About the existence of some kind of god or creator
-
: It is imprecise to speak of proof (or the lack thereof) unless you have full knowledge of the rules of the system in which said proof would apply. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Shog9 wrote: : It is imprecise to speak of proof (or the lack thereof) unless you have full knowledge of the rules of the system in which said proof would apply. Ok, I agree. But as we don't know anything about the existence of a creator, there is no system in which we can apply rules. "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
-
I am not a very eloquent person, but I will attempt to explain why I believe in Jesus, and why I believe he is God. I was born into a christian family, went to church every sunday, and was schooled in a private christian school so one might say I believe because that was the way I was raised and I have obviously never put any thought into it, after all, how can a thinking person believe in such nonsense? But I have thought about it. I still think about it every day. There are many things I still question and still have doubts about. But the fact that God exists, that Jesus is God, that he died and was resurrected I have no doubts. I like to answer the question of why do I believe with another question: What do you know about ancient times, about he roman and greek empires? Do you believe that Alexander the great conquered much of asia, that Mark Anthony love Cleopatra, that there was such a person as Julius Ceasar? I know we have indisputable archeological proof the those empires existed but how do we know about the leaders of those empires, their names, etc. Most would say we know about them through history books written by such people as Herodotus (488 - 428 bc), Thucydides (460 - 400 bc), Taticus (~100 ad), or Ceasars Gallic War (58 - 50 bc). But did you know that there are fewer than a 20 ancient copies of these writings left in the world, and the oldest of them can only be dated back to about 900 - 1000 ad, that is almost a thousand years or more after they were written, but they are believed by most scholars to be accurate. Now we take the Bible's new testament. it was written in it's entirety from about 40 to 100 ad and the oldest partial copies that are still in existance today date to about 150 ad, that is about 50 years after they were written. The oldest complete copies of the new testament date to about 350 ad and there are thousands of copies (5000+ greek, 10000+ latin, and many other languages). There are also thousands of quotes from the bible cited in many thousands of manuscripts written by early christians. You might also want to read up on the dead sea scrolls, and how much of todays modern translations of the bible remain faithful to those ancient scripts. Now if we take Herodutus and co to be accurate, why would you question the authenticity of the new testament of which we have many more copies that date back closer to when they were written than the other books do? So based on the above argument, you can say that the new testament that we have today is accurate to the origin
I will say a couple of words. First, you are damn right about everything, but... how do you know that all those books aren't fiction? Second, knowledge can be true or false. What we know or we think we know can be ficticious knowledge. That doesn't make it valuable, but it still exists and we use it. At least, until we discover it's no longer needed or we think we have found a better knowledge. Third, I'm confused ;) "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
-
I am not a very eloquent person, but I will attempt to explain why I believe in Jesus, and why I believe he is God. I was born into a christian family, went to church every sunday, and was schooled in a private christian school so one might say I believe because that was the way I was raised and I have obviously never put any thought into it, after all, how can a thinking person believe in such nonsense? But I have thought about it. I still think about it every day. There are many things I still question and still have doubts about. But the fact that God exists, that Jesus is God, that he died and was resurrected I have no doubts. I like to answer the question of why do I believe with another question: What do you know about ancient times, about he roman and greek empires? Do you believe that Alexander the great conquered much of asia, that Mark Anthony love Cleopatra, that there was such a person as Julius Ceasar? I know we have indisputable archeological proof the those empires existed but how do we know about the leaders of those empires, their names, etc. Most would say we know about them through history books written by such people as Herodotus (488 - 428 bc), Thucydides (460 - 400 bc), Taticus (~100 ad), or Ceasars Gallic War (58 - 50 bc). But did you know that there are fewer than a 20 ancient copies of these writings left in the world, and the oldest of them can only be dated back to about 900 - 1000 ad, that is almost a thousand years or more after they were written, but they are believed by most scholars to be accurate. Now we take the Bible's new testament. it was written in it's entirety from about 40 to 100 ad and the oldest partial copies that are still in existance today date to about 150 ad, that is about 50 years after they were written. The oldest complete copies of the new testament date to about 350 ad and there are thousands of copies (5000+ greek, 10000+ latin, and many other languages). There are also thousands of quotes from the bible cited in many thousands of manuscripts written by early christians. You might also want to read up on the dead sea scrolls, and how much of todays modern translations of the bible remain faithful to those ancient scripts. Now if we take Herodutus and co to be accurate, why would you question the authenticity of the new testament of which we have many more copies that date back closer to when they were written than the other books do? So based on the above argument, you can say that the new testament that we have today is accurate to the origin
Yes also, the authorities were having major problems with the early church, and they could have ended all that by simply producing Jesus' body, to prove that all the claims of the apostles about resurection was nonsense. Joel Holdsworth
-
How large!! :p JoeSox wrote: Unless you can prove what causes a photon to rotate, I suggest you still believe in a God. I don't know if a photon rotates or not. So I don't have to prove it :) JoeSox wrote: I would say nature is much, much more powerful than man, and that man should never become nature. just my 2 cents, you asked. Surely, nature created us. But you said nature, not god. Do you mean nature is god? :D "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
Sebastián Benítez wrote: I don't know if a photon rotates or not. So I don't have to prove it :rolleyes: Sebastián Benítez wrote: Surely, nature created us. But you said nature, not god. Do you mean nature is god? "God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day. Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: " http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm[^] Fits with my ideology. God creates Light and Dark matter. Our universe is like a drop of oil(light matter) in cup of water(dark matter). Quantum Mechanics tells us there are other drops of oil in the cup, imo. All the systems are in CFlux()[tm];P which push on all the systems in the cup creating superstring waves. "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God." -Albert Einstein[^] In other words, Einstein knows we, man, can not predict or control what's in the cup. Now let's assume the possibility that one of those universes/drops of oil has beings that are intelligent enough to travel thru spacetime and reach other drops of oil. What happens if these beings put life on earth? What happens if these beings created a chain reaction of events that has changed our history of earth, like giving us the concept of gods by mistake, just by discovering our planet at a time when we couldn't take photos of these creatures, but only write about them? or a million other reasons. I was raised Roman C
-
: It is imprecise to speak of proof (or the lack thereof) unless you have full knowledge of the rules of the system in which said proof would apply. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
[edit]Uhm.. The previous subject was "Since nothing can_'t_ be proven"[/edit] then I believe in not believing. Did that make any sense? :) -- You see me driving down the street I look so f-ing good, yeah! We're smokin' weed and doing dirt in my Tommy Hilfiger hoodie, ha yeah, ha yeah, uh! We're gonna keep talking bullshit about you Cuz nobody be frontin' me and my crew! Cuz I'm a hip hopper, yes I am! Sarcasm...
-
[edit]Uhm.. The previous subject was "Since nothing can_'t_ be proven"[/edit] then I believe in not believing. Did that make any sense? :) -- You see me driving down the street I look so f-ing good, yeah! We're smokin' weed and doing dirt in my Tommy Hilfiger hoodie, ha yeah, ha yeah, uh! We're gonna keep talking bullshit about you Cuz nobody be frontin' me and my crew! Cuz I'm a hip hopper, yes I am! Sarcasm...
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Did that make any sense? Did you mean, "Didn't that not make no sense?" ;) And yes, as my point was that we can have no absolute proof, your belief is no less valid than anyone else's, to you. (though it sounds suspiciously like cautious nihilism to me) Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
[edit]Uhm.. The previous subject was "Since nothing can_'t_ be proven"[/edit] then I believe in not believing. Did that make any sense? :) -- You see me driving down the street I look so f-ing good, yeah! We're smokin' weed and doing dirt in my Tommy Hilfiger hoodie, ha yeah, ha yeah, uh! We're gonna keep talking bullshit about you Cuz nobody be frontin' me and my crew! Cuz I'm a hip hopper, yes I am! Sarcasm...
It doesn't help ;P "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
-
I will say a couple of words. First, you are damn right about everything, but... how do you know that all those books aren't fiction? Second, knowledge can be true or false. What we know or we think we know can be ficticious knowledge. That doesn't make it valuable, but it still exists and we use it. At least, until we discover it's no longer needed or we think we have found a better knowledge. Third, I'm confused ;) "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
Sebastián Benítez wrote: First, you are damn right about everything, but... how do you know that all those books aren't fiction? Well my question to you is which bits of the Bible that you read do you distrust? Do you distrust that there was ever a man named Jesus? - There's quite a lot of evidence to support the truth of that. Do you believe that the Bible gives an accurate account of his life, and the things that he said? If you beleive that, do you believe all the things he said are for real - like "I'm gonna die and rise from the dead"? And, do you believe that Jesus actually did rise from the dead? How do you explain the strength of belief of the early church, and their willingness to lay down their lives for what they believed if it was all rubbish? We know that the people that started the church (appart from God) would have living memory of Jesus life - What motive do you believe the the early church might have for lying? especially given the high moral caliber of what they were teaching. Questions to mull over Joel Holdsworth
-
Sebastián Benítez wrote: First, you are damn right about everything, but... how do you know that all those books aren't fiction? Well my question to you is which bits of the Bible that you read do you distrust? Do you distrust that there was ever a man named Jesus? - There's quite a lot of evidence to support the truth of that. Do you believe that the Bible gives an accurate account of his life, and the things that he said? If you beleive that, do you believe all the things he said are for real - like "I'm gonna die and rise from the dead"? And, do you believe that Jesus actually did rise from the dead? How do you explain the strength of belief of the early church, and their willingness to lay down their lives for what they believed if it was all rubbish? We know that the people that started the church (appart from God) would have living memory of Jesus life - What motive do you believe the the early church might have for lying? especially given the high moral caliber of what they were teaching. Questions to mull over Joel Holdsworth
You are kidding? Right? Moral? The church has moral? How many people were killed in the bonfire? How much gold is there in the Vatican? How many governments required the power of the church in the past? It was the power of the masses, just power. Thats why the church exists. It's an institution. How many religions disapeared because of the church? "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
-
I have to say I'm atheist, I used to believe in god (the christian one) but I've turned to believe in nothing but what I can see, feel and can be proven. Many people will say it's a matter of faith. So I have my own faith in believing in the not-existence of some kind of creator. Is the religion becoming unpopular? Are we getting responses from the science more that from the religious people that don't know how to explain certain things and just say: god knows why. It happens that people believe in god but cannot argue about it's existence nor explain what is that god. No matter what kind of religion do you have, can you prove your god (or put the name you want) really exists? If you cannot, but it doesn't matter to you because your faith is powerful, do you ask him/her/whatever to solve your problems for you? I respect different opinions and I won't say i know there's no god or creator because I can't prove it. Just I don't believe. "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
Sebastián Benítez wrote: but I've turned to believe in nothing but what I can see, feel and can be proven. Well, it can't be proven in a direct way, as God is hidden from us. But one way we can know that something exists is by its effects - this is called deductive evidence *, and is widely used in courtrooms, debates, and other places where evidence is presented. One of the effects of the existance of God is the world that He created.
Evolution vs Creation
Now, many people say that the earth was not created by an intelligent being, but rather that it came into being by a Big Bang, and that the life on it came into being by chance. Lets look at the evidence that that is not true.**
Single-Celled Organisms
Even the simplest single-celled organism is more complex than any machine that man has invented. It uses complex chemical sequences to do things like eating, repairing itself, and reproducing. In order for even the simplest cell to be formed, there must be favorable conditions in the area they are in. One of those things would be correct atmosphere, including the absence of oxygen. There is good proof that there was oxygen in the atmosphere at all times since the earth came into existence. For example, there are oxidized rocks throughout the entire geological record, which could not have happened if there was no oxygen. But, if there *wasn't* oxygen, life could not have been formed because of the lack of an ozone layer to shield the forming life. If there was sunlight, the gasses necessary to support the formation of life would have been destroyed. But if there wasn't sunlight, the environment would be too cold for the formation of life. Furthermore, even in ideal conditions, the probability that a cell would appear from nothing would be astronomical (no pun intended). It would require much more time than even the amount of time the evolutionists say has elapsed from the beginning of the universe until now - supposing that the conditions necessary to support it continued to exist for that stupendous amount of time.
Animal Evolution
**The evolutionary theory says that animals evolved slowly over millions of years, adapting to their surroundings so that they could continue to live as their environment changed. How could the animals have known what characteristics they needed in order to survive? Animal behaviorists can tell you that most animals' behavior is purely due to instincts, and that most anim
-
Sebastián Benítez wrote: but I've turned to believe in nothing but what I can see, feel and can be proven. Well, it can't be proven in a direct way, as God is hidden from us. But one way we can know that something exists is by its effects - this is called deductive evidence *, and is widely used in courtrooms, debates, and other places where evidence is presented. One of the effects of the existance of God is the world that He created.
Evolution vs Creation
Now, many people say that the earth was not created by an intelligent being, but rather that it came into being by a Big Bang, and that the life on it came into being by chance. Lets look at the evidence that that is not true.**
Single-Celled Organisms
Even the simplest single-celled organism is more complex than any machine that man has invented. It uses complex chemical sequences to do things like eating, repairing itself, and reproducing. In order for even the simplest cell to be formed, there must be favorable conditions in the area they are in. One of those things would be correct atmosphere, including the absence of oxygen. There is good proof that there was oxygen in the atmosphere at all times since the earth came into existence. For example, there are oxidized rocks throughout the entire geological record, which could not have happened if there was no oxygen. But, if there *wasn't* oxygen, life could not have been formed because of the lack of an ozone layer to shield the forming life. If there was sunlight, the gasses necessary to support the formation of life would have been destroyed. But if there wasn't sunlight, the environment would be too cold for the formation of life. Furthermore, even in ideal conditions, the probability that a cell would appear from nothing would be astronomical (no pun intended). It would require much more time than even the amount of time the evolutionists say has elapsed from the beginning of the universe until now - supposing that the conditions necessary to support it continued to exist for that stupendous amount of time.
Animal Evolution
**The evolutionary theory says that animals evolved slowly over millions of years, adapting to their surroundings so that they could continue to live as their environment changed. How could the animals have known what characteristics they needed in order to survive? Animal behaviorists can tell you that most animals' behavior is purely due to instincts, and that most anim
Ok... The first point anyone should admit about religion (or any other fundamental debate/issue, come to think of it) is that anything based on faith (meaning anything, since every system of belief or operation has axioms, and even that can't make something complete - see Godel) cannot be decided. Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Even so, I just want to question some points of your argument that have been debated many times before. #1) Much, if not most, of your argument is based on how unlikely any particular event of evolution is, let alone a chain of such events. However, the simplified probability (that allows you to predict expected times) you cite/use is based on the idea that there is only one instance where it may happen, even if the chance is repeated over and over. Remember the size of the universe? How many planetary systems are likely to be present in that big a volume, even given the observed relatively-low density? How many of those would be around the right kind of star? Well, I'm not going to go through every term... but can you tell that we're approaching some sort of Drake equation, here? A term for each probability factor, and another term for the numbers of stars in the universe - which is, by definition, astronomically high. And that pun is fully intended. #2) In your evolutionary section, you assert something that is clearly wrong. Note well: Mutations are not usually harmful! Rather, mutations almost always have no effect. It's a matter of how much of DNA is unused, or to a point, unimportant (it can tolerate some change). Also, again, it's a matter of numbers and scale. The probability of useful mutations occurring in a species is just as dependent on the number of children produced by the population as a whole as it is on the chance of the mutation happening at all. #3) Your evolutionary arguments are almost entirely based on the idea that evolution happens only when necessary to survive in a new environment, or to be more successful in a constant one. If I may be blunt, this is an enormous fallacy. Evolution, by nature, is a process of changes. Think of it as nature's trial and error. Subpoint a) Admittedly, naive trial and error is extremely inefficient. However, educated trial and error is extremely efficient for maximization/minimization problems where one does not know the exact function. Evolution is not naive. Drastic changes, such as introduci
-
Does a tree stop growing just because you can't prove it's existence? Does a good Shakespeare performance not make you laugh and weep, just because you know it's acted? There are many things beyond proove. Our senses are limited, as is deduction, logic. It's arrogance (or naivety) to assume that something as complex as the universe (or human imagination, if you go with that philosophical streak) can be fully covered with these limited tools. Science is based on certain assumptions or "requirements". I consider these things vital to science, to research, and to keep the researcher sane and effective; yet these methods have a) limits and b) are often enough unsuitable. You can use "occidental science" to explain Accupuncture, but that weird "Chi" thing is just more effective. Proof is not necessary. Existence is not necessary. I'm probably somewhat between pagan and agnostic, but still my favorite is that agnostic god dereived of Lem's "Solaris".
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenI suggest you get a copy of 'Dark Star' an old Sci-Fi comedy. Here is a transcript of a conversation with a smart bomb that is convinced it should detonate. What you said on 'the proof of existance' reminded me of it. How do we proove that we exist? Doolittle is a crewmember trying to pursuade the bomb not to blow up. Read on... [Edit]This page has an easier to read transcript[/Edit] Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me? Bomb #20: Of course. Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts? Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions. Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist? Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist. Doolittle: But how do you know you exist? Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious. Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist? Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am. Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists? Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun! Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center. Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections. Doolittle: Exactly! Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain. Doolittle: That's it! That's it! Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter. Doolittle: Why don't you have more time? Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds. Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life? Bomb #20: To explode, of course. Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right? Bomb #20: That is correct. Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you? Bomb #20: Of course not. Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe. Bomb #20: Yes...well... Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate. Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation ord
-
You are kidding? Right? Moral? The church has moral? How many people were killed in the bonfire? How much gold is there in the Vatican? How many governments required the power of the church in the past? It was the power of the masses, just power. Thats why the church exists. It's an institution. How many religions disapeared because of the church? "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
Sebastián Benítez wrote: How many governments required the power of the church in the past? Those that were corrupt and using the church in wrong ways. God instituted government, and in fact through Jesus God instituted the seperation of church and state. The church is not to rule earthly nations, but nations should not be ruled by those not in communion with God. There are many well written responses here, and I feel you should deeply consider them. How can you justify what you claim to believe? My justification comes from the fact that God has revealed himself to man through the prophets, the bible, and his son, Jesus. There is far more evidence for the existence of God then there is for his non-existence. Take Darwin for example. If in fact evolution is the way we came about, then why has the fosssil record not been able to prove this? Now don't confuse adaptation with evolution. When I say evolution, I mean that one species "evolves" into another. This does not happen, for God said that each species will be unto itself. That is, a crocadile cannot become an elephant, or a fruit fly become a banana tree. The world, science, and the fossil record all follow the pattern of creation. Think of the eyeball and all its complexity. If evolution were true, wouldn't you see the evolution of "simple" eyeballs grow ever more complex into new "eyeballs"? This didn't happen, in fact "all of a sudden" (according to fossil records) many species appeared all at once, all with their own eyeballs. I believe the only way we can study science and our universe is because it was set in motion by an intelligent creator. ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start -
Ok... The first point anyone should admit about religion (or any other fundamental debate/issue, come to think of it) is that anything based on faith (meaning anything, since every system of belief or operation has axioms, and even that can't make something complete - see Godel) cannot be decided. Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Even so, I just want to question some points of your argument that have been debated many times before. #1) Much, if not most, of your argument is based on how unlikely any particular event of evolution is, let alone a chain of such events. However, the simplified probability (that allows you to predict expected times) you cite/use is based on the idea that there is only one instance where it may happen, even if the chance is repeated over and over. Remember the size of the universe? How many planetary systems are likely to be present in that big a volume, even given the observed relatively-low density? How many of those would be around the right kind of star? Well, I'm not going to go through every term... but can you tell that we're approaching some sort of Drake equation, here? A term for each probability factor, and another term for the numbers of stars in the universe - which is, by definition, astronomically high. And that pun is fully intended. #2) In your evolutionary section, you assert something that is clearly wrong. Note well: Mutations are not usually harmful! Rather, mutations almost always have no effect. It's a matter of how much of DNA is unused, or to a point, unimportant (it can tolerate some change). Also, again, it's a matter of numbers and scale. The probability of useful mutations occurring in a species is just as dependent on the number of children produced by the population as a whole as it is on the chance of the mutation happening at all. #3) Your evolutionary arguments are almost entirely based on the idea that evolution happens only when necessary to survive in a new environment, or to be more successful in a constant one. If I may be blunt, this is an enormous fallacy. Evolution, by nature, is a process of changes. Think of it as nature's trial and error. Subpoint a) Admittedly, naive trial and error is extremely inefficient. However, educated trial and error is extremely efficient for maximization/minimization problems where one does not know the exact function. Evolution is not naive. Drastic changes, such as introduci
Eric Astor wrote: The first point anyone should admit about religion (or any other fundamental debate/issue, come to think of it) is that anything based on faith (meaning anything, since every system of belief or operation has axioms, and even that can't make something complete - see Godel) cannot be decided. Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Yet you are assumin g, by faith, that the sole source of logic and reasoning is human logic and reasoning. I propose that you would not even be able to "reason" as you claim to be able to do had it not been for an intelligent creator. How can you base your beliefs on that which you cannot prove yourself? Eric Astor wrote: P.S. - And yes, I am a non-believer... Not sure which of agnostic or atheistic applies more accurately to me, though. You are not a non-beliver! You believe that your reasoning is "logical" and "valid". This is itself a giant leap of faith. How can you justify and believe in that which you cannot prove? ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start -
Sebastián Benítez wrote: but I've turned to believe in nothing but what I can see, feel and can be proven. Well, it can't be proven in a direct way, as God is hidden from us. But one way we can know that something exists is by its effects - this is called deductive evidence *, and is widely used in courtrooms, debates, and other places where evidence is presented. One of the effects of the existance of God is the world that He created.
Evolution vs Creation
Now, many people say that the earth was not created by an intelligent being, but rather that it came into being by a Big Bang, and that the life on it came into being by chance. Lets look at the evidence that that is not true.**
Single-Celled Organisms
Even the simplest single-celled organism is more complex than any machine that man has invented. It uses complex chemical sequences to do things like eating, repairing itself, and reproducing. In order for even the simplest cell to be formed, there must be favorable conditions in the area they are in. One of those things would be correct atmosphere, including the absence of oxygen. There is good proof that there was oxygen in the atmosphere at all times since the earth came into existence. For example, there are oxidized rocks throughout the entire geological record, which could not have happened if there was no oxygen. But, if there *wasn't* oxygen, life could not have been formed because of the lack of an ozone layer to shield the forming life. If there was sunlight, the gasses necessary to support the formation of life would have been destroyed. But if there wasn't sunlight, the environment would be too cold for the formation of life. Furthermore, even in ideal conditions, the probability that a cell would appear from nothing would be astronomical (no pun intended). It would require much more time than even the amount of time the evolutionists say has elapsed from the beginning of the universe until now - supposing that the conditions necessary to support it continued to exist for that stupendous amount of time.
Animal Evolution
**The evolutionary theory says that animals evolved slowly over millions of years, adapting to their surroundings so that they could continue to live as their environment changed. How could the animals have known what characteristics they needed in order to survive? Animal behaviorists can tell you that most animals' behavior is purely due to instincts, and that most anim
I hardly know of a great physical truth whose universal recognition has not been preceded by an epoch in which the most estimable persons have maintained that the phenomena investigated were directly dependent on the Divine Will, and that the attempt to investigate them was not only futile but blasphemous. And there is a wonderful tenacity of life about this sort of opposition to physical science. Crushed and maimed in every battle, it yet seems never to be slain; and after a hundred defeats it is at this day as rampant, though happily not so mischievous, as in the time of Galileo. T.H. Huxley, 1860 One of the basic problems with the Christian community is that Christians have a hard time believing that their fellow Christians can tell lies or, more generally, seek to mislead and deceive. It follows that all it takes is a relatively small number of dishonest people in order for untruths to be believed by millions. The basic fact of evolution has not been in serious dispute among scientists for a century. The precise details of evolutionary descent and the detailed mechanisms that brought it about have been the subject of active research and debate, as one would expect in a healthy science. Much remains to be learned. But almost all biologists involved in the study of the origin of living organisms, including evangelical Christians, accept that evolution is a fact. Moreover, the evidence in favour of it grows stronger every year. The "creationist" industry is based on the lies and ignorance of a few and the gullibility and ignorance of the many. Creationists would have us believe that the world's experts on the issue of origins have all got it wrong. And a bunch of people with no scientific credibility have got it right. The truth it that creationism survives because people want to believe it on religious grounds, and for no other reason. Duane Gish's lies to the contrary notwithstanding, there are clear fossil lineages showing the transition from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles and from reptiles to birds and mammals. There are clear fossil lineages showing the evolution of the flowering plants from non-flowering plants. There are clear fossil lineages showing more micro transitions, such as the transition of the whale from a land dwelling mammal to a sea-dwelling mammal and the evolution of human beings from ape-like creatures. One of the most striking confirmations of evolution has been the use of DNA comparisons to establish the place of different organisms in the "family t
-
Does a tree stop growing just because you can't prove it's existence? Does a good Shakespeare performance not make you laugh and weep, just because you know it's acted? There are many things beyond proove. Our senses are limited, as is deduction, logic. It's arrogance (or naivety) to assume that something as complex as the universe (or human imagination, if you go with that philosophical streak) can be fully covered with these limited tools. Science is based on certain assumptions or "requirements". I consider these things vital to science, to research, and to keep the researcher sane and effective; yet these methods have a) limits and b) are often enough unsuitable. You can use "occidental science" to explain Accupuncture, but that weird "Chi" thing is just more effective. Proof is not necessary. Existence is not necessary. I'm probably somewhat between pagan and agnostic, but still my favorite is that agnostic god dereived of Lem's "Solaris".
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: Does a tree stop growing just because you can't prove it's existence? I asked my question hoping to find more proofs to God because I dont see any alternatives to reunite with your loved ones. Disappointingly, all I can find in last twenty years of Church is "feelings" for which they call testimony. But, there must be "real" testimony to Christianty. Not just "faith". Not just "circumstantial" evidence by examination of the Bible. If God exists and if He's relevant to anything, he must "act" and "react" to certain things. Exorcism for instance. I think Christian are asking too few questions, and they're trying to do the explaining for God - if one can't explain certain things, God should, if He cares, if He's relevant.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Did that make any sense? Did you mean, "Didn't that not make no sense?" ;) And yes, as my point was that we can have no absolute proof, your belief is no less valid than anyone else's, to you. (though it sounds suspiciously like cautious nihilism to me) Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
Sebastián Benítez wrote: but I've turned to believe in nothing but what I can see, feel and can be proven. Well, it can't be proven in a direct way, as God is hidden from us. But one way we can know that something exists is by its effects - this is called deductive evidence *, and is widely used in courtrooms, debates, and other places where evidence is presented. One of the effects of the existance of God is the world that He created.
Evolution vs Creation
Now, many people say that the earth was not created by an intelligent being, but rather that it came into being by a Big Bang, and that the life on it came into being by chance. Lets look at the evidence that that is not true.**
Single-Celled Organisms
Even the simplest single-celled organism is more complex than any machine that man has invented. It uses complex chemical sequences to do things like eating, repairing itself, and reproducing. In order for even the simplest cell to be formed, there must be favorable conditions in the area they are in. One of those things would be correct atmosphere, including the absence of oxygen. There is good proof that there was oxygen in the atmosphere at all times since the earth came into existence. For example, there are oxidized rocks throughout the entire geological record, which could not have happened if there was no oxygen. But, if there *wasn't* oxygen, life could not have been formed because of the lack of an ozone layer to shield the forming life. If there was sunlight, the gasses necessary to support the formation of life would have been destroyed. But if there wasn't sunlight, the environment would be too cold for the formation of life. Furthermore, even in ideal conditions, the probability that a cell would appear from nothing would be astronomical (no pun intended). It would require much more time than even the amount of time the evolutionists say has elapsed from the beginning of the universe until now - supposing that the conditions necessary to support it continued to exist for that stupendous amount of time.
Animal Evolution
**The evolutionary theory says that animals evolved slowly over millions of years, adapting to their surroundings so that they could continue to live as their environment changed. How could the animals have known what characteristics they needed in order to survive? Animal behaviorists can tell you that most animals' behavior is purely due to instincts, and that most anim
Thanks for the URL's. I will take a look at them. I'd be interested if anyone has more relevant information on any historical/circumstantial evidence to Christianity. But still, no one has answered question like "Why'd God condemn Adam/Eve for eating the wrong apple?". Is there a better answer than "Because He told them not to eat"? This makes him looks like more a rutheless dictator - for Pete's sake, He crucify his own son so pacify his OWN anger. Don't you think He should chill out and take it easy? Perhaps a little anger management?
-
Eric Astor wrote: The first point anyone should admit about religion (or any other fundamental debate/issue, come to think of it) is that anything based on faith (meaning anything, since every system of belief or operation has axioms, and even that can't make something complete - see Godel) cannot be decided. Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Yet you are assumin g, by faith, that the sole source of logic and reasoning is human logic and reasoning. I propose that you would not even be able to "reason" as you claim to be able to do had it not been for an intelligent creator. How can you base your beliefs on that which you cannot prove yourself? Eric Astor wrote: P.S. - And yes, I am a non-believer... Not sure which of agnostic or atheistic applies more accurately to me, though. You are not a non-beliver! You believe that your reasoning is "logical" and "valid". This is itself a giant leap of faith. How can you justify and believe in that which you cannot prove? ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
startSure, there is no difference between believing that 2+2=4 and that magical beings can create life just by willing it. It is all just the same. John Carson
-
Everyone seems to be arguing over "absolute proof". I'm asking, "Do we have any proof at all? Besides feelings and REM dreams? I just want to say again I'm not trying to dis-prove God.
CillyMe wrote: Do we have any proof at all? Of what? The existance of God? Step outside... look up. Watch carefully for a few hours. Step inside... look in a mirror. Consider how what you observe came to be. With a given set of assumptions, proof of God's existance is evident. But why are you looking for proof? God exists, whether a proof acceptable to you exists or not. A proof cannot make you believe. Lack of one should not prevent you from it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave