REGISTER
|
MAIL/PROFILE
|
HELP
|
NOW ONLINE
|
SEARCH
|
RATING
| FORUMS |
SUCCESS STORIES
Posted In Forum:
All Forums
Alabama
Alaska
Alberta
Arizona
Arkansas
Art/Music
Ask A Girl
Ask A Guy
Australia
British Columbia
Broken Hearts
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Dating & Love Advice
Dating Experiences
Dating Sites
Delaware
District Of Columbia
Event Hosts forum
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Health & Fitness
Humor
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Introductions
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Manitoba
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Brunswick
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Newfoundland
News/Current Events
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nova Scotia
Off Topic
Ohio
Oklahoma
Ontario
Oregon
Over 30
Over 45
Pennsylvania
Plentyoffish Get Togethers
Plentyoffish Site/Suggestions/Help
Poems And Quotes
Politics
Prince Edward Island
Profile Reviews
Quebec
Recipes & Cooking
Relationships
Religion/Supernatural
Rhode Island
Saskatchewan
Science/Philosophy
Sex and Dating
Single Parents
South Carolina
South Dakota
Sports
Stories/creative writing
Technology and computers
Tennessee
Testimonials
Texas
Uk Forums
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Volunteer Moderators Only
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Home
login
MyForums
Show ALL Forums
Author
Thread: Atheism vs suicide rates
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
23 (
view
)
Atheism vs suicide rates
Posted:
11/8/2006 8:12:47 PM
This is a scientific article, which has nothing to do with Pascal's Gambit. It only states some facts based on statistics. Statistics that show Atheism is more related to emotional disturbance resulting to suicide, than Theism.
For me, that proves that the rejection of God is simply unnatural to the human psyche.
No, not really...
Many people today have no religious affiliation and still "believe in a god".
That's a bad confound if you're trying to use the study against Atheists...
Not to mention I don't usually run into Atheists who claim Theism is a disorder and causes depression.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
3 (
view
)
A question for the athiests
Posted:
11/8/2006 8:07:11 PM
It'll depend on the Atheist.
Some are Jesus Mythicists and some are not.
Some examples of Jesus Mythicist literature:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html
I weave in and out of Jesus Mythicism... can't say I have a definitive position on whether Jesus existed or not.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
234 (
view
)
World's best known atheist admits that God exists!
Posted:
7/29/2006 7:09:15 PM
In a Democracy:
Majority Rules, Minority Rights.
The constitution is made to ensure that there is no tyranny of the majority. The development of law is meant to be based in respect of the various worldviews in existence today.
So no. Christians cannot turn America into a Theocracy in all but name. They can not make a whole slew of laws whose basis is Chirstian doctrine, because it would have no substantiation for those of other worldviews.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
216 (
view
)
World's best known atheist admits that God exists!
Posted:
7/27/2006 7:10:28 PM
During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
This is true. We haven't found evidence the prebiotic forms in nature yet...
As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.
1. You're conflating Evolutionary Theory with Abiogenesis and its separate postulations. Evolutionary Theory makes no comment about the origin of the universe, nor of life.
2. There IS a scientifically crebile explanation for the formation of life, as seen in Abiogenesis and Early World RNA Hypothesis. The only problem so far (as I said above) is the lack of evidence for the prebiotic compounds proposed to form that develop into life.
Consider the following:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8570645
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9299290
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7543656
Also, one page for clear understanding:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
Again, look above. However, one cannot claim that it is known that all life formed from non-living matter, but the methodology of it doing so exists.
There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.
Again, read my above links. Also, you conflate Spontaneous Generation with Abiogenesis, which is wrong. Spontaneous Generation proposed that our current organisms generate from nonliving materials.
In other words, rotting meat will turn into flies.
Pasteur showed that current organisms cannot accomplish this. This says nothing about the prebiotic forms of life emerging into primitive lifeforms, but that the lifeforms we see today cannot form from scratch.
Abiogenesis does not flow this way and proceeds with a gradualist system of prebiotic compounds.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
also how about this, is it true or not, well look it up.
Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sidney Fox were two of the first scientists to attempt laboratory experiments aimed at trying to prove that life could arise spontaneously. They designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen. Through this mixture they passed electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes.
What was the result? No life was produced, of course, but the electricity did combine some atoms to form amino acids. To date, all attempts to prove that life could have evolved on Earth by any natural means have also failed.
1. Miller and Sidney were not trying to generate life, but demonstrate the possibility of life forming.
2. The first experiment they performed was promising and upon learning that their postulation of the early Earth was incorrect, they conducted a second experiment with the differences accounted for.
What was the result of this experiment, you ask?
They actually generated more Amino acid groups and several new biotic polymers!
It doesn't go into detail about the latter experiments, but this serves as a good refutation of Miller Experiment claims:
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html
and if evolution was taking place, why aren't we seeing a pop up of new species forming from old species?
We do have many documentations of speciation on record:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I should note that we're getting off-topic. If you wish to respond to this, please do so in the Evolution/Creation topic. We'll continue it there.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
15 (
view
)
What do you think of this? Creationists? Evolutionists?
Posted:
7/27/2006 6:31:36 PM
IIRC, The Golden ratio appears in (EDIT: A RARE few) shells and cones because the application of this ratio to the structure in the correct context leads to the largest area for said structure. There are other utilities in application of Phi and specifically, in spirals such as the Logarithmic Spiral:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_spiral
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
151 (
view
)
blah
Posted:
7/19/2006 10:09:21 AM
As Einstein figured out that somewhere out in space a black hole existed long before anyone else ever thought of anything like it, if he says God exists who are we to argue? But I'm sure people that come to POF are smarter than Einstein..LOL.
First, this is a classic Appeal to Authority Fallacy. You can't make conclusions based on the judgement of an authority, especially if the authority is in an unrelated field to the question.
Second, Einstein is debated to be a Pantheist (some also argue that he was an Atheist) and this has very few differences from an Atheist's worldview. Pantheists generally accept Naturalismm, because the universe (which is natural) is what is referred to as "the deity".
In fact, some even argue that Pantheism is really another form of atheism as it's definition of deity is too different to be accomodated with the Theist forms... It's more like an idealization of nature then an appeal to a "universe" deity.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
6 (
view
)
Is Science a Religion?
Posted:
7/11/2006 1:46:00 PM
Science can never claim to have all the answers to problems, as it is a self correcting system.
It offers one of the best methods of deciding and discovering knowledge, but it cannot claim absolute truth, nor does it attempt to.
As well, Scientists that can provide evidence to shatter older paradaigms set themselves up for fame in the scientific community.
This reasonably ensures that the rejection of proposed ideas is not on holding onto older ideas.
So Science cannot be called a religion in any shape or form.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
64 (
view
)
The 4 types of atheists
Posted:
7/11/2006 1:38:19 PM
The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.
I should note several things:
1. Events of speciation is more than antibiotic resistence. It's the development of an entirely new species. Speciation has been documented repeatedly in the Science literature, as Count said before.
2. In order to posit that Antibiotic Resistence is not evidence for "Macroevolution" one has to postulate some genetic boundary preventing larger phylogenetic changes in organisms.
To date, this has not been proven nor shown logically and thus Antibiotic resistence can stand as one of the several minor lines of a diverse branch of evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
48 (
view
)
The 4 types of atheists
Posted:
7/9/2006 8:08:48 PM
These characterizations cannot fully encompass the variation of personalities encountered in Atheism.
They are 1 dimensional categories for a 3 dimensional phenomena...
Also, these categories seem very jaded to Atheists in general.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
34 (
view
)
A Simple Mathematical Explanation Why God Seems to Exist
Posted:
7/9/2006 7:37:26 PM
Can a life have a meaning beyond a chaotic random horribly comlex system?
I see this is addressed to Lord Dave, but I wouldn't mind putting in my two cents on this issue as well.
Meaning in our life today comes from intrinsic sources: Ourselves, others, life in general and the cognitive precepts we envision.
There is no extrinsic value given to the universe to Atheists (at least usually...) however, meaning is still present as it is a product of ourselves. We give meaning to us and others, we give value to all things that exist and things that do not.
This means that meaning is subjective to life and cognition.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
33 (
view
)
A Simple Mathematical Explanation Why God Seems to Exist
Posted:
7/9/2006 7:32:56 PM
This argument fails because it is simply reverse engineering probabilities to point to a design.
There are many possibilities of how the universe could have came to be...
one possibility occured. The fact that this one path was very improbable is of no relevance to the proof of this path being designed.
For example, imagine the pathway you took to get to your table for breakfast today. How likely was it that you would step on the exact positions of each tile and the specific tiles you stepped on to get to the table? Probably very low... but this doesn't mean that your pathway was pre-planned from the start.
There must be more to assert design than probability... there must be necessity as well.
Given the particular form of the universe, a repreatable set of initiations of the universe would be needed to make any conclusion about divine interference in the probability of life forming.
In other words, if you started up millions of universes and all of them lead to the same universe we see today, then one could easily conclude that there must be intervention for this to occur.
This is not possible by our standards, so the Argument of Design they propose falls to pieces.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
20 (
view
)
A question for Atheist people.
Posted:
5/14/2006 8:23:44 PM
Well, if the Creator can do anything, then he must be illogical.
Being able to do everything means he can do illogical things, so in this case he can open a door that he himself cannot open because he can both open that door and not open it. Contradictions mean nothing to him, a he is not bound by logic.
Of course that makes discussion of a deity in any rational matter useless and essentially requires that any rational analysis done by a person assume God doesn't exist.
If the Creator cannot do everything, then no by definition.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
84 (
view
)
Ex-atheists?
Posted:
4/2/2006 9:45:40 AM
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Atheists most certainly fall under the 4th and broader definition of religion. In fact atheism has "leaders" that most other atheists will agree with, so even definition 3 would apply to atheism. And let's not confuse religion with faith:
Definition 4 could apply, but not in the sense that one desires. Definition 4 is more of a mteaphor to describe an activity of high interest. A comparison of this activity to the devotion of a religion, not really the religion people are trying to paint Atheism with.
As for three, that's just untrue. Some atheists are popular, but none are recognized as "leaders" and none of them can speak for Atheists as a whole on values practises and any belief outside of a lack of one on deities. Not to mention, if Atheist "leaders" existed, there's no reason to paint them as "spiritual". So definition 3 doesn't apply at all.
To try and move from Definition 4 to say that Atheism is a religion is to commit a Fallacy of Equivocation, by using the adjective variation to prove the noun variation.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
So to say that atheism does not require "faith" defies the definition of the word itself. Faith DOES NOT require a supernatural focus or religion. Atheists have faith in science, have faith that their interpretation of things is correct, and are just as zealous about their faith as any religious zealot (attend an atheistic gathereing and you will know what I mean.)
No, not really. I would say that Atheists base their lack of belief on a lack of evidence and apply the burden of proof principle, which makes their statement not of faith. In the case of those who claim with certainty that God cannot exist, they do so on the basis of a percieved sound argument to conclude that from (as is the case with most Strong Atheists).
Applying the other forms would only lead into the Fallacy of Equivocation again.
The ONLY reason the atheist so vehemently denies their belief system as a "religion" is because of separation of church and state. If atheism is recognized for the religious construct that it is, they would be in the same boat politically as the theist religions.
I wish, then we could claim religious benefits from the government. That would be very useful...
;)
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
7 (
view
)
Discuss the morality of these actions.
Posted:
3/10/2006 3:50:16 PM
Should have jumped in and stopped it.
There's no reason to holds own personal desires and health as higher than others. If the attack was unfounded and morally wrong, then anyone within the area should have stopped it.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
279 (
view
)
Does god exist?
Posted:
3/10/2006 3:43:49 PM
For there to be heat and light, there must be matter that is causing it.
Don't know if I would agree with that. Matter and energy are of the same kind. Matter and be broken down into energy, and energy and be converted into matter. E = mc^2 and all that...
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
33 (
view
)
Thoughts from an Atheist
Posted:
2/2/2006 7:27:11 PM
No, there was Equivocation of the term "pray" in your last post. In one sense, "pray" was a descriptor of hope. In the other sense, "pray" was used to refer to the spiritual practise.
The use in two different contexts ruins the argument.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
10 (
view
)
Thoughts from an Atheist
Posted:
2/1/2006 8:36:14 PM
The odds of I existing, are miraculous enough, to know that it is not by accident or by default that I even exist at all.
Only if you have the appropriate duplicate to test the results by. Probability alone isn't worth much without necessity...
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
9 (
view
)
Thoughts from an Atheist
Posted:
2/1/2006 8:34:47 PM
Question for Atheists.. if you don't believe in a higher power or religion or any of that jazz.. why is it so important to correct the rest of us who do? What should it matter? Why post in a religion forum at all?
Not many are trying to deconvert, but for those that do it's usually because of the effects Christian faith have on the government, which ultimately affects Atheists.
Wouldn't be a problem if we can all live together with our opinions, but then those opinions affect the laws we are governed by...
Also, this is a religion discussion forum, not a religion forum. It's a place to debate the matters of religion, which fits quite fine for both Atheist and Theist reasons for coming here.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
197 (
view
)
What reason do you have NOT to believe in God???
Posted:
1/30/2006 9:07:06 PM
"Man" has no more explanation or answers in this world than what the "God" does. So who should we believe?? Man or God?? Why "Man"?? If you ask me why God, then I will tell you that I believe in what He teaches and I have faith in Him and what He teaches. Don't put words in my mouth, because I am not saying that I don't trust man. I trust man, but I don't put my faith in man.
If God is constructed by Man, or an earlier idealism of man, then which should we trust? It would be logical to trust the one with more knowledge of the situation, that being the current humanity. While we may not have all the answers, that doesn't mean we should place the spiritual as an answer.
You see, you're working under the premise that God exists from the start, which makes the above argument useless if the premise isn't true. If God does exist, then it makes sense to place trust in him ,but how do we know that? The argument fails to begging the question without further explanation.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
172 (
view
)
What reason do you have NOT to believe in God???
Posted:
1/29/2006 7:21:19 PM
Why do I not believe in gods?
1. It lacks parsimony (Occams Razor).
2. It doesn't really jive with the events we see in the world (IE. Problem of Evil)
3. The existence of logic and morality in it's current form doesn't jive with what we would expect if a deity existed (TANG).
As for the Christian God: The morals put fourth are most of the time correct, but not always. Their stance on homosexuality is a good example.
Note:
To All:
Do not turn this thread into a debate about gays - thread hi-jacking will result in deletions/suspensions
- FM
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
16 (
view
)
Agnostics....Atheists..is there a difference?
Posted:
1/29/2006 7:11:08 PM
CountIbli's definitions are correct. Agnosticism and Atheism are distinct terms relating to very similar, but seperate issues.
After all, calling Agnosticism an "I dunno" position doesn't jive when you consider it's counterparts Gnosticism and Ignosticism.
If you don't accept the premise "God exists" as truth, then you are an atheist. There are many variations of Atheism which further describe your position on the existence of gods after that.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
2 (
view
)
Do we have a Soul?
Posted:
1/28/2006 3:38:01 PM
I haven't heard any significant evidence as of yet for the existence of souls...
So it's still sophistry for those who discuss it.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
17 (
view
)
Non-Believers; why are they so insistant?
Posted:
1/28/2006 3:36:22 PM
Why come to a religion board?
Simply, to discuss Religion. To compare one's views with others and see how well each stands up to logical and scientific scrutiny. The reasons for Atheist are generally the same reasons as the Theist: to test their views.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
217 (
view
)
Does god exist?
Posted:
1/28/2006 3:29:43 PM
Before we ask whether God exists, should we ask whether our consciousness will survive death? The existence of ghosts or spirits in our own dimension is widely documented and accepted. Some of these entities have been around in houses and castles for centuries. Although this alone does not constitute proof of life after death it definitely defies both physics and atheistic logic.
Come again? Ghosts and spirits and spirits are widely documented and accpeted? I haven't run into many scientists who accept Ghost sightings as the real deal...
Most of the "documentations" seen are blurred images, which is impossible to work with. Ghost studies to date have remained possible, but a Pseudoscience.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
166 (
view
)
Does god exist?
Posted:
1/22/2006 10:09:30 PM
You can't! Everything made has the limitations of the one making it so an ifinate God could never have been created by anything less.
The CONCEPT of an infinite God was created by man to answer the problems he could not.
In reality, the idea of God is roughly equal to the concept of a square circle, you can think of the concept, but not envision it.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
13 (
view
)
A Question For Everyone
Posted:
1/22/2006 9:59:29 PM
I would say, it allows for the closest approximation to reality.
Nothing else is enforced by my view of religion. Those other qualities are developed in other areas...
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
8 (
view
)
At the Pearly Gates who will be held responsible?
Posted:
1/18/2006 5:26:44 PM
Yes... I should be little more careful using that term. I was simply referring to the general topic of God and Justice within a realm with evil.
Not necessarily the defence by theologans...
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
6 (
view
)
At the Pearly Gates who will be held responsible?
Posted:
1/18/2006 5:19:04 PM
Who is responsible if after an entire life of devotion, they get the the Pearly Gates only to learn their belief system was not what God wanted.
This is one of the main problems of Gods in reality today. This is known as The Problem of Theodicy.
Sadly, current God worldviews violate Theodicy in other ways as well, such as the problem of eternity and Hell...
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
9 (
view
)
dating my love one with a different religion
Posted:
12/23/2005 10:06:58 PM
You may not have as many problems as you think. From those I've talked to, Judaism is fair and moderate in dealing with people of other religions.
Interestingly enough, I ran across a survey one time that said 54% of people who were Jewish actually claimed to be Atheist.
(Odd indeed)
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
62 (
view
)
Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted:
12/23/2005 9:59:24 PM
One thing I will point out though, is that 'talk.origins' and 'wikipedia' are now under careful scrutiny and investigation for misinformation, slanderous postings by the common public, unsubstantiated, non-scientific claims, and outright lies...
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is interesting to note that a search for any information about investigations against Talk Origins turns up nothing.
I also note other things that make this claim dubious:
1. Talk Origins is recommended as "A great site for the interested student". It notes its usefulness in both paleotology and other areas, including human origins. Who reccomends them? Why The Smithsonian Institute Human Origins program!
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/link.htm
2. Talk Origins is commended in the popular periodical Scientific American as:
"Talk.Origins archive (www.talkorigins.org). This wonderfully thorough online resource compiles useful essays and commentaries that have appeared in Usenet discussions about creationism and evolution. It offers detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000276B7-6792-1D0A-8E49809EC588EEDF
3. The Renowned Jounal Science gives a postive review for Talk Origins and gives links to the site.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/304/5671/657a
Given the wide variety of evidence showing Talk Origins to be a very credible source of information, I doubt that it would be under investigation for "misinformation".
As for Creation by Evolution, I have no qualms with the directions people want to take Evolution philosophically, I just stress the need the Authoritative Scinetific concept of Evolution period.
It's interesting to think about the varieties of Theistic Evolution and where someone would draw the line between someone still accepting Evolution and someone not accepting Evolution. That said, I consider the Creation Evolution idea to still hold the tenet of Evolution and thus still accept its premise (with minor revisions, of course).
I have a question for people here, though...
Does someone have to accept random mutation to be considered accepting the Theory of Evolution?
I would say no, because the conept of whether or not mutations are random can only be tested through natural means. So the Theory of Evolution decides something to be random if there is no natural guidance. That leaves out the possibility of supernatural guidance from say, a creator.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
54 (
view
)
bible fact or fitcion
Posted:
12/23/2005 9:01:37 PM
Feel free to find a better book that defines you and you as well as the Bible does, especially your faults.
First, why must a book define who I am? A healthy bit of introspection will do wonders...
Second, I could name a book that would do nicely... The Pauli Sutras.
Better yet: Daodejing.
Having read parts of the Bible, I see common themes of redundancy, inexpicable shifts in writing style, absurd propositions, contradictions, and many attitudes contrary to moral theories today.
Personally, I don't see why the Bible is considered so facinating.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
52 (
view
)
bible fact or fitcion
Posted:
12/23/2005 8:39:27 PM
I agree with Ibli on this one. The Bible is mostly fictional, with some historically accurate accounts and elements.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
2759 (
view
)
Creation vs Evolution
Posted:
12/18/2005 9:54:00 PM
As I had mentioned previously, the human race is ganing knowledge on all fronts at an ever increasing exponential rate every year. A few years ago, concepts like man flying, able to reach speeds faster than sound, man on the moon; Well, I could go on and on, with the advances mankind has made as a species. Having said that, what with even new discoveries all the time scientifically, etc, it stands to logical reason, that even proofs for at least even the existence for some kind of supreme being, or beings plural will be found.
The problem here is that you argument degrades to "In time, everything can be found". I can just as easily claim that in the future, proofs against such a God/Goddess' existence will be found. Does this make it true?
Technologies today will be outdated soon, much like we have cast aside many an old technology or item of the past. My opinion, as stated as an opinion before, is that while we 'today' can not place 'god' in a test tube, we may however 'tomorow'.
Even the very 'scientific methods' we employ today, no doubt will be outdated at a future point in time.
This tends to fall into the problem of defining a boarder between Natural and Supernatural. If God can be quantified and proven empirically, then doesn't he become natural? Doesn't this process exclude supernatural? Just what exactly makes something supernatural?
So, for any one person or persons to exclaim 'there is no god', in reality they are saying, they are a self declared expert almost on the cosmos itself, and have somekind of conclusive proof that there is no said supreme being of sorts.
Also as mentioned, I feel that it is sometimes not so much the argument for what constitutes the existence of a higher power, but what exactly that definition of actual said supreme being may, or may not be.
Two things:
1. This is why most Atheists are Weak Atheists, or Agnostic Atheists. They acknowledge that it is possible for Gods to exist, but they will not believe without evidence.
2. Those who are Strong Atheists, or actively deny the existence of Gods do so by trying to find logical contradictions of the very concept of Gods in a worldview. They don't presume to know everything, but instead try to show that any kind of God that fits the bill as being a). Creator of the universe and b). Capable of creating said universe are still contradictory to what we know... They can get sidetracked with popular conceptions of Deities (ie. Loving ones), but their goal is the same.
Yes, there are those that seem to want to push their religious beliefs on others, as the only way that is right in their mind, but equally dangerous are those on the other end of the spectrum, who are just as dogmatic in their defences of atheism.
The same hyper emotional state seems to be brought out from both camps when the word 'god' is mentioned in any way, those for, screaming just as loudly as those against.
It seems like you tend to assume all Atheists here are Strong Atheists, which isn't the case.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
138 (
view
)
Schools Without God
Posted:
12/15/2005 5:56:18 PM
Do you feel that when they took God out of school, that this opened doors up for satan to lead our childrens lives, by putting our childrens lives in jeopardy? Would you contuine to put your children through such schools where God has been taken out??
Was Satan leading children's lives before the quote "Under God" was put into the allegiance?
Frankly, I can't understand why they put it in there in the first case...
Public schools shouldn't be religious. If you want a school with religious elements, put your children in a Christian private school. Non-Christians need to be able to have a school to go to as well, one that is independant of religious elements (as trying to account for all religions would be ridiculous).
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
18 (
view
)
Thoughts on Mormons....anyone?
Posted:
12/13/2005 5:49:34 PM
Meh, mormons are on equal terms with all the other religions in my book, which is neutral.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
161 (
view
)
Does god exist?
Posted:
12/13/2005 5:27:01 PM
'maybe you were created by deralict on another planet much more intelegent than you, and you don't even know you don't exist, what a shame.'
The problem of questioning your own existence is that in doing so you commit the stolen concept fallacy. In order to say "I don't exist" you have to exist to say it. Therefore, you must accept your existence (unintentionally) in order to say you don't exist, thus contradicting yourself.
If you go the route of Universal Skepticism, you can only know that you yourself exists.
really you believe that man created God? Since you think this is a wise statement, I would like to know just how you think everything came about using man only. You are saying man created God therefore, everything in existence is created by man. Would like to know how we created it and ourselves into being? Obviously you are extremely lost!
He meant that God was a concept created by the person, not that humans actually had the omnipotence to create an omnipotent being...
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
29 (
view
)
religious groups niave about iraq
Posted:
12/13/2005 5:11:26 PM
Now, you are irrational. Christianity IS the right way. Islam is not. That's the whole point.
Not that I am Catholic, because I am not. But Christianity is the only valid religion.
Can you really say that with certainty? How can you be sure that the Qur'an ISN'T the thrid and final revelation of God and Muhammad wasn't the seal of prophets?
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
28 (
view
)
religious groups niave about iraq
Posted:
12/13/2005 5:09:12 PM
How could people be so niave about the dangers in iraq,
reason as example, those guys who are hostage in iraq are civilian went there as a bunch of bible thumpers who think they can change things cause they have a book in their ahands
problems is that people of iraq are not christian and are like islamic
plus those poeple are taught that people from western countries are evil
Hold on a moment. These people are FAR from Bible thumpers. The current hostages are members of a pacifist Christian group that set out to end war and take care of those affected by war. They are primarily anti-war and in no way push the bible on others they help. They're unusually tolerant of other religions and go under the motto that what religion a victim has is not important.
Think about this: If they pushed the Bible in any way, how on earth could they recieve support from HAMAS in the hostage situation?
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
46 (
view
)
The Great Sign, Richest Religion In The World....Christianity
Posted:
12/12/2005 2:11:02 PM
If there be a all powerful being, it would bless the true religion. Its true religion would be hard workers, and would prosper. Notice all the Christian nations....and how they have prospered. I ask you, what greater sign would you have in your life, for a religion to look at.
Ad Populum Fallacy.
Just because the religion has more followers and is more accepted, doesn't mean it has any more validity than other religions...
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
144 (
view
)
God exist does
Posted:
12/12/2005 2:06:26 PM
Well, Paul (New Testament) was a genius/master of "logic" in the Rabbinical Method and in Stoic Greek philosophy. If you need to embrace logic ... check it out.
I've already checked out various Theistic models of logic. Frankly, I don't see them panning out.
(PS: More like forced actually, my Grade 12 Philosophy Professor was a big time Apologist for the Christian faith... ugh.)
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
138 (
view
)
Does god exist?
Posted:
12/12/2005 8:28:51 AM
to Mewtwo: "This means there is no way for any Atheist to be shown that God exists unless God himself does the work."
I have to differ with that statement. In my case God had been showing himself for years surely to you too, but I didn't want to see. I didn't open my mind to him. I had a brick wall.
Not God. As I said, he speaks differently than you and I do with these typed words and our voices. His voice is like a sunset, sunrise, fox that stops to ponder you.
I was following through with previous arguments presented to others. It's not necessarily my own argument. Already I can tell you Tektonics would disagree with what the previous person's argument.
These things don't speak in our language either; but because you see them, albeit you don't touch them, you do believe in them.
I accept them because they can be verified by evidence and logic. Perhaps you could argue Universal Skepticism, but the same is true on all counts and leads to a loss of pragmatic value.
I understand that you don't get it. You think a Christian is mentally impaired.
Woah there! I don't go that far at all! I respect others wishes to follow faith, but I find it lacking myself. It's like Nietzsche: I may not agree with his beliefs, but I'm not going to call him mentally ill because of them. Just because it's illogical to me doesnt mean it must be some kind of illness in others.
That would be Strong Normativism, which is easily disproven. I'm more of an Anti-Normativist myself...
Note: I had to do as God asked of me. I had to give up myself to him completely and ask forgiveness / cleansing / for my prior sins (as few as I knew to ask forgiveness for).
He complied. Then I ask for proof. He complied.
This would be one of the problems here. If you accept him and ask for forgiveness, aren't you already accepting that he exists? Wouldn't the search for evidence be biased then? Not to dissuade you from what you believe, I'm just showing you how I would view the situation...
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
137 (
view
)
God exist does
Posted:
12/12/2005 8:11:38 AM
First,
If God doesn't exist, then what is existence?
The same as it is now, except lacking an external purpose.
Is the universe just physical?
It's an interesting question, some take a distinctly phsyical stnace on the universe, but being an Atheist can allow for supernatural, just not anthropomorphic dieties. As for myself, I follow a duelistic world where only one thing phyisically exists (Matter/Energy) and another exists, but not physically (Ephiori) which represents all concepts as well as our own selves.
What about quantum physics? Is the universe circular? Meaning without beginning and without end?
Of course in this case we have to work with what we have in empirical evidence. However, examinations with logic also yield the possibility of uncaused causes to be linked with either God or the universe. In which case, the universe has an existence, but doesn't require a following cause. Both time and space originates at the moment of the universe's conception, so what would be the laws before this existence? Can we say that everything has a cause then? We can't even say that now, much less then... (This is one of the fundamental errors of Aquinas' cosmological argument).
There are other views as well: Plasma Theory, Superstring Theory and such...
If it is, as many scientists believe, then how did the concept come to be? If you don't like the word God, how about Supreme Being or Supreme Intelligence?
I answered the next question. As for the second, an Atheist rejects the concept of any deity for many logical reasons, one of which is the problem of "intelligence" failing to apply completely to the universal worldview.
Can there be life without a giving or originating force?
They're already doing studies on the origin of life. Early work and such, but still promising... such as Abiogenesis.
If so, how did all everything come to be? If all sprung up without God, then what is being? Is being an illusion? Are we simply space recognizable only by some force that holds together enough nothingness to be perceptible?
As I said before: Being is the same as before, just without an external purpose.
I would also add the thrust of your argument is a fallacy: Appeal to Consequences.
You don't like the conclusion, thus it must be wrong.
Well Kid, then you'll have a long wait with your closed minded views.
Consider the following: an Atheist only rejects the existence of Gods and Goddesses. They can still be Monists, Animists and Materialists.
A Theist can only follow deities. Can you really conclude that I'm closed minded? Isn't this decision based on the simple fact that I don't accept Chrisianity?
What proof could YOU give that it actually happened to YOU?
If we continue the logic, we see that people cannot prove God to others. Therefore, I wouldn't try to prove it to them. I would accept their choice of Atheism and continue my normal life pattern, but now adjusted for God.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
106 (
view
)
PORN ?? - a willing buyer does not mean it is moral
Posted:
12/11/2005 9:27:50 PM
Bright1Raziel, in post #40, you imply that so long as business is meeting a demand in the market place, it is right and moral to sell that product. I assume you are using this to claim that the porn industry is not doing anything wrong and that porn is a good thing.
That line of reasoning is not very convincing. There are markets for all sorts of things that are bad for us. Crack and crystal meth, sawed off shotguns, white-sticks-of-death (aka cigarettes...the topic for another thread).
There are even markets for flim-flam medicines that harm instead of heal (and turn a tidy profit for the con artists)
Just because someone is willing to buy a product does NOT mean that it is moral to produce, sell, or use that product.
I am not convinced that porn is good, clean, wholesome, honest fun/entertainment.
This is true, but there still appears to be no arguments against ALL pornography. The marketing of sexual content may not be a notably virtuous activity, but it's not a vicious one either...
Especially in cases when the people involved are consenting.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
132 (
view
)
God exist does
Posted:
12/11/2005 9:18:15 PM
Uhmmm...He already did...about 2000+ years ago...and "The Holy Spirit" left behind for us, still calls...
So, ball is in your court...believe what is written...or not...
Of course, I was referring to proof of God's existence by parity of my example, but even accepting a literal statement:
Reading a book isn't reveling himself to me. I need direct communication, so it must be through miracle (or supernatural ways). Simply positing a book isn't useful, because I can turn the same thing to you...
Why don't you embrace Brahman? Is it not made clear in the Bagvad Gita? Is this not enough for faith?
So I need that supernatural interference. We hear about who encountered it and changed their lives, they wern't asking for God to do it, but it still happened... That's what I require.
I came to this conclusion by your own words. You by saying you would verify by a doctors statement show you lack the essential ingredient to hearing God.....FAITH.... You apparently lack this necessary and vital attribute. Because only with faith can you truly believe. Search deep with in your soul not as an adult but as a child this blind faith is what will open doors for you. Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me such is the kingdom of heaven" Only in the innocence can we open our hearts to him. The problem is we are too smart for our own good.
I can see this is where we will part ways then. Faith is a last resort for me, as I strive for truth. I will search for this in its most solid form and progress downwards untill I attain it. Seeing as through logic I attained a viable worldview which is a natural one (A methodological Naturalist/ Metaphysical Naturalist standpoint). There's no reason to throw away what is a completely logical pathway for me to embrace another lacking any evidence and stability.
Revelation by miracle would establish an ultimate truth for which I would embrace, but I will stick with the truth that has the most evidence for it. Faith lacks both logic and evidence, so it doesn't meet my standard of Truth.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
8 (
view
)
A question for atheists
Posted:
12/11/2005 5:55:14 PM
Most of the time, Atheists may use these forms of speech because they've become indocrinated with them. Being a member of a predominantly Christian society tends to lead to the people developing Christian sayings, but this doesn't mean anything.
As for myself, I'm starting to say "Oh my non-God..."
Hehehe!
(PS: FSM is SOOO old. Embrace the new age of our Lady of Mysteries, Tsunami!)
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
128 (
view
)
God exist does
Posted:
12/11/2005 5:49:19 PM
But in this case there is otherways to provide a point of view
The Earth its size is perfect.
Technically, it's not. It's not a perfect circle, but a spheroid.
The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
The style of this argument is faulty. You're trying to point out a specific conformation of matter as so unusual that God himself must have made it to be this way. However:
Hume himself refuted this argument by suggesting that the fact that this planet is habitable for life doesn't imply and unusual action. There are many planets, one of them most likely would have rendered life and thus we would be there. The problem with argument then is that the simple fact that this period of time has lead to life implies no unlikely odds because a). There are many other planets and places this could happen, dropping the odds a fair bit and most importantly b). Why would the formation of life be considered an accomplishment or necessity? If the universe didn't form life , but some other very complex arrangement of matter, even rarer than life itself, should we conclude that it must have been designed by God, simply because of it's general probability? That's the key component this argument is lacking: necessity.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents.
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.
Water is also chemically inert. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.
This is a continuation of your presvious argument, so I'll just say one thing:
1. Couldn't any further development have been spawned by the previous conditions?
Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.8 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ?
Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.
Assuming everything you said was true, doesn't any aspect of relaity lead to the development of something with astronomical odds? As I said before, in addition to likelyhood, there must be an engrained sense of necessity as well. It wasn't a requirement that life form, so why should we look at its formation and say that it's low chance formation leads to a conclusion of intelligent design?
God will pove himself to you, but maybe too late for some or they would have wished to have known Him long before. This is the choice you have. But He will reveal Himself it really is up to you when either you seek him or He will come to save you from self destruction for He does love everyone and does not wish for them to perish.
If he is all loving, he understands my need for evidence of his existence. He will come to me to show himself and then I will come to him to prove myself worthy of heaven.
Any less and we must question why an all loving God would design this kind of system in the first place.
I guess another fundamental problem with the particular branch of Christian theology is it's value of faith. It should NOT be faith which gets you to heaven but works alone (The Apologetic site Tektonics at least agrees with me somewhat as it shows that actual meaning of "faith" in the bible wasn't belief wihtout evidence, but sticking by God in the face of adversity, something any person who is worth their salt should do if God truly does exist).
So long as people believe that Faith (in the conventional sense) is what gets people to heaven, there will be tremendous problems between the different types of people.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
127 (
view
)
Does god exist?
Posted:
12/11/2005 5:28:49 PM
This is the very reason why he will not reveal himself to you if he did you would simply dismiss it. Instead he send people to inform you. This you apparently dismiss also. So what would it take to convince you? From what Ive read if he spit in your hair you would not believe it happened. and would probably argue their was a logical explanation.
I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. I just said this would be evidence for God's existence (for me as a person). It wouldn't be evidence for everyone else, because for all they know I could be lying.
Let me rephrase what I said in my last post: If God personally talked to me and I could verify by a doctor I wasn't suffering from a mental illness, then I would have to take his words as truth and thus believe in God.
That's all I meant. I'm following Hume in his suggestion that God's existence can be proven by an event so unusual, the denial of this event as an act of God is more unlikely than had it been done by God.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
4 (
view
)
A Perfect God with Imperfect Human Characteristics?
Posted:
12/11/2005 11:36:02 AM
Judging God is a risky business. One you don't know Gods motivatiosn or the situation on the ground. If he is indeed omnipotent, then his reactions ar eprobably exactly what was needed at the time to achiev ethe desired affect he was after.
The only problem is that they logically contradict. Observe:
1. God loves his creation.
2. Lucifer breaks free and rejects God.
3. Lucifer is cast to Hell.
4. God creates all there is, along with humans.
5. Lucifer escapes and perverts God's creation.
All of these accepted? If God want's everyone to be saved and happy, why wasn't the seal on Hell absolute? How did Lucifer escape and ruin his creation with sin?
God doesn't want everyone to be saved and happy? He isn't all good. Even if some were his enemies, it is God's nature to love his enemies (Agape). If he loves them, he must try to save them and make them happy, which would mean he should have sufficiently contained Ludifer in the first place.
God didn't know Lucifer was going to get out and do this? Then he's not omniscient, because it's quite obvious this angel would hold a grude on him and try to get at him. He needed complete containment.
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
122 (
view
)
Does god exist?
Posted:
12/11/2005 11:26:47 AM
If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away.
However, I do not oppose the possibility of a God/Goddess. That is why I'm an Agnostic Atheist (also known as a Weak Atheist/Negative Atheist/etc..). In fact, all I require is this:
Prove that it is more logical to accept the existence of God then to deny it.
But for myself I know God exists and some of these thoughts came to me wondering of Him, and what the Bible said. It really is not my place to prove God to you, It will be God himself one day. I do not wish to tell you all the things i have learnt through many others but just a thought for you to consider.
If God proved himself to me there would be no problem. However, to this date he hasn't. This is what conflicts with his wish for all to be saved.
God's thoughts, personality, and attitudes can only be known if God chooses to reveal them. All else would be human speculation. We are at a loss if God does not wish to be known. But God wants us to know Him and has told us in the Bible all we need to know about His character and how to relate to Him. This makes the reliability of the Bible an important consideration.
This perhaps represents one of the biggest problems of Theism. If we cannot come to know God through any other way then by him, then what's the point in even discussing him or even accepting his existence? Surely if there was any evidence in the universe that indicated his existence, then we wouldn't need him to tell us. This means there is no way for any Atheist to be shown that God exists unless God himself does the work. I once again reference the fact that God wants all to be saved. What about those who died Atheists? Why didn't God present evidence of his existence? Maybe you would say they were Strong Atheists and refused to accept God on any level, but there have been people who died Agnostic Atheists as well. What about them? Considering that an Agnostic Atheist allows for the possibility of God, then how could God not convince him?
Positing the Bible as evidence is problematic because... what about the Talmud? The Qur'an? The Sutras? Why are there so many other dictates of supposed Gods and Goddesses around as well as dictates of Monistic forces? We cannot accept the Bible as sufficient evidence, even accounting for minor proofs of figures within the book, because that many other books have proofs as well.
God spoke to me; therefore God exists.
This could be a proof for God. One on hand it could stem from illness, but simply going to ones doctor and getting a checkup already takes care of that issue. If you don't have any mental imbalances or physical problems with the brain, then how could it be illness? Doesn't work for others as there are other confounds, but for yourself? Sufficient evidence.
Once again though, why doesn't this happen for everyone? People don't believe it? Follow the method I've shown. It will lead one to decide whether God actually spoke to you, or for some reason you are hearing voices even though you are completely healthy. Which is more likely? It should work at least for Agnostic Atheists, but this doesn't happen. Once again, why?
Mewtwo_X
Joined:
12/3/2005
Msg:
113 (
view
)
Does god exist?
Posted:
12/10/2005 10:26:59 PM
Ok now see those tribal people? I can assure you they knew there is a God.
What about all those people who know God and experienced His love are they being selfish? I hope not. Expressing it is something that takes a time to develop and a learning curve you get from the Holy Spirit.
What about all those people who foolishly say the Lord's name in Vain? Ever wonder how they come to know His name and may not even be aware that they are sinning?
There is a universal belief in God. And in the earliest histories and legends of people all around the world, the original concept was of one God, who was the Creator. An original high God seems once to have been in their consciousness.
Conceptualizations of God doesn't imply God's existence. One could easily propose that such an idea shows a "God of the Gaps" in which supernatural entities were developed to explain phenomena they couldn't at the moment.
Woah there! The original ideas of the supernatural were not Monotheistic. In fact all religions were pretty much Monistic and Animistic (Hinduism, Native American religions). It wasn't until the development of Judaism that Monotheism actually made a significant surfacing.
Now here is another angle Man goes to the moon before he even understands Himself. Ok now this is a bit wierd but do you believe the was men on the moon? Seems a bit hard to believe doesn't it. Is it just as hard to believe that God crwated the world and all you see in it? Look at how complex we are and they cannot figure out the simple common cold remidy. Our brain another mysterious wonder they cannot explain yet God has worked it out so well and made the Living planet so complex that we are unble to get the jist of it.
Look at the Oil spills and how things in the ocean have changed to accomidate it, or repair it slowly. Or just the complexity that there are fish in the water and water freezes and the ice is on top. What about the wonderful light of the moon and sun and it warming feeling? the stars that show light? alll this was created by His Word.
This sounds like an argument from Incredulity, which is a fallacy since it simply says God exists because you cannot fathom a natural creation.
If you can tell me how this all came to be without a God I'll have to hand it to ya.
These threads are just debate things to try and quash the idea of God, I woould much rather help develop the idea's of what God has done or is going to do than prove mindless little games on here always. To be honest.
As a Christian do you not think there are many that have questions regarding the Gospels or the Word itself. Perhaps the Laws or even the trinity.
These were better subjects that we can all look into with a satisfying feeling of learnig of Him rather than doing this that try to prove or deny Him.
Physical laws developed from a Singularity? That's what I would suppose...
In order to have fruitful discussion of the ways of God with all the members of this board, one must first prove the existence of a God.
Show ALL Forums