein people may do no work and not die. There are also many who subsist on the fringes of capitalistic society, collecting free handouts and doing no 'work' who also do not die. Many life-mates choose their counterpart based partially on whether he or she is able to provide in sufficient capacity that the former may live without working, perhaps to raise children, or perhaps to simply sit around the pool eating bon-bons.

Clearly there are many and varied options within a capitalistic system for people to not work and also not die. Not only is it not impossible, it is extremely common.

well excuse me for not wanting to make it too complicated, i know sometimes these faithheads stop reading if that happens

also i did mean ideal capitalism, not the regulated version we get today.



also id like to add that most athiests dont assert god doesnt exist, you cant do that in the same way you cant assert the tooth fairy doesnt exist.
you just live your life on the assumsion that they dont exist.

i would say I'm an a-fairy-ist in the same way I'm an athiest.

I have to highly disagree with you.

God does exist. Trust me. You will regret it later…

Pray and see what happens :D Take a chance :DDD

If you do i hope it isnt Uriel thats your Gaurdian rofl for reasons i cant explain.

Just saying man from a 'Paranormal experience'. Hes there.

I just hope i dont get banned but w.e Im right your wrong.

End of story. :D

<3

http://www.jesus2020.com/?gclid=CJbTj7SZ5ZkCFQubnAod1nx7Qg

say the prayer at the bottom tonight then say he doesnt exist.

:D you will crap yourself lol

You, sir Exilianor, are an bunny rabbit. The crusades were comical and people with blind faith who loved an kissed for their own purely asexual pleasure caused them.

Anyhow.

sid@looking-glass:~$ gcc ./Desktop/god.c
./Desktop/god.c: In function ‘main’:
./Desktop/god.c:3: error: ‘god’ undeclared (first use in this function)

int main()
{
	assert(god);
}

You know it's bad when a purely logical machine asks you where you misplaced your god at.

From: R0b0t1
You, sir Exilianor, are an bunny rabbit. The crusades were comical and people with blind faith who loved an kissed for their own purely asexual pleasure caused them.

Anyhow.

sid@looking-glass:~$ gcc ./Desktop/god.c
./Desktop/god.c: In function ‘main’:
./Desktop/god.c:3: error: ‘god’ undeclared (first use in this function)

int main()
{
	assert(god);
}

You know it's bad when a purely logical machine asks you where you misplaced your god at.

Well god is better than your machine so its actually not bad.

The machine asks where you misplaced him.

Well hes already in the right place so you cant misplace.

Get the picture?

Btw its not a machine. Its a program.

Hes a above the program soooooooooo NO U!!

/insert god

/Heart.

Ass. but i still love you. <3

My points on this issue.

If you've gone so far as to completely deny any existence of a deity, ask yourself, "What do I have to lose?"
Your dignity? Pfft, Dignity is nothing.

Faith is believing in something that you can not see. As previously stated, there is no faith if we know there is God.

My perception of Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. This includes the ability to be illogical.
However, if we must keep omnipotence in balance with logic, then (also, as previously stated..) there is nothing illogical about making an obstacle even God can't overcome.

From: llamaman aka Stevee
My points on this issue.

If you've gone so far as to completely deny any existence of a deity, ask yourself, "What do I have to lose?"
Your dignity? Pfft, Dignity is nothing.

Faith is believing in something that you can not see. As previously stated, there is no faith if we know there is God.

My perception of Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. This includes the ability to be illogical.
However, if we must keep omnipotence in balance with logic, then (also, as previously stated..) there is nothing illogical about making an obstacle even God can't overcome.

Faith is a belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof.[1] [2] Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of "trust", "belief", or "hope". For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general, where in this context faith would encompass not only a belief without evidence but also a belief which can oppose scientific evidence. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.

Ever heard of keeping the faith? It means no matter what is thrown at you in life, always keep the faith and things will turn out for the best. Faith in Jesus for example.

Trust is a biggggggg thing. Just to point that out.

From: Grippy
Not so. The problem is that you are not clearly defining what 'omnipotent' means.

Specifically, if the meaning of 'omnipotent' includes 'the ability to do anything', then that definition includes the creation of logically non-nonsensical situations, such as the existence of square circles, invisible pink unicorns and honest politicians (ok, I just threw that last one in for fun).

Rationally you cannot have a square circle (without employing irrelevant syntactic trickery of the sort that would declare a toroid with a square cross section a 'square circle') because squareness and circleness are necessarily mutually exclusive.

You might declare that the God you believe in can create situations in which such logical impossibilities are in fact possible, and you would absolutely be within the realm of real religion to do so, but you also exit the realm where rational discussion can be held.

If in the idea of 'omnipotent' you include a constraint thusly: 'able to do anything that is not a logical impossibility', you exclude such nonsense as square circles but apparently leave open questions like 'can God create a bowl of Jello so big that even He cannot eat it all?' After all, there is nothing inherently illogical about a universe-sized bowl of Jello, is there?

Beyond the flip answer that 'there is always room for Jello', you still find that such a question is excluded by your constraint on what is possible for an omnipotent being. The mere existence of a quantity of Jello in excess of what God Himself could consume constitutes an illogical situation, by virtue of God's omnipotence and this definition of omnipotence, no such quantity can exist. This is not a limit on the power of God, but on the meaning of omnipotence.

In a larger context, the idea that any statement about the universe at large can be show to be true exclusively through logical means is absurdly foolhardy. To do so implies that the one doing the reasoning has absolutely excluded the possibility of there being information that would invalidate any of the foundations of his reasoning. This is clearly not the case now, and is likely to always remain so.

Further, proof in God's existence would eliminate much of the need for faith which is itself considered by many to be a defining characteristic of many religions. Why this is so can be left open to debate, but it is very clear that religion most certainly does not suffer from the general inability of rational discourse to pin down the nature or even reality of God. Quite the opposite in fact, it celebrates the fact and uses it to great effect.

My personal opinion on the matter is that anyone who claims the positive belief that gods do not or can not exist is making a worse mistake than those who claim faith that God does exist.

Worse in what way? The faithful do not generally employ the artifice of reason or knowledge to found their claim. They know and generally acknowledge that proof is unavailable (it would not be faith if there was proof). An atheist making a positive claim that gods can be shown not to exist generally does not claim faith as the reason. He applies all manner of rational and logical argument, and then, in complete denial of the limitations of those tools, makes a leap of faith to an absolute claim of knowledge.

In truth no one who understands the philosophy of science would claim that gods are absolutely not possible. They may present a very solid case with multiple lines of reasoning showing that evidence for the existence of gods is insufficient to justify rational belief, but this can in no way be construed, within the bounds of scientific principles of knowledge, as actual factual knowledge that gods cannot exist.

No scientific reasoning can ever reach that level of absolute certainty because it is explicit within the philosophy of science that there exist facts we do not yet know that may effect what we think we know now. Until such time as we can show that we know without flaw absolutely every bit of information in existence, we cannot claim that gods do not exist.

Thus, to claim under the authority of science that gods do not exist is to, in fact, simply expose one's own ignorance of what science can and cannot do.

Congratulations if you made it this far and actually read all of that with a critical and open mind. Please graduate to talk.origins.

I agree that it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it's illogical to think that one does. While absence of evidence doensn't prove absense, it gives no reason to believe in a specific god.

From: ExilianorxXx
I have to highly disagree with you.

God does exist. Trust me. You will regret it later…

Pray and see what happens :D Take a chance :DDD

If you do i hope it isnt Uriel thats your Gaurdian rofl for reasons i cant explain.

Just saying man from a 'Paranormal experience'. Hes there.

I just hope i dont get banned but w.e Im right your wrong.

End of story. :D

<3

http://www.jesus2020.com/?gclid=CJbTj7SZ5ZkCFQubnAod1nx7Qg

say the prayer at the bottom tonight then say he doesnt exist.

:D you will crap yourself lol

A paranormal experience such as something like a large dose of nutmeg, a few tablespoons of cough medicine or maybe sleep deprivation?

From: Yakman
well excuse me for not wanting to make it too complicated

Simplification is ok. Over-simplification, past the point of being wrong, is not.

Or, to quote a very smart dead guy: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

also i did mean ideal capitalism, not the regulated version we get today.

You mean the version that never has and never will be used in a meaningful way? The version that is too simple to be worth trying to make a point with? The one that if you try to make a point with, some asshole will come along and poke holes in you reasoning because you over-simplified?

It isn't enough to be right, you also have to communicate effectively.

also id like to add that most athiests dont assert god doesnt exist,

That may or may not be, and has no relevance. Asserting it does not strengthen your position because regardless of whether it is true it has no bearing on whether either position has merit. If the matter were to be settled by popular vote the theists would carry the day.

It would perhaps be relevant in the context of a demographic analysis of religious beliefs.

i would say I'm an a-fairy-ist in the same way I'm an athiest.

That can technically be called 'weak atheism' and is also the position I hold.

'Strong atheism' is the positive claim that gods do not exist. Agnosticism refers to the position that there is insufficient knowledge available to make a determination and may also express the idea that it is not possible to have sufficient knowledge.

Weak atheism can also be referred to as agnostic atheism, meaning one who does not have a belief in gods (without theistic belief) mainly due to a lack of knowledge and who may also believe that it is impossible to have such knowledge.

Both terms 'weak atheism' and 'agnostic atheism' can be confusing, as it is natural to infer that 'weak' is in reference to the level of conviction one holds rather than the technical nature of the belief, or the combination of two terms 'agnostic' and 'atheism' that in lay discussions may have conflicting meanings.

In non-technical usage the term 'skeptical atheist' might be preferable, as it expresses the lack of theistic belief in combination with the general doubt of knowledge associated with the skeptics rather than the 'strong' position generally inferred by the 'atheist' moniker. This label tends to be both succinct and mostly accurate in both technical and lay discussions.

From: The Claw
I agree that it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it's illogical to think that one does.

I'll presume that by 'think' you mean 'believe'.

Correct, it is illogical, though not necessarily irrational, to hold a deep conviction in something extraordinary in the absence of evidence.

However, human thinking is rarely dominated by logic and sometimes lacks even rationality. Logical thinking absolutely has it's utility in many areas, but it's quite valid and common to live a fulfilling existence with many illogical beliefs and behaviors.

It is valid to knowingly hold an illogical belief in that such can serve a purpose in one's life. For some the simple social conformance and fellowship is sufficient, for others religious belief provides a solid foundation during trying times. That the foundation is illogical and unprovable does not matter because for a great many it has no bearing upon the function that the belief serves.

There are a few who reject many forms of religious belief and cite various logical or rational justifications. In some cases these justifications do in fact cause the lack of belief, in others the lack of belief is simply rationalized through various means, but the lack, or skepticism in the face of a culture of belief, may have existed prior to any formalized reasoning. Often the reasoning is in response to questions about the lack of belief.

There are schools of thought that seek to provide rationality and logic to all aspects of human existence. These have their merits, but are by no means generally superior to other less mathematically rigorous philosophies. That is, not all people seek the cold purity of logical thought, and it is their right to seek and find therein whatever they value, provided they also respect the rights of others.

While absence of evidence doensn't prove absense,

The 'absence of evidence' line is overplayed and misunderstood. Nearly any proposition that can be stated in the negative can be restated in the positive.

Absence of evidence can be used to justify absence. The absence of radioactivity and general devastation in my immediate vicinity is strong evidence of the absence of the detonation of a Trinity-style device in the immediate past.

Conversely, the presence of the wildlife in the manner that is to be expected in this area is also evidence of the absence of such an event.

You might also strive to avoid using 'proof' as beyond the language of formal mathematics it is largely colloquial. There is never 'proof' in a technical sense, only conclusions that are supported by the currently available evidence (or lack of evidence, same thing).

it gives no reason to believe in a specific god.

Quite true. The Unitarian church is interesting in this respect as it welcomes and encourages nearly any belief system, including polytheism and atheism. If you are interested in finding people in RL that are very open minded and who often enjoy discussions about various aspects of religion a visit to the local Unitarian church may be in order. You may be surprised by the number of atheists you find there.

From: corn77
Let us consider a defined Judeo-Christian God that exists defined by the bible. If this Judeo Christian did exist as stated in the bible, then he did create the universe and everything in it

That is a rather large leap, I think. After all, if it is God who reveals himself to us, and if he is so much greater than us, then could he not simply lie in order to gain status? I mean, if He is doing all the revealing then He is the source of all that jazz about perfection and responsibility for the creation of everything.

When some nutball in the airport tells you he's the Next Coming you don't believe him, why would you believe, on the authority of a dodgy text of unverified origin, that some entity nobody ever met is telling the truth when he says he created not only people, but the entire danged universe?

if this God does exists, he created us for his glory and that the ultimate purpose for our life is to glorify God. When I say glorify, I wanted to define it for you if there was an miscommunication. glorify is to extol, praise, or worship.

Well, I suppose when you are infinite you can be excused for having infinite ego and a desperately co-dependent nature. :stirthepot:

For me, I say if He gave me free will, then He can go take a flying :f: at a rolling donut with all that 'your exclusive purpose is to tell me how great I am' BS and I'll take the implicit option that comes with 'free will' to determine my own purpose, thankyouverymuch.

That said, if he really needs something all he has to do is show me his bush (no, the burning one, you sicko). If it's worth His effort to make a showing I'd be happy to hook Him up with whatever I can provide (except the worship thing, he can take the donut on that).

From: The Claw
I agree that it's impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist, but it's illogical to think that one does. While absence of evidence doensn't prove absense, it gives no reason to believe in a specific god.



A paranormal experience such as something like a large dose of nutmeg, a few tablespoons of cough medicine or maybe sleep deprivation?

Actually hearing them. Talking to them.

Feeling them.

seeing them.

healed by them.

Learned from them.

Argued with them. Id lose everytime. I think i won once.

Annoyed them and vice versa.

Lost weight because of them. around 50 pounds :D

They're the family i never thought i had. :) And i love them to death. <3

Oh and i dont do drugs btw.

Id just like to put this out there

The world is far from perfect. Many people die each day of starvation and genocide. I know some believe "God" does not want this world to be perfect because it is for judgment.

I dont know how familiar some of you are with Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, but basically it states that one must fulfill all their own needs before the needs of others. While this may not be completely true, it does place wealthy people at the advantage for good deeds (they have money to give away etc.). Crime is mainly a result of poverty, most of the criminals are no different than us. The only difference is they have to fight for survival.

If there is a "God," and all men are equal in his eyes, then why are some given such better situations for salvation than others?

Macrosoft

http://www.newspring.cc/webcampus/ Check that out Sunday at 11:15am and 6:00pm EST and 11:00am Pacific

god is illogical. Therefore you cannot put logic as proof to whether or not god exists.

god is illogical, he might as well not exist…

From: Yakman
god is illogical, he might as well not exist…

You only say that because your a communist and communist are atheist so gtfo or chuck will kill you! :norris:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

not all communists are athiests, not all athiests are communists