Proof that God exists.
- Thread starter Ekimklaw
- Start date
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Refer to my posts concerningCris.
It's either God or chance. What evidence is there that chance was the cause of everything? Do you lose anything *just* believing in God (no organized religions)? You think chance is a better explanation than God? hmm...
If you use Occum's Razor, then it is unnecessary to even ponder about the origin of the universe with respect to how much knowledge you possess.
I was just stating what it means to be "supernatural."
You do believe that with the amount of knowledge we acquire it is not possible to know whether there is a God, right? Also you are skeptical about the existence of God, right?
If so, you are agnostic by definition. So why call yourself a "weak atheist." Point?? Something against the theists??
So, they are still surviving. Point of sex? Who knows? Why would evolution "care" if they are more liable to be genetic bottlenecks?
unnerving
Preferred morality framework tends to shift based on what is expedient for one's ego or desire.
One of my favorite tests of preferred morality is to have the person go into a ghetto and shout out that ' Though my preferred morality keeps me from promoting the lynching of black people, I cannot say that it is absolutely moraly wrong to lynch black people, because I do not believe in absolutes... If you happen to be black, then replace the qualifiers as necessary.
By the way, Chooser-dude, you ask 'what is evil?'...simple....it is the absense of good.
May wisdom mop your fretted brows this evening all and may your dreams illuminate your fears of annihilation.
You said it, you avoid it.
Then you cannot claim anything is ever wrong, except for you. So can you create your own morality? I find it terrifying that a person cannot affirm that 1 - 3 are absolutely [hey...lets add eternally, too!] morally wrong. You would rather hide from an absolute and hide behind a preferred morality? I hope you a] do not become a figure of power or you may begin to prefer enslavement for the good of the society, b] that you do not begin to have inordinate desire for children's company, or we may have to hide children from you, c] You are working towards world domination, or I will have to hide Jews from your cleansing.
Preferred morality framework tends to shift based on what is expedient for one's ego or desire.
One of my favorite tests of preferred morality is to have the person go into a ghetto and shout out that ' Though my preferred morality keeps me from promoting the lynching of black people, I cannot say that it is absolutely moraly wrong to lynch black people, because I do not believe in absolutes... If you happen to be black, then replace the qualifiers as necessary.
Look inthe mirror, Adam, image and likeness...image and likeness. Why are you even interested in this thread?
By the way, Chooser-dude, you ask 'what is evil?'...simple....it is the absense of good.
May wisdom mop your fretted brows this evening all and may your dreams illuminate your fears of annihilation.
TheChosen, you are barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest on teh wrong planet in some whacko imaginary universe you live in. Science and evolution and all does NOT rely on chance. It relies on reason, experimentation, observation, and proven laws of nature and physics. That is not chance. It is not, as you say, "god or chance". It is in fact "superstition or reality".
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Your place here is so impertinent. What do you think I am refering to?
Why are you posting this anyway?
If you didn't catch on, I'm talking about the origin of the universe.
Good job for "understanding" Adam
Also don't try to twist the argument and convolute it, I believe in science and evolution. Thanks for acting so superfluously.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Re: unnerving
Hippo-man and his "hippo-argot."
So you believe in moral absolutes? You cannot determine a moral absolute unless you want to go around the entire world and ask every single person's opinion.
If the answer is in unison, then it is a moral absolute, but we will never be able to know this.
unnerving indeed.
Hippo-man and his "hippo-argot."
So you believe in moral absolutes? You cannot determine a moral absolute unless you want to go around the entire world and ask every single person's opinion.
If the answer is in unison, then it is a moral absolute, but we will never be able to know this.
unnerving indeed.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Re: TheChosen
LoL, if you say so Adam, if you say so.
What do some scientists rely on for the origin of the universe? Will we ever know? Or will it be a chance? Big Bang = randomness and explosion. Randomness = chance.
Hope you open your eyes more.
LoL, if you say so Adam, if you say so.
What do some scientists rely on for the origin of the universe? Will we ever know? Or will it be a chance? Big Bang = randomness and explosion. Randomness = chance.
Hope you open your eyes more.
*Originally posted by Xev
Tony:
That's a poor straw man, Tony.*
It just goes to show the mental state he was in, when concocting his ideas.
*Toast? I thought I was devil's food cake. *
Toasted devil's food cake?
*Originally posted by Adam
What the fudge are you smoking, dude? The reason is nature/physics. The description is in our language. As Raithere pointed out, the former is due to charge differentials and the latter due to the rotation and orbit of the Earh.*
I apologize for your inability to understand.
I note the clever use of the term "due to," as though something is actually being "explained" by the description of what happens.
The earth rotates around the sun. Period.
Standing on the earth while it does that creates an impression of the sun rising.
It doesn't matter how many different techniques you use to describe that, you aren't explaining how or why it happens, even if you do use the term "due to."
*Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
I understand, and it is also "quite reasonable" to assume that all theists are fools? *
It would be invalid to assume that.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).
*Originally posted by Cris
You speak as if evolution had a choice, or that it has intelligence in some form. It doesn’t have either.*
A point of agreement.
Evolution has nothing to do with any form of intelligence.
*Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Because of my resolve to belief, I am determined to seek what I believe to find an end result of it being true.*
Wow!
That's what the atheists do.
They are resolved to believe that they do not believe in God.
They are equally, if not more, determined to find the end result to be true, by decree, if necessary.
*Tony1, I'm sorry for being so open-minded about things.*
Why would you apologize for that?
*Let's pretend evolution is a big scam.*
Sorry, I can't.
I KNOW it's a big scam.
*I'll still use it because it is the most plausible theory out there to explain diversity of origins.*
What diversity of origins?
Who was around observing origins that was able to tell you of some diversity?
*Evolution is the best working theory now.*
Sadly, that's true.
It is unfortunate that that's the best our "best" minds could invent.
*Accept the best available for the time being.*
I'll definitely take the "best available" over the "best working theory."
*Creationism has jack diddly squat as a working model.*
Except, of course, the universe we live in.
It's an actual working model, as compared with the working (?) theory that evolution has.
*Much knowledge has grown from Darwin.*
No doubt, but is any of it any good?
*Originally posted by Cris
So the full definition of a theist is someone who –
Claims to know with conviction (certainty) that the existence of a god or gods is true and in accord with reality.*
That's pretty good.
It works for me.
*If you compare yourself to tony1 (I guess you don’t know him well enough yet though), or Ekimklaw, or Vinnie, who are all theists*
I don't know Ekimklaw.
Vinnie may claim theism, but he is a practical atheist.
His situation is one that hasn't come up in discussions so far, and is actually an interesting case.
His statements all appear theistic, however, his actions are atheistic.
Does your concept of atheism include such a thing, Cris?
It is something you should look into, since people such as Vinnie are your greatest allies in your fight against Christianity, or theism in general.
*Originally posted by hippo
You said it, you avoid it.*
You're going to be a ton of fun around here.
*One of my favorite tests of preferred morality is to have the person go into a ghetto and shout out that ' Though my preferred morality keeps me from promoting the lynching of black people, I cannot say that it is absolutely moraly wrong to lynch black people, because I do not believe in absolutes... If you happen to be black, then replace the qualifiers as necessary.*
You're going to be like a porcupine in a condom factory.
*Originally posted by Adam
Science and evolution and all does NOT rely on chance.*
You really weren't paying attention in science class when they introduced the theory of evolution, were you?
The ToE is entirely dependent on pure random chance.
If it weren't, it would be based on intelligent design.
As such, it would go completely agaisnt the grain of the atheists who developed it.
*Also, I feel it is my duty as a sentient creature to obliterate ridiculous supersitious nonsense the same way a doctor tries to wipe out diseases or cure wounds.*
IOW, you don't want to obliterate ridiculous supersitious nonsense?
Personally, I've got the same plan, except I'd like to actually succeed, which doctors don't.
Tony:
That's a poor straw man, Tony.*
It just goes to show the mental state he was in, when concocting his ideas.
*Toast? I thought I was devil's food cake. *
Toasted devil's food cake?
*Originally posted by Adam
What the fudge are you smoking, dude? The reason is nature/physics. The description is in our language. As Raithere pointed out, the former is due to charge differentials and the latter due to the rotation and orbit of the Earh.*
I apologize for your inability to understand.
I note the clever use of the term "due to," as though something is actually being "explained" by the description of what happens.
The earth rotates around the sun. Period.
Standing on the earth while it does that creates an impression of the sun rising.
It doesn't matter how many different techniques you use to describe that, you aren't explaining how or why it happens, even if you do use the term "due to."
*Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
I understand, and it is also "quite reasonable" to assume that all theists are fools? *
It would be invalid to assume that.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).
*Originally posted by Cris
You speak as if evolution had a choice, or that it has intelligence in some form. It doesn’t have either.*
A point of agreement.
Evolution has nothing to do with any form of intelligence.
*Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Because of my resolve to belief, I am determined to seek what I believe to find an end result of it being true.*
Wow!
That's what the atheists do.
They are resolved to believe that they do not believe in God.
They are equally, if not more, determined to find the end result to be true, by decree, if necessary.
*Tony1, I'm sorry for being so open-minded about things.*
Why would you apologize for that?
*Let's pretend evolution is a big scam.*
Sorry, I can't.
I KNOW it's a big scam.
*I'll still use it because it is the most plausible theory out there to explain diversity of origins.*
What diversity of origins?
Who was around observing origins that was able to tell you of some diversity?
*Evolution is the best working theory now.*
Sadly, that's true.
It is unfortunate that that's the best our "best" minds could invent.
*Accept the best available for the time being.*
I'll definitely take the "best available" over the "best working theory."
*Creationism has jack diddly squat as a working model.*
Except, of course, the universe we live in.
It's an actual working model, as compared with the working (?) theory that evolution has.
*Much knowledge has grown from Darwin.*
No doubt, but is any of it any good?
*Originally posted by Cris
So the full definition of a theist is someone who –
Claims to know with conviction (certainty) that the existence of a god or gods is true and in accord with reality.*
That's pretty good.
It works for me.
*If you compare yourself to tony1 (I guess you don’t know him well enough yet though), or Ekimklaw, or Vinnie, who are all theists*
I don't know Ekimklaw.
Vinnie may claim theism, but he is a practical atheist.
His situation is one that hasn't come up in discussions so far, and is actually an interesting case.
His statements all appear theistic, however, his actions are atheistic.
Does your concept of atheism include such a thing, Cris?
It is something you should look into, since people such as Vinnie are your greatest allies in your fight against Christianity, or theism in general.
*Originally posted by hippo
You said it, you avoid it.*
You're going to be a ton of fun around here.
*One of my favorite tests of preferred morality is to have the person go into a ghetto and shout out that ' Though my preferred morality keeps me from promoting the lynching of black people, I cannot say that it is absolutely moraly wrong to lynch black people, because I do not believe in absolutes... If you happen to be black, then replace the qualifiers as necessary.*
You're going to be like a porcupine in a condom factory.
*Originally posted by Adam
Science and evolution and all does NOT rely on chance.*
You really weren't paying attention in science class when they introduced the theory of evolution, were you?
The ToE is entirely dependent on pure random chance.
If it weren't, it would be based on intelligent design.
As such, it would go completely agaisnt the grain of the atheists who developed it.
*Also, I feel it is my duty as a sentient creature to obliterate ridiculous supersitious nonsense the same way a doctor tries to wipe out diseases or cure wounds.*
IOW, you don't want to obliterate ridiculous supersitious nonsense?
Personally, I've got the same plan, except I'd like to actually succeed, which doctors don't.
Chosen,
OK so lets explore what we mean by ‘belief’.
I can’t say I believe and I can’t say I don’t believe. I simply don’t know. There is no evidence that aliens exist, yet consideration of the vastness of the universe and the colossal number of potential planets, and considering that life on Earth may not be unique then I can see that the existence of aliens might be possible. I remain open to the possibility that they might exist. But belief doesn’t enter into this.
Current scientific research shows considerable evidence that some form of big bang has occurred. In terms of inductive logic we can conclude that the probability of truth is very strong. In that light and unless more evidence shows otherwise then it is reasonable to believe that a big bang has occurred.
As to whether the big bang is the origin of the universe then there is inadequate evidence to reach that conclusion. Current theories suggest that the big bang is just one of a probably infinite number of big bangs occurring either simultaneously or have occurred or will occur. Without supporting evidence or further observations it is not reasonable to reach a conclusion either way.
So on that basis and on the style of my answers, answer me this –
Do you believe that a god exists?
If you are rational then you should answer with one of the following –
1. I believe a god exists because I have evidence x.
2. There is no evidence to support this claim so it is not possible to reach a conclusion for or against this claim.
Rational belief is only possible when it is supported by factual evidence.
Cris
OK so lets explore what we mean by ‘belief’.
By ‘believe in’ I assume you mean = do I believe that aliens exist.
I can’t say I believe and I can’t say I don’t believe. I simply don’t know. There is no evidence that aliens exist, yet consideration of the vastness of the universe and the colossal number of potential planets, and considering that life on Earth may not be unique then I can see that the existence of aliens might be possible. I remain open to the possibility that they might exist. But belief doesn’t enter into this.
By ‘believe in’ I assume you mean do I believe that the Big Bang occurred. You might also mean do I believe that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. These are two different questions.
Current scientific research shows considerable evidence that some form of big bang has occurred. In terms of inductive logic we can conclude that the probability of truth is very strong. In that light and unless more evidence shows otherwise then it is reasonable to believe that a big bang has occurred.
As to whether the big bang is the origin of the universe then there is inadequate evidence to reach that conclusion. Current theories suggest that the big bang is just one of a probably infinite number of big bangs occurring either simultaneously or have occurred or will occur. Without supporting evidence or further observations it is not reasonable to reach a conclusion either way.
Evolution is fact. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that evolution has occurred. It is reasonable to believe that evolution is true. So yes I believe that evolution is true. The processes that caused evolution remain the subject of many evolutionary theories. Some of these theories are well understood and there is overwhelming evidence. For these it is reasonable to conclude that these processes are true. Other theories are still being defined and evidence is still being collected, so it is not possible to reach conclusions on all pending and developing specific theories.
There is no evidence to support this. However the logical start of the evolutionary process indicates that this is the most likely cause of early life. However, until evidence is provided I can only state that I don’t know whether this hypothesis will be true or not.
So on that basis and on the style of my answers, answer me this –
Do you believe that a god exists?
If you are rational then you should answer with one of the following –
1. I believe a god exists because I have evidence x.
2. There is no evidence to support this claim so it is not possible to reach a conclusion for or against this claim.
Rational belief is only possible when it is supported by factual evidence.
Cris
tony1,
Vinnie is an apologist, so I can see how you reach your conclusions above. Vinnie and you haven’t been here at the same times I guess. I think the two of you might potentially have some interesting exchanges.
Take care
Cris
Ekimklaw is a ‘conventional’ Christian, and I’ll let you interpret ‘conventional’ as best you can.
Vinnie is an apologist, so I can see how you reach your conclusions above. Vinnie and you haven’t been here at the same times I guess. I think the two of you might potentially have some interesting exchanges.
Take care
Cris
Tony1 and TheChosen
As you seem to have been greatly misinformed about science in general, I have provided here a few links you may wish to peruse. Please enjoy.
The Big Bang
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/pub/bigbang/part1.html
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
Formation of star systems
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/forming.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=planet02
http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~joergens/course/
http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/Formationplanets-03.html
http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/background.html
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/skrutskie/astr121/notes/ssevid.html
Evolution
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/index.html
http://www.brembs.net/gould.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.theunityofknowledge.org/evolution_by_natural_selection/title_page.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
As you seem to have been greatly misinformed about science in general, I have provided here a few links you may wish to peruse. Please enjoy.
The Big Bang
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/pub/bigbang/part1.html
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
Formation of star systems
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/forming.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=planet02
http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~joergens/course/
http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/Formationplanets-03.html
http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/background.html
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/skrutskie/astr121/notes/ssevid.html
Evolution
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/index.html
http://www.brembs.net/gould.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.theunityofknowledge.org/evolution_by_natural_selection/title_page.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Re: Tony1 and TheChosen
Adam whatever.
Why don't you post what YOU KNOW, insread of critcizing us and posting hundreds of thousands of links. I know much about the Big Bang Theory, so don't even bother trying to tell me what it is.
Misinformed about science? what a joke.
Adam whatever.
Why don't you post what YOU KNOW, insread of critcizing us and posting hundreds of thousands of links. I know much about the Big Bang Theory, so don't even bother trying to tell me what it is.
Misinformed about science? what a joke.
Re: Tony1
*Originally posted by Adam
Chance is not the primary factor in either the motions of planetary bodies, the big bang, or evolution. You have been woefully misinformed. All of these things follow rules of nature as observed countless times by sentient people.*
Wow!
You really weren't paying attention in class at all, were you?
Since when was the the big bang "observed countless times by sentient people?"
My guess is that "countless" in that respect means "having a count of zero."
I guess the same thing would apply to the "observation" of evolution?
*Originally posted by Cris
Evolution is fact. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that evolution has occurred. It is reasonable to believe that evolution is true. So yes I believe that evolution is true.*
You must be unclear on the meaning of either "fact," or "believe," or both.
Aside from the fact that evolution is the purest of fanciful wishful thinking, if it were fact, you wouldn't "believe" it, you'd "know" it.
Thus by claiming you believe that it is true, you are simply contradicting your earlier claim that it is fact.
Besides, if the evidence were so overwhelming, then evolution would still be occurring rather than merely having had occurred.
Furthermore, repeated statements that evolution is true doesn't make it so, however, I realize that is the primary tenet for your religious faith, so I'll leave it at that.
As for your questions on factual evidence for rational belief, you have simply rejected evidence "x."
In addition, you have no factual evidence for your own ability to reason sufficiently accurately to be able to process evidence of any kind.
Thus, you hold an irrational belief in your own ability to reason.
*Originally posted by Adam
Chance is not the primary factor in either the motions of planetary bodies, the big bang, or evolution. You have been woefully misinformed. All of these things follow rules of nature as observed countless times by sentient people.*
Wow!
You really weren't paying attention in class at all, were you?
Since when was the the big bang "observed countless times by sentient people?"
My guess is that "countless" in that respect means "having a count of zero."
I guess the same thing would apply to the "observation" of evolution?
*Originally posted by Cris
Evolution is fact. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that evolution has occurred. It is reasonable to believe that evolution is true. So yes I believe that evolution is true.*
You must be unclear on the meaning of either "fact," or "believe," or both.
Aside from the fact that evolution is the purest of fanciful wishful thinking, if it were fact, you wouldn't "believe" it, you'd "know" it.
Thus by claiming you believe that it is true, you are simply contradicting your earlier claim that it is fact.
Besides, if the evidence were so overwhelming, then evolution would still be occurring rather than merely having had occurred.
Furthermore, repeated statements that evolution is true doesn't make it so, however, I realize that is the primary tenet for your religious faith, so I'll leave it at that.
As for your questions on factual evidence for rational belief, you have simply rejected evidence "x."
In addition, you have no factual evidence for your own ability to reason sufficiently accurately to be able to process evidence of any kind.
Thus, you hold an irrational belief in your own ability to reason.
*Originally posted by Cris
Ekimklaw is a ‘conventional’ Christian, and I’ll let you interpret ‘conventional’ as best you can.*
I'll have to take that mean "conventional" as you would define it.
*Vinnie is an apologist, so I can see how you reach your conclusions above.*
The only thing he'd hopefully be apologizing for would be himself.
If he thinks he's an apologist for Christianity, he should consider acquainting himself with the subject matter first.
*Vinnie and you haven’t been here at the same times I guess. I think the two of you might potentially have some interesting exchanges.*
Actually, they are predictably dull.
I quote something from scripture; he says it's not true, using various techniques.
Incidentally, that's why I asked if you'd considered his form of atheism in your various definitions of atheism.
Thus far, both you and I have been assuming that an atheist's actions and statements would more-or-less agree.
Here we have a situation where the statements made claim Christianity, if asked directly, but when asked indirectly, the statements and corresponding actions are actually atheistic in the extreme.
Interestingly, that brings to mind tiassa's "agent provocateur" comments of an earlier time.
Ekimklaw is a ‘conventional’ Christian, and I’ll let you interpret ‘conventional’ as best you can.*
I'll have to take that mean "conventional" as you would define it.
*Vinnie is an apologist, so I can see how you reach your conclusions above.*
The only thing he'd hopefully be apologizing for would be himself.
If he thinks he's an apologist for Christianity, he should consider acquainting himself with the subject matter first.
*Vinnie and you haven’t been here at the same times I guess. I think the two of you might potentially have some interesting exchanges.*
Actually, they are predictably dull.
I quote something from scripture; he says it's not true, using various techniques.
Incidentally, that's why I asked if you'd considered his form of atheism in your various definitions of atheism.
Thus far, both you and I have been assuming that an atheist's actions and statements would more-or-less agree.
Here we have a situation where the statements made claim Christianity, if asked directly, but when asked indirectly, the statements and corresponding actions are actually atheistic in the extreme.
Interestingly, that brings to mind tiassa's "agent provocateur" comments of an earlier time.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Cris, you mentioned, "it is reasonable to believe that a big bang has occured."
Wow, you are a believer, but just not in God, correct? You can't say the Big Bang must have happened, you can't be 100% certain that it has happened, and you surely don't know that the Big Bang has happened. You can merely believe it has because of such limited evidence.
Now do you see your problem interchanging "certainty, must, know" with "believe"? I sure hope you do.
So, in your mind right now, you don't believe in the origin of the universe and you don't question about it. I'm pretty positive that you must believe in something to explain the origin of the universe? Or maybe your mind is just blank and refuses to explore?
I asked about evolutionary theory and not just evolution. Evolution is fact and theory. As explained by the links. Don't make blanket statements like that Cris. The Darwin Theory of Evolution is a theory and not fact. Life evolving is a fact by Prigogine's concept, which is true.
Evolution: Fact and Theory
Evolution is a Fact and Theory
Stephen Jay Gould: Evolution as Fact and Theory
Misconceptions: Fact and Theory
Atheists love to immediately state it is a fact without considering how much and how strong evidence they have of it. It's a theory with some evidence, but none of the evidence is substantial enough to prove it beyond a doubt. That is why so many scientists disagree on this and that.
I understand your viewpoint, afterall if evolution is wrong, what have you to turn to?
Cris, as the atheist you are, of course you are going to "reasonably conclude that these processes [evolutionary theory] are true." And that "It is reasonable to believe that evolution is true." You use the belief system yourself. Correct?
Then how did man come about? What do you think? So you're telling me you don't believe exactly how man came about? You don't question yourself on this matter? You leave a void of belief concerning man's existence?
Don't use the word rational here. Rather, use the word "logical." My "evidence" are my experiences and what I perceive God to be. It is not material evidence, but rather reasons to believe in God.
Yes, I believe that God exists.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Tony1 seems to be one of the more intelligent theists, but as for now, he just seems like a much smarter Nelson. He's manipulative.
I'm a theist that is non-denominational. Simple as that. I see a possibility of God not existing because I want to stay open-minded as possible. But I accept the possibility of God existing.