Who created God?

[Raithere]

Everything wants to unite... they want to become whole again... they are not themselves... consider a man and a woman... they want to unite, and the will between them can be called magnetism... without a complementary half, people feel alone and forsaken.

That would be the drive to procreate, not magnetism.

atomic particles and cells etc want to unite... and this way... because they try to unite to become themselves again... they reproduce and become more and more advanced...

Particles do not unite, nor do they reproduce, nor do they become more 'advanced'. Except for gametes, cells do not unite or reproduce either. Some bacteria exchange genetic information but cells reproduce by mitosis. Advancement is a misnomer here as well.

However... it doesn't matter how many magnets you put together, they always want more... it is never enough... because the unification cannot be attained physically. matter offers resistance, so that unification is not possible, because unification means nothingness... so... if things really could unite... there could be no universe. all "matter" would dissapear.

Why would "matter" disappear? Sounds to me like your just inventing explanations that support your philosophy.

You just have to think logically and you'll find it's true.

Logically it just sounds like anthropomorphism. You're attributing desire to cells and particles. I'm not against concepts of unity but I don't see that what you're stating is evinced anywhere. It seems a selective interpretation based on a partial understanding.

~Raithere

 

[Sarkus]

A life of serving mankind that ends is a life forgotten.
A life to please oneself that ends is no life at all.
A life of serving God that ends is everlasting life in heaven.
Choose.

Argument from fear: "I believe in God because the alternatives frighten me".

Then, I found evidence of the fossil record disproving evolution.

Please supply this evidence so that we may all be corrected.

There is no proof, nor do the odds support a bang/crunch cycle. The odds support one bang. Nothing further can be guessed with such great odds.

So why do you insist on "guessing" at the existence of god and claim it as truth?

For it to be true, there would have to be life elsewhere, and Astronomers have stated that the Solar System's nearly circular orbit sustains life, whereas the eliptical orbits of other systems will cause the gas giants in other systems to make life inhospitibal on any other planet.

Even if our planet was unique in the mostly-circular nature of the eight planets (Pluto, an asteroid, is elliptic in nature), this is no evidence at all of God, nor would it be if we are, indeed, the only life form in the Universe.

Would the existence of extra-terrestrial life fundamentally alter your belief in God? What if we met sentient life?

Test God to the core, and you will find him. Not superficially, but scientifically.

Then why, like so many others before you, do you not put God up to scientific scrutiny? Surely you must realise that god does NOT stand up to scientific scrutiny. If he did there wouldn't be a need to "believe" because he would be a proven fact!

The question I'd ask if I were God when you "get to His throne and kneel" is; why didn't you believe? Then you'd better come up with better answers than "There were other explanations and I chose to believe those."

LOL! This is the same God that has made us as rational as we are, and that this rationality prevents us from believing in his existence? This is the same God that would rather we put our head in the sands when examining the Universe and our place in it, and arrive at the answer "God did it!" because we couldn't be arsed to look any further or deeper?

The conclusion God relies on more than some causal argument - it is a result of the harmony of arguments for cause (sentient), objective purpose, objective meaning, objective morality... and their roles within humanity - all relative to The Cause.

We can directly observe the universe but does it allow us to conclude on some objective purpose, meaning, morality other than "just be"? Can we view the universe as sentient except through ourselves?

Why do we need an objective purpose? Why do we need an objective meaning? Why? Why are you not content to "just be"?

 

[jayleew]

yes. if she does not have 100% control over her emotions then, yes, her free will is infringed upon.

No, she has the choice. If she didn't, then she wouldn't slip up sometimes. I wouldn't slip up either. The Holy Ghost influences, it does not control.

wow, that is the single worst argument I have ever hear. have you ever taken a college level philosophy class? if you have, I recommend taking another.

I have, and I agree, that is not a logical arguement. But that is my point. Human logic is flawed compared to Gods.

there are 3x10^22 stars in the visible universe alone. not to mention if there are parallel universes. but the kicker is that mars probably had/has life on it. that’s .000008 light years away, our visible universe is billions of light years out there.

Probably? What research shows that it probably has had life? Last I checked, they haven't even found water on it. They were going to look, but that is the last I heard.

we don’t know that for sure. if the universe continues as it is now, then there will be no crunch. but the universe has accelerated before, it can do it again. but that is not the point. my point is that if there is a multiverse, in one form or another, that it must, in an infinite amount of tries, produce life. how is that argument wrong?

That's the logical part of your argument, I said it was true.

The illogical part is when you followed it with "the odds are that there is not a finite number of big bangs."

First, you say that regardless of how many hunks of cheese there are, we know that one piece of cheese has produced one mouse. That is true.

Then, you follow it with saying the odds are there are more than one piece of cheese.

I don't follow your logic: A->B is fine. How does A+B=C?

listen to your hubris. this statement is as flawed as your whole argument.

once again, let me ask the question. if god effects your feelings in any way, he has tampered with your free will. so what is it? is got not good, less than all-powerful, or is the bible wrong? (if the bible is wrong, then the whole religion is flawed). lets not forget

You say my argument is flawed, but do not dispute the argument.

I am trying here to understand you, and maybe learn from you.

p.s. energy is equivalent to mass(matter) E=MC^2

True.
Energy is a function of mass and the speed of light. That is the quantative equation to measure how much energy.

The following set of statements are various ways of expressing the first law of thermodynamics:

* Energy is conserved.
* The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
* Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
* There is no free lunch.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces more energy than it uses (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.)

 

[jayleew]

Argument from fear: "I believe in God because the alternatives frighten me".

So true. Scripture says we are to fear God. And we should! He is righteous, jealous God! If you don't like it, Satan is planning to defeat him.

Please supply this evidence so that we may all be corrected.

Darwin said that if his theory is true that MANY intermediate life forms existed and that we will find their skeltons. Well, of all the bones we have dug up, we haven't found even one. In fact, we learned the opposite, that there are sudden changes from one life form to the next. Which defies the theory of evolution.

So why do you insist on "guessing" at the existence of god and claim it as truth?

I have doubts in my head (it is my skepticism, but there is no proof to validate my doubt). I have complete faith in him as the truth because no better theory is in existence. And plus it works for me and many others. We are so blessed, even though we are poor and weak. You would know what I speak if you have experienced it. And if you had, we wouldn't be debating.

Even if our planet was unique in the mostly-circular nature of the eight planets (Pluto, an asteroid, is elliptic in nature), this is no evidence at all of God, nor would it be if we are, indeed, the only life form in the Universe.

I never said it was proof of God. I said it is evidence that there may not be life anywhere else.

Would the existence of extra-terrestrial life fundamentally alter your belief in God? What if we met sentient life?

Definitely. I would challenge my belief in God. Until then, I choose to have faith.

Then why, like so many others before you, do you not put God up to scientific scrutiny? Surely you must realise that god does NOT stand up to scientific scrutiny. If he did there wouldn't be a need to "believe" because he would be a proven fact!

We do! We do!
Dude, that is my argument. I must not be explaining myself clearly! It is a challenge to you. Why? Because many athiest scientists have, and end up becoming Christian.
We are finding every day how we are discovering God's laws. After all, we were made in his image. Why do you not think we are capable of anything we put our mind to? The tower of babel was destroyed because God saw that we have no limits because of his own design of us. Except we did not make the tower for God, but for our own pride of accomplishment! We are no different, today. Let's build our "Tower of Babel" and see what happens.

LOL! This is the same God that has made us as rational as we are, and that this rationality prevents us from believing in his existence? This is the same God that would rather we put our head in the sands when examining the Universe and our place in it, and arrive at the answer "God did it!" because we couldn't be arsed to look any further or deeper?

I think I already answered this (about Christian and athiest scientists finding God every day).
Look at it this way. Pretend you are a rich man beyond imagination and you wanted a bride who loved you for who you were. Would you tell the women you meet, "I'm rich." No, you would keep them in the dark. That would prove to you where their heart is. It CANNOT be otherwise, or we would be loving God because of his power and not for who he is.

Why do we need an objective purpose? Why do we need an objective meaning? Why? Why are you not content to "just be"?

Because if are to just be, then we have a relative moral system and your life is pointless, regardless of your "worth" or accomplishments. If we continue to live without God, we are not going to like where it's going. The politicians are opening the law. Little by little, inch by inch. We are going to come to a point where everything is legal and anything infringing on that is discrimination. Open your eyes. Do you want to be around 40 years from now if things don't change?

We have come a long way in only 100 years. Things accepted today were not accepted yesterday for our own good. Yesterday: honesty, valor, integrity, counted for something. Why do you think we have degradation of society morals? Because we all want to be as free as the wind to do what we want, where we want. I know I do. I would love to relish my dark thoughts of having sex with women (even without God, I wouldn't actually do them), does that mean I let myself relish the thoughts? No, I put them away, shake my head, and ask God's strength immediately. Why? Self-control is character and honorable, and I can serve my brother better if I were out of the picture. Humans want want want, me me me.

 

[Raithere]

How many times have you seen or heard references to "God Exists" from some theist - especially Christian in the context your statement was made? I'm sure some arguments have been compelling yet your answer would just be "It doesn't have to be that way as there are other ways of explaining it". The question I'd ask if I were God when you "get to His throne and kneel" is; why didn't you believe? Then you'd better come up with better answers than "There were other explanations and I chose to believe those."

No, I have heard no compelling argument or answer.

I would not kneel. And my answer would be this:

"I searched earnestly and honestly for the truth my entire life. But nothing I ever witnessed, no argument I ever heard, and no evidence I ever examined gave me even the slightest reason to believe you existed. It would have been illogical to presume the existence of that for which there was no reason to believe.

Even assuming your existence, I had no way of discerning your nature or your will. I studied many religions; I studied science, philosophy, literature, and art, all in an attempt to identify the truth. But there was nothing I was able to identify as divine will or absolute truth. All religions presume to speak for you and to assume your authority for themselves... often to the extreme detriment of humanity. None of them appear to contain any wisdom or knowledge beyond the realm of human ability, indeed most of it falls far short of even the best human effort. And none of them can provide any evidence of your existence much less your divine will.

If you had wanted me to believe you could easily have provided the evidence to convince me. Would it have been so hard to pop in and say "Hello" every once in a while? If you wanted me to have blind faith then you should have given it to me or at least removed my ability to reason for I have no faith in faith. Failing any divine answers, I did the best I could to identify human ethical principles and I did my best to live up to these principles.

It is now obvious that you do exist. And although I am confused as to your purpose, I thank you for my life. But if my effort is not enough so be it, I could do no better. If an honest effort from a limited being, such as myself, is not enough... if I am only fit for punishment then you do not deserve my respect much less my veneration. Do with me as you will, for I will not kneel to you out of fear."

~Raithere

 

[Yorda]

That would be the drive to procreate, not magnetism.

You can call it magnetism, since it exists for the same reason and is alike. I think it's unnecessary to categorize things so much.

Why would "matter" disappear? Sounds to me like your just inventing explanations that support your philosophy.

Um... you probably didn't understand what I was talking about. If matter wouldn't have resistance, gravity (or magnetism) would draw it into nothingness. Like when the gravity of a large star becomes as great as the resistance of matter, the matter dissapears.

 

[jayleew]

No, I have heard no compelling argument or answer.

I would not kneel. And my answer would be this:

"I searched earnestly and honestly for the truth my entire life. But nothing I ever witnessed, no argument I ever heard, and no evidence I ever examined gave me even the slightest reason to believe you existed. It would have been illogical to presume the existence of that for which there was no reason to believe.

Even assuming your existence, I had no way of discerning your nature or your will. I studied many religions; I studied science, philosophy, literature, and art, all in an attempt to identify the truth. But there was nothing I was able to identify as divine will or absolute truth. All religions presume to speak for you and to assume your authority for themselves... often to the extreme detriment of humanity. None of them appear to contain any wisdom or knowledge beyond the realm of human ability, indeed most of it falls far short of even the best human effort. And none of them can provide any evidence of your existence much less your divine will.

If you had wanted me to believe you could easily have provided the evidence to convince me. Would it have been so hard to pop in and say "Hello" every once in a while? If you wanted me to have blind faith then you should have given it to me or at least removed my ability to reason for I have no faith in faith. Failing any divine answers, I did the best I could to identify human ethical principles and I did my best to live up to these principles.

It is now obvious that you do exist. And although I am confused as to your purpose, I thank you for my life. But if my effort is not enough so be it, I could do no better. If an honest effort from a limited being, such as myself, is not enough... if I am only fit for punishment then you do not deserve my respect much less my veneration. Do with me as you will, for I will not kneel to you out of fear."

~Raithere

Who knows the mind of God. He is just and only holds you accountable for what you know. Some of your thoughts are my thoughts. But, I choose to believe anyway, even though my doubts are head-strong. Jesus said, "you have seen me, so you believe. But, blessed are those who do not see me, and believe."

When you are at your wits end, and have tried everything on Earth, perhaps you will look to the one who waits for you and give him another try. Many who are last to be saved will be the first in the kingdom of heaven. I am not here to win you to Christ because only God can do that. I am here to say that the Christianity you were taught is not the way of the cross. Chances are you were fooled by self-righteous "Christians". They are many. They are in my church, but I do not judge them. Come to church broken, ugly, and sinful. That's the people God wants. Now church leaders are different and should be scutinized by the church and dealt with justly, not harshly. But the body needs to be the sick, not the healthy. I hear tales of the blindness of the church. God will start his judgement of the world with the church, just as he always had in the past.

It says in scriptures that every knee shall bow at the second coming. I thought about that for a little and what that meant for those who do not believe. What would make them bow??

The only thing I can think of, is if I didn't have faith, but was given immediate proof of God in all his glory coming down on clouds with all fanfare, that a million thoughts would pierce my head, all of which would be the excuses you have mentioned. The end thought would be, "Oh my gosh, I was wrong...have mercy." Then I would fall, longing for another chance now that I knew the truth.

That is why scripture says about hell, "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." I would weep too if I knew I screwed up and thought the wrong thing and there was nothing that could be done.

 

[Raithere]

You just judged his research by second hand detail, that goes to show how lazy we all are at doing our own research and finding the truth.

Speak for yourself, I've read many primary works and I've examined his arguments.

There is indisputable proof of his findings and he is respected by the scientific community

No and no. His arguments are primarily strawmen. At best they are misleading, at worst they are simply lies.

Now, I didn't say HE disproves evolution, but that Darwin disproves it himself in the words he left behind. Behe has found what Darwin said if found, then my theory is crap.

The problem is that Behe has not found what he claims to have.

As far as variant life you talk of, you are talking about completed creatures microscopic or otherwise, that have modified building blocks. Well, Behe's findings say it is improbable to modify the blocks at all. So, how were they modified? Again, I am butchering his work. Please read it yourself.

I've read enough excerpts from this book to know the arguments and I've read and listened to Behe many times. His work is utterly unconvincing. The main problem with this book, as well as others written by Strobel, is that the counter argument is never presented honestly or accurately. I suggest you investigate the primary research and the responses to Behe's work.

Then, I found evidence of the fossil record disproving evolution. Shoot, then I found out that I was lied to all my life. I thought evolution was a fact.

Evolution is not one thing. There is the fact of evolution; "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next". There are the factual effects and forces of evolution; speciation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, natural selection, etc. There are mechanistic theories and hypotheses; gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. And there are the hypotheses and theories of evolutionary history. There is no fossil evidence to disprove the fact of Evolution. You may contest various mechanistic and historical theories and hypotheses but thus far there are no convincing arguments against the primary facts.

There you find happiness folks.

I've already found happiness.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

You can call it magnetism, since it exists for the same reason and is alike. I think it's unnecessary to categorize things so much.

It's not categorization it's accurate terminology. The principles of life you are talking about have nothing directly to do with the EM force, Gravity, or the Strong Nuclear force. Your terminology is inaccurate. You're equivocating terms that are not equal in order to justify your philosophy.

Um... you probably didn't understand what I was talking about. If matter wouldn't have resistance, gravity (or magnetism) would draw it into nothingness. Like when the gravity of a large star becomes as great as the resistance of matter, the matter dissapears.

No, the matter is still there it's just compacted. If it no longer existed it would have no effect on existence.

~Raithere

 

[Godless]

Wow! I just read seven pages of logic, and rhetoric rebuttal from theists.

Yorda is a nut!. My conclusion is that this individual thinks it has the power to control the universe to her/his will.

Pleas seek some psychotherapy, before you either hurt yourself or another.

God made me an atheist, who are you to dispute his decision?
Author unknown.

Godless

 

[Sarkus]

So true. Scripture says we are to fear God. And we should! He is righteous, jealous God! If you don't like it, Satan is planning to defeat him.

Then I pity you if you believe out of fear. If someone with a machinegun held it to your head and told you to believe (not just say, but BELIEVE) that there was an invisible pink monkey sitting on your shoulder?

Darwin said that if his theory is true that MANY intermediate life forms existed and that we will find their skeltons. Well, of all the bones we have dug up, we haven't found even one.

So all the pre-homo-sapien skeletons? Homo-erectus, for example?
I suggest you do some research before blatantly displaying your ignorance.
Furthermore, the lack of fossil record is evidence for nothing other than a lack of evidence. But a lack of evidence does not destroy a theory, as long as that theory still fits the facts.

In fact, we learned the opposite, that there are sudden changes from one life form to the next. Which defies the theory of evolution.

Ah, again more ignorance of evolution.
There are two prime movers in evolution - mutation and environmental change. When the environment changes, animals that can not adapt die. Those that can adapt, survive. In general and simplistic terms, this explains the "jumps". (I'm not an expert in the field of paleontology or evolution, but I think this is generally ok? Someone please correct my understanding if it's wayward - PM or otherwise.)

I have complete faith in him as the truth because no better theory is in existence.

Yes they do, for example evolution - but you're just not comfortable with all that that entails. Again, most likely through fear.

Definitely. I would challenge my belief in God. Until then, I choose to have faith.

And then you, like every other religious person, would most likely find a way of fitting the new info into your belief system.

We do! We do!
Dude, that is my argument. I must not be explaining myself clearly! It is a challenge to you. Why? Because many athiest scientists have, and end up becoming Christian.
We are finding every day how we are discovering God's laws. After all, we were made in his image. Why do you not think we are capable of anything we put our mind to? The tower of babel was destroyed because God saw that we have no limits because of his own design of us. Except we did not make the tower for God, but for our own pride of accomplishment! We are no different, today. Let's build our "Tower of Babel" and see what happens.

ROTFLMFAO! No scientist has EVER proven god. Live with it. If you think otherwise, please supply references / evidence.

Because if are to just be, then we have a relative moral system and your life is pointless, regardless of your "worth" or accomplishments. If we continue to live without God, we are not going to like where it's going. The politicians are opening the law. Little by little, inch by inch. We are going to come to a point where everything is legal and anything infringing on that is discrimination. Open your eyes. Do you want to be around 40 years from now if things don't change?

Classic argument from fear. Can you not see, just from an logical point of view, why your "argument" is so flawed: "god exists 'cos it would be bad without him". "Moral Objectivity exists 'cos it would be bad without it".

When you are at your wits end, and have tried everything on Earth, perhaps you will look to the one who waits for you and give him another try.

Been there. Done that. Resolved my "issues" with myself. No sign of the religious self-help group anywhere, thanks.
Your comment reinforces my understanding that for most people religion is nothing more than a psychological tool to help them through life. My family use it. Some of my friends use it. And for that I thank the idea of religion - for what it can offer to those in need - but that in no way strengthens the precepts on which it is based.
For those that need religion - fine - I have no issue/problem with it - and I wish you well, just as much as if you went to a psychologist every Sunday.

For those of us that don't need it - we're also fine, thanks

 

[Sarkus]

God made me an atheist, who are you to dispute his decision?
Author unknown.

ROTFL!
LMAO!
That is going on my wall!
Genius.

 

[yank]

God made me an atheist, who are you to dispute his decision?

way to go!
but lemme correct you...
"God made me an atheist, who are you to question his wisdom?"

 

[jayleew]

Speak for yourself, I've read many primary works and I've examined his arguments.

No and no. His arguments are primarily strawmen. At best they are misleading, at worst they are simply lies.

Strawmen? Is that the model he uses to conceptualize his ideas?

The problem is that Behe has not found what he claims to have.

A controversial claim, like all arguments here. Who are you to discount what the scientific community have conceded that he has found?

I've read enough excerpts from this book to know the arguments and I've read and listened to Behe many times. His work is utterly unconvincing. The main problem with this book, as well as others written by Strobel, is that the counter argument is never presented honestly or accurately. I suggest you investigate the primary research and the responses to Behe's work.

Skimming and reading are not the same. You are reading out of context. Besides, Behe is not the only scientist quoted.
I will agree with you, that he should explore counter arguments. The question is, has any respected source wrote a review yet?

Evolution is not one thing. There is the fact of evolution; "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next". There are the factual effects and forces of evolution; speciation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, natural selection, etc. There are mechanistic theories and hypotheses; gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. And there are the hypotheses and theories of evolutionary history. There is no fossil evidence to disprove the fact of Evolution. You may contest various mechanistic and historical theories and hypotheses but thus far there are no convincing arguments against the primary facts.

Agreed, but the loose term Evloutional theory is the theory in question. The evolution that everyone thinks about when the word is spoken in connection with Darwin. The fact that we are evolved from apes is the theory in question, and disproven by the fossil record, and Behe's work, which there may be rebuttals not yet analyzed.

I've already found happiness.

Okay. I believe you. Happiness is not unique to one faith or creed. You miss my point because I have failed to explain.

Let's see how long it lasts when you are going by the strength of men. Bad things happen to good and bad people. True Christians may have sadness during trials, but they always have peace. Many people have comitted suicide when the going got tough. Christianity and suicide are a contradiction in terms, so if a person who offs himself because the going got tough, is not a Christian. People off themselves everyday, so you can't tell me they were truly happy. The sad thing is, is that they are no different than you, just in a time of some rough luck. Now suicide is extreme, but the point is without Christ, you are on your own to cope, and humans don't cope well on their own. Because no one knows your trials, but you and God.

I've been a "Christian" before. I thought I knew peace and happiness. I have also been an athiest before. I experienced good and bad times while I was. I felt out of control and frustrated sometimes, but not bad otherwise.

Today, I know what peace is. It is a peace that is past understanding in good times and in bad.

 

[Raithere]

Who knows the mind of God. He is just and only holds you accountable for what you know. Some of your thoughts are my thoughts. But, I choose to believe anyway, even though my doubts are head-strong.

I have no problem with this. It is when people try to tell me that they do indeed know the mind of God that I contest.

When you are at your wits end, and have tried everything on Earth, perhaps you will look to the one who waits for you and give him another try.

I've been there and I understand the painful desire for some power to appeal to for help.

I am here to say that the Christianity you were taught is not the way of the cross. Chances are you were fooled by self-righteous "Christians".

I've studied Christianity from many different approaches. The only one that even begins to make sense to me is purely symbolic.

The only thing I can think of, is if I didn't have faith, but was given immediate proof of God in all his glory coming down on clouds with all fanfare, that a million thoughts would pierce my head, all of which would be the excuses you have mentioned. The end thought would be, "Oh my gosh, I was wrong...have mercy." Then I would fall, longing for another chance now that I knew the truth.

But kneeling, begging, and pleading is sycophantic behavior, self-serving falsehood. I don't feel any need for excuses and pleading, I do the best I can as far as I am able to understand. If I act under mistaken understanding then I regret the mistake and strive to correct it. If I knowingly act falsely I regret the act, I ask for forgiveness, and I strive to act correctly.

To grovel and beg is nothing but an attempt to avoid responsibility for one's actions. This is, in fact, what Christianity teaches.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Strawmen? Is that the model he uses to conceptualize his ideas?

Were I to presume to know his mind I'd have to say yes.

A controversial claim, like all arguments here. Who are you to discount what the scientific community have conceded that he has found?

Thus far the scientific community at large has found little or no merit to the argument and reported evidence for irreducible complexity. Certainly not enough to dismiss the robust and well supported field of Evolution.

The question is, has any respected source wrote a review yet?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Agreed, but the loose term Evloutional theory is the theory in question. The evolution that everyone thinks about when the word is spoken in connection with Darwin.

Then it is not a scientific argument. You cannot refute a specific hypothesis and then presume to dismiss the entire field. Behe and his cohorts address specifics (often old, outdated, and long ago abandoned already by the scientific community) and then argue that this invalidates the entire concept.

The fact that we are evolved from apes is the theory in question, and disproven by the fossil record, and Behe's work, which there may be rebuttals not yet analyzed.

A wonderful example of the misdirection they commit. Nowhere does Evolution state that man evolved from apes. What is theorized is that it is extremely likely (and very well evinced) that humans and apes share a common ancestor. The thing is that even if this theory was disproved (no one has done so yet) it would not invalidate the primary theory of Evolution, it would only invalidate the sub-theory (if you will) that it addresses.

Christianity and suicide are a contradiction in terms, so if a person who offs himself because the going got tough, is not a Christian.

This is a "No true Scottsman" argument and an example of circular logic.

Now suicide is extreme, but the point is without Christ, you are on your own to cope, and humans don't cope well on their own. Because no one knows your trials, but you and God.

It seems to me that we're on our own anyway. I understand that the belief in a loving and concerned God is an emotional comfort but its not like manna falls from the sky to feed starving Christians.

~Raithere

 

[jayleew]

Then I pity you if you believe out of fear. If someone with a machinegun held it to your head and told you to believe (not just say, but BELIEVE) that there was an invisible pink monkey sitting on your shoulder?

Well, don't pity me because I don't believe out of fear. That is the only the beginning of faith. When you were young you did what your dad said because you didn't want a spanking or something else. After you grew up, you had respect, but love is always present. We could have a better debate if you knew more of Christian theology.

So all the pre-homo-sapien skeletons? Homo-erectus, for example?
I suggest you do some research before blatantly displaying your ignorance.
Furthermore, the lack of fossil record is evidence for nothing other than a lack of evidence. But a lack of evidence does not destroy a theory, as long as that theory still fits the facts.

The fact that I am ignorant is your opinion, since you did not prove that I am.

The lack of evidence speaks for itself when we are dealing with so much data. The chances of finding any evidence today are slim to none.

Ah, again more ignorance of evolution.
There are two prime movers in evolution - mutation and environmental change. When the environment changes, animals that can not adapt die. Those that can adapt, survive. In general and simplistic terms, this explains the "jumps". (I'm not an expert in the field of paleontology or evolution, but I think this is generally ok? Someone please correct my understanding if it's wayward - PM or otherwise.)

We are talking about modifiation of DNA over time, not a speicies ability to adapt and mutate. THere is micro and macro evolution.

Yes they do, for example evolution - but you're just not comfortable with all that that entails. Again, most likely through fear.

No, they lack enough evidence to sway my decision. Perhaps if you gave me some, I could change my decision.

And then you, like every other religious person, would most likely find a way of fitting the new info into your belief system.

You presume to know me. I would not change my belief system. I may still believe, but I doubt I would. Christianity has always been the same beliefs, it is people who change customs and tradition. That is what I'm talking about your perception of "Christianity" is a lie of "Christians".

ROTFLMFAO! No scientist has EVER proven god. Live with it. If you think otherwise, please supply references / evidence.

No scientist has EVER proven there is no God.

Besides that, you have twisted my words a little:
Here is your quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkus
Then why, like so many others before you, do you not put God up to scientific scrutiny? Surely you must realise that god does NOT stand up to scientific scrutiny. If he did there wouldn't be a need to "believe" because he would be a proven fact!

I never said that any scientist has proven God. The question posed to me was has any scientists bothered to look to science to prove God. They do, and find evidence. Is it controversial? Of course, all theories are. Don't change my words around and say I am not. We do put God up to scientific scrutiny, and we find that the unexaplainable is explained by God's account.

Classic argument from fear. Can you not see, just from an logical point of view, why your "argument" is so flawed: "god exists 'cos it would be bad without him". "Moral Objectivity exists 'cos it would be bad without it".

I'm sorry, I never said that God exists because it would be bad without him. Are you serious? You are reaching for something to say and twisting my words.

I stated (as a seperate argument about morality) that morality is relative if there is no third party involved. It is objective, and therefore, irrelevant without a third party. A third party is required to deem something moral as moral. God is the third party to Christians. The world lives without him, so we see that there is no third party, we can see the destructive degradation.
Without some higher set of morals that are dictated and unchangeable, morality will spiral downward into anarchy, because morality is irrelevant if it is relative to the the individual.
No need to make far fetched claims.

Been there. Done that. Resolved my "issues" with myself. No sign of the religious self-help group anywhere, thanks.
Your comment reinforces my understanding that for most people religion is nothing more than a psychological tool to help them through life. My family use it. Some of my friends use it. And for that I thank the idea of religion - for what it can offer to those in need - but that in no way strengthens the precepts on which it is based.
For those that need religion - fine - I have no issue/problem with it - and I wish you well, just as much as if you went to a psychologist every Sunday.

It is a tool, but it is more than you will understand until you want to. You cannot sit here and tell me that without a doubt God doesn't exist just as much I can say he does.

Don't get me started on the non-science of Psychology...it is hogwash. I wanted to have a second Major in it until I found out it is nothing more than labeling human behavior, and prescribing anti-psychotics and theraputic remedies. There is some good from it, but far and few between.

I reluctantly took my daughter to a shrink because she had an eating problem. I told everyone, it is our problem. Well, it was us, and our attitudes to her eating. The shrink wanted to put her on drugs just to see if the response was positive, not the way a doctor of medicine would treat a patient. Told me she was a little obsesive compulsive. Well, we all are "psychos" in some fashion.

Please do not equate the two.

Besides, I never said we aren't capable of solving our own problems. We just don't have to go through the valley alone.

Anyone can get by just fine without God, but it is harder, and if you want to subject yourself to pain needlessly, that is your business.

Sarkus, what do you think happens when we die? Nothing? Then life is futile.

 

[Yorda]

It's not categorization it's accurate terminology. The principles of life you are talking about have nothing directly to do with the EM force, Gravity, or the Strong Nuclear force.

I don't think gravity or strong nuclear force exists... or, they do, but they're just different forms... consequences of "magnetism".

No, the matter is still there it's just compacted. If it no longer existed it would have no effect on existence.

I wasn't talking about black holes, it was just an example. Gray is reality (nothingness), black is resistance, white is force... black and white go together, they form gray.

My conclusion is that this individual thinks it has the power to control the universe to her/his will.

I have the power, everyone has. But I'm not an individual. Individuals don't have much power.

 

[cato]

jayleew, I don’t think you under stand. if there are an infinite number of universes, then the chances that at least 1 produces life is 100%. I never said that I knew there were these other universes; I just said that is one theory, out of many, that is equal to or greater than any argument for god.

You say my argument is flawed, but do not dispute the argument.

the reason I said it was flawed was because you claim it as fact when it is not.
you are the one who wont face my argument. Jesus, according to the bible, said that you could have ANYTHING if you prayed for it. how can people be able to have ANYTHING, and not impede the free will of others? so what is it? is god not good, less than all-powerful, or is the bible wrong? (if the bible is wrong, then the whole religion is flawed).

there is nothing that humans can misunderstand, either we don’t have free will, or the bible is wrong, they are in direct contradiction, but you wont admit when you are beaten.

 

[Raithere]

I don't think gravity or strong nuclear force exists... or, they do, but they're just different forms... consequences of "magnetism".

Magnetism also repels.

I wasn't talking about black holes, it was just an example. Gray is reality (nothingness), black is resistance, white is force... black and white go together, they form gray.

This is essentially a description of a black hole, whether you intended it or not: "when the gravity of a large star becomes as great as the resistance of matter". Your conclusion, that matter "disappears" is incorrect.

As to the black, white, and grey analogy; I have no idea what you are trying to say. Resistance is force.

~Raithere