genisis.

[Horseman42]

MarcAC,

Frankly, I consider the idea to be rather unnecessary. Why would He do that?

Perhaps to eliminate all the stuff inbetween that may be unnecessary.

We are made in God's image, we all have the potential to go to heaven, but through our choices we may end up in hell.

Your missing the point though God already knows the outcome. Our choice has not really much to say about it, God already knows who's going to heaven and who is going to hell.

Providing it could have, as you stated you're not God; I'm not God - when we know everything about how the human body functions within it's environemtn then we can start making suggestions.

If you can have faith in god, then having faith in science is equally valid. One day science will answer this question and we will have control over how the human body functions.

As I said, I don't believe God exists only because of t he "Theory of Design" or whatever. I believe God has endowed us all with a Spirit and He communicates with us through that via our conscience. The interesting thing about Big Bang rationalists is that they rationalise that the universe has an ultimate central cause as it seems to be expanding from a central point, yet when they get to that central point they rationalise that it needs no cause - isn't that rationale?[sarcasm] At infinity [basically unknown] anything becomes possible - nothing is probable. What is Occam's razor?

Occam's razor is a theory that states "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

Therefore why introduce God into the equation?

This you say from our little perch within the vast domain which we hardly know anything about. I don't see how you can suggest that there are faults without seeing some way in which these can be improved within this functioning universe. Maybe God will act to cure these when/if you ask Him to?

So all everyone who has Type I diabetes has to do is to ask God to cure them. Common lets be realistic about things. Without insulin and proper blood sugar monitoring people who have diabetes are in real trouble.

have not faith in any 'Argument from Design'. I have faith in God. You only raise questions [as that is all that can be done], you have yet to prove it's invalidity.

Then you can't use it as an example of why you think God exists. The questions prove it's invalidity. Unless they can be answered sufficantly then the arguement by design is worthless.

Which is indeed equated to your faith in the eternmal existence of energy. Everything you know to be rational will be ultimately based on something irrational.

Hey I never said I couldn't agree with the last bit. Kinda like we have faith that an apple is red when we see it. Or that when I smell burnt toast is it really burnt toast? I can understand that and fundimentally yes I have faith in these things and many more.

Your asking me to put my "faith" in a lot more that just this. Your asking me to believe in something outside of time and space. Something that cannot be readily detected. Something almost magical if you will. Not only that your asking me to change my outlook on life, and in some ways how I live my life. This is a lot to ask of on just pure faith alone.

And having only faith in something can be a very dangerous thing. Look at the Heaven's Gate. They had faith that by killing themselves they could leave the Earth and reside with space aliens inside the comet! How is your "faith" any different really?

Ok then I have faith that the Easter Bunny really exists. Or that there's an icecream factory on Jupiter. I don't have any proof really other than my faith. This is almost the same thing that your telling me!

 

[SnakeLord]

You are contradicting yourself here. You say you know nothing about the illness and then say my notions on it are invalid. Doesn't follow. When you calm yourself you will think straight.

I'm not a medical doctor, no. However the whole issue arose with you stating people could not choose how they were born, (for example someone born extremely mentally handicapped), but could still choose how to live their life. All evidence pertaining to this would show you to be vastly mistaken.

Then it was totally pointless; what were you addressing then???

You were talking originally about choice. I debated that choice is not choice when it's made for you. I said: 'god said he makes people blind, deaf, dumb etc'. You then say man has choice- I'm saying you can't really say man has the freedom of choice if the original ones are made for him. If a blind guy's choice was to be able to see things with his own eyes- he has no choice. A homosexual has no choice but to be homosexual. It's not a concious decision based on choice- but a forced decision. The majority of further 'choices' are limited, or even removed altogether, down to the original forced decision.

Pretty much, good attempted point, however you took that statement out of context as I did yours.

Maybe a tad, but the point still stands that if omnipotent, there's no question of 'can't'.

You are still saying it's a fault and you seem to know nothing about it, still presumptious.

Not at all. Cleft lips, born defects, or other problems like diabetes, heart murmers etc etc are not part of a perfect design. Dwarfism, down-syndrome etc.. all show humans have a long way to develop. The same can be said of the majority of animal life. This is quite easily understandble if you were to study the belief in natural evolution as opposed to superior design. Why, when made by god, would a child be born with minor/major defects/problems- not to mention why would some just die in the womb?

You are implored to listen God calling you everyday no? Listen, then you'll hear.

By who? I am on a lot of chatrooms and forums. I am implored to listen to a vast variety of things on a daily basis. What makes one more credible than the others? Usually when a person has something of value to say they do not need to 'implore' people to listen to them. Nobody goes upto a smiling happy person and implores anything to them, it's only when they're downcast and sad looking. When a person is in a fragile state of mine they'll listen to anything.

I've always been told.

So... since birth?

It does actually. What possible reason could you have for saying it doesn't?

Historical events, such as a large flooding, do not show sign of there being a big invisible space daddy.

For example: A lot of the history of Iliad/odyssey is accurate- that doesn't mean Zeus and co. were real, now does it?

I guess, according to you, it does.

Well if that is the only colour which is known to exist, yes

It's far from being the only colour that exists, it's just the only one you know.

But for those who do agree it is due to all of the evidence at their disposal. You look at it too simply. Complete knowledge or partial version of what exactly?

We weren't there at the time to witness any of these supposed events. We weren't there in the garden of eden with adam and eve, neither was the writer of the bible. The original story of the garden of eden would most likely be slightly more accurate because it was closer to the time. Without looking at that evidence and working solely on a text written much later- widely considered to be a handed down translation of those original texts you're not looking at all the data.

As i said- Better to go to the source, than the re-prints. Wouldn't it seem more important to study the original bible texts as opposed to the kjv, etc? By that same token it would be better to start with the originals of the bible texts. Of course- the religious establishment would regard that as completely worthless because the originals talk of other gods, even though the evidence quite clearly shows it's the root work of the bible.

Please quote that. I doubt you can be try.

You said they both 'travel hand in hand' which would suggest both are an integral part of each other, when they are not. However it's really inconsequential.

All that is based on you seeming delusion that I told you you need evdience to have faith, which I don't remeber stating and can't seem to find in my post so all this amounts from nothing.

Actually it still stands:

We require evidence before jumping in head first, whereas you obviously do not, (because faith does not require evidence).

You telling me that amounts from nothing if we both agree?

This is the difference between us. To me, the need for evidence is paramount. That's not a concious decision- it's just the way i am. When i cross the road i look left and right- i don't apply faith and just walk out regardless. Many people say non-believers have 'faith we wont get run over' but thats not entirely true. It's always a possibility but if we apply study to the instance we can work out better whether or not we're going to be run over. I fail to see how anyone can just jump off a cliff without testing the wind.

You mean you have faith that you're alive. All this could just be a neural simulation. Ever heard of the Matrix?

"I think, therefore i am." Whether stuck in a gooey mess with wires plugged into my brain or not, the simple fact i have the process of thought would state quite clearly i am alive, (in one way or another).

Furthermore how can you claim that to be 'faith'? I have extreme amounts of evidence to show i am in fact alive, showing this is far beyond faith. If you'd like to give me one small amount of evidence to suggest i'm actually dead, i'd love to hear it.

Sure, but, why do you think any religious text apart from the bible relates to the Christian God?

Obviously i have to keep repeating myself. There is a vast amount of evidence to show your bible, your belief, was based on older writings. If your bible is but a translation of those texts you may have 'faith' in something that is false. Ok, it's just a faith so who needs evidence? Doesn't matter if it's complete bollocks, it is after all just a faith. To me that is absurd when evidence is present to suggest your whole belief is seriously warped from the possible original truth. That's not to say the original stories are factual- but possibly more so than what you believe. This is perhaps why some of us seek out evidence instead of just jumping off the cliff.

Why don't you believe in the hindu god? Is it because it has no evidence to show it as being anything more than nonsense or is it just because you, without evidence, just picked whatever you saw first?

Agreed, it seems quite ridiculous.

Yeah, so does suggesting there's a big invisible guy who made the world in 7 days, has a bad companion who's gonna burn us naughty folk in hell, sent his son to temporarily die because people are naughty yada yada yada.

Do you know that science thrives on these 'concrete solid conclusions'? They are called fundamental truths.

Testable evidence. It's an important factor. In miniature scale:

I can pick up a phone and test it works.
I can't test whether a unicorn exists.

One's based on evidence, one's based on faith. In essence faith and hypothesis are the same word.

The only fact for you is that 'fact' that you are 'alive'. Your faith tells you that.

Wrong. The overwhelming amount of evidence tells me that. With the apparent absence of any counter evidence it would seem the most probable.

Decision is very relevant. What you term as fact or non-fact might just be otherwise as you so valiantly implied.

Which is exactly why 'faith' is not an answer.

When 'The Book' doesn't say so.

Most are, and have been, started by specific texts within the bible. The golden tooth crap that started several years ago came from a couple of abstract bible sentences such as: "open your mouth and i shall fill it."

We are very different. Enough said.

If i were a religious man i'd say "thank god."

Thus you have faith.

wrong again.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
I'm not a medical doctor, no. However the whole issue arose with you stating people could not choose how they were born, (for example someone born extremely mentally handicapped), but could still choose how to live their life. All evidence pertaining to this would show you to be vastly mistaken.

I'll remeber your technical eye the next time I post. How they live their lives meaning not physically - but emotionally - be miserable and resentful like it seems you would be and like the 42nd Horseman has encountered, or accept that it is how you are and just hope for something better to come. In other words, which Horseman seemed to understand - your look on life.

You then say man has choice- I'm saying you can't really say man has the freedom of choice if the original ones are made for him.

I doubt physical features have much to do with choices. He still has freedom of choice. You can't choose who your parents are, but, you can still choose how to live your life as we can see with many teenagers today. So I don't think that's a valid point. I know of a man who lost his legs and decided he won't be defeated - he has two prosthetics and drives a car - and seems happy.

Maybe a tad, but the point still stands that if omnipotent, there's no question of 'can't'.

Point accepted, you should remeber that next time you think about arguing contradictions where God is concerrned.

Not at all. Cleft lips, born defects, or other problems like diabetes, heart murmers etc etc are not part of a perfect design.

Firstly, you don't know what a 'perfect design' is. Maybe the point of all this is to show that the physical - which is temporary are essentially irrelevant - it is that which is eternal which counts - Spirit - in other words it's not your physical abilities but your outlook on life and how you treat others around you within your abilities.

Dwarfism, down-syndrome etc.. all show humans have a long way to develop.

You mean mentally right? With regards to technology and medicine which will counter these conditions. I agree in that sense.

The same can be said of the majority of animal life. This is quite easily understandble if you were to study the belief in natural evolution as opposed to superior design.

As opposed to??? Evolution is God at work.

Why, when made by god, would a child be born with minor/major defects/problems- not to mention why would some just die in the womb?

I rationalise that the physical is of minimal importance within the whole context of why we are here. Other thing is that many of these birth conditions are due to human action. If you know about evolution you will know why incest is discouraged.

What makes one more credible than the others?

I can try to tell you that, however, you have to discover that for yourself.

So... since birth?

I assume we all have a Spirit/Soul from birth.

Historical events, such as a large flooding, do not show sign of there being a big invisible space daddy.

If you know what's in the Bible and all those events are accepted as accurate by you and your colleagues then of course that would readily indicate to you that God is. Becasue the Bible states that God oversaw all - and even actively interacted with some - of these events.

For example: A lot of the history of Iliad/odyssey is accurate- that doesn't mean Zeus and co. were real, now does it? I guess, according to you, it does.

No it doesn't. Such are uninformed guesses.

It's far from being the only colour that exists, it's just the only one you know.

According to you it's the only colour which was doscovered. Now how on earth would you know, in your analogy, that there are other colours unless they were discovered also, or unless you were God, or unless God told you? You have to just assume that the colour you see is red - and that's how science functions - and that's why all scientific 'facts' and 'evidences' are largely based on faith or maybe even irrationality.

We weren't there at the time to witness any of these supposed events. We weren't there in the garden of eden with adam and eve, neither was the writer of the bible. The original story of the garden of eden would most likely be slightly more accurate because it was closer to the time. Without looking at that evidence and working solely on a text written much later- widely considered to be a handed down translation of those original texts you're not looking at all the data.

You are looking at that which is available to you, that's how research and science works bloke. There are many debates about dates within this context, therefore most things are uncertain, thus, I will continue to have faith in my God - I won't jump to any unwarranted conlusion just yet.

Of course- the religious establishment would regard that as completely worthless because the originals talk of other gods, even though the evidence quite clearly shows it's the root work of the bible.

What exactly are you referring to here? The Sumerian historical writings? Can you provide me with an example of this evidence? You keep stating this and I'm yet to see any example, or is it that you don't know?

You said they both 'travel hand in hand' which would suggest both are an integral part of each other, when they are not.

Well, I remember stating with faith comes evidence - and I actually meant that you will have faith in something then you will see the evidence for it. So yes you have faith in your evidence or the method by which it was obtained and you have faith in the rationale by which you conclude that this evidence is valid... and so on... get it?

We require evidence before jumping in head first, whereas you obviously do not, (because faith does not require evidence).

It actually doesn't. You believe you are alive because you see 'evidence' but that could all be a part of the neural simulation so you have faith in your evidence. And actually, a neural simulation is one which is predicted by many futurists where 'you' will be binary. So I guess a computer is 'alive' too huh?

You telling me that amounts from nothing if we both agree?

But we don't.

This is the difference between us. To me, the need for evidence is paramount. That's not a concious decision- it's just the way i am.[...] "I think, therefore i am." Whether stuck in a gooey mess with wires plugged into my brain or not, the simple fact i have the process of thought would state quite clearly i am alive, (in one way or another).

Well I guess an amoeba is dead, frankly all the single cellular life on this planet and those a bit more complex which do no have thought processes as such aren't alive? What makes you think that you're really thinking [Ha ha ha]. Evidence? What evidence?

[...] Furthermore how can you claim that to be 'faith'? I have extreme amounts of evidence to show i am in fact alive, showing this is far beyond faith. If you'd like to give me one small amount of evidence to suggest i'm actually dead, i'd love to hear it.

But how do you know evidence when you see it bloke? You rationalise right? How do you know that your rationale makes sense? You don't? Or you have faith that it does? Which is it? Keep in mind there is no evidence to support your rationale as your rationale is the means by which you identify evidence as such. About evidence of your death, it all depends on what you term as dead - if it is the conventional term I can't - as, if you were dead, you wouln't be able to make any use of it.

Obviously i have to keep repeating myself.

Not really, unless you want to.

There is a vast amount of evidence to show your bible, your belief, was based on older writings. If your bible is but a translation of those texts you may have 'faith' in something that is false.

What Bible is that? I really don't want to go and tell you this is total bullcrap but I can't seem to find anything which supports this. Are you referring to the first 5 books out of the 67 which comprise the Bible [some call it the Pentateuch]? Or is it the first book [Genesis]? Yes, there are names from the earliest known civilization mentioned in the Bible, and some stories are actually similar - for example the flood, but so freaking what???

Ok, it's just a faith so who needs evidence? Doesn't matter if it's complete bollocks, it is after all just a faith. To me that is absurd when evidence is present to suggest your whole belief is seriously warped from the possible original truth.

You keep using words such as 'possible', 'if' and the like, in other words these 'evidences are still being debated as we all know - so let's wait until the dust settles then I'll consider changing my mind. With faith comes evidence.

Why don't you believe in the hindu god? Is it because it has no evidence to show it as being anything more than nonsense or is it just because you, without evidence, just picked whatever you saw first?

Well I keep seeing pictures of how they look and no matter how hard I try I can't see them so, I guess I'm just not seein the evidence really. Not to mention they fight against each other and are manifestations of the same god - what sense is there in that? I'm not really into worshipping endangered species such as elephants and monkeys. Oh and it might get a bit confusing when you try to pick which God to worship, but then hey, you can just invent one for yourself and worship it. Well of course if the figurine is consumed by fire and you forget ow it looks you may have to make a new god for yourself. Wait, aren't they supposed to create me??? Oh never mind - it's too confusing.

Yeah, so does suggesting there's a big invisible guy who made the world in 7 days, has a bad companion who's gonna burn us naughty folk in hell, sent his son to temporarily die because people are naughty yada yada yada.

I agree, totally ludicrous. You mean that guy from "Hollow Man"?

Testable evidence. It's an important factor. In miniature scale: I can pick up a phone and test it works. I can't test whether a unicorn exists. One's based on evidence, one's based on faith. In essence faith and hypothesis are the same word.

Hypothesese are derived from evidence. Faith is just a fundamental part of your existence - without it you would accept nothing as such. Hypothesese are the driving force behind scientific advancement - they result from discrepanices and such in observations. So tell me; how would you know if the phone is working? Dialtone? How do you know that you are really hearing a dialtone? You remember how it sounds? So you trust your memory? Why, because it usually works relatively well? How are you so sure; from memory? Could'nt your mind be playing tricks on you? So what do you do? You dial and start talking. Why do you do that? Because you are sure it'll work. or are you searching for evidence that it works thourhg a voice at the other end - or one in your head... etc.

Wrong. The overwhelming amount of evidence tells me that. With the apparent absence of any counter evidence it would seem the most probable.

Where does probability fit into this? It doesn't. You have faith in the validity of that evidnece... etc.

Which is exactly why 'faith' is not an answer.

Then you have no answers.

Lata bloke.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Horseman42
MarcAC,
Your missing the point though God already knows the outcome. Our choice has not really much to say about it, God already knows who's going to heaven and who is going to hell.

The point is we haven't chosen as yet so while it would be possible to send them to hell without them making their choices because you know what they are going to do anyway, I can't see how that'd work so I just won't accept it as such. But guess what? Since it's all possible, maybe you are in hell or heaven already even while you are making your choices!?!? It's possible isn't it???

If you can have faith in god, then having faith in science is equally valid. One day science will answer this question and we will have control over how the human body functions.

I have no problems with science or even the Big Bang Theory except the problems everyone has with it - what happened at the beginning. And an interesting note for you is that one of the primary problems with the Big Bang Theory was that it couldn't explain the large scale complexity in the structure of the universe - but they solved it by introducing an ad-hoc hypothesis about inflation - if you didn't already know. And one more thing, not even scientists themselves have faith in science as much as you do - they don't think science will ever explain everything directly through their scientific reasoning.

Occam's razor is a theory that states "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." Therefore why introduce God into the equation?

So are you for String Theory or Big Bang Theory? Or both? How about the Brane Theory? I still see evidence of an intelligent being in the structure of the universe - in me - and in the progression of [events in] my life. I have seen many things which aren't simply explained away by science or Big Bang Theory. When science can explain every eliment of my being I might abandon my God, and according to science itself... it won't so... so be it.

So all everyone who has Type I diabetes has to do is to ask God to cure them. Common lets be realistic about things. Without insulin and proper blood sugar monitoring people who have diabetes are in real trouble.

I know people who have prayedto God for a cure and have been cured - others have asked and haven't been cured. Others have asked and have been cured temporarily - maybe due to that placebo thing - or maybe due to lack of faith.

Then you can't use it as an example of why you think God exists. The questions prove it's invalidity. Unless they can be answered sufficantly then the arguement by design is worthless.

It actually equates to your idea that the universe has always existed - mind you at the point most scientists accept infinite possibilites. The questions prove nothing - except that some things in life are unanswerable.

Your asking me to put my "faith" in a lot more that just this. Your asking me to believe in something outside of time and space. Something that cannot be readily detected. Something almost magical if you will.

Actually, most chritians, non christians and scientists will agree with the notion that humans are extra-dimensional beings. So there is more to you than a bunch of chemical rxns. Christians believe you have a Soul/Spirit which interacts with God and I would assume you experience this interaction through your conscience.

Not only that your asking me to change my outlook on life, and in some ways how I live my life. This is a lot to ask of on just pure faith alone.

With faith comes evidence. Put your faith in God and you will see the evidence. That's what I did. Your choice bro.

And having only faith in something can be a very dangerous thing. Look at the Heaven's Gate. They had faith that by killing themselves they could leave the Earth and reside with space aliens inside the comet! How is your "faith" any different really?

Faith is just that - faith [complete trust or confidence - Oxford dic.] - you don't have different types in this context. The Bible is against suicide. I don't know how they interpreted the image of the comet to show a spaceship behind it anyway. Look at all the religions out there, look at science [oh yeah - faith in there too]. How many astronauts and cosmonauts have died now? Look at the Islamics, the Palestinians. Faith is fundamental to you as a human, you're not God, you don't know truth for truth, you just know truth for most probable. You choose, God's Spirit will tell you which is right.

Ok then I have faith that the Easter Bunny really exists. Or that there's an icecream factory on Jupiter. I don't have any proof really other than my faith. This is almost the same thing that your telling me!

So you see no evidence of intelligent design and structure in our universe? Fine. You see no evidence of us humans as being any more than an amalgam of chemical rxns? Fine. You think it's fine that energy needs no cause although almost everything else does? Fine. To all those questions I simple say not fine. And when the question of where God came from arises it becomes irrelevant as He's omnipotent from my perspective. Almost the same is not exactly the same - very different consequences. Now what evidence is there to support your faith in the Easter Bunny or Jovian Ice Cream Factory? In fact I don't see these as even almost the same. Nothing can be an adequate analogy to God existing and the implications for you - these are simply imconsequential.

 

[Horseman42]

MarcAC,

You said,

The point is we haven't chosen as yet so while it would be possible to send them to hell without them making their choices because you know what they are going to do anyway, I can't see how that'd work so I just won't accept it as such.

It would work exactly as how you said it would work.

But guess what? Since it's all possible, maybe you are in hell or heaven already even while you are making your choices!?!? It's possible isn't it???

Not sure exactly what your driving at but it sounds interesting anyways.

I have no problems with science or even the Big Bang Theory except the problems everyone has with it - what happened at the beginning. And an interesting note for you is that one of the primary problems with the Big Bang Theory was that it couldn't explain the large scale complexity in the structure of the universe - but they solved it by introducing an ad-hoc hypothesis about inflation

I didn't know that about the big bang theory. I'll have to look that up sometime.

And one more thing, not even scientists themselves have faith in science as much as you do - they don't think science will ever explain everything directly through their scientific reasoning.

Not sure if all scientists believe this, but I'm sure many agree that we still have a lot to learn about our bodies. I can have faith that one day the answers will be found, why not?

So are you for String Theory or Big Bang Theory? Or both? How about the Brane Theory? I still see evidence of an intelligent being in the structure of the universe - in me - and in the progression of [events in] my life.

I'm sorry I'm going to plead ignorance here I've never heard of the Brane Theory, or the String Theory. All I'm suggesting is that which ever theory is simpler is usually better. If you want to believe in an intelligent being who constructed the universe go right ahead. All I'm saying is the arguement from design (which is what your using) has many flaws. If you choose not to accept these flaws that's up to you.

I know people who have prayedto God for a cure and have been cured - others have asked and haven't been cured. Others have asked and have been cured temporarily - maybe due to that placebo thing - or maybe due to lack of faith.

So you know for sure it was god? Did God tell you this or are you acting out of faith? Perhaps it was a placebo thing as you put it, the mind can infleunce the body in ways we are just beginning to understand.

Actually, most chritians, non christians and scientists will agree with the notion that humans are extra-dimensional beings.

Never heard of this theory can you please explain?

Faith is just that - faith [complete trust or confidence - Oxford dic.] - you don't have different types in this context. The Bible is against suicide. I don't know how they interpreted the image of the comet to show a spaceship behind it anyway.

Simply put these people had faith in what they believed in, and obviously was more powerful then what the bible said. It's kinda called blind faith and it's very dangerous.

So you see no evidence of intelligent design and structure in our universe? Fine. You see no evidence of us humans as being any more than an amalgam of chemical rxns? Fine. You think it's fine that energy needs no cause although almost everything else does? Fine. To all those questions I simple say not fine. And when the question of where God came from arises it becomes irrelevant as He's omnipotent from my perspective.

No intelligent design--- I never said that.
No more than chemical rxns--- I never said that either
No cause--- I never said this as well
Where did god come from--- Well he must have been created from somewhere because obviously he is intelligently design, and you said so yourself that anything intelligently design had to have had a creator. So I never said this exactly either.

What I'm saying is how do you come up with an omnipotent, all-good, all-knowing being from any of this even if you accept this as all being true? For all we know the creator of the unverse may not be omnipotent at all, may be evil, or may not even possess any consciousness whatso ever. You cannot extrapolate and assume all this only coming from the arguement of design.

With faith comes evidence. Put your faith in God and you will see the evidence. That's what I did. Your choice bro.

Then you said...

Now what evidence is there to support your faith in the Easter Bunny or Jovian Ice Cream Factory?

Why can't I just have the faith first as you put it and then see the evidence for the Easter Bunny? Plainly speaking your logic makes no sense. No one puts complete trust in anything without some sort of evidence. It's not true in science, not true in real life anywhere.

Scientific theories are true because of evidence, people don't start believing in wild theories unless they are proven first.

 

[SnakeLord]

How they live their lives meaning not physically - but emotionally - be miserable and resentful like it seems you would be and like the 42nd Horseman has encountered, or accept that it is how you are and just hope for something better to come.

A) I don't think you have the right or the place to make wild and purely unsubstantiated assumptions about what i'd be like in such a position. None of us know, no matter how much we'd like to think we do. I've sat down and had discussions many times about 'how you would act if caught in a plane hijacking or train crash etc'. The fact is, no matter how calm you claim you'd be, you'd never know until you were in such a situation- so kindly don't make such pointless and worthless speculations.

B) Spend some time with seriously mentally handicapped people. After you have done so come tell me if there's any evidence to suggest these people have the ability to 'be..' one thing or another.

I doubt physical features...

I'd hardly call serious mental handicap a 'physical feature' and if, as i suggested, you go spend some time with these people you might come to see things differently. All evidence would suggest against what you assume.

you should remeber that...

No, you should remember- when talking of an omnipotent being there's no question of 'can't'.

Maybe the point of all this is to show that the physical...

Within humans are distinct flaws. I guess in accordance with your belief god does this for whatever reason he does- to test someones mental attitude to the situation or whatever you say. Does he do the same with every single animal on this planet to test their mental attitudes? If not, the evidence would show we all suffer these same things as part of faults within the evolutionary system- not because god wants to test who loves jesus.

With regards to technology and medicine which will counter these conditions. I agree in that sense.

I like that.... god makes man in a specific way, man says 'bollocks' and changes all the work god does.

As opposed to??? Evolution is God at work.

Evolution is evolution at work, why bring a big invisible fairy, with no supporting evidence, into the equation?

Other thing is that many of these birth conditions are due to human action. If you know about evolution you will know why incest is discouraged.

Man don't try and blame child death rate on incest. Maybe back in the time of your beloved hippy, but not so much today. Children, even in the womb, do just die sometimes. I guess they had plenty of time to find out about jesus.

I can try to tell you that, however, you have to discover that for yourself.

Nice way to escape answering a question. I will reiterate for you: I had a guy yesterday tell me to worship the hindu god. Tell me how your particular god has any more credibility than his.

I assume we all have a Spirit/Soul from birth.

Completely irrelevant to the question. I will reiterate: When did you first become a faithful christian?

If you know what's in the Bible and all those events are accepted as accurate by you and your colleagues then of course that would readily indicate to you that God is. Becasue the Bible states that God oversaw all - and even actively interacted with some - of these events.

So, the bible's true because the bible says so? Fair enough.

No it doesn't. Such are uninformed guesses.

Ah, so your bible is true because it says so, but anything else, (even if it too contains historically accurate events), is nothing more but an uninformed guess? Boy, you're shallow.

According to you it's the only colour which was doscovered.

No, according to me it's the only colour you know.

You are looking at that which is available to you, that's how research and science works

Even the religious establishment concur that the garden of eden was in Basra, Iraq, (Sumeria). As such would it not seem important to read Sumerian texts? They were after all, the original people in accordance with your own bibles texts.

Science and research aim to find facts, faith aims to find nothing.

I will continue to have faith in my God - I won't jump to any unwarranted conlusion just yet.

Sounds like you already did.

What exactly are you referring to here? The Sumerian historical writings? Can you provide me with an example of this evidence?

Perhaps you've had a stressful week and have forgotten but we've already discussed this before. I will reiterate: I have left various excerpts of Sumerian texts on this forum many times. Feel free to browse around and find them. Failing that, try google. Hmm what was it you said to me again....

"I can try to tell you that, however, you have to discover that for yourself."

Maybe you should take your own advice.

and I actually meant that you will have faith in something then you will see the evidence for it.

Once you have solid faith you'll see whatever you want to see. Your preacher will undoubtedly brainwash you some more on a constant weekly basis and anything you did read would already be seen as total truth regardless. If you view the evidence first, then make an informed decision nobody could fault you. You could still be wrong but at least you searched for the answer instead of accepting it before asking the question.

You believe you are alive because you see 'evidence' but that could all be a part of the neural simulation so you have faith in your evidence. And actually, a neural simulation is one which is predicted by many futurists where 'you' will be binary. So I guess a computer is 'alive' too huh?

Ok, it's silly time heh? But you're right. I could just accept and have faith im a computer, i could just accept and have faith there's a flying invisible orang utan above my head but all of this is worthless without evidence.

Well I guess an amoeba is dead, frankly all the single cellular life on this planet and those a bit more complex which do no have thought processes as such aren't alive? What makes you think that you're really thinking [Ha ha ha]. Evidence? What evidence?

What makes me think that i'm really thinking? Is that a real question or are you just being daft? Evidence shows i have electrical activity from the brain, i shit, i eat and i procreate. That is extreme evidence to suggest i am actually alive. If i'm not it's inconsequential and gives me all the more reason not to believe in invisible space daddy's, because i'm not actually alive. god could very well be just a computer programme making you believe in something so you don't wake up from your matrix like state yada yada *snore*.

But how do you know evidence when you see it bloke? You rationalise right? How do you know that your rationale makes sense? You don't? Or you have faith that it does?

Ah, let me guess- we're all in the matrix again? As such god is irrelevant. I'm just plugged into a computer, and the bible is nothing but a bunch of pixels. "There is no bible."

Evidence, which you have tried with such futility to belittle, is so obviously important. Look in the sky..... You see a sun? Is that evidence that a 'sun' exists? Now, imagine there was no sun in the sky and someone said: "i have faith a sun exists in the sky". One is based on presentable evidence which can be tested by everyone, the other requires no justification, it's just true cause you want it to be.

but so freaking what???

That answers it all. You have no interest in truth, just whatever delusion you feel is right for the moment.

You keep using words such as 'possible', 'if' and the like,

That's because i'm not presumptuous enough to just pick anything at random and accept it. That's why i search for evidence. It is entirely possible a pink magic casting llama exists inside volcanoes. That's why we try to find evidence to support or reject a claim. Of course if you prefer, just add faith in magical pink llamas to your collection. It's not like it really matters.

so let's wait until the dust settles then I'll consider changing my mind.

Ok, so why make a decision in the first place?

Well I keep seeing pictures of how they look and no matter how hard I try I can't see them so, I guess I'm just not seein the evidence really.

Ah so your god is based merely on the fact you can picture what a dead hippy jew looks like, instead of a blue guy with 6 arms?

Not to mention they fight against each other and are manifestations of the same god - what sense is there in that?

Oh don't give me that bollocks. Who are you to even think you can comprehend what the gods do? aren't jesus, holy fairy and god manifestations of the same god? What sense is there in that? I dunno, you asked it, and it seemed like a rhetorical question.

I'm not really into worshipping endangered species such as elephants and monkeys.

At least we can show they actually do exist, which is a hell of a lot more than the thing you do worship.

Oh and it might get a bit confusing when you try to pick which God to worship, but then hey, you can just invent one for yourself and worship it.

Yeah, i noticed a lot of you do that.

Well of course if the figurine is consumed by fire and you forget ow it looks you may have to make a new god for yourself.

Nah, you can just buy another golden cross of jesus at any jewellers or pound savers store.

Wait, aren't they supposed to create me??? Oh never mind - it's too confusing.

Confusing? You're the expert.

I agree, totally ludicrous. You mean that guy from "Hollow Man"?

Well, you know very well who i was talking about and you agreed it was totally ludicrous. I think there's some subconcious thought trying to get a word in. Perhaps you should listen to it, see what it has to say.

Hypothesese are derived from evidence.

Hypothesis: Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption

Now you know.

So tell me; how would you know if the phone is working? Dialtone? How do you know that you are really hearing a dialtone? You remember how it sounds? So you trust your memory? Why, because it usually works relatively well? How are you so sure; from memory? Could'nt your mind be playing tricks on you? So what do you do? You dial and start talking. Why do you do that? Because you are sure it'll work. or are you searching for evidence that it works thourhg a voice at the other end - or one in your head... etc.

I think you should calm down on the alcohol before continuing this debate. Much that we can't really attempt to relate a telephone in the same context as god i will answer:

The way i am nothing is conclusive without evidence. I do not sit down and say: "The phone is going to work, i have faith in it." I pick it up- dial tone is good evidence, person answering is more and complete evidence. If they don't answer the evidence would suggest they're not in/phones not on hook etc etc. What you're doing is saying: "There's a big dude in the sky who's invisible and has a jewish son." Without even caring if theres supporting evidence or not. The phone working and god existing do not belong together.

Where does probability fit into this? It doesn't. You have faith in the validity of that evidnece... etc.

You're really reaching far out into the clouds aren't you? First im in the matrix, then my memory is playing tricks, now i just have faith evidence is valid.... you just continue to amaze me with your ineptitude.

It remains possible that even with a shit load of evidence that things could be slightly different to what the evidence shows. As such it's a probability, not a definite. Faith has no need for probability, definites or otherwise- it's just accepted because you feel like accepting it.

Evidence can sometimes be wrong- which is why we don't just accept things- we search until we know the facts.

Lata bloke.

Your condescending and highly immature attitude does you no favours. Might i consider you grow up slightly before responding to me.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Horseman42
MarcAC,
I didn't know that about the big bang theory. I'll have to look that up sometime.

I saw this coming. Please, don't think I'm trying to be some condescending fool, because I'm not. If this is what you advocate I would advise you to take the SnakeLord's advice and try your best to examine all the evidence. Hey it might seem impossible but, you can try. Otherwise, we all need faith, though the Snake seems to be denying it outright.

Not sure if all scientists believe this, but I'm sure many agree that we still have a lot to learn about our bodies. I can have faith that one day the answers will be found, why not?

Something they call 'Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle'. When it Comes down to the very small [subatomic particles] there are no 'certainties' [as if there are generally anyway]. They say you cannot measure the various properties [enegy, location, momentum] of a particle at the same time and this alludes to you never being absolutely certain about any said event on an atomic scale - even with fundamentally 'perfect' measuring instruments. In other words we seemingly [at present] cannot measure all those properties of a particle at once. So at that level only proabilities exist. I'm not too keen on it - read up - I could be telling you crap. [I got this from a book called Beyond The Cosmos by Ross Hugh - a chritian physicist].

All I'm saying is the arguement from design (which is what your using) has many flaws. If you choose not to accept these flaws that's up to you.

The only 'flaw' I see is the question of where God came from and for you where energy came from - in other words it's currently unanswerable.

So you know for sure it was god? Did God tell you this or are you acting out of faith? Perhaps it was a placebo thing as you put it, the mind can infleunce the body in ways we are just beginning to understand.

Here I plead a certain level of ignorance. It possibly could have been all.

Never heard of this theory can you please explain?

Well, many scientists beleive that our existence is comprised of more than 4 dimensions [lenth width, height, time?]. Thus, in essence, we are are extradimensional beings - this is from String Theory and Brane Theory - dont' know about extra dimesnions in Big Bng Theory. Then you have us religious people who believe in the soul. But as I said, look it up - it could be crap.

Simply put these people had faith in what they believed in, and obviously was more powerful then what the bible said. It's kinda called blind faith and it's very dangerous.

As I said, with faith should come evidence - but evidence is always open to interpretation. That's why you have so many competing Theories of cosmogony and soooo many other debates in the scientific, and the religious world.

No intelligent design--- I never said that.
No more than chemical rxns--- I never said that either
No cause--- I never said this as well
Where did god come from--- Well he must have been created from somewhere because obviously he is intelligently design, and you said so yourself that anything intelligently design had to have had a creator. So I never said this exactly either.

Fine.

You cannot extrapolate and assume all this only coming from the arguement of design.

Never said I did. Events in my life, things that I've seen. My experiences. My faith.

Why can't I just have the faith first as you put it and then see the evidence for the Easter Bunny? Plainly speaking your logic makes no sense. No one puts complete trust in anything without some sort of evidence. It's not true in science, not true in real life anywhere.

Well, you can believe in the Easter Bunny but then the evidence that you see might not be evidence for me. It is open to interpretation. If the Easter Bunny does indeed exist well, what are the consqequences if I choose to disregard you version of the evidence? As I said, with faith comes evidence - evidence strengthens faith. Sometimes, the term logic, has to be disregarded, for example, infinity is illogical - and science strives on this concept. I do admit a cetain level of ignorance as to the interaction of both faith and evidence. But I do know that that evidence needs faith - I doubt faith needs any evidence, though my faith strives on evidence for my God through your 'argument from design' thingy and other aspects of my life experiences.

Scientific theories are true because of evidence, people don't start believing in wild theories unless they are proven first.

I prefer to say they allude to truth. I mean sure, astronomers/philosophers back in the Resnnaisance times assumed that the sun circled the earth because of the available evidence they observed. Doesn't it still look that way? All the evidence they had and observing techniques suggested that. But now we know it's different. Many people blame these past hypothesese on biblical text and that's totally errant.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
None of us know, no matter how much we'd like to think we do.

Good, we are clear on that.

Spend some time with seriously mentally handicapped people. After you have done so come tell me if there's any evidence to suggest these people have the ability to 'be..' one thing or another.

I have, they have the ability to be happy people, once they aren't scorned and treated with disrespect as if they are not humans.

I'd hardly call serious mental handicap a 'physical feature' [...] All evidence would suggest against what you assume.

Call it what you wish, the point is they still have emotions, as they are human beings.

No, you should remember- when talking of an omnipotent being there's no question of 'can't'.

As I stated, your point, I accepted. So you don't agree with what you said?

Does he do the same with every single animal on this planet to test their mental attitudes? If not, the evidence would show we all suffer these same things as part of faults within the evolutionary system- not because god wants to test who loves jesus.

So, if we have 'faults' and other animals don't, it's a problem with the 'evolutionary system'? But isn't all animal life subject to evolution? [rhetorical] Please re-examine your proposal there.

I like that.... god makes man in a specific way, man says 'bollocks' and changes all the work god does.

Well, that's what got we in this position in the first place.

Evolution is evolution at work, why bring a big invisible fairy, with no supporting evidence, into the equation?

Well some say we're lucky. I don't particularly believe in anything called luck.

Children, even in the womb, do just die sometimes. I guess they had plenty of time to find out about jesus.

Jesus died for all within the human race, and they can't 'just die', there are reasons.

Nice way to escape answering a question. I will reiterate for you: I had a guy yesterday tell me to worship the hindu god. Tell me how your particular god has any more credibility than his.

As I stated before, put your faith in Him and you will see, well you won't see Him. But, hey, if you follow that guy's advice you might just see Vishnu and Shiva go at it in battle.

Completely irrelevant to the question. I will reiterate: When did you first become a faithful christian?

The statement didn't address this question. When I accepted the gift of Jesus' death and suffering on the cross and in hell for me and you.

Ah, so your bible is true because it says so, but anything else, (even if it too contains historically accurate events), is nothing more but an uninformed guess?

If you want to believe in Zeus and all the rest fine, but of what relevance are they in todays world may I ask? Well, actually, the 'uninformed guess' referred to your 'guess' that I would believe such crap. I'm not really a history buff.

No, according to me it's the only colour you know.

I get what you're saying, but you are assuming that I have not investigated the origins and content of many world religions today - which is, again, presumptious - you seem to be jumping to 'unwarranted conclusions' as much as I am bloke. Mind you I haven't investigated them all as in my opinion some of them aren't worth a micro-second of my time, but, please, I am not super-human, I'm human. I'll continue having faith in my God while I investigate.

Even the religious establishment concur that the garden of eden was in Basra, Iraq, (Sumeria). As such would it not seem important to read Sumerian texts? They were after all, the original people in accordance with your own bibles texts.

I've read a few, and I'm sure the 'religious establishment' have read them also, but, so what? The evidence is interesting but it doesn't warrant jumping to any conclusion just yet, I'm sure you would agree. Sumerian text with debatable origins are not enough to convince me of anythign really.

Science and research aim to find facts, faith aims to find nothing.

Actually, faith is the driving force behind the stated endevours.

I will reiterate: I have left various excerpts of Sumerian texts on this forum many times. Feel free to browse around and find them. Failing that, try google. Hmm what was it you said to me again....
"I can try to tell you that, however, you have to discover that for yourself." Maybe you should take your own advice.

I always do, that's why we're so different, but then you speak of 'the evidence' and it's like you don't even know what you're talking about. I've seen one purported Sumerian text quoted on this forum and I see no links to it's origins or anything to make it more than some plagiarized imaginary crap from whoever posted it.

Once you have solid faith you'll see whatever you want to see.

Not necessarily.

Your preacher will undoubtedly brainwash you some more on a constant weekly basis and anything you did read would already be seen as total truth regardless.

You obviously speak for yourself and colleagues here, as this doesn't refer to me.

If you view the evidence first, then make an informed decision nobody could fault you. You could still be wrong but at least you searched for the answer instead of accepting it before asking the question.

It seems you speak of evidence and you don't think about what would make it evidence of anything in the first place.

Ok, it's silly time heh? But you're right. I could just accept and have faith im a computer, i could just accept and have faith there's a flying invisible orang utan above my head but all of this is worthless without evidence.

Totally agreed upon.

What makes me think that i'm really thinking? Is that a real question or are you just being daft? Evidence shows i have electrical activity from the brain, i shit, i eat and i procreate.

That question is unanswerable, as you obviously realised. So you accept it upon faith. "I think therefore I am" or "I have faith that I am" or "I am aware", no big diff.

Ah, let me guess- we're all in the matrix again? As such god is irrelevant. I'm just plugged into a computer, and the bible is nothing but a bunch of pixels. "There is no bible."

Well your faith tells you that and you see evidence for it, feel free to believe it.

Evidence, which you have tried with such futility to belittle, is so obviously important. Look in the sky..... You see a sun? Is that evidence that a 'sun' exists? Now, imagine there was no sun in the sky and someone said: "i have faith a sun exists in the sky". One is based on presentable evidence which can be tested by everyone, the other requires no justification, it's just true cause you want it to be.

Look in the sky. You see stars? Isn't that evidnece that 'stars' exist? Tell that to a blind person. Noone said evidence wasn't important. Without evidence faith is basically useless - you can beleive anything you want. You telling me there is no God is like a blind person telling me stars aren't in the sky.

That answers it all. You have no interest in truth, just whatever delusion you feel is right for the moment.

Actually "so freaking what???" meant so what if biblical text from the earliest known civilisation is similar to secular text from the eariest civilisation. But then, you seemingly don't know, so I'll just discover it for myself.

That's because i'm not presumptuous enough to just pick anything at random and accept it.

I don't. With faith comes evidence, and admittedly, evidence stregnthens faith. You are presumptious to assume you know what I've read and what I know from what I don't know though.

That's why i search for evidence. It is entirely possible a pink magic casting llama exists inside volcanoes. That's why we try to find evidence to support or reject a claim. Of course if you prefer, just add faith in magical pink llamas to your collection. It's not like it really matters.

We all search for evidence bloke. Sure you can go on believing there's some pink llama and whatever but just show your evidence and let it be examined. Evidencee is always open to interpretaton. Look at the Mars rock ALH84001. Do you think there is evidence of life in there or do you propose the opposite pr are you neutral? About your pink llama I'm neutral as I simply don't know.

Ok, so why make a decision in the first place?

Simply because there is evidence elsewhere. In me and in you and in our lives.

Ah so your god is based merely on the fact you can picture what a dead hippy jew looks like, instead of a blue guy with 6 arms?

What Jesus looked like is not very important within the Christian faith. You don't know much about Christianity do you?

Oh don't give me that bollocks. Who are you to even think you can comprehend what the gods do? aren't jesus, holy fairy and god manifestations of the same god? What sense is there in that? I dunno, you asked it, and it seemed like a rhetorical question.

Well I guess you don't know too much about Hinduism either. Well, the Hindus actually acknowledge that the millions of manifestations of their god sometimes battle each other. Some are good and some are evil - long story. Yes, it was a rhetorical question in tha [the former] respect.

At least we can show they actually do exist, which is a hell of a lot more than the thing you do worship.

God is beyond scientific proof as such. That would make it too easy, many people would just accept Him out of fear of going to hell. Are you defending the hindu religion? Man, that guy must've been convincing.

Nah, you can just buy another golden cross of jesus at any jewellers or pound savers store.

Christians worship God [Jesus, Holy Spirit, Father], not a tree, although yes, you can prove it exists beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, you know very well who i was talking about and you agreed it was totally ludicrous.

Actually, you don't know who you were talking about.

Hypothesis: Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
Now you know.

Hypothesis "a proposed explanation based on limited evidence, used as a starting point for furhter investigation" quoted from the New Pocket Oxford Dictionary > Major New Edition

It seems you simply accepted that definition as the only one based on your faith? You should remember the advice you give to others [re: the colour thing]. Did you get that from a dictionary or is it proff that you are on of those who post quotes that could be from anywhere from your imagination to the heaven's gate cult? So now we both know hmm?

I think you should calm down on the alcohol before continuing this debate.

Matthew 7:3-4 3 "You can see the speck in your friend's eye, but you don't notice the log in your eye." 4 "How can you say, "My friend, let me take that speck out of your eye", when you don't see the log in your own eye?"
A paraphrase of Jesus' words while He was on earth. Think about that for a minute, and remeber, always follow your advice.

"The phone is going to work, i have faith in it." I pick it up- dial tone is good evidence, person answering is more and complete evidence. If they don't answer the evidence would suggest they're not in/phones not on hook etc etc.

You don't say it bloke, as I said, it's unstated, you just accept some things without any supporting evidence, having faith that evidence will come in due time.

The phone working and god existing do not belong together.

So why the hell did you use it as an anology in the first place???

You're really reaching far out into the clouds aren't you? First im in the matrix, then my memory is playing tricks, now i just have faith evidence is valid.... you just continue to amaze me with your ineptitude.

I told you no such things. I only alluded to them, you seem to want to accept them "by faith"? Well, if you see evidence, go ahead. Nothing about you amazes me much, I've seen it all before.

It remains possible that even with a shit load of evidence that things could be slightly different to what the evidence shows. As such it's a probability, not a definite. Faith has no need for probability, definites or otherwise- it's just accepted because you feel like accepting it.

Heh, sure. At some point probabilities are unknown to us bloke, so, you still need faith no matter how you look at it.

Evidence can sometimes be wrong- which is why we don't just accept things- we search until we know the facts.

What 'facts'? According to this line of reasoning you can never accept facts as truth, because according to you they are all based on 'the evidence'. Or are you saying that for us truths are non-existent?

Your condescending and highly immature attitude does you no favours. Might i consider you grow up slightly before responding to me.

Grow up in what sense bloke? Anyway, immaturity is quite a vague concept - more a personal thing. If my tone seems condescending, I'm quite sorry, it's not intended to be. I just reply based on what you post.

 

[SnakeLord]

I have, they have the ability to be happy people

Did they tell you that?

Call it what you wish

That's what you called it. Still asleep?

So, if we have 'faults' and other animals don't, it's a problem with the 'evolutionary system'?

Umm, i said all animals do have faults. Obviously you didn't read my post and as such completely avoided the question asked and point raised by making up shit. Nevermind.

Well some say we're lucky. I don't particularly believe in anything called luck.

That's completely irrelevant to the question. Why don't you read posts before responding?

Jesus died for all within the human race, and they can't 'just die', there are reasons.

Again, completely irrelevant to the point raised. Read the post first, then respond.

As I stated before, put your faith in Him and you will see, well you won't see Him. But, hey, if you follow that guy's advice you might just see Vishnu and Shiva go at it in battle.

Completely irrelevant to the question. You going for a world record? Tell me how your god has more credibility than the hindu god/s

The statement didn't address this question. When I accepted the gift of Jesus' death and suffering on the cross and in hell for me and you.

Do you speak english?? I said: when did you first get told by his spirit to have faith in him? In simple english: What age did you first find faith in god?

If you want to believe in Zeus and all the rest fine, but of what relevance are they in todays world may I ask? Well, actually, the 'uninformed guess' referred to your 'guess' that I would believe such crap.

You're completely avoiding the point, as you seem to do quite often. The bible and the iliad/odyssey contain historically accurate events. I said the events being accurate shows no proof towards there being a god-you said it did. I'm trying to find an answer to why you think a book depicting historically accurate events would have any basis on whether god is real or not.

Mind you I haven't investigated them all as in my opinion some of them aren't worth a micro-second of my time, but, please, I am not super-human, I'm human. I'll continue having faith in my God while I investigate.

What would make you think they're 'not worth a micro-second of your time' if you haven't investigated them? Pretty stupid thing for you to say. But i must ask why have faith in anything before finishing your investigations? You've accepted an answer before even asking the questions.

The evidence is interesting but it doesn't warrant jumping to any conclusion just yet

And exactly the same thing can be said with the bible- yet you jump to a conclusion without hesitation based on the words of ancient shepherds who simply copied those words from the sumerians. You haven't even seen all the evidence yet, but you've already come to a conclusion- which you arrived at before even beginning to look at evidence.

I'm sure you would agree

Of course i agree- but you seem to be unable to read your own words, or mine for that matter. You jump to a conclusion with no evidence then say 'its not worth jumping to a conclusion' when you already have.

Sumerian text with debatable origins are not enough to convince me of anythign really.

But a slightly younger book, based on those sumerian texts with debateable origins is? Lol, fair enough.

Actually, faith is the driving force behind the stated endevours.

Like i said- hypothesis and faith are the same word. But the religious man stops at that. He needs no more than the assumption he is right.

I've seen one purported Sumerian text quoted on this forum and I see no links to it's origins or anything to make it more than some plagiarized imaginary crap from whoever posted it.

Then not only are you blind, but your not very resourceful either.

You obviously speak for yourself and colleagues here, as this doesn't refer to me.

Don't go to church?

It seems you speak of evidence and you don't think about what would make it evidence of anything in the first place.

*yawn* I stated to you faith and hypothesis are the same word in essence, so i fully appreciate most things start off as mere assumption/speculation. However stopping once you have a speculation or an assumption is worthless.

That question is unanswerable, as you obviously realised. So you accept it upon faith.

Not really no. The evidence present suggests i'm alive. There is no evidence to suggest there's a big invisible guy sitting in the sky.

Look in the sky. You see stars? Isn't that evidnece that 'stars' exist? Tell that to a blind person.

Ok, now tell that very same blind person the reason he can't see the stars in the sky is 'cause a big invisible guy in the sky made him blind.

Without evidence faith is basically useless - you can beleive anything you want.

Glad we finally agree.

You telling me there is no God is like a blind person telling me stars aren't in the sky.

So because now all of a sudden evidence is important is the metaphorically 'blind' person at fault for not seeing god? You said to me, "without evidence faith is basically useless". So this metaphorically 'blind' person shouldn't have faith because it's basically useless without evidence, that he can't see?

Actually "so freaking what???" meant so what if biblical text from the earliest known civilisation is similar to secular text from the eariest civilisation. But then, you seemingly don't know, so I'll just discover it for myself.

Seemingly dont know what? What science, based on real evidence, can tell us is that the Sumerians were around between 5000 and 8000 years ago. This would tie in quite well with the dates of biblical creation. The texts which have been analysed time and again have been shown to be much older than your bible. They both contain the same events and historical attributes, not to mention your younger text clearly uses many parts from Sumerian, including details of the garden of eden being in sumeria, abraham being from Ur, Sumeria- mentions of Marduk, mentions of the Sumerian god Damuzi etc etc etc.

Do go and discover. You'd be amased what the evidence shows. Faith simply is not enough.

You are presumptious to assume you know what I've read and what I know from what I don't know

I get my information from what you've told me.

We all search for evidence bloke.

Whatever you say child.

Sure you can go on believing there's some pink llama and whatever but just show your evidence and let it be examined.

Lol you change your tune often.

Look at the Mars rock ALH84001. Do you think there is evidence of life in there or do you propose the opposite pr are you neutral?

I don't really know anything about it, thus i have no place to speak.

What Jesus looked like is not very important within the Christian faith. You don't know much about Christianity do you?

I didn't mention christianity, that's irrelevant. You said:

"Well I keep seeing pictures of how they look and no matter how hard I try I can't see them so, I guess I'm just not seein the evidence really"

Implying that you take pictures of how they look as some sort of evidence.

Well I guess you don't know too much about Hinduism either. Well, the Hindus actually acknowledge that the millions of manifestations of their god sometimes battle each other. Some are good and some are evil - long story. Yes, it was a rhetorical question in tha [the former] respect.

My knowledge of hinduism is irrelevant. You said:

"Not to mention they fight against each other and are manifestations of the same god - what sense is there in that?"

Implying that there's no sense in what they do. I said: who are you to think you can comprehend what the gods do. It's used often by christians saying we can't understand or comprehend god. By the same token what makes you think you could understand or call an act of the gods senseless? To me senseless is worrying about a cow being sacrificed to you having perfect testicles- yet that's what your god says. Everyone just tells me i have no place to comprehend gods actions, i say the same in return. Wanna tell me why your god has more credibility than the hindu gods?

God is beyond scientific proof as such. That would make it too easy, many people would just accept Him out of fear of going to hell. Are you defending the hindu religion? Man, that guy must've been convincing.

I had a hindu guy tell me the exact same thing with regards to his gods.

No, im not defending hindus- what you must understand is neither of you differ. You dismiss his gods out of hand, but don't seem to understand why someone else just dismisses yours. Neither of you have anything worthy to show in support, and as such i ask again if you can show why your god is more credible.

Christians worship God [Jesus, Holy Spirit, Father], not a tree, although yes, you can prove it exists beyond reasonable doubt.

It can also be proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is the tree that supplies you with air to breathe. It is the tree that removes the fatal carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and keeps you from dying. We can show the tree provides you with warmth, food, comfort. Now prove a 2000 year old hippy can do that. With all available evidence it would seem more pertinent to thank the tree.

It seems you simply accepted that definition as the only one based on your faith? You should remember the advice you give to others [re: the colour thing]. Did you get that from a dictionary or is it proff that you are on of those who post quotes that could be from anywhere from your imagination to the heaven's gate cult? So now we both know hmm?

Try Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, or failing that try dictionary.com

Furthermore: [Latin, subject for a speech, from Greek hupothesis, proposal, supposition, from hupotithenai, hupothe-, to suppose : hupo-, hypo- + tithenai, to place; see dh- in Indo-European Roots.]

Evidence works better than first come, first served. Although the dictionarys above differ slightly they all come to the same overall meaning of the word hypothesis. The origins of that word come from "supposition", which does not base itself on evidence. The oxford pocket dictionary is there to explain words to simpletons.

Matthew 7:3-4 3 "You can see the speck in your friend's eye, but you don't notice the log in your eye." 4 "How can you say, "My friend, let me take that speck out of your eye", when you don't see the log in your own eye?"

Snake 1:7 "Better to help your friend remove the speck from his eye, (which is the way of loving christians), and then hope he removes the log from yours."

Snake 2:3 "The log will hinder your vision, but if you can see a speck in your friends eye he will likely be in more trouble than you. A log does not fit in a persons eye, just over it, whereas a speck can blind a person completely."

You don't say it bloke, as I said, it's unstated, you just accept some things without any supporting evidence, having faith that evidence will come in due time.

Not that a belief in the phone working or belief in a big invisible being are in anyway related but no. If i pick up the phone and it doesn't have a dial tone i push the hang up button several times and check. I bet you even do the same. That's finding evidence. If it does have dial tone you don't have to question it because the evidence already states it works. You don't need to 'state' anything. However, and i dont know why i waste my time with such frivolous points, the phone working and god existing are completely separate issues.

So why the hell did you use it as an anology in the first place???

My original comment was about 'testable evidence' vs blind faith. I stated i can pick up a phone and test it works, i cant test that a unicorn with 17 legs exists, just because someone says it does.

I told you no such things. I only alluded to them, you seem to want to accept them "by faith"?

Lol, keep on reaching....

Nothing about you amazes me much, I've seen it all before.

Aha.

Heh, sure. At some point probabilities are unknown to us bloke

ok child.

so, you still need faith no matter how you look at it.

Faith in what? And how would any assumed faith you can think of relate to faith in a big invisible guy in the sky?

What 'facts'? According to this line of reasoning you can never accept facts as truth, because according to you they are all based on 'the evidence'. Or are you saying that for us truths are non-existent?

I looked up into the sky- there is a sun. That's a fact. If you don't believe me, look up.

Grow up in what sense bloke?

Any way you want, child.

 

[MarcAC]

Referring to someone as child is taking it a bit too far don't you think bloke/dude/man? You shouldn't be offended by the word 'bloke', it's just another term for saying man/dude/girl/boy. I just avoided using 'bro' as you were so much against it.

Anyway...

Umm, i said all animals do have faults. Obviously you didn't read my post and as such completely avoided the question asked and point raised by making up shit. Nevermind.

I read your post but missed your point, anyway I re-examined it and saw what you were getting at but the point is, anyway, you don't know and it seems you see no 'evidence' which you need so much as is suggested by your 'if', so it has no bearing on the discourse.

That's completely irrelevant to the question. Why don't you read posts before responding?

Actually, if you know a bit about the evolution which you speak of it would dictate to that we are quite 'lucky' to be here in the first place. I just don't say we're lucky, I say God is at work, as He wanted us here. Simple?

Again, completely irrelevant to the point raised. Read the post first, then respond.

Actually, I read and understood this part quite well, what you need/ed to do was read the posts which pertained to this discourse before you entered it, as I addressed this issue with the Horseman already, if you read you wouldn't have raised the silly point again.

Completely irrelevant to the question. You going for a world record? Tell me how your god has more credibility than the hindu god/s

Again, it is quite relevant. Some things are purely subjective and are beyond conventional explanation as such. When you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour you are changed within. Read with an open, rational mind - you'll get my point.

Do you speak english?? I said: when did you first get told by his spirit to have faith in him? In simple english: What age did you first find faith in god?

As I stated before, God speaks to us from the minute we come out of the womb, it's just for you to listen/put your faith in Him. Simple? And about what age I accepted Jesus - totally uneccessary.

I said the events being accurate shows no proof towards there being a god-you said it did.

Actually, I didn't, read again - I stated that if you are going to accept the Bible in its entirety then of course that would advocate the existence of God as the Bible assumes God exists [in reality] as an active player in History. Yes, you can accept the evidence of the historical accuracy of the whichever text you want, but you don't have to accept it in it's entirety.

What would make you think they're 'not worth a micro-second of your time' if you haven't investigated them? Pretty stupid thing for you to say.

Not really, that's a stupid thing for you to think. I know enough to see that they are crappy and pointless from the start so I don't wast my time investigating them. Simple?

But i must ask why have faith in anything before finishing your investigations? You've accepted an answer before even asking the questions.

Such is the nature of life Snake, obviously there are other factors which influence my decision to believe. You seem to think there can only be one type of evidence in support of an event - if so, you err. Life is an investigation - if you want to wait till yours ends to make a decision well too bad for you - it might be too late.

But a slightly younger book, based on those sumerian texts with debateable origins is? Lol, fair enough.

Yes, as I investigate various modes of evidence which you don't seem to advocate. Why?

I didn't mention christianity, that's irrelevant.

It seems everything is irrelevant to you.

You said:
"Well I keep seeing pictures of how they look and no matter how hard I try I can't see them so, I guess I'm just not seein the evidence really"
Implying that you take pictures of how they look as some sort of evidence.

Well, if that's how your brain works, fine, but you misread my meaning. You see, they know how the gods look, obviously then there are some physical manifestations, similar to the other mortal gods such as monkeys and elephants.

Then not only are you blind, but your not very resourceful either.

Actually, the point is the person should post where their text [which are purported quotes] originates from or it can be totally disregarded as a simple lie - not referring to you of course.

So because now all of a sudden evidence is important is the metaphorically 'blind' person at fault for not seeing god? You said to me, "without evidence faith is basically useless". So this metaphorically 'blind' person shouldn't have faith because it's basically useless without evidence, that he can't see?

Nowhere did I state to you that evidence isn't important - your brain might have told you that but it was not me. Let's assume that I'm an eye surgeon and I can cure you, so you can see the evidence, but you stubbornly say no.

get my information from what you've told me.

That's called jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Try Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, or failing that try dictionary.com

With regards to this, the point is that hypothesise are based on limited evidence or observances as such. And actually, I quoted the Oxford dictionary for your benefit. Of course you can go on Hypothesising about being alien and pink llamas as you wish.

That's it for now dude/bloke, this discourse has steadily degraded since you made your entrance, sadly.

 

[Horseman42]

MarcAC,

Sorry for the wait I've been busy training the last couple of days.

So at that level only proabilities exist. I'm not too keen on it - read up - I could be telling you crap. [I got this from a book called Beyond The Cosmos by Ross Hugh - a chritian physicist].

I'll have to do a little more research. Honestly It's been almost 10 years since I studied any physics whatsoever.

The only 'flaw' I see is the question of where God came from and for you where energy came from - in other words it's currently unanswerable.

The biggest "flaw" I have with the arguement from design is that it does not point to an all powerful, all-knowing being, that's all good as well. This is quite an important point if you believe in what most christians believe to be what God is.

As I said, with faith should come evidence - but evidence is always open to interpretation. That's why you have so many competing Theories of cosmogony and soooo many other debates in the scientific, and the religious world.

So again I have to ask if we have so many competing theories that how do you know that your theory is the right one? Why not believe in Zeus or some other deity? How can Christians believe that they are the only one to be saved? Even certain sects of Christianity believe that they are the right ones and other Christians are wrong.

Never said I did. Events in my life, things that I've seen. My experiences. My faith.

Again you speak from your events and things you've seen. What about the events and things that I've seen or others for that matter? If I started to believe that unicorns and faries exist because I see them then would you believe they really exist? How about Zeus? How about the Raelian Movement do you really believe in all that as well?

Well, you can believe in the Easter Bunny but then the evidence that you see might not be evidence for me. It is open to interpretation. If the Easter Bunny does indeed exist well, what are the consqequences if I choose to disregard you version of the evidence? As I said, with faith comes evidence - evidence strengthens faith.

Agreed evidence can strengthen faith. If haven't seen any evidence for the existance of God then what conclusion could I come up with then?

though my faith strives on evidence for my God through your 'argument from design' thingy and other aspects of my life experiences.

Honestly these are hardly enough for me to believe God exists. Again the argument from design is very flawed and so could be your life experiences. Again do you dismiss my life experiences?

 

[SnakeLord]

you don't know and it seems you see no 'evidence' which you need so much as is suggested by your 'if', so it has no bearing on the discourse.

My point was: If god makes man blind, dumb, deformed, etc we must ask why. Whatever reason you would provide wouldn't it seem prevalent to state the same goes for every single creature on this planet that suffers the same/similar afflictions?

So for instance if god makes man blind to test him- is a blind rabbit also being tested by god or is it more likely to look at natural evolutionary genetic issues in order to find out why sometimes creatures are born blind, deformed etc?

Tell me... why is someone born deformed, blind, dead, etc? Please, just a straight simple answer.

I just don't say we're lucky, I say God is at work, as He wanted us here. Simple?

Simple to say, yes- but completely lacking in evidence.

if you read you wouldn't have raised the silly point again.

I hardly class it as a 'silly' point. Some children, mine included, die before even being born. Tell me, does a child who dies in the womb have the chance to learn about jesus? To worship god?

When you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour you are changed within

The same can be said of so many different gods in different religions. I take it that means they all exist? You think it's just christians who 'change within'? Now for the question once more: What gives your god more credibility than any other god?

As I stated before, God speaks to us from the minute we come out of the womb, it's just for you to listen/put your faith in Him.

So any child who dies in the womb knows nothing of god or jesus and thus goes to hell?

And about what age I accepted Jesus - totally uneccessary.

It was an innocent question, i was just curious but if you're too embarrased to answer don't worry.

I know enough to see that they are crappy and pointless from the start so I don't wast my time investigating them. Simple?

I pity you, you're quite simply a fool.

if you want to wait till yours ends to make a decision well too bad for you - it might be too late.

Too late for what?

Yes, as I investigate various modes of evidence which you don't seem to advocate. Why?

That wasn't an answer to the question. Try again.

You see, they know how the gods look, obviously then there are some physical manifestations, similar to the other mortal gods such as monkeys and elephants.

god from the bible is a physical manifestation as seen many times.

Nowhere did I state to you that evidence isn't important - your brain might have told you that but it was not me. Let's assume that I'm an eye surgeon and I can cure you, so you can see the evidence, but you stubbornly say no.

If you as an eye surgeon have no qualifications with which to cure someones blindness how does it change my original post? You claim to have truth but fail with every question asking you to validate it. If god wants people, all the blind ones, to bow down at his feet he can bloody well say so himself.

Of course you can go on Hypothesising about being alien and pink llamas as you wish.

And you can go on hypothesising about big invisble hairy jews.

this discourse has steadily degraded since you made your entrance, sadly.

Probably because you have no challenge to make and just prefer to avoid the topic to waffle on about unrelated garbage.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Horseman42
The biggest "flaw" I have with the arguement from design is that it does not point to an all powerful, all-knowing being, that's all good as well. This is quite an important point if you believe in what most christians believe to be what God is.

My basic point here, is that we, ourselves, don’t now much about how everything within existence functions in reality, so I for one, cannot speak for God as if I am a God, therefore I cannot say that this isn’t the best functioning environment that could exist according to what I believe God has allowed us – free will. Why do I jump to the conclusion that God exists in the first place? A related answer is below.

So again I have to ask if we have so many competing theories that how do you know that your theory is the right one? Why not believe in Zeus or some other deity? How can Christians believe that they are the only one to be saved? Even certain sects of Christianity believe that they are the right ones and other Christians are wrong.

Well Jesus basically said, ‘No one comes to the father except through Me’ or some similar paraphrase. That’s why Christians believe that. Mind you, I do not think that the child who dies in the womb goes to hell as Jesus suffered for them already as I tried to explain before thus if they didn’t live a life to make any decisions according to Jesus’ teachings, well some might consider them lucky bastards – that’s my view – but I’d still rather to have lived my life as it is. Otherwise, I see Arguments among the Christian community pointless, as long as you accept Jesus – meaning you are a Christian – that should be the most important part.

About the competing theories, I do not agree with Occam’s Razor. Through my knowledge of science I have to come to the conclusion that there must be some guiding force behind it all – whatever the hell it is in actuality – physicists [String Theorists] or trying to find the ‘equation of everything or the equation of god’ – wish them luck. Of course, I have to plead some level of ignorance as to Who or What God Is in actuality. I know Who He is to me through my experiences in life – and He most likely seems to be the Christian God. However, through life, you have to accept something – my view - and through my experiences this is what I have come to believe. And no matter what the Snake says about me being ‘simply a fool’ as far as I know Zeus and those other gods would be as mortal as I am and most of them were created, as they kill each other and end up killing their creator. Some are ‘evil’ some are ‘good’. You can worship whichever you want and either advocate killing people mercilessly and supporting all kinds of evil through faith in your god or you can do ‘good’ deeds, according to your god whatever those are. He obviously doesn’t know much about the different religions and cults out there – but some are simply put, ridiculous – and that is an opinionated statement.

Again you speak from your events and things you've seen. What about the events and things that I've seen or others for that matter? If I started to believe that unicorns and faries exist because I see them then would you believe they really exist? How about Zeus? How about the Raelian Movement do you really believe in all that as well?

That’s why I stated to the Snake, who doesn’t seem to understand but I hope you do, that some things in life are purely subjective but by no means false. Some things in life you have to discover for yourself. So you should discover God for yourself. I am the messenger, not The Message. If you do, my faith in the truth of my God dictates to me that you will discover the truth about God – or as much truth as we are allowed to discover. I am not one to force my beliefs on anyone. Open your heart your mind and your soul, in other words put your faith in God – He will lead you to truth.

Agreed evidence can strengthen faith. If haven't seen any evidence for the existance of God then what conclusion could I come up with then?

Scientists found relatively concrete evidence for the existence of the neutrino [fundamental particle] 25 years after it was first hypothesised. They searched and kept searching for evidence. I think we all should. But as I said with faith comes evidence, and evidence is open to interpretation. You have to decide within yourself what to hold true, I hope it will lead you to truth. It was a relatively pleasant chat.

Until next time.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
I pity you, you're quite simply a fool.

Don’t waste your energy I don’t deserve, or need your pity. Proverbs 26:4 “Don’t make a fool of yourself be answering a fool.”. The answers to all your questions are above.

 

[Horseman42]

MarcAC,

Well Jesus basically said, ‘No one comes to the father except through Me’ or some similar paraphrase. That’s why Christians believe that.

Isn't this kinda like saying my truth is the truth because it's the truth. It's sounds like circular reasoning to me.

Mind you, I do not think that the child who dies in the womb goes to hell as Jesus suffered for them already as I tried to explain before thus if they didn’t live a life to make any decisions according to Jesus’ teachings, well some might consider them lucky bastards – that’s my view

Ok I'm willing to agree that children in their mothers womb go to heaven. After all the thought of children roasting in hell sounds almost evil to me, and I don't like the thought of anyone roasting in hell anyways.

However if you agree to this then you have to admit that when Jesus said "No one comes to the father except through me" is in error. How can someone who is so young able to comprehend the concept of Jesus and the fact that he died for their sin?

About the competing theories, I do not agree with Occam’s Razor. Through my knowledge of science I have to come to the conclusion that there must be some guiding force behind it all

That's ok that you don't accept Occam's Razor it's a theory anyways. I can't say I've come to the same conclusion that there is some force behind it all. I've not seen enough evidence of this.

have to plead some level of ignorance as to Who or What God Is in actuality. I know Who He is to me through my experiences in life – and He most likely seems to be the Christian God. However, through life, you have to accept something

Your proof here is purely subjective. I see no reason why you have to accept something.

That’s why I stated to the Snake, who doesn’t seem to understand but I hope you do, that some things in life are purely subjective but by no means false.

Totally agree with you. If a patient has a headache does it mean it's not real because the pain is subjective? Just because I can't or have not experienced it that does not make it untrue.

Scientists found relatively concrete evidence for the existence of the neutrino [fundamental particle] 25 years after it was first hypothesised. They searched and kept searching for evidence. I think we all should. But as I said with faith comes evidence, and evidence is open to interpretation. You have to decide within yourself what to hold true, I hope it will lead you to truth.

Again through my subjective proof and from what I have read and come to understand I can fully believe there is no such thing as God. Or more accurately anything that is like a Christian God.

You know honestly I was brought up to believe in God. We all went to Church every Sunday. I've read the bible and studied it in university. When I look back now I realize the real truth maybe that God does not exist, or again at least a Christian God does not exist. This is the truth I now hold, but again I'm willing to understand that this "truth" maybe wrong and willing to accept the fact that God may exist.

 

[MarcAC]

You know I am sure if you review our chat you will find where you asked the same question about acceptance of Jesus and going to heaven, I attempted an explanation as to why, no matter if you die 100 or die in the womb that Jesus died and suffered for us all.

We are all searching for truth. I have faith that God will lead me to His truth. I hope your search is fruitful. I'm out of this loop.

 

[revbill2001]

My God but you people are verbose. God created the heavens, the earth, the animals, the plants and man, and then He rested. After that He created woman, and since then no one has rested.