Does God Exist?

[Saquist]

Saquist,



Ok, so you really don't base your belief of god in your studies of the universe, but actually make your beliefs about the universe fit into your religious texts which state god did it.

I'm not sure.
I was taught my religion first.
I was required to make practicle application of what I believe in the real world. In other words before I was approved to be baptized, I had to have a basic working knowledge of the bible and the world so that I could propperly relate the information back to others.

It was up to me take it as far as I have.

So, do you believe in dinosaurs ?
Do you believe dinosaurs walked alongside man ?

I think you're asking if I'm a creationist. That would be a NO. Dinosaurs did exist they did not walk the Earth with Man, The Earth isn't several thousand years old and there is no evidence in the scriptures that will solidily support that perspective. Let alone six days.

I had this discussion with Sarkus I believe. He yelled at me. He said that the scriptures do say the Earth is six days old. When I showed him the information from other scriptures in Genesis that refered to "creative days" as one day, and of course another account which refers to the last day "the greater sabbath " as we are currently living in, the seventh day which has already been some 6,000 + years long. The bible has yet to conclude the seventh creative "day".

It's information you kind find on the internet if you're willing to look.

 

[Saquist]

What I've understood though is that the scriptural view of God being infinite
does fit with what must lie beyond this universe...or what was before the universe was created. I think there is more than a little correlations in this parallel and others I have found.

They've been hard to ignore.


Some of the universal parallels:
matter and energy
time and space

The one I've found:

Gravity and accerlation

 

[Sarkus]

I had this discussion with Sarkus I believe. He yelled at me. He said that the scriptures do say the Earth is six days old.

You're saying the bible doesn't say the earth was created in six days?
If you're intending to sully my (good) name, I suggest you do so accurately. If I remember that discussion it was more to do with how you appeared to cherry-pick from the Bible that which you felt should be taken literally and that which you considered suitable to consider merely a metaphor - i.e. you were being inconsistent in your treatment.

But hey ho. I'm not sure this has anything to do with this topic. But feel free to sully away, I say.

And I do not yell.

 

[jpappl]

Saquist,

I'm not sure.
I was taught my religion first.
I was required to make practicle application of what I believe in the real world. In other words before I was approved to be baptized, I had to have a basic working knowledge of the bible and the world so that I could propperly relate the information back to others.

So could it be possible that your view of the universe and the workings of the universe are affected by your belief in god based on the bible. That such a belief would have profound affects on how you view the workings of the universe.

I think you're asking if I'm a creationist. That would be a NO. Dinosaurs did exist they did not walk the Earth with Man, The Earth isn't several thousand years old and there is no evidence in the scriptures that will solidily support that perspective. Let alone six days.

Glad to hear. I have heard the reasoning of the days really meant to be thousands of years etc.

But wouldn't they really need to be millions and millions of years ?

Do you believe in evolution ?

 

[Saquist]

You're saying the bible doesn't say the earth was created in six days?
If you're intending to sully my (good) name, I suggest you do so accurately. If I remember that discussion it was more to do with how you appeared to cherry-pick from the Bible that which you felt should be taken literally and that which you considered suitable to consider merely a metaphor - i.e. you were being inconsistent in your treatment.

But hey ho. I'm not sure this has anything to do with this topic. But feel free to sully away, I say.

And I do not yell.

I remember you were quite...emotional.
I recall CAPS.

Saquist,



So could it be possible that your view of the universe and the workings of the universe are affected by your belief in god based on the bible. That such a belief would have profound affects on how you view the workings of the universe.

Yes...it's more than possible I'm biased.
I wouldn't be objective if I said it wasn't.

Glad to hear. I have heard the reasoning of the days really meant to be thousands of years etc.

That's the concept of a day is a thousand years for God.
That doesn't fit because the last day has exceeded a thousand years by six times.

But wouldn't they really need to be millions and millions of years ?

Do you believe in evolution ?

I don't believe in evolution.
I do know adaptation leads to significant changes, which is how life has gotten diverse. But I need more from science than the current evolutionary theory that makes an incredible leap from mirco to macro changes.

When and if that happens I will no reason to say "I know God exist"
That would create an unresolvable difference between the scriptures and science.

 

[jpappl]

Saquist,

Yes...it's more than possible I'm biased.
I wouldn't be objective if I said it wasn't.

Fair enough.

I don't believe in evolution.
I do know adaptation leads to significant changes, which is how life has gotten diverse. But I need more from science than the current evolutionary theory that makes an incredible leap from mirco to macro changes.

When and if that happens I will no reason to say "I know God exist"
That would create an unresolvable difference between the scriptures and science.

That day will come I am sure and I am glad to hear you are open to the change, which is what I was referring to with focusing our answers of God on our current knowledge which is still in it's infancy. Imagine what we will have learned and discovered in 500 years from now based on what we have learned over the past 200.

With regards to evolution and dinosaurs and man.

How do you reconcile the fact that you believe in Dinosaurs, so you trust in science to have determined these creatures walked the earth, but apparently don't trust the bones of early primates and primitive man and the long steady march forward to modern humans.

If we were created in gods image, why did he first create australopithecus ?

Also, where in the bible does it talk about these creatures, from dinosaurs to early primates and the like ? Shouldn't the bible have foretold of these findings or of the history of these beings ?

Beasts doesn't cut it because it is not nearly specific enough and there are still plenty of beasts (lions, tigers and bears) today.

Where in the bible does it discuss pathogens and microbiology. Shouldn't all of this been there if it were the words of god ? All knowing should have been all knowing.

 

[swivel]

Where in the bible does it discuss pathogens and microbiology. Shouldn't all of this been there if it were the words of god ? All knowing should have been all knowing.

I often use this argument when stressing the overwhelming lack of evidence for a higher being that has ever communicated with humans.

Why have none of these religious books ever revealed anything that wasn't already known by its readers? No cosmological insight, no higher math, no physics beyond the ken of the divinely-inspired authors.

To leave out germ theory isn't just suspect, it is negligent to the point of pure sin. Billions of dead while our creator stifled the urge to tell us about infections. Even worse, some of those creators urged surgical procedures which increased our risk.

People worship these mad things?

 

[Red Devil]

Someone in the church in rome once said ignorance is bliss; he meant the ignorant can bless us. Keep the populace ignorant and under threat of hell fire and damnation, oh and give us your money!

 

[jpappl]

I often use this argument when stressing the overwhelming lack of evidence for a higher being that has ever communicated with humans.

Why have none of these religious books ever revealed anything that wasn't already known by its readers? No cosmological insight, no higher math, no physics beyond the ken of the divinely-inspired authors.

To leave out germ theory isn't just suspect, it is negligent to the point of pure sin. Billions of dead while our creator stifled the urge to tell us about infections. Even worse, some of those creators urged surgical procedures which increased our risk.

People worship these mad things?

Yes and I am interested to hear how Saquist justifies the dichotomy between the extrodinary invention and creation of the universe by god and the lack of what would be considered basic information in todays standard science classes in the biblical texts.

 

[swivel]

Yes and I am interested to hear how Saquist justifies the dichotomy between the extrodinary invention and creation of the universe by god and the lack of what would be considered basic information in todays standard science classes in the biblical texts.

The strain of creation killed the old fucker?

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,
That day will come I am sure and I am glad to hear you are open to the change, which is what I was referring to with focusing our answers of God on our current knowledge which is still in it's infancy. Imagine what we will have learned and discovered in 500 years from now based on what we have learned over the past 200.

Don't you think it's important to draw a line (as it were) in the sand when it comes to religion and science? I have done so for both. For science when any model exceeds the improbable into impossibility then it must be rejected.

Likewise if a religious aspect contradicts known, provable scientific facts then it too must be rejected.

With regards to evolution and dinosaurs and man.

How do you reconcile the fact that you believe in Dinosaurs, so you trust in science to have determined these creatures walked the earth, but apparently don't trust the bones of early primates and primitive man and the long steady march forward to modern humans.

If we were created in gods image, why did he first create australopithecus ?

It is rather simple to allow science to dictate what is. As far as what was and what will be, no one can see clearly, Even forensics can be wrong when determining the remains of the known human remains. We only have bones and very little DNA. I need more.

Also, where in the bible does it talk about these creatures, from dinosaurs to early primates and the like ? Shouldn't the bible have foretold of these findings or of the history of these beings ?

The bible is a collection of 66 books written in harmony by 40 different men inspired by God over a thousand plus years. The longest gap between them around 700 years. It is a record of consistent communication between God and man. Anything that isn't in the scriptures between Genesis and Revelations, apparently we didn't need to know, but there are moments of communication where God has given us a glimpse of knowledge far beyond that of the pastoral people it was written to.

It's specific goal is to give hope to mankind by showing how in the future the current state of war, death, poverty and diease will end. It is litteraly a notice of a change of government on the Earth and allowing the option to each one of us, which is more appealing. His way or our way.

Where in the bible does it discuss pathogens and microbiology. Shouldn't all of this been there if it were the words of god ? All knowing should have been all knowing.

The bible does speak of pathogens such as Leprosy.
Quarantine. According to the Law, a person who had or was suspected of having a communicable disease was quarantined, that is, kept away from others or isolated for a time. Seven-day periods of quarantine were imposed in tests for leprosy in the case of persons, garments, and other items, or houses. Also, a person was rendered unclean for seven days as a result of touching a human corpse. Though the Scriptures do not say that the latter regulation was given for health reasons, some protection was thus afforded other individuals if the corpse was that of a person who had died of an infectious disease. (Le 13:1-59; 14:38, 46) (Nu 19:11-13)

Infact the bible books go on and on about clean and unclean, dictating the propper practice of not just quarantine but the propper disposal of excrement and the detriment of fluids such as seminal, vaginal and blood. Today we know all these bodily fluids are highly contagious. Who knew? In contrast it took 1,800 years for doctors to figure out new born children should not be handled by doctors who have also handled corpses.

The bible is an excercise in obedience. If shows that it is best to do what you are told than to find out the hard way. But that was the problem from the begining. According to it (the bible) the first human pair decided to learn the hard way. And we're still learning by that same method. Most people with children can relate.

Currently I work in a resaerch and development and design position. I've found that there are certain products that are not allowed to be shipped over seas to certain countries. The US governement has deemed these countries (many of them of the third world) as dangerous and unstable, unsuitable to handle the technology that the US and it's allies has developed. Somethings are as simple as certain laptop computres, many times sensors and other complex measuring tools. I think that is a wise rule to incorporate.

It took man...2000 years to reach it's current technological development even as it already had the right tools and information to do so sooner. Only in the last two hundred years has technology developed the fastest. Coal and the minerals to produce engines, and rockets has been around for quite some time. Imagine the damage that could have been done if man understood sooner. Remember, we're talking about a time of unparralleled religious intolerance and ignorance. Guns, rockets, and nuclear capabilities in the hands of the Romans, the Egyptians, Greeks, the Medes and Persians. The twentieth century was already the mark of the greatest wars in mans history.

 

[lightgigantic]

Jpappl

“
prove me wrong by discussing, say, issues of medical analysis and treatment without reference to anything established by a physician
”
This is what I find so offensive about your tactics. You want to blend reality with fantasy. Everytime I interject reality into the equation you cry foul because it asks for evidence, you then claim there is no way to provide the "normal" type of evidence because the discussion of god is beyond that.

the problem is that you use the word "normal" when you should use the word "empirical"

And then you use an example which is perfectly explainable using science.

Since its obvious you don't feel comfortable discussing anything metaphysical, I use an example of a specific claim of empirical knowledge that is determined by meeting specific requirements of discipline.
Sometimes this is referred to as an analogy.

You are a coward and intellectually dishonest. You can not answer a question without a complete circus act because you have nothing.

once again, if you can enter into the details of a specific claim without entering into the details of the specific requirements it entails, your whole inquiry is completely useless.
If you disagree, just try and prove me wrong by discussing, say, issues of medical analysis and treatment without reference to anything established by a physician

Of course someone who is diagnosing an illness or other medical condition should have such credentials and qualifications for such.

But you have yet to answer.

and there you have it!
someone who is determining aspects of the nature of god also meets certain criteria

What are the qualifications for proving or determining whether or not God exists ?

“
BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
”
Meaningless. You have nothing.

Italics for your benefit

“
That also proves that god is nothing more than a circus animal that I can beckon to my will .... which tends to run contrary to the very primary understanding of god's nature.
You clearly illustrate the problems of trying to approach issues of evidence without approaching issues of qualification.
”
You belief or knowledge of God must not be that deep. I bet you would run to a hospital if your arm got cut off you coward. Run to the doctors to put your arm back on.

What. Your God wouldn't do it for you. Are you afraid that God wouldn't be there for you.

you seriously miss the point

The experiment that you devised has nothing to do with determining the nature of god.

To use yet another comprehensible example from the realm of the non-metaphysical, if you cannot make the president of the USA declare war on korea, does that mean he has no capacity to do so?
Is your failure to dictate to the president exactly how he should mobilize his military authority an indication of weakness of faith or belief in the president and his capacity?
Or does it even indicate that he is failing to fulfill his obligational duty to america, (assuming that you are american), because he is not acting according to how you deem he should?
Or does this demand to carry out this experiment indicate that I know practically nothing about the president and the political reality he operates in?


geez ......

Maybe you need to pray harder or something because you are obviously unsure about the whole belief thing.

Maybe you should start from scratch and revise your understanding of god's relationship with the living entity

 

[jpappl]

Saquist,

Don't you think it's important to draw a line (as it were) in the sand when it comes to religion and science? I have done so for both. For science when any model exceeds the improbable into impossibility then it must be rejected.

Likewise if a religious aspect contradicts known, provable scientific facts then it too must be rejected.

Agreed. However, there is a difference. The religious model is finite as the texts have been written and we know where they begin and end.

Science has no end, none. We are to continue to expand our knowledge endlessly. The moment we claim to have all the answers is the moment science itself becomes a religion.

It is rather simple to allow science to dictate what is. As far as what was and what will be, no one can see clearly, Even forensics can be wrong when determining the remains of the known human remains. We only have bones and very little DNA. I need more.

Then why do you believe dinosaurs didn't walk with man ?
Why do you believe they walked the earth at all ?
If Australopithecus didn't live before man wouldn't we have historical record of such creatures in biblical texts ?
I agree for the need for more information and if that information does not support these claims then the greater truth should be pursued. But the greater truth from the archaeological side points away from creationism. So what to make of the biblical texts. They have to been endlessly interpreted and then are contradictory.

It's specific goal is to give hope to mankind by showing how in the future the current state of war, death, poverty and diease will end. It is litteraly a notice of a change of government on the Earth and allowing the option to each one of us, which is more appealing. His way or our way.

And people have been claiming the world is coming to an end ever since. It has yet to happen, but to be sure there are those who want to make it happen during there lifetimes to fulfill the prophecy. Would you not agree with this. This is an unfortunate aspect to the worlds religious communities, a minority to be sure but dangerous nonetheless.

The bible does speak of pathogens such as Leprosy.

Leprosy was around back then. This is not what I am asking. It didn't go near where we are now. The proper disposal of excrement etc was known to any person with any intelligence. In fact, a good trick if your dog digs at the fence is to place their crap along the fence line. They won't dig in it.

It took man...2000 years to reach it's current technological development even as it already had the right tools and information to do so sooner.

Really. So you are saying that we should have been flying jet aircraft around 2000 years ago. I'm not sure if this is what you mean here. So I will ask only if what you mean is that the basic materials have been here but we didn't understand how to use it to the level we have now.

That is a given, but if your saying that the bible gave clues or more specific details to the technology we have now, you will need to show me where it gives any indication of such.

My point is that it gives no mention of what we have learned and how far we have come, so it clearly is an inferior piece of work from a futurists outlook. Literally a piece of fiction in the end. The fact that humanity continues to make the same errors over and over with how we deal with each other, our pride and prejudcies is not amazing at all. From my point of view we haven't been out of the caves for that long. It's actually quite amazing we have found ways to get along.

I do agree that we are at risk because on the technological front we are evolving so fast and are like caveman with very powerfull toys.

I do appreciate your input and thanks for answering my questions.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,



Agreed. However, there is a difference. The religious model is finite as the texts have been written and we know where they begin and end.

Science has no end, none. We are to continue to expand our knowledge endlessly. The moment we claim to have all the answers is the moment science itself becomes a religion.

religion is a way to follow. It dictates history
science is discovery.
The really have little in common. Occasionaly on will touch on the other.
I think it's how we treat them that is the real difference.

Then why do you believe dinosaurs didn't walk with man ?

Is there any information that tells us otherwise?


W

hy do you believe they walked the earth at all ?

Have you ever seen a creature such as T-rex walk the Earth today? I'm confused by the question. On the one had we have the remains of a creature that doesn't exist today in any form. In the other, we have bones of creatures that have similarity to apes.

Evolutionary theory makes a hunch that this is a missing link yet how do we know. Many things on Earth have similar gentic precentages and yet have no relation to each other. We discovered this when DNA's code was cracked. Before DNA we made inferences on similar looking bones but it turned out later that they had no actual relation. This occured with plants as well. We know today that man and ape share a significant similarity in genetic code but that similarity is always listed in percentages not in matching code for code. That's a bit deceptive because ultimately there is a large span of difference in the arrangement of that DNA that defines an Ape from a human. These are some of the jumps that evolution would have us make from adaptation to radical restructuring.

I have done a considerable amount of research on this subject, jpappl. Once the speculation, and theory have been stripped away the biblical application of kinds does apply to the Earth biological constant. The facts show us animals that reproduce according to their kinds. I've also found that DNA prevents the flexibility evolution would need in order to change a creature. Mutation also seems limited to a repeating variation of limited changes. The variety seems to dry up and what doesn't kill a creature has little effect on it at all which seems to be the purpose of DNA.

I can not comment on world ending scenarios because the doubt that is created merely because of incredulity is stronger than the consideration that it might occur and that is not an objective perspective I wish to entertain.

Leprosy was around back then. This is not what I am asking. It didn't go near where we are now. The proper disposal of excrement etc was known to any person with any intelligence. In fact, a good trick if your dog digs at the fence is to place their crap along the fence line. They won't dig in it.

If this information was comon place then why did the thinking that excrement combine with milk could heal open wounds? This was the same time period.

Really. So you are saying that we should have been flying jet aircraft around 2000 years ago. I'm not sure if this is what you mean here. So I will ask only if what you mean is that the basic materials have been here but we didn't understand how to use it to the level we have now.

I can't accurately predict what might have happend. I can compare the differences between the current availability and knowledge with that of the past knowledge and I can conclude that there were several marked occasions were war, genocide and diease litteral held man back from progressing forward. The amount to which we've been held back, though, is profound. At some points we litteraly were walking backwards.

The bible has never handed technology to man but it has given knoweldge.

My point is that it gives no mention of what we have learned and how far we have come, so it clearly is an inferior piece of work from a futurists outlook. Literally a piece of fiction in the end. The fact that humanity continues to make the same errors over and over with how we deal with each other, our pride and prejudcies is not amazing at all. From my point of view we haven't been out of the caves for that long. It's actually quite amazing we have found ways to get along.

There has been more destruction on a larger scale in the 20 century and people die by the millions from causes other than old age. I'm not sure if you can call the Earth's current rate of war...as getting along. But that's just my point of view I suppose.

I do agree that we are at risk because on the technological front we are evolving so fast and are like caveman with very powerfull toys.

From my perspective we've actually have slowed down. Computer technology has come along way true but this doesn't move us. Transportation is a crucial key to the survival of species that outgrows it's enviroment every 5 years. We've slowed down since 1960's with no sign of picking up the pace.

I do appreciate your input and thanks for answering my questions.

The converstation is one I don't mind discussing under civil circumstances.
It's you I thank.

 

[Red Devil]

Faith is faith - it derives from a willingness to be faithful. It is nothing that is "known". Not only not "known" but the least bit plausible. In todays developed world of educated people, there cannot be any group who inflict their blind faith and implausible ideas as islamics or christians, in their own fashion. And actually get government's to back their ideals. The extreme stupidity is that they both believe in Jesus.

 

[Sarkus]

From my perspective we've actually have slowed down. Computer technology has come along way true but this doesn't move us. Transportation is a crucial key to the survival of species that outgrows it's enviroment every 5 years. We've slowed down since 1960's with no sign of picking up the pace.

Can you expand on this, please?
And I do have several questions, if you would be so kind:
What do you mean by "transportation... outgrows its environment every 5 years"?
In what way have we "slowed down" since the 60's? The pace of technological advance in transportation has slowed?
Furthermore, I would say your perspective appears unduly limited and biased... transportation of us, physically, is one thing, but you seem to forget that transportation of information is far faster than it has ever been: something happens in Australia and moments later you can hear it on the opposite side of the world. Information is at our fingertips. Why do we need to move when everything can be brought to us as needed?

 

[Red Devil]

Can you expand on this, please?
And I do have several questions, if you would be so kind:
What do you mean by "transportation... outgrows its environment every 5 years"?
In what way have we "slowed down" since the 60's? The pace of technological advance in transportation has slowed?
Furthermore, I would say your perspective appears unduly limited and biased... transportation of us, physically, is one thing, but you seem to forget that transportation of information is far faster than it has ever been: something happens in Australia and moments later you can hear it on the opposite side of the world. Information is at our fingertips. Why do we need to move when everything can be brought to us as needed?

My own guess would be space. We had a "space race" in the 60s which promised such things as Mars by 2000, colony by 2012 etc etc. Since then, nothing except the ISS.

 

[swivel]

My own guess would be space. We had a "space race" in the 60s which promised such things as Mars by 2000, colony by 2012 etc etc. Since then, nothing except the ISS.

The shuttle system was a major advancement, one that is soon to be improved upon with a second version. We also have great plans for viable space elevators, we just need a few advances in carbon nanotubes and funding.

The strides in underwater exploration and the unmanned probes we have sent throughout the solar system are pretty huge, and Europe and Japan have made highspeed rails a reality.

I wouldn't be so glum.

 

[Sarkus]

The shuttle system was a major advancement, one that is soon to be improved upon with a second version. We also have great plans for viable space elevators, we just need a few advances in carbon nanotubes and funding.

Ooh - disagreement ahead: The shuttle has been an unmitigated ****-up in helping us establish a foothold in space... it is almost prohibitively expensive which means funds to develop alternatives have been much reduced.
It is a technological marvel, sure - but in the 27 years it has been running there has been no other serious focus by NASA on single-stage-to-orbit vehicles... so it takes a private individual to come up with the next breakthrough.


But I'm still curious as to what Saquist meant by saying we have "slowed down" since the 60's, as he did not provide support for the claim. We can guess and disagree at various guesses - but we did not make the claim.

 

[Red Devil]

The shuttle system was a major advancement, one that is soon to be improved upon with a second version. We also have great plans for viable space elevators, we just need a few advances in carbon nanotubes and funding.

The strides in underwater exploration and the unmanned probes we have sent throughout the solar system are pretty huge, and Europe and Japan have made highspeed rails a reality.

I wouldn't be so glum.

Oh not glum. But in terms of space exploration (manned) we have had shelved hundreds of projects that were all to have happened before 2000. Once the Apollo program was terminated, the US Government lost interest and since then NASA has had its funds dramatically reduced.