CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Chemicals at the right temperature creating proteins that created more complex proteins which created very simple life which reproduced and changed over time getting more and more complex and eventually turning into us. Very simple abiogenesis lecture COMPLETE!
How on earth did we get on this beautiful world? Did we just magically appear out of the blue? No, I believe that someone had to be here before us that created the human race; and that person is God.
That is exactly what the Bible teaches though. There was nothing, and God wanted stuff to appear within that nothing. So he put life here, magically right out of the blue.
Scientific observation, however, tells a different story. A story that does not require magic and can be tested and refined through experimentation. The exact method of abiogeneses that gave rise to life early on is not completely determined, but the building blocks (organic matter, heat and specific environmental conditions) are. There was room and time for chemistry to do its thing, although it happened gradually and certainly not out of the blue.
How do you know that all those scientific research is true though? When you say stuff about chemistry I don't think you realize that we are both saying stuff that cant be entirely improved. That sounds just as or if not then more unrealistic of there being a God.
How do you know that all those scientific research is true though?
I don't know that all of it is true, but I've done lab experiments in college that helped identify several basic intrinsic principles. I know how and why the scientific method works because I've been able to apply the methodology to numerous things. I know that you can order a miller-urrey kit online fairly cheaply and make a variety of proteins in your garage. I have personally seen that if you put certain kinds of protein in the oven the automatically form membranes that could be used in the early protobionts to briefly store the energy the powers replication even without DNA. I have read peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
I know that if a lot of the principles behind organic biology were false, we would not have the kinds of medications and advanced treatments we do know, that many researchers would have failed to get demonstrable results and lost their funding. So yeah, I have plenty of reason to justify these explanaitions than I do a non-demonstrable poorly formed archaic notion created by ancient and ignorant people who weren't capable of satisfying their curiosity but weren't intellectually honest to admit that they didn't know.
When you say stuff about chemistry I don't think you realize that we are both saying stuff that cant be entirely improved
No, but many aspects of mine are demonstrable, and they are all falsifiable. The research into this has changed medicine and allowed to make predictions that turned out to be true. You, have nothing resembling this.
That sounds just as or if not then more unrealistic of there being a God.
God had no materiel. Everything we have encountered, even energy, does have some basis that we can identify, track and learn from. God as is often understood has no limits. Is perfect. We have never found anything without limits. The closest thing is energy, which cannot be created or destroyed but it has other characteristics that limit it and cause certain effects at certain wavelengths. We have also noticed that anytime something becomes better at one property it invariably gets worse in another, so perfection seems to be completely impossible in anything accept our imaginations. So no, God is very unrealistic as he is normally believed to be. Its Magic, ill-defined magic at that. It flies in the face of all perceptible reality.
Not necessarily. I believe in God too, but the fact is that the scientific stance is more testable and prove-able through our reasoning and experience. It is true that even science requires some degree of faith, given that what science tells us can never be absolutely without flaw or doubt. Belief in God however, requires a vastly larger leap of faith than any claims of science. As many others on here have said, there is no way to physically prove God, but we can follow him to the best of our reason. From there forward, it's all faith.
Think about it, why else does the bible stress faith so much? It's because following God demands us to go beyond the limits of our knowledge and reasoning.
Magically appearing out of the blue is exactly what the Bible teaches. God magically created Adam out of the blue and magically created Eve from Adam's rib. Sounds more like a bed-time story than something to take literally.
There is a definite order to the universe, one that allows our minds to comprehend and predict it. I find it unlikely that there isn't a higher mind at work behind it all.
Define perfect. This world is wondrous and amazing and often beautiful, but hardly perfect. People die, get sick, get injured. Life needs to consume other life to exist. Weather can be vicious. Some of the best things are not in abundance while some of the worst are.
Besides, even if we agreed that the world IS perfect, why could it not happen through nature. If nature is perfection, in your view, could it not perpetuate perfection?
How do you know the world or universe isn't perfect? Are we not alive right now discussing this "imperfect" universe we live in? Why, if it is so imperfect, then....
I assume by fine-tuning you are referring to "fine-tuning for life"? If so...
As it stands, there is an EXTREMELY narrow range of environments that can foster life, much less allow it to thrive, and that is even more true when you adjust for a specific species (like humans, which we are told were God's favorite creation). Taken as a whole, less than .5% of Earth's mass is capable of harboring humans.
Less than 1% of the known universe is composed of matter (and a materiel object would be required for life as we know it to develop).
MOST of the matter in the universe is in stars, black holes, comets asteroids and other such things that humans could never live on.
Considering how hostile the VAST majority of the universe is, identifying it as fine-tuned seems more than a little counter-intuitive.
Also, if it was fine-tuned, we would only need one planet and one star, and life should be able to begin quickly.
If not, due to extreme unlikeliness of life developing ANYWHERE, we would need as much time and space as we can get to increase the number of chemical reactions available and increase the possibility of life forming, and it might take a very long time for that to happen.
As such, a universe that is extremely large and old seems more consistent with an "untuned" universe than a tuned one, and it so happens that is the exact kind of universe we live in.
Finally, most of the fine-tuning arguments are speculative. In many cases we can't really say what would happen if some of the constants changed. Only about four have been truly identified as truly necessary, and they are more effective at generating black holes than life. Re-tuning the universe in certain ways could make life much more likely to occur and flourish for all we know.
I assume by fine-tuning you are referring to "fine-tuning for life"? If so...
As it stands, there is an EXTREMELY narrow range of environments that can foster life, much less allow it to thrive, and that is even more true when you adjust for a specific species (like humans, which we are told were God's favorite creation). Taken as a whole, less than .5% of Earth's mass is capable of harboring humans.
Less than 1% of the known universe is composed of matter (and a materiel object would be required for life as we know it to develop).
MOST of the matter in the universe is in stars, black holes, comets asteroids and other such things that humans could never live on.
Considering how hostile the VAST majority of the universe is, identifying it as fine-tuned seems more than a little counter-intuitive.
Also, if it was fine-tuned, we would only need one planet and one star, and life should be able to begin quickly.
If not, due to extreme unlikeliness of life developing ANYWHERE, we would need as much time and space as we can get to increase the number of chemical reactions available and increase the possibility of life forming, and it might take a very long time for that to happen.
As such, a universe that is extremely large and old seems more consistent with an "untuned" universe than a tuned one, and it so happens that is the exact kind of universe we live in.
Finally, most of the fine-tuning arguments are speculative. In many cases we can't really say what would happen if some of the constants changed. Only about four have been truly identified as truly necessary, and they are more effective at generating black holes than life. Re-tuning the universe in certain ways could make life much more likely to occur and flourish for all we know.
I am talking about the cosmological constant. Also are you including the earth's crust in the .5?
The cosmological constant is still being debated. There are propositions involving dark matter that would turn it on its head. Even if we are correct about it, the wiggle room is fairly significant in many regards, 5-10 times in one direction, and order of magnitude in another. Not really fine-tuned, in my opinion.
Also are you including the earth's crust in the .5?
The Earth's crust is the majority of the .5%
Simply life existing at all is almost a miracle.
Which is precisely why it is hard to imagine this universe being specifically designed to support it.
The cosmological constant is still being debated. There are propositions involving dark matter that would turn it on its head. Even if we are correct about it, the wiggle room is fairly significant in many regards, 5-10 times in one direction, and order of magnitude in another. Not really fine-tuned, in my opinion.
It is accepted by a majority of scientists if we want to debate if it exists we could start a sub-debate.
The Earth's crust is the majority of the .5%
Ok what is it on the surface as I'm not an expert in that area.
Which is precisely why it is hard to imagine this universe being specifically designed to support it.
I mean if we change the laws of physics life wouldn't exist at all....
It is accepted by a majority of scientists if we want to debate if it exists we could start a sub-debate.
I wasn't saying that its existence is debated, rather that the actual constant itself is reliant on consistant distribution within vacuum energy. Although there is no evidence that this is not the case, investigation into quintessence has the potential to demonstrate otherwise. And this isn't even going into multiverse theory, which could render the whole point moot.
Ok what is it on the surface as I'm not an expert in that area.
Roughly a quarter. But my original statement was referring to total mass. If the planet is fine-tuned to support life, why can so little of it actually do so?
I mean if we change the laws of physics life wouldn't exist at all...
Several points-
A) as I said in my original debate, most of that is speculation.
B) this hypothesis only works on life within the confines of the universe that does exist. In a universe with altered rules of physics, alternate forms of life may arise, and perhaps flourish more. Of course, this too is speculation. The whole concept is too full of unknown variables to say much concrete about.
C) Who knows when life in the universe first emerged, but as far as life on Earth, it was nearly 10 billion years after the Big Bang. Life emerged within the constraints of the current universe, and it appears to have done so with great difficulty. If the universe was specifically designed to support life, it is not rational to make it so difficult.
D) The whole view is remarkable anthro-centric and myopic. There is SO MUCH MORE to reality than to us, and more than 99% of the universe functions without a direct effect on us (and our effect on the universe is even less)
E) Again, multiverse theory, if true, eliminates ANY need for fine-tuning.
A) as I said in my original debate, most of that is speculation.
Fair enough.
B) this hypothesis only works on life within the confines of the universe that does exist. In a universe with altered rules of physics, alternate forms of life may arise, and perhaps flourish more. Of course, this too is speculation. The whole concept is too full of unknown variables to say much concrete about.
Fair enough.
C) Who knows when life in the universe first emerged, but as far as life on Earth, it was nearly 10 billion years after the Big Bang. Life emerged within the constraints of the current universe, and it appears to have done so with great difficulty. If the universe was specifically designed to support life, it is not rational to make it so difficult.
To be fair the suggested fine-tuning of the cosmological constant by itself is proof of God. I think we are misunderstanding each other.
D) The whole view is remarkable anthro-centric and myopic. There is SO MUCH MORE to reality than to us, and more than 99% of the universe functions without a direct effect on us (and our effect on the universe is even less)
True I am simply stating that as a possibility.
E) Again, multiverse theory, if true, eliminates ANY need for fine-tuning.
Where is the evidence for the multiverse?
To be fair fine-tuning by itself is just at most evidence and not by itself proof as some Christian debaters make it out to be.
To be fair the suggested fine-tuning of the cosmological constant by itself is proof of God.
Not proof. Proposed evidence.
My argument is that it does not appear to be fine-tuned to me in the first place. There is far to much superfluous reality for me to conciser it fine-tuning. Darn near every square foot of the universe would be fatal to us. How can such a hostile environment be made "for us". Its the equivalent of building a nice little cat tree for my cat, perfectly designed with her comfort and happiness in mind, and then suspending it over the mouth of an active volcano. Only many orders of magnitude less responsible.
You will note I don't rely on this exclusively, and qualify it with statements like "if true". I don't know if it should even considered a properly falsifiable notion quite yet. But I like it, because it implies that an infinite number of versions of myself are married to an infinite number of super models :P
To be fair fine-tuning by itself is just at most evidence and not by itself proof as some Christian debaters make it out to be.
Yeah. But I wished to debate you since you seem to be an intelligent and reasonable Christian, and this was all you gave me to work with :)
My argument is that it does not appear to be fine-tuned to me in the first place. There is far to much superfluous reality for me to conciser it fine-tuning. Darn near every square foot of the universe would be fatal to us. How can such a hostile environment be made "for us". Its the equivalent of building a nice little cat tree for my cat, perfectly designed with her comfort and happiness in mind, and then suspending it over the mouth of an active volcano. Only many orders of magnitude less responsible.
Sorry I meant to finish with NOT proof of God just one evidence of God. I am currently going to correct it.
You will note I don't rely on this exclusively, and qualify it with statements like "if true". I don't know if it should even considered a properly falsifiable notion quite yet. But I like it, because it implies that an infinite number of versions of myself are married to an infinite number of super models :P
What bothers me about string theory is it is untestable and unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. The question is how do we test it? What machines would be needed? How much would it cost to do experiments on it? Do we have the technology? Is it safe?
Indeed. From what I understand though, it does help make sense of the quantum. but I don't want to go too far into that since I do not understand those sides of physics as much as I would like/need to.
Fortunately, I have provided other methods.
That said, this whole topic is more philosophical than truly scientific.
Indeed. From what I understand though, it does help make sense of the quantum. but I don't want to go too far into that since I do not understand those sides of physics as much as I would like/need to.
Fortunately, I have provided other methods.
That said, this whole topic is more philosophical than truly scientific.
I don't fully understand quantum physics too so this is probably going to go into a dead end as I simply do not understand it currently.
That said, this whole topic is more philosophical than truly scientific.
It would help to have proof of God scientifically or have strong evidence for Him or he simply isn't likely real. I do believe God has scientific evidence and therefore do believe he is real. Do you want to debate if a Man called Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st Century existed?
The thing is, I don't make a truth claim one way or the other. I don't believe strongly that he did or didn't live, and typically conduct these debates under the assumption that he did. Sure, I'm somewhat skeptical, but I cannot even attempt to prove that he did not exist, nor do I have a fully developed alternative for how Christianity developed without him. So I just skip to the next step, allow that he was real and move on to the specifics about him.
Indeed. From what I understand though, it does help make sense of the quantum. but I don't want to go too far into that since I do not understand those sides of physics as much as I would like/need to.
Fortunately, I have provided other methods.
That said, this whole topic is more philosophical than truly scientific.
Also the problem with the multiverse hypothesis is that it can probably be ruled out by Occam's razor although to be fair it is more of a general guideline than a strict guideline.
Cosmologist Max Tegmark, on Occam's Razor and its application to multiverse theory:
"A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all."
also, an interesting essay regarding the usefulness of Occam's razor:
Obviously God exists. Why? Well, because it says that He exists in the Bible, and we know the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible, which is the word of God.
No matter who you are, were your at or what is going on in your life at any given time. We all have had to put faith in something. Wether it be a test at school, a job interview. Your parents. i.e just about anything we either knowingly or unknowing put faith into something working out for us. This faith could be "god" or if you feel there is no god, then your putting faith into what!"? Your self? Someone else that is envolved? I know there is a god, I pray and I have faith. Does that mean that my life is perfect and I do to make mistakes or sin? No, I make mistakes, I sin. And my life is far from perfect. But I wake up knowing that life as we live it is only as good as we make it. For those that don't believe this is your right. I support your choice. But I will always be proud to admit I believe.
God will prove Himself to each and every person that takes his or her first step of faith; God tailors the inner, ‘spiritual witness’ that He feels is best suited and unique to each individual, and therefore HE is the ultimate, “proof,” of Himself and His existence.
Please don’t misunderstand me; I believe in research, documentation, and providing solid reasons and logic for the Christian faith. There are plenty of scientific facts available, which clearly point in the direction of Intelligent Design for the earth and its solar system.
Please don’t misunderstand me; I believe in research, documentation, and providing solid reasons and logic for the Christian faith. There are plenty of scientific facts available, which clearly point in the direction of Intelligent Design for the earth and its solar system. I have an extensive library, which contains a great deal of fact-based information, including archaeological discoveries that corroborate the authenticity of the peoples of the Old Testament and New Testament, modern scientific data, and other materials that reasonably lay forth a valid argument for the existence of a God. However, having once been a avowed atheist, and then after that, being an avowed agnostic, I can vouch by personal experience, that no amount of factual data, large or small, will ever, “prove,” there is a God to anyone unless they are truly seeking Him.
This does not mean a Christian should stop reading books, scripture, or gathering information to use in the course of conversations, and thereby validate the credibility of his or her own personal faith. By its very nature and definition, faith, is not something attained by mere intellectual endeavor.
Unless a person expresses the willingness to believe, any attempt by the well-intentioned Christian to bombard them with scientific facts is futile, and can often be destructive. If you go looking for raw data, and all kinds of head knowledge to prove your point, you may be right, and you may even win the argument, but in the end, you’ll lose an opportunity to win a soul.
Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it.
At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say he believes there are no proofs for God's existence. But then, this means there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there, and that he simply has not yet encountered one.
Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.
Unless you provide evidence for your position there is nothing more to really discuss, all you really stated is that you believe. That is fine, but on a debate site it seems lacking.
Also care to credit where you got your argument from? It didn't sound like you and was also familiar. I don't know if I have the original links but it is in a few other places too.
The portion I linked to, that you copy and pasted word for word, is deeply flawed on a few areas for instance on who pre supposes what. This is in part because your argument is a mashup of two sites opinions.
Saying "I have seen no sufficient or accurate evidence to believe in a god" pre supposes nothing, nor does it claim there is no god. This is the common position held by the majority of atheists, I know christian sites claim otherwise but if you wish to discuss these ideas it's time to leave the circle jerk. I would be wary of anyone telling you what someone else thinks without quoting or giving information as to where they expressed the idea.
On objectivity. Many believers seem to admit their pre suppositions while they still seem blind to them even. In his recent debste with Bill Nye Ken Hamm explained his method he uses backing his claims.
Ken Hamm presupposed the bible is infallible and uses that as a starting point when looking for evidences in his "science". His team then collects information to support the bible rather than the scientific approach which would gather the information and follow where it leads no matter the conclusion. He is no where objective in this approach to science. Hamms methods are not scientific no matter what he claims.
I guess you did not completely have no arguments. You did touch (well...the original author hints at it) on the thoroughly discredited ID idea, which basically looks at the properties of matter and says "someone did that". Of course this just causes things to turtle all the way down when asked where that someone came from or uses the fallacy of special pleading to answer as well as making a huge jump in logic to get the conclusion.
The Carm article you end with says atheists are less likely to be objective with evidence... Kettle, meet pot. Just look at how much of "science" in the name of religion gets thrown around because actual science doesn't fit some story.
I expect no reply as I am not trying to change your mind or debate blog links but if your beliefs are held on pseudo science like ID and poor logic or mischaracterizing of opposing opinions you owe it to yourself to set that straight. The argument you used offers no evidence for their stance or for their oppositions stance it just says this group thinks this and wont get it.
If god doesn't exist where did the bible come from? If a metor big enough cause the extinction of dinosaurs how come it didn't destroy the whole Earth or even take it out of its perfect orbit around the sun? If we came from monkeys how come we lost our fur coat, wouldn't early humans need it to survive the winter? Atheists out there, give an anweser besides some old monkey bones.
Obviously, God exists. The proof is all around us. Everything is designed that intelligent life may exist. This points to an intelligent source of the Universe.
Ugh, circular logic. It's one of those "God exists, and the evidence is all around us because god created everything, and I know that that God exists because the evidence is all around us because god created everything etc. etc. etc." Things.
Well, we can't call it an opinion since there is definitely a true/false answer to the proposition. However, it is the weakest and worst kind of truth statement. A statement that is untested but falsifiable is a small step up, but you don't get any real evidence on your side just yet so it still requires faith to believe in. A statement that has been tested at least once or twice is much better, and a statement that is actively demonstrable more or less at will is simply the best. You can rest assured it is true there, and show to others that it is if you have the resources and skill set available.
The problem with unfalsifiable premises is that they has about as much weight as opinion, but you put yourself in the position of having to justify it, which you don't have to do with opinions. This, in my opinion makes it the most useless kind of premise. It may or may not be true, but we can never know, and the "clinching evidence" is usually the worst sort. The Bible is no more verifiable than any other ancient religious text. The personal experiences that people claim to have from time to time? Lets face it, if it is one person who has no tangible proof, we can't know if people are lying, hallucinating, misinterpreting things or simply so attached to the notion that they can't accept that a wave of euphoria or strong appreciation for the beauty around us is just something that tends to happen to people no matter what they believe in.
The only way God would be falsifiable is if he allowed himself to be, and he really doesn't seem to want to do that. He'd rather be the groundhog warning of perpetual winter.
Do I know if God exists? No. But things that exist tend to leave evidence of their existence, evidence that by recorded action or necessity makes it impossible to doubt. God has not done such a thing, so to believe in him is to cling to the least useful type of claim a person can make. And I don't like to do that.
There actually believe it or not is proof of God if you do some research. In your argument you said nothing about how we did get here if God doesn't exist...I think that we can both agree that magically appearing out of no where or evolving from monkeys are both crazier beliefs than believing in God.
There actually believe it or not is proof of God if you do some research.
I've been researching the feasibility of deities, supernatural claims and religious teachings for about 20 years. I think I'm in a good position to analyze the "evidence".
You can only have "proof" (by which I will use that word as "as extremely compelling and incontrovertible evidence" since proof is something you only get in mathematics) if you can establish that the premise is falsifiable. Nobody in thousands of years of debating this subject has pulled that off so I would be highly surprised if you could. Feel free to try though, I'm listening.
In your argument you said nothing about how we did get here if God doesn't exist
That is an extremely long and complicated series of events, I am not going to go into a detailed explanation every time I state my stance that I do not believe in God.
I think that we can both agree that magically appearing out of no where or evolving from monkeys are both crazier beliefs than believing in God.
Interestingly, you are making two claims that I don't make. I do not claim that the universe came out of nothing. It came from a quantum fluctuation in the singularity that preceded the big bang, and the energy for it has always been there. There is nothing crazy or magical about this. These notions are based on observable data and intrinsic properties of physics, and the more recent explorations into quantum physics add whole new levels of possibility and understanding to the mix.
Also, I don't claim we evolved from monkeys, nor does any true supporter of evolution. We evolved from beings that were virtually identical but slightly different than us. That chain keep going back millions of years until you have an organism who eventually begat all the simians. There is nothing crazy or magical about this either.
Even if none of these things were apparent or observable, automatically assuming a "God or nothing" stance does you no good. You are taking a premise, "the origin of various things" and assuming if an answer is not immediately present, than God did it. What you fail to realize is the God as described in your Bible has numerous characteristics unwarranted based on this "necessity", nor have you clarified where God himself came from. Its not an answer, its a placeholder that is not derived from necessity as you believe it is, and is not in any way testable. Sorry, but it is to cling to horrible rationality.
I never said that you claimed that we evolved from monkeys or magically appeared. When you said that we evolved from beigns that were virtually identical but slightly different than us that leads back to the same question that I had before; how did they get here? There is just as much evidence in both of our theories. And if you believe in all scientific beliefs of how we got here then all I am going to say is that we cannot be certain that all of this is true. And all people that believe in God know that the bible is not entirely true; just like all of the scientific theories.
When you said that we evolved from beigns that were virtually identical but slightly different than us that leads back to the same question that I had before; how did they get here?
I just touched on this in my other response to you. But for a little more in-depth analyses:
This is a very basic description of the Opaarin-Haldene hypothesis. While not fully verified, the hypothesis provides numerous logically sound and testable tenants that guide much of current research into abiogenesis.
There is just as much evidence in both of our theories.
False. You don't have a theory. You don't have a hypothesis even. Its unfalsifiable. The only possible way to test it is if God came down and let us. Even then, God apparently does not have any materiel to be tested and since he is often describe as having no limits, that would present a probem as well. But we don't even get to that point. We don't know what he is made out of, how he functions, or if he's even there in the first place. On the other hand, we know quite a bit about organic chemistry. We can test molecules and discern what they do. We have a wide variety of life forms to examine and make reasonable hypothesis about. We have metabolism down pat for numerous life forms. We can study viruses (which would possibly very similar to the protobionts that likely preceded true life). So no, our different stances don't have the same weight of evidence AT ALL. Even though we haven't worked everything out completely, we are setting ourselves up to do just that, AS WELL as making scientific and medical breakthroughs right in the middle of all this.
And if you believe in all scientific beliefs of how we got here then all I am going to say is that we cannot be certain that all of this is true.
And we cannot be certain if yours is true either. However, my standpoint is testable and based on direct observation and problem solving. Yours is based on nothing substantial.
And all people that believe in God know that the bible is not entirely true
That is not a debate for me, but there are multiple hardcore Christians on this site who I'm sure would love to debate that with you :)
It may or may not be true, but we can never know, and the "clinching evidence" is usually the worst sort.
But we can know, we have known, and we do know that it exists. It is all around us in everyday life, when you stop to tie your shoe and a huge object falls right where you would have walked had you not stopped to tie your shoe... coincedence? No, not when you have these unexplainable things happen very often in your life, and they do happen, you need to recognize them though... it's like learning to perceive a new color...
While I have 100% faith in God, whatever it may be, I do put myself in the thinking shoes of the other side, but it is impossible to be in that mindset.
But we can know, we have known, and we do know that it exists.
Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
when you stop to tie your shoe and a huge object falls right where you would have walked had you not stopped to tie your shoe.
I can't say I've had that experience. Nor can I readily think of anyone outside of cartoons and movies that has.
No, not when you have these unexplainable things happen very often in your life
Nothing in that example of yours in unexplainable. Shoes sometimes come untied as you walk. Heavy things fall heavily. Sometimes things are under the heavy things, sometimes they aren't. Your chances of NOT being hit by the heavy thing are much greater than your chances of being so since you would have to be in a very specific place to get hit.
People often identify things as unexplainable because THEY cannot explain them. It does not mean that other people cannot, or that they themselves would be unable to explain them if they knew more about the situation.
these unexplainable things happen very often in your life
I've had some "good luck" here and there, but also bad. I've had coincidences work in my favor and against. Neither requires God.
I do put myself in the thinking shoes of the other side, but it is impossible to be in that mindset.
You usually believe in something because you have gained knowledge of it right? I have knowledge that God exists, I'm sorry you haven't found it yet, but its a personal type of thing that has to be found, its not some scientific experiement (although you can test the results of god, but they have to be personal, to you and no one else, and you will just write that off as mental illness but then how do you explain all the similar stories of miracles and encountering god/angels etc...?
I can't say I've had that experience. Nor can I readily think of anyone outside of cartoons and movies that has.
Geez you really have to take everything so serious? did you never hear of a metaphor in high school? I know I never used the world "like" but cmon now... It was supposed to mean more than that, like have you ever ran into someone, then ran into them somewhere comepletely random later in the day? Coincidence? I think not, I think and believe you both have unfinished business with each other, hence why you ran into each other randomly again.
But not YOU YOU, im being HYPOTHETICAL in case you can't tell because I don't want you to say something like "Oh never been in that situation either"
I sincerely hope you understand what I am trying to get at.
Not for me and millions of other people.
Well it happens for me and BILLIONS of other people
You usually believe in something because you have gained knowledge of it right?
You don't need comprehensive understanding to believe in a prospect, nor will people necessarily believe in everything they gain knowledge about. So, again, belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
its a personal type of thing that has to be found, its not some scientific experiement
How can you account for confirmation bias, then? How can you determine that this knowledge is accurate? How do you know you are looking at this all clearly?
but they have to be personal, to you and no one else,
If problem solvers like scientists or politicians operated this way, nothing would ever get done. God is either true for everyone or false for everyone, so if you don't step outside of yourself you don't have a leg to stand on.
and you will just write that off as mental illness but then how do you explain all the similar stories of miracles and encountering god/angels etc...?
Miracles- There are none. The closest thing is something that cannot be explained either because we have insufficient knowledge or are unable to test the proposed miracle. Just because we don't know how it happened, does not mean it does not have a naturalistic explanation.
Angels and the like- mental illness, hallucination, dreams, misunderstanding, confirmation bias, ignorance, lies....it depends on the situation. There are a thousand ways someone can make a claim that is not true, even if they aren't lying.
like have you ever ran into someone, then ran into them somewhere comepletely random later in the day? Coincidence? I think not,
Why do you think not? If you live in the same community and are both running around doing various things, there is no reason why it is impossible to randomly encounter each other.
Well it happens for me and BILLIONS of other people
You said you found the mindset I described as being impossible, I pointed out that no it isn't.
You can't disagree that this universe had a creative force behind it. And if that creative force, whether it be atoms, a god, or whatever, it had in it an implication of life. Just as an acorn has an implication of a tree or a sperm an implication of a human. We did not come into the universe, but rather came out of the universe. But take an acorn for example, which can grow to be a tree... Without that acorn, an oak cannot grow. Therefore an acorn, really is an oak, just grown up... Or evolved. So if that acorn which implied an oak, is actually the oak, or rather the tree is the acorn... Can the same not be said about us?
Without our parents, we could not exist. Without the sperm or the egg, we would not exist. We are implied in those, which are implied in our parents. Would it not be safe to assume that we ARE our parents? And that they are their parents, which we would have to be too? It could go on and on until we were created in this Earth. We were implied in this Earth, which acted as a seed of life... A seed which we ultimately are. Our lives could not exist without the Earth, as the Earth could not exist without that starting point... Which brings me back to where I started, which is that whatever that creative force may be, we were implied within it. We ARE that creative force, which was the original seed.
If God is to exist, then the evidence is everything... For everything is God. You can say that this world was not created by an intelligent energy, force, being, whichever you choose... But in that creative force, or initial seed was an implication of intelligence. The intelligence that was implied, is the very intelligence which we have.
You can't disagree that this universe had a creative force behind it.
This operates under the assumption that our completely linear perception of time/causality is correct. There is reason to at least ponder that it may not be. First, if time truly emerged after the Big Bang, but if there was also a singularity "before" the Big Bang, this makes true linearity suspect. Further if time is cyclical instead of finitely linear, then everything came before everything else (including everything that came before it) and our scope is simply too small to really identify that. There are many complications coming out of the seemingly impossible and nonsensical data gathered in the field of quantum physics. One implication is that we simply aren't seeing anywhere near the big (or very small) picture here.
The framing here is critical, and I can use your own sperm/human acorn/oak example to emphasize my point. Extend the frame beyond life. All of the elements found with the life form are found in non-lifeforms. The ability to even have a complex collection of molecules that can constitute what we identify as "life" is simply one potential expression of the interaction between matter, energy and forces. It would appear to be a very unlikely and probably uncommon one at that. Also accounted for in these interactions is...well....everything else in the universe. Minerals, atmospheric gasses, weath phenomena, nebulae, galactic structures and on and on. We cannot say for sure how long it took life to enter the universe, but using our understanding of life on Earth, it had to come way after numerous other things were established. Elements, for example. The expansion precipitated by the Big Bang made hydrogen and helium possible, which (in conjunction with gravity and other forces) made the first stars possible. But we are pretty sure that the rest of the elements had to be manufactured inside stars, so the first generation had die and spill its guts before you even had the possibility of planets on which life could emerge. And even then, the Earth still needed a few hundred million years for conditions to facilitate the possibility of life. So what I'm saying is that to jump from acorn back to God via "implication of life" is to skip a whole bunch of steps. If anything, the implication of non-life is more apparent. And since an oak does not appear to have intelligence, and there are countless other life forms that do not, the implication of intelligence behind it all is even more abstracted from the whole of perceptible reality. And how finite might our perception reality really be?
This operates under the assumption that our completely linear perception of time/causality is correct.
Well, you can argue that the earth always existed. In which case, we are directly related to the earth, in the same sense that the acorn is related to the oak, or leaves are related to the tree.
As for time, it is based off of rotations. A circle does not have either a beginning or an end.
Further if time is cyclical instead of finitely linear, then everything came before everything else (including everything that came before it) and our scope is simply too small to really identify that.
Time is just an illusion.
We cannot say for sure how long it took life to enter the universe, but using our understanding of life on Earth, it had to come way after numerous other things were established.
That doesn't disconnect us from anything. The Earth is something that grows organisms. We all came from the earth... And if there was in fact a starting point for the universe, the earth came from that.
So what I'm saying is that to jump from acorn back to God via "implication of life" is to skip a whole bunch of steps.
But they are all connected. Can you deny that? If there was a starting point, they all came from that starting point. Everything on the earth is directly connected to the earth.
If anything, the implication of non-life is more apparent. And since an oak does not appear to have intelligence, and there are countless other life forms that do not, the implication of intelligence behind it all is even more abstracted from the whole of perceptible reality.
For something to be called intelligent, you would have to have something that is non-intelligent. I am not saying that a bearded man in the sky made us, because it could easily be two atoms or whatever. I'm saying that if that is the case, in those two atoms was implication of everything.
Well, you can argue that the earth always existed.
That would be a very weak argument in light of the evidence.
As for time, it is based off of rotations. A circle does not have either a beginning or an end.
As far as I know, whether time flow is linear or circular has not been established. If the flow is circular, you would be correct, but that could negate the need for a "first cause" type thing in the first place and weaken your argument.
Time is just an illusion.
Einstein and empirical observation disagree.
And if there was in fact a starting point for the universe, the earth came from that.
Not directly. "Earth" is not the cause of life, although it does play a roll in its origination and its development. "Big Bang" is not the cause of Earth. Whatever it is that precipitated the Big Bang is not the cause of intelligence.
That would be a very weak argument in light of the evidence.
I agree. I must have misunderstood your earlier point then.
As far as I know, whether time flow is linear or circular has not been established.
Time is just a measurement of rotations.
Einstein and empirical observation disagree.
"Time is an illusion."
-Albert Einstein
Not directly. "Earth" is not the cause of life, although it does play a roll in its origination and its development. "Big Bang" is not the cause of Earth. Whatever it is that precipitated the Big Bang is not the cause of intelligence.
Of course it is! Ultimately, the Big Bang, if that is what started this all, is what caused life. That's like saying that your great great grandmother is not responsible for your existence. Remove a single direct relative from your family tree, prior to your birth, and you would not exist. Remove the earth from the equation, and no one would exist. Remove the Big Bang, and nothing would exist.
If the Big Bang is not the ultimate cause, then what is?
Not necessarily directly connected though.
How are they not?
Or you can have variant levels of intelligence.
You can have various things growing from a single tree.
There isn't an absolute way to prove or disprove God. However, as we make progress through science things we attributed to the supernatural can be explained. For example, it was logical back then to assume a lightning bolt was the doing of Zeus. It was safe to assume tornadoes came from a wind god or sicknesses came from a curse from a god of death of something. Now we know more about these occurrences. Things in he bible are being explained by normal means, for example the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, some people say that the event just describes a bad meteor shower. As time goes on people are seeing that things we used to attribute to the supernatural are just normal things that we gotta live with. So, I guess in a mathematical sense the probability of God existing is decreasing as we find the source of "his works".
What you are describing is the fact that we have different criteria for identifying a good explanation in modern times. But the fact that we have different explanations for phenomenons today does not contradict the existence of some Gods per se.
The good news is that your argument totally annihilates all Gods that contradict science. As you said, we have proved that lightning is not the doing of Zeus (it least in a non-metaphorical conception of Zeus). But your argument doesn't argue against a God that is consistent with science. To retort by saying that every belief in a God is wrong, because this argument disproves some Gods is simply invalid. So I don't think this argument is sufficient ground for saying that 'God does not exist'.
She didn't say every belief in God is wrong, she said "So, I guess in a mathematical sense the probability of God existing is decreasing as we find the source of "his works"."
I didn't miss them, I simply ignored both of them because the last sentence doesn't make sense, and the first because it merely quantified your argument. You were saying we can't absolutely disprove or prove God, my counter-argument showed that your argument was bad at doing either.
The fact that you cant understamd the last sentence is sad. It's a typical sentence. I addresses probability and you ignore it? Rude much? There isn't anything wrong with it.
my argument counter-argument showed that your argument was bad at doing either.
My argument simply addressed the situation. You take things way to deep.
I am saying that your argument doesn't work. There's nothing about this that resembles 'taking things way too deep'. If you really think that caring about the validity of your arguments is too deep, then I sincerely recommend that you stop coming to a debate site.
But your argument doesn't argue against a God that is consistent with science. To retort by saying that every belief in a God is wrong, because this argument disproves some Gods is simply invalid. So I don't think this argument is sufficient ground for saying that 'God does not exist'.
Did my initial sentence not make it clear that there is no absolute way to prove or disprove the existence of God? My argument just highlights the probability of God's existence.
A God that is consistent with science you say? Does that affect the numbers at all? The probability still declines since it's existence would be attributed to the natural. I'm like not sure if you read my argument effectively. If you had, you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying. I agree with you that this argument doesn't disprove science consistent gods, but that wasn't the point I wanted to make.
A God that is consistent with science you say? Does that affect the numbers at all? The probability still declines since it's existence would be attributed to the natural
All Gods are supernatural per definition, so progress in science wouldn't make a God that is consistent with science more or less likely. The existence of some being in a supernatural plane being does not get contradicted just because we understand nature better (unless that supernatural being supposedly interferes with our world in empirically testable ways...)
You aren't understanding me at all and barely addressed my argument.
If a God is consistent with science it's existence will be ignored and attributed to natural works. It will still lower the probability of it's existence. If a deity's works can be explained and repeated what will make us believe that a god, of scientific nature, even exists? What will lead me to believe in this being?
If a deity's works can be explained and repeated what will make us believe that a god, of scientific nature, even exists?
My claim isn't that a belief in this kind of God is reasonable. My claim is that you can't justify that there's a small chance that God exist, the way you try to do it. You are confusing reasons to believe and probability of truth.
Sure a high probability of truth is a good reason to believe something, but having a good reason to believe something doesn't necesarilly mean there's a high probability that it's true.
Example: I roll a dice a hundred times. Each and every time I got 2, so I have a good reason to believe that I will get 2 the 101st time. But let's say that I got 2 all those times as a freak occurence of luck, and that the dice is fair. If it's a fair dice, then the chance that I get 2 the 101st is one sixth. But from my perspective it looks like it's a loaded dice, so I have a good reason to believe I will get 2, despite the fact that there isn't a high probability that such a event is true.
You are trying to argue that since we don't have a good reason to believe in a God (who is consistent with science), there's a small probability that the existence of such a God is true. But such an argument simple doesn't work as it is demonstrated by the example above.
If a God is consistent with science it's existence will be ignored and attributed to natural works. It will still lower the probability of it's existence.
Sure, if we have an idea that God is consistent with science, then that idea is highly useless, but that doesn't mean that there's smaller chance that it's true. Allow me to demonstrate with another example.
There's a black box and a panel with a green and a red button in front of me. I am told that inside of this black box, there's a midget that will respond whenever I push a button. So let's say that whenever I push the red button, the midget kicks the inside of the box a single time, whenever I push the green one he kicks the box two times. Now, from my perspective it's undecidable whether a midget truly is the cause of the sound that comes from the box. Another, equally valid explanation would be that the buttons simply activate a mechanical device inside the box. But to infer, that since I can explain the phenomenon without refering to a midget, the midget must therefore not exist, is simply fallacious. The fact that I have another explanation doens't even mean that there's a smaller chance that the first explanation is true. It would be equally fallacious to argue that there's a smaller chance that I exist, because you can explain these words in terms of some kind of super computer.
Sure the belief in a God consistent with science is useless, but the fact that we can explain everything without refering to a God, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Uselessness does not imply non-existence.
This fact arises as a consequence of what I said above. Just because we have a don't have a good reason to believe something, does not mean there's a small chance that it's true. Good reasons for believing something and probability that something is true are simply not connected like this. It's impossible to decide what the "probability" that God exists is. The problem is undecidedable from our perspective.
Q.E.D?
a) The fact that we don't have a good reason to believe in God, does not necesarilly mean that there's a small probability that his existence is true.
b) When you say there's a smaller chance that God exists because we can explain events in the universe in scientific terms, you are using a nonsensical argument. It's like saying that there's a small chance that I exist, because these words can be explained in terms of a super computer.
You clearly do not understand polytheism. It is not the assumption that all natural phenomena are caused by deities but the fact that they may be governed by not only physical but non-physical realities thus, there may be a need to personify them into various personalities in order to somehow address them with respect or seek alms, blessing and so on. Pagans, Taoists, Wiccans and so forth do not disregard science, quite the contrary: They see it(WE in fact. I consider myself one) as another form of knowledge that can be used to manipulate reality. (Physics, Biology, Chemistry). So is respect, prayer, meditation and love. Just so you know lightning gods are told about in every part of the world. These beings shape their form according to OUR personality (based on era, demographic, geographic, culture) to assist us, be they meek, mild or moody.
Exactly, lightning gods explained the unknown causation of lightning. However, now that we know how to create or cause lightning where is this lightning deity?
You clearly do not understand polytheism.
I most certainly think I do. There isn't much to learn about it. It's just the existence of more than one god or goddess.
Would you just stop saying polytheism stems from a belief that thunder is caused by a deity. Thor could control lightning but the phenomena still occurs with or without him. Happy Thursday by the way. In certain parts of Europe festivals are still held to commemorate Thor's blessing for the abundance of food. Polytheism is a detailed field of study and an interesting one too. It is good fun anyway to bask in the wonders of folklore. No pagans or the likes would question science. The kinds of people you believe them to be no longer exists. The only difference between you and them is that they are willing to keep their traditions alive.
Believe stems from extrinsic occurences. They explain the cause and reason behind an occurence. If a thunder storm strikes they will find a way to explain it's occurence.
Well, in the bible the people of sodom and gomorrah are constantly warned about what they are doing and that they are going to incur the wrath of god, so is the meteor shower really just bad luck?
I don't think so, think about it, it applies to everyone: How many times in your life have you been thinking of something and then it happens? Or things happening that are just too strange to be a coincidence?
While some people will say something about the law of attraction I am sure, there has to be something that spurs these "coincidences"
Well, in the bible the people of sodom and gomorrah are constantly warned about what they are doing and that they are going to incur the wrath of god, so is the meteor shower really just bad luck?
A meteor shower can occur at anytime and it's possibility of it occuring after these "warnings" may be controversial, but what if there were really 100's of warning? 1000's? And then an event finally happens? It may be coincedental, but I think it was just a natural occurence.
How many times in your life have you been thinking of something and then it happens?
Not often. Mostly because it was due to natural causes. I believe that everything you do has a probable outcome of nearly any sort.
While some people will say something about the law of attraction I am sure, there has to be something that spurs these "coincidences"
Nothing caused the spurrer, we are part of whatever that is, and we come from the non physical realm, where consciousness and pure energies lie. And that is a fact it's what they teach us in school, maybe not about the consciousness part, but we do know non physical realms exist.
Why are you saying good for me? I wasn't the one who established the rules. God did. So by that statement you really are saying good for you "God" instead of me.
Good for you for recognizing it. I agree with your assessment and I am glad that you have come to the correct conclusion. It isn't really a good for God because He isn't supposed to hate, and I am glad He doesn't. I upvoted you for not having a terrible position on the topic, I didn't know how else to write it. Just take the compliment man.
You sure about that? The bible - the book that is supposedly strongly influenced by GOD - says that being gay is bad! He even killed a bunch of people and destroyed a city because there were gays in it! And he turned people who looked back into salt pillars? A sign that the people who escaped weren't allowed to pity the gays who died. Yup, God accepts gays fully.
I agree with your first four points but not the last one. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can't see my mum right now but I know she exists. I can't see any roads right now but again I still know they exist.
Most of which is unverifiable and no more inherently accurate than any other scripture.
It is not true as Genesis disproves it
It provides a highly simplistic alternative that is not in accordance with perceptible reality.
You can't see the wind do you believe in it?
If you use a good microscope you can see the various particles in the air. We can put tracers in the atmosphere and follow their course. We can see leaves blowing at the same time that we feel the wind on our skin, hear it passing through, and observe any temperature change that it causes. So yeah, it is very perceptible and it cause (pressure gradient differentials) has been well recorded and understood for a while now.
Genesis correctly describes that the earth was created in 7 days and science confirms it.
You are going to have to support this. What scientists? What methods do they use for confirmation? Which peer-reviewed articles were these assertions published in? Why is it this not taught in geology class? Etc.
It also claims a global flood which is supported by science.
This is certainly not supported by science in any way shape or form. Where did all the extra water come from and go to? Why is flooding evidence not uniform in stratigraphy? Why is there not a recent sign of such global catastrophe in the global fossil record? Why is there evidence of global civilization continuing unimpeded for over 10,000 years? Not to mention all of the numerous problems with the Ark story, but for now we will focus on the flood itself.
Job describes the earth as a sphere
So did the Greeks as early as 6 BC. Does this indicate that Greek mythology is accurate?
Also, although scholars debate the ages of all of the books of the Bible, a number of scholars have dated Job between 7th-4th century bc, with 6th century bc being the most common (these estimates generally being based on linguistic analysis).
The Oldest verified copy would be in the dead sea scrolls which date back to approximately 5th century.
Also, descriptions of the Earth are various and vague throughout the Bible. One thing we do know is that at one point the Book of Job describes the Earth as "circular". While it is possible that this is a poor translation, it is also possible that this corresponds with ancient beliefs from the region that the Earth was a disc, which is circular, not spherical.
Also, although scholars debate the ages of all of the books of the Bible, a number of scholars have dated Job between 7th-4th century bc, with 6th century bc being the most common (these estimates generally being based on linguistic analysis).
Actually here is a list of when the bible was made
Did you happen to note that the Book of Job, the one that we are discussing, had a question mark next to it? This is a strange way of trying to support your claims...
Did you happen to note that the Book of Job, the one that we are discussing, had a question mark next to it? This is a strange way of trying to support your claims...
You have yet to convince me of that. Your own source is not certain when the Book of Job was written. If we cannot establish that it was written before sixth century, we cannot rule out that it may have been influenced by Hellenistic philosophy. And that is all operating under the assumption that Job was describing a spherical Earth and not a disc-shaped one, which you have yet to challenge. You have also not responded to any of my prior questions and assertions regarding the viability of 7 day creation or the flood.
So at this point, all you have established to me is that you believe it is the Word of God, but not any reason why somebody who doesn't already believe that should.
You have yet to convince me of that. Your own source is not certain when the Book of Job was written. If we cannot establish that it was written before sixth century, we cannot rule out that it may have been influenced by Hellenistic philosophy. And that is all operating under the assumption that Job was describing a spherical Earth and not a disc-shaped one, which you have yet to challenge. You have also not responded to any of my prior questions and assertions regarding the viability of 7 day creation or the flood.
So at this point, all you have established to me is that you believe it is the Word of God, but not any reason why somebody who doesn't already believe that should.
This author fails to understand that his tactic can be just as easily applied to him. If someone would have to be omnipresent or omniscient to make the claim that God did not author the Bible, one would have to be those things to claim with absolute authority that he did.
The fact of the matter is nobody knows for 100% certainty that the Bible was inspired by God or that he even exists. None of us were there, not me, not you, not the author of this article. So he's trying to put people like me in a category that even he can't escape from, and that does none of us any good.
If humans weren't capable of lying, or misinterpreting things or otherwise making assertion beyond their capability, then this wouldn't be an issue. But since countless documents have been inaccurate or lies or proven false at future dates, all texts need to be held up to some kind of scrutiny, and since any person who is at all literate can make assertions and then claim that these assertions are infallible, that has to be accounted for in this scrutiny. I am not required to omniscient to be skeptical. I am not required to be omnipresent to identify errors or alternate possibilities. I just need to use my capacity for reasoning. And if God does exist, well wouldn't it be his responsibility that I have this capacity to begin with?
As far as his own attempt to support the Bible's authenticity through prophecy, there are so many problems with the prophecy scenario.
Genesis correctly describes that the earth was created in 7 days and science confirms it.
stupidity.
It also claims a global flood which is supported by science.
None. Local only.
Job describes the earth as a sphere
Other verses describe it as fixed, firm, immovable, unshakable, on pillars/cornerstones, and having four corners. The word Job used could mean round but could also just mean circular which would fit with many earlier flat circular earth models. Additionally, there were many reasons to believe the earth was round (or at least circular) - the shape of the sun and the moon, the shadow of the earth during an eclipse, ships disappearing on the horizon, etc....
Genesis correctly describes that the earth was created in 7 days and science confirms it.
So what time zone was God going off of when he created the earth? Right now it is Saturday in some countries, and Friday in others. Also, apparently God rested on the seventh day... So does science "confirm" six days or seven days?
You do know that our entire notion of time is based off of the sun, right? According to the Bible, God made the sun and the moon on the fourth day... So how is that possible?
Last time I checked Evolution was proven and tested to be true. But last time I checked, all the bible does is claim. It proves NOTHING. Religion wasn't invented until Civilitation was established, thousands of years ago. The Humanoid race is over 6 million years old. So before people had imaginary friends and before people started talking to nothing, nobody believed in any GOD. Homonids and Protohumans had more in common with Chimps than they do with us. If the First Humans didn't worship any God, it proves that this "God" is a fragment of Man's endless imagination.
Actually, Evolution has never been completely confirmed. It seems as if over the course of history, scientist theories have been proven wrong over and over again. The Bible, however, has never had its messages modified, other than the actual phrasing over the actual messages themselves. I guarantee you that in the next few decades, humanity's concept of "evolution" will have drastically changed.
I have a problem with your second and fourth points. I don't see how the occurence of the Holocaust or how God hates gays, which he doesn't (hate the sin, not the sinner) disproves God.
2) Just because God exists, doesn't mean their is no evil, haven't you heard of Satan or sin... again, a dingus
3) Just because there is evolution does not mean at all there is no God... That is irrelevant. Also a dingus statement
4) just because he knows being gay is a sin does not mean he hates them... If you can show me any evidence that shows he hates gays in the bible id be surprised.
5) can we see Infrared Radiation.... no. but does that mean it's not their, NO!!!!
A fiction believed by millions is still a fiction. It's just that those millions are too emotionally attached to the story that they desperately want the story to be true.
Science explains how it is completely possible for the universe to have started with out the help of any supernatural or divine force. Furthermore there are many Gods that have been believed in through out so why should any one of them exist if the other thousands didn't.
No, science has not explained with any testable evidence that a universe could have started without help from a divine force. Stop using atheist websites for your information. Better yet, stop listening to atheist physicists who make up theories that go against scientific law.
So what if many gods have been believed in? It only takes ONE to create the universe.
What do you "mean so what if many Gods have believed in?". The point is, if you believe in your God to be the one and only true God to be real, then all the thousands of other Gods people have worshiped must have been fictional and made up by humans. If you can admit this of these Gods why is it so hard to admit that of your own?
Whether these physicists are Atheist or not is irrelevant. The fact is I am sure they a far greater intelligence and understanding of things than you or I so who are you to say they are wrong? What has no evidence is that the universe could have been magically created by God.
What has no evidence is that a universe can create itself without an intelligent creator. Scientific law backs me up. There is only two possible scenarios. The universe came from nothing or there was a creator. The universe is not eternal, based on solid scientific data, so it either came about without a creator or a creator (God) made it. I choose the latter, as science has shown matter and energy cannot be created on the atomic level.
Who cares what ancient civilizations thought about gods. I don't understand your point. All it takes is one eternal supernatural spirit to create our universe. Maybe there are other gods, who knows, but it is obvious that one created this universe.
I have little faith in string theory, if you want to even call it a theory. With the Higgs boson that came out a couple of years ago that put string theory on life support, the Big Bang breaking the laws of physics is rendered obsolete.
Give it up man... trying to use pseudo-intellect to get people to agree with you is so elementary and nauseating. Maybe if you weren't so delusional, you would see how wrong you are.
Alas though, my post is only provoking more hate and ignorance from one such as yourself. Well... time to move on.
When The first Fish went on land, evolving into amphibians, that Science. When those Amphibians off springed reptiles, that's Science. When those reptiles created the first Mammals, that's Science. When those First Mammals evolved into rodents. That's Science. When those rodents created Plesiadapis, that is Science. When Plesiadapis created Primates, that is fucking Science. When Primates Mutated Creating Apes, that's freaking Science. When those Apes Mutated creating Humaniods, that's Science. Science is in Nature. Religion is MAN made.
Omnipotent means all-powerful. If he cannot do something, he is not all-powerful. If he is not all-powerful, why call him god?
Many theologians have debated this and the answer is simply he can do anything he can possibly do logically and he definitely can't do what he says he can't do in the Bible such as lying.
God, is man made. I'm gonna put it like this. Chimpanzees can do anything humans can do. We can do Math, Chimps can do Math. Humans can Solve puzzles, Chimps can solve puzzles. Humans can ride skates, Chimpe can ride skates.
Humans can read characters, Chimps can read Characters.
Chimps can do Many things Humans do. Their basically us with Fur, and less years of evolution. If they can do anything we can, why don't they worship any Gods.
If god exist, who created this God. See the only organisms that can create it's self are Microrganism. Trust me this " God" you people worship is not a Microrganism. Everything is created by something. Even the Universe. A micro atom has so much Energy that it exploded. But this God just created it's self. That Biologically impossible unless your a Microorganism.
If god exist, who created this God. See the only organisms that can create it's self are Microrganism. Trust me this " God" you people worship is not a Microrganism. Everything is created by something. Even the Universe. A micro atom has so much Energy that it exploded. But this God just created it's self. That Biologically impossible unless your a Microorganism.
The Universe was made by the Big Bang. The Bible says that God made everything, they just never explained. See the Adam and Eve story is all wrong. The Bible describes Adam and Eve as Homo sapiens ( It just shows the limited amount of knowledge the men who wrote this fucked up book had). Last time I checked the first Humans were Furry, Homonids that had more ape like features then we do now. Also the Bible has many historical errors. The Bible says that Abraham was the first Monotheist, LIE! A pharaoh named Akenhaten beloved in one god, One Sun God. He made a religion named Atenism off of it, but it was a fail. Atenism is what inspired Moses,but your Bible doesn't stay that dose it. There's no biological evidence that proves that God is real. Just all claims and words, no evidence. Proving that all these Gods made up, are nothing but Myth.
The Bible says that God made everything, they just never explained
Genesis went into detail on what was created.
See the Adam and Eve story is all wrong. The Bible describes Adam and Eve as Homo sapiens ( It just shows the limited amount of knowledge the men who wrote this fucked up book had)
I sort of agree, but analyze the order of creation for a bit. It started from sea creatures and eventually led to humans. I think evolution follows that natural order. You must also note that evolution couldn't really be understood back in these times so the author would have just summed this up as "God created humans" in hopes of just pointing to origin. Also look at how humans were formed in Genesis chapter 2. It says they were created from soil, earth, dust, etc. Same as the origin of organisms.
Also the Bible has many historical errors.
Can you name a few of these historical errors?
The Bible says that Abraham was the first Monotheist, LIE!
I'm not sure about this. What verse says this?
Atenism is what inspired Moses,but your Bible doesn't stay that dose it.
Any evidence of this?
There's no biological evidence that proves that God is real.
Biological evidence for God won't exist since he wasn't created by Earth. He is a metaphysical being, so this makes no sense.
Just all claims and words, no evidence.
One must use their logic to determine if a god exists or not. I'll respect any decision a person makes.
Proving that all these Gods made up, are nothing but Myth.