Who created God?

[jayleew]

jayleew: How can a limited being have Godly emotions? I fail to see the logic of how an omnisicient God cannot have emotions. Help me out.
*************
M*W: Emotions are a human fraility. Omniscient gods are not beholden to human emotions.
*************

Says who? What is your logic? If you knew everything there is to know, why can you not possess emotion?

jayleew: What is your logic for this statement? Who are we anyway to say what a god can and cannot have, or what he is or is not?
*************
M*W: A god who is more powerful than humans cannot succumb to human emotions.
*************

What is your proof? This doesn't make any sense. Dogs do not succumb to human emotions, so are they gods too?

jayleew: If I was a god, I'd say, "You fools, you are wasting your time trying to figure me out, you can't begin to understand me and my unlimited power."
*************
M*W: Well, unfortunately, there is no god who could say, "You fools, you are wasting your time trying to figure me out, you can't begin to understand me and my unlimited power."

But if there was a god we cannot presume to know its thoughts and or emotions unless we are a god ourselves to know such things.
The God of Jacob that Christians follow does have emotions and is omniscient and omnipresent. We have this proof in scriptures for those that want to believe in him. For others, well there is no point in presuming anything about the god since they do not believe anyway.

 

[jayleew]

*Is that important?

No Dr Wells if full of shit. Pseudo science is not science.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/design.html

Carl Drews? I'm sorry, I will trust the opinion of a double-doctorate who has spent most of his life searching for the truth as an atheist than a guy like Carl Drews who can't make up his mind and believes that God used evolution as a tool.
What an arrogant statement you make. Even evolutionists respect the man's credentials. They rebuttal him on some arguments such as the peppered moth, but still respect such a learned man who has contributed to the theory of evolution in his studies earlier in his life. To say he is full of it throws out his work on Evolution.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html

G.

Massimo Pigliucci is at least a doctor, but he is not attacking Dr. Wells as the first website, so I don't know why you included this site, besides its content of Darwinism.

 

[Sarkus]

God is a necessity. Necessary for logic to make sense, necessary for us to exist and necessary for the salvation of humankind.
You said it yourself [above]... meaning implies a relationship... reference... I for one cannot live without acknowledging some purpose to my existence other than existence itself... sure... I came from dust... but I'm not dust... I'm more than that, aren't you?

MarcAC - most of this is merely an argument from fear - in that you can't imagine life without believing this - so therefore you do.
So it all goes back to the concept of religion, and of God, as being a self-made belief to help people accept where they are.

As soon as you assign ANYTHING to God, personal or otherwise, the probability of it being correct is ZERO.
All that can be said is that there IS (i.e. mathematically certain) something (and I use the word in the loosest sense) outside our Universe that it is IMPOSSIBLE to conceptualise and IMPOSSIBLE to assign anything to (space, time, existence, matter, energy, in fact anything you can think of - including purpose, emotion etc).
If you call this "god" then it is merely a label for everything outside our universe. But as soon as you assign anything to it, believing in that assignation, and then start worshipping it, then you are into the realms of delusion.

 

[Cottontop3000]

Jayleew: You mean like how life was created? Science has evidence that we have a common ancestor between some species. Okay, that is fine, we are all made of the same creator who had the same way of making things. You have proven nothing yet.

Jayleew, What exactly do you think I'm trying to prove? I'm not trying to prove anything, except maybe that humans can be very gullible and easily misled, which I think goes without saying. I never said I personally was an evolutionist either. In fact, I've repeatedly and vehemently said I think I KNOW nothing. What can I know, other than what I see, hear, feel, touch and taste? What can I KNOW when my senses can be deceived and/or misled? What can I KNOW when I'm fallible?

It's the people who can't face their own shortcomings and latch onto the first idea that makes them feel better that amaze me. Utterly dumbfounded, I am. Evolution, to me, is the same as Christianity, in the sense that it is, to date, still just a theory (and it's there to give people some kind of comfort, security, answers). Same as Einstein's theory of relativity. Same as quantum mechanics/physics. Who knows for sure right now? At least the scientific community is making a concerted effort to find some verifiable evidence for their "theories." I can't say the same for the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention, or any of the other branches of the Protestant religion. Let alone any of the other major religions. All I see them doing is trying to recreate their doctrine so that it will still appeal to a wide audience in today's quickly changing world. They better get a move on or they're going to get left behind. In fact, I think that is inevitable.

Even if nature is able to create amino acids, it is incredibly far to becoming life that the idea is absurd. You have to get the " right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule...and even that would still be a long way from a living cell. They you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to creat a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing. The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organism is absolutely tremendous." (Dr. Jonathan Wells)

Is that important?

Could be. I don't know for sure. What do you think? Could be we just haven't found ANY of the right answers yet.

 

[Sarkus]

Even if nature is able to create amino acids, it is incredibly far to becoming life that the idea is absurd. You have to get the " right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule...and even that would still be a long way from a living cell. They you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to creat a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing. The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organism is absolutely tremendous." (Dr. Jonathan Wells)

He is correct in that the odds probably were quite astonishing. But they were not zero.
If the same process happened on just 1% of all planets in the galaxy that is still probably a million or so planets. And then there are a million or so galaxies.
So even odds of 1/10^12 (quite low) would mean that life is probably likely to start somewhere.

But even to go from the seemingly low odds of evolutionary theory to the ZERO odds of creation by a God? Where's the logic in that? It's absurdist nonsense.

 

[Godless]

I will trust the opinion of a double-doctorate

So who gives a flying hoot?.


Am i know to believe the earth is 6000 years old cause some idiot holds a "double doctorate"?

**Jonathan Wells

Jonathan Wells has been a member of the Discovery Institute since 1996. As early as the 1970’s, as a member of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, Wells became convinced that evolution was false because it conflicted with his church’s belief that humankind was specifically designed by God. On the urging of Moon, Wells went to Yale to pursue a divinity degree, focusing his work on arguments against evolution. Later, in the early ’90s, he went back to school at Berkeley to get a biology degree to bolster his credentials in fighting evolution. (See "In His Own Words" below). Shortly after getting his degree, he began work at the Discovery Institute.

Wells’ new book, "Icons of Evolution," is characteristic of the "debunking evolution" style common to anti-evolutionists. Like the young-earth creationists who claim scientific evidence for the flood or an eight-thousand year-old earth, Wells selectively looks at inconsistencies, disagreements, or errors in the scientific data. He ignores the vast body of knowledge that supports the topic he is attacking and fails to acknowledge that the scientific community itself has addressed the problems Wells is describing.

For instance, one of the "icons" that Wells mentions is Haeckle’s embryos, an issue which has been thoroughly discussed in the scientific literature. Haeckel’s main idea, that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", has since been rejected. Wells’ legitimate complaint that Haeckel’s drawings continue to show up in textbooks reflects the fact that textbooks in all scientific fields are often some years behind current knowledge and often portray simplified popularizations that are necessarily incomplete. His use of these stories is a "straw man" tactic, using his incomplete version of the story to support his cause.

Conclusion

The purpose of Wells’ book is drive the wedge a little deeper — to open the door for his creationist "theory of intelligent design." Wells is using these "icon" stories to advance his anti-evolution beliefs — beliefs that he has had for many years and are based not on science but on religious convictions. He selectively tells only part of the story about his "icons", and then jumps to the conclusion that evolution is unsubstantiated. Given his background, it is hard to consider this an objective, scientific approach. Wells’ icons do not, as he claims, constitute a serious challenge to the theory of evolution.
J.W. is an idiot MOONEY

Godless

 

[killslay]

from what i've read of the moonies beleif system it is rather rediculous. still doesn't beat the scientologists though, those guys crack me up

 

[Godless]

The Discovery Institute's Hidden Religious Agenda

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/diagenda.html

Pseudo science exposed!.

 

[Godless]

Hubbard once said: If you want to be real rich create your own religion.

And he did. LOL

 

[jayleew]

Jayleew, What exactly do you think I'm trying to prove? I'm not trying to prove anything, except maybe that humans can be very gullible and easily misled, which I think goes without saying. I never said I personally was an evolutionist either. In fact, I've repeatedly and vehemently said I think I KNOW nothing. What can I know, other than what I see, hear, feel, touch and taste? What can I KNOW when my senses can be deceived and/or misled? What can I KNOW when I'm fallible?

It's the people who can't face their own shortcomings and latch onto the first idea that makes them feel better that amaze me. Utterly dumbfounded, I am. Evolution, to me, is the same as Christianity, in the sense that it is, to date, still just a theory (and it's there to give people some kind of comfort, security, answers). Same as Einstein's theory of relativity. Same as quantum mechanics/physics. Who knows for sure right now? At least the scientific community is making a concerted effort to find some verifiable evidence for their "theories." I can't say the same for the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention, or any of the other branches of the Protestant religion. Let alone any of the other major religions. All I see them doing is trying to recreate their doctrine so that it will still appeal to a wide audience in today's quickly changing world. They better get a move on or they're going to get left behind. In fact, I think that is inevitable.



Could be. I don't know for sure. What do you think? Could be we just haven't found ANY of the right answers yet.

Ah, a believer of scientific theory. That is refreshing. I agree with everything you say.

This goes along with some information I recently read about in the Case for a Creator. Evolution is big business and worth a lot of money to prove Darwinism as true. Not only that, but it is as political as Christianity, and therefore just as subjective. There is even a fossil factory in China that produces fraudulent fossils and sells them on the black market. That is a common thought among the most respected scientists. Humans are gullible and latch on to the first theory. "Every time an icon of evolution is discredited, Darwinists claim with religious zeal that is was never really the whole story in the first place and insist that new findings really do buttress macroevolution, now unsupported by the original icon, is never questioned, instead, it's used afresh to justify a redisgned model." (Lee Strobel)

Another major player in science becomes a Christian at the age of 50. Allan Rex Sandage, the greatest observational cosmologist in the world. "Few scientists are as widely respected as this one-time protege to legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble. He shocked the scientific community in 1985 when he joined the Chrisitan panel that would discuss the origin of life. "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science." (Allan Rex Sandage)

At the meeting the scientific community conceded "that shortcomings of naturalistic explanations. Their main response was only to challenge the theists to provide "scientific answers" instead of merely invoking the idea of intelligent design." (Lee Strobel)

Hey, that's what you all are charging me to do.

Not that this is any proof, but one of the theist panelists said, "Maybe the world looks designed because it really is designed."

Biophysicist Dean Kenyon "who co-authored an influential book asserting that the emergence of life might have been biochemically predestined because of an inherent attraction between amino acids." Then he came to the podium and renounced his findings in the book. "Due to the immense molecular complexity of the cell and the information-bearing properties of DNA, Kenyon now believed that the best evidence pointed toward a designer of life." (Lee Strobel)

I don't offer this as evidence of a creator to you all, but only that darwinism could be wrong and that many intelligent scientists who once believed as you did, found in their own sciences, that creation must of design.

Darwinists hope that their theories are correct, so at least they seek the evidence to support their hypotheses. More than I can say for the Christian community. The problem is that the evidence just isn't there one way or another. There is falsehood in its findings and illogical conclusions because in their minds, evloution has to be true, so they assume it is and that what they find proves it. In fact, all new evidence they find is controversial and not accepted as truth by any scientist besides those that blindly say it is because they believe in evolution. The truly scientific mind says that there could still be the evidence, but just not found.

 

[jayleew]

He is correct in that the odds probably were quite astonishing. But they were not zero.
If the same process happened on just 1% of all planets in the galaxy that is still probably a million or so planets. And then there are a million or so galaxies.
So even odds of 1/10^12 (quite low) would mean that life is probably likely to start somewhere.

But even to go from the seemingly low odds of evolutionary theory to the ZERO odds of creation by a God? Where's the logic in that? It's absurdist nonsense.

Yes, there is a chance that macroevolution is responsible for life.

Do you have evidence that makes the odds of God zero?

 

[jayleew]

So who gives a flying hoot?.


Am i know to believe the earth is 6000 years old cause some idiot holds a "double doctorate"?

**Jonathan Wells

Jonathan Wells has been a member of the Discovery Institute since 1996. As early as the 1970’s, as a member of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, Wells became convinced that evolution was false because it conflicted with his church’s belief that humankind was specifically designed by God. On the urging of Moon, Wells went to Yale to pursue a divinity degree, focusing his work on arguments against evolution. Later, in the early ’90s, he went back to school at Berkeley to get a biology degree to bolster his credentials in fighting evolution. (See "In His Own Words" below). Shortly after getting his degree, he began work at the Discovery Institute.

Wells’ new book, "Icons of Evolution," is characteristic of the "debunking evolution" style common to anti-evolutionists. Like the young-earth creationists who claim scientific evidence for the flood or an eight-thousand year-old earth, Wells selectively looks at inconsistencies, disagreements, or errors in the scientific data. He ignores the vast body of knowledge that supports the topic he is attacking and fails to acknowledge that the scientific community itself has addressed the problems Wells is describing.

For instance, one of the "icons" that Wells mentions is Haeckle’s embryos, an issue which has been thoroughly discussed in the scientific literature. Haeckel’s main idea, that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", has since been rejected. Wells’ legitimate complaint that Haeckel’s drawings continue to show up in textbooks reflects the fact that textbooks in all scientific fields are often some years behind current knowledge and often portray simplified popularizations that are necessarily incomplete. His use of these stories is a "straw man" tactic, using his incomplete version of the story to support his cause.

Conclusion

The purpose of Wells’ book is drive the wedge a little deeper — to open the door for his creationist "theory of intelligent design." Wells is using these "icon" stories to advance his anti-evolution beliefs — beliefs that he has had for many years and are based not on science but on religious convictions. He selectively tells only part of the story about his "icons", and then jumps to the conclusion that evolution is unsubstantiated. Given his background, it is hard to consider this an objective, scientific approach. Wells’ icons do not, as he claims, constitute a serious challenge to the theory of evolution.
J.W. is an idiot MOONEY

Godless

I have already read a rebuttal of his book, and there are times when he drawing a conclusion without evidence. He leaves the door open to new discoveries, but the lack of evidence of the icons is evidence that there could be another explanation. Obviously, since he is a theist now, God fills the spot.

Still, not all of the book can be refuted. He both wins and loses arguments.

 

[Cottontop3000]

Jayleew,

Personally, I'm for the theory (mine as far as I know) that we are a part of a genetic experiment by an intelligent alien culture that is just looking for "a few good men" (and women of course). It sounds as likely to me as either God or evolution. Maybe the aliens in question are the result of 15 billion years worth of evolution while at the same time are our God.

I'm so tired. I hate it when I don't sleep.

 

[jayleew]

Hubbard once said: If you want to be real rich create your own religion.

And he did. LOL

That we can agree on.

 

[jayleew]

The Discovery Institute's Hidden Religious Agenda

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/diagenda.html

Pseudo science exposed!.

They are a group of scientists who want the world to know that evolution is not all it's cracked up to be. Yes, they are inspired by their beliefs, but they execute scientific theory.

Besides we all know about what leaks can do to create mass hysteria: Dan Rather and Newsweek.

In their minds, they knew something was true, but created the evidence that doesn't stand. That is exactly what many Darwinists do.

 

[Cottontop3000]

We are all human after all. As far as I know.

 

[Lawdog]

God is uncreated being, that is, being through (by means of itself), totally necessary, the the ground of all being. Hence he told Moses "I am that am". All other beings are created beings, angels, men, other animals, plants, rocks, etc. Created being is contingent being, not of necessity, that is, it is not necessary that you or I or anything else exist. The only necessary being is God, the source of all being, all good, truth. All reality is without abyss or void, all reality can be understood as the Non-void.

 

[(Q)]

Evolution is big business and worth a lot of money to prove Darwinism as true.

Please provide examples.

it is as political as Christianity, and therefore just as subjective.

If subjective, how do you explain the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution?

There is even a fossil factory in China that produces fraudulent fossils and sells them on the black market.

So what? Those 'fossils' are fake and are easily distinguished from real fossils.

That is a common thought among the most respected scientists

What respected scientists? Rational scientists are in favor of evolution.

Humans are gullible and latch on to the first theory

True, gullible humans latch onto many things, like religion for example. Rational humans do not.

Every time an icon of evolution is discredited...

I've heard of no such thing - please provide examples.

Another major player in science becomes a Christian at the age of 50. Allan Rex Sandage...

I am unable to find any reference to this claim other than from Strobel.

At the meeting the scientific community conceded "that shortcomings of naturalistic explanations.

No, they did not.

"Maybe the world looks designed because it really is designed."

Many scientific theories run counter-intuitive to what they first appear. Maybe the world is flat because it looks that way out my window.

Biophysicist Dean Kenyon "who co-authored an influential book asserting that the emergence of life

Old news. His assertions were refuted long ago with hard evidence.

I don't offer this as evidence of a creator to you all, but only that darwinism could be wrong and that many intelligent scientists who once believed as you did, found in their own sciences, that creation must of design.

No, a small portion of scientists believe in intelligent design. The scientific community knows evolution is fact.

Darwinists hope that their theories are correct, so at least they seek the evidence to support their hypotheses

That is not the way the scientific method works, sorry.

The problem is that the evidence just isn't there one way or another

Wrong, mountains of evidence are readily available in favor of evolution.

In fact, all new evidence they find is controversial and not accepted as truth by any scientist besides those that blindly say it is because they believe in evolution.

Please provide examples of controversial evidence against evolution.

Clearly, Strobel will say anything to prop-up his assertions - lies and deceit are not beneath him. Anyone with an ounce of rationale will easily come to the same conclusion.

The gullible and the dogmatic will eat it up.

 

[MarcAC]

...if you believe in heavenly afterlife why keep on living,strugle,suffer put up with all the boring, stupid, evil people and such..
why not live dangerously or kill each other in some war and get there sooner to claim your seventy virgins...

I speak for Christians here; we also value the life here which we live in this universe as the life we live hereafter is crucially dependent upon it. We learn to appreciate the value of we and our fellow's lives through God's Word.

The same question may be asked of atheists - there is nothing to govern your actions other than physical limits - you can kill, steal ,hate etc. all you want with the excuse that you just "feel it's the right thing". No atheist should criticize Hitler... he just followed through with his ideals right? His truth.

...we try to make this life and this world the best we can...

By selfishly attempting to impose what you think is best on others right? What does "best" mean to atheists? I'm thinking that one atheist's best may contradict another's.

in fact you could say our purpose is to make the Earth our heaven for us and future generations as we know we will never see in the afterlife b/c it doesnt exist its just a wishful thinking...a fantasy.

Abso[]lutely, you could say anything. You could say your purpose is to elliminate all humanity and attempt to do such; end all heterosexual relationships and only reproduce via artifical impregnation; pollute the earth... all potential ideals... none of them any more justifiable than the other.

 

[(Q)]

there is nothing to govern your actions other than physical limits

Reason and rationale govern an atheists actions.

By selfishly attempting to impose what you think is best on others right?

You mean, such as Christianity?

What does "best" mean to atheists? I'm thinking that one atheist's best may contradict another's.

And Christians don't contradict one another?

An atheists "best" may contradict anothers, so what?

At least they are both representing reason and rationale and are not regurgitating dogma. Big difference.