About the existence of some kind of god or creator
-
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
-
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
jdunlap wrote: The Bible speaks of the Israelites living in Egypt as forced laborers, and then exiting from it in a series of miraculous events. Did this actually take place? There is lots of evidence to support this. Actually, there is no evidence a large population of Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. jdunlap wrote: For example, the pyramids were built by forced laborers at the time when they would have been forced laborers. The pyramids were not built at the same time as when the Hebrews were claimed to be held in bondage. Morover, there is a tremendous amount of physical evidence that the pyramids were NOT built by forced laborers, but by volunteers (among other things, where these workers lived has been excavated.) jdunlap wrote: Where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah once were, there is now the Dead Sea (an extremely salty sea!). Mass graves and human skulls have been found in the area. The scriptures do not record where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were. Furthermore, the Dead Sea predates the existance of Sodom and Gomorrah. Finally, no mass graves have been found in the area. jdunlap wrote: The existance of a worldwide Flood also has widespread evidence to support it. There is absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood and plenty of evidence against it. Not to mention the absurd claim that Noah placed every animal aboard an ark--even assuming Noah was able to travel the world to collect the billions of species required, the size of the ark would have to have been immense. jdunlap wrote: Furthermore, marine fossils have been found in the most unlikely places - such as the top of Mt Everest! You do understand plate tectonics, right? jdunlap wrote: Many of the genealogies in the Bible, especially those of the Israelite kings, have been proven to be accurate. Competely untrue. First, it is difficult to establish accuracy with even modern genealogies, let alone genealogies thousands of years old. Second, there is actually very little physical evidence proving most the kings recorded in the old testament even lived. You'd think we'd have solid evidence David and Solomon existed. Alas, we don't. jdunlap wrote: Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12 and Psalm 22, for instance, record specific details about death by crucifixion hundreds of years before this terrible form of execution was
-
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
Shog9 wrote: 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. No one has any idea how God came into being. No one has a clue by what mechanism God might have created the universe and all that is in it. No one can supply any evidence whatsoever of the creation act. No one can provide any direct evidence of the existence of God. Science can at least sketch how, in accordance with verifyable physical laws, the universe and all that is in it came into being. Science can provide timelines showing the sequence of events. Science can provide physical evidence of many of the major transitions (including the evolution of human beings from ape-like ancestors). Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. John Carson
-
peterchen 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.
CillyMe wrote: 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. Of course, that's what Christians are supposed to do. "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped after but made Himself of no status, taking on Him the very nature of a servant... in human likeness." (Phil 2:5-7) According to René Descartes "...First, and reasonably enough one might think, Descartes never doubts that his ideas arise in some fashion. The source might be external objects, or his own dreams, or a hidden faculty of self-deception, his own activity of thinking, or God, or an evil genius. (This problem of the sources of ideas corresponds with the notion of a 'class' of knowledge introduced above.) Because there are so many possible sources for my ideas, and because there is no fool-proof way of deciding between them, Descartes is able to doubt the veracity of most of the ideas he formerly held to be true. This question of the origin of his ideas is key..." http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm[^] So know matter what you decide to be true, there is a certain degree of faith that you are correct. Later, JoeSox "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." -- Baruch Spinoza joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Shog9 wrote: 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. No one has any idea how God came into being. No one has a clue by what mechanism God might have created the universe and all that is in it. No one can supply any evidence whatsoever of the creation act. No one can provide any direct evidence of the existence of God. Science can at least sketch how, in accordance with verifyable physical laws, the universe and all that is in it came into being. Science can provide timelines showing the sequence of events. Science can provide physical evidence of many of the major transitions (including the evolution of human beings from ape-like ancestors). Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. John Carson
John Carson wrote: No one has any idea how God came into being. And you know this, being omniscient yourself? John Carson wrote: Science can at least sketch how John Carson wrote: Science can provide timelines John Carson wrote: Science can provide physical evidence Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. :rolleyes: John Carson wrote: Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. Would you care to go back and comment on my post? Or are you just using it as a handy place to attach your bitter rant? :| John, if there's something you wish to discuss, then lay it out. If you're just wanting an outlet for your sarcasm and USENET games, then wait 'till Terry gets back - he's better at it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
John Carson wrote: No one has any idea how God came into being. And you know this, being omniscient yourself? John Carson wrote: Science can at least sketch how John Carson wrote: Science can provide timelines John Carson wrote: Science can provide physical evidence Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. :rolleyes: John Carson wrote: Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. Would you care to go back and comment on my post? Or are you just using it as a handy place to attach your bitter rant? :| John, if there's something you wish to discuss, then lay it out. If you're just wanting an outlet for your sarcasm and USENET games, then wait 'till Terry gets back - he's better at it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Here's a book that examines circumstantial evidence: "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel I find a book like this a lot more convincing than "you/science can't prove God doesn't exist" - because you can't prove "God exists" neither. Same goes for looking at the sky or looking in the mirrow. Also, Bible seems like an evidence of God's own crime than a testimony for his Love for his people - again, what's the big fuss over an apple. I'm not going to comment on argument like "coz Adam/Eve were told not to.." It appears He has problem managing his anger and he's perfectly comfortable of creating atrocities: Crucifix (Please. Don't tell me men did it. According to Bible, God put Him there when He could have just scarificed a few sheeps or banana *why not* - He's a terriorist).
-
John Carson wrote: No one has any idea how God came into being. And you know this, being omniscient yourself? John Carson wrote: Science can at least sketch how John Carson wrote: Science can provide timelines John Carson wrote: Science can provide physical evidence Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. :rolleyes: John Carson wrote: Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. Would you care to go back and comment on my post? Or are you just using it as a handy place to attach your bitter rant? :| John, if there's something you wish to discuss, then lay it out. If you're just wanting an outlet for your sarcasm and USENET games, then wait 'till Terry gets back - he's better at it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
I can't find anything "bitter" in what I said but do in fact detect a great deal of ill temper in your reply. In fact I detect little else. My statement that "No one has any idea how God came into being" was not meant to imply, nor would a reasonable person have taken it to imply, that I have direct knowledge of what every person in the world knows. It was based on that fact that, from what I have seen of Christian theology (and I have seen quite a lot, having been raised in a devoutly evangelical Christian family), Christians do not even attempt to answer the question of how God came into being (in fact they usually say that he didn't come into being, but always was). Shog9 wrote: Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. This statement strikes me as completely disingenuous. Science has an account of the history of the universe starting with the Big Bang and finishing up with the evolution of life on earth. I am sure you know this, so I can only take your comments as a display of the sarcasm, bitterness and USENET games of which you ironically accuse me. John Carson
-
Here's a book that examines circumstantial evidence: "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel I find a book like this a lot more convincing than "you/science can't prove God doesn't exist" - because you can't prove "God exists" neither. Same goes for looking at the sky or looking in the mirrow. Also, Bible seems like an evidence of God's own crime than a testimony for his Love for his people - again, what's the big fuss over an apple. I'm not going to comment on argument like "coz Adam/Eve were told not to.." It appears He has problem managing his anger and he's perfectly comfortable of creating atrocities: Crucifix (Please. Don't tell me men did it. According to Bible, God put Him there when He could have just scarificed a few sheeps or banana *why not* - He's a terriorist).
CillyMe wrote: Here's a book that examines circumstantial evidence: Link? CillyMe wrote: because you can't prove "God exists" neither Did you read the first two replies i made to this thread by any chance? CillyMe wrote: Also, Bible seems like an evidence of God's own crime than a testimony for his Love for his people - again, what's the big fuss over an apple. First, let me state that this is a terrible analogy - but i'm in a hurry ( :-O ), so... If you write a list sort routine, and once every so often it gets two list items in the wrong order, will you be satisfied with it? And, upon finding the error, will you scrap the whole routine, or might you instead just remove the offending code and correct the problem? Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave