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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
There are very well thought out, well substantiated, explanations how our universe came into existence. How the Big Bang might have occurred, how evolution works, how this all came to be and it all makes sense and is backed by tonnes of evidence. And then there are people that wave their hands and say 'God did it'. What do you think?
Certainly, science can explain almost everything in our world and even make logical educated guesses on the things it can't. There are detailed scientific reports that explain everything from the Big Bang to how evolution created us.
Science is the only reason you have any clue about gravity, super symmetry, or the double slit experiment. You wouldn't be uttering those words without science.
Not if you arranged them. The universe coming into existence by the construct of dual self error correcting code (James Gates) is more like every book in the library of Congress and the internet manifesting by chance.
I am not entirely convinced of the reality of James Gates's theory. It is highly theoretical and there is not much experimental science to support it if any. I would also disagree with the idea that the universe manifesting is highly improbable. We do not know the cause. We cannot say anything about the probability of a universe coming into existence because we have no other universe to compare it to. Perhaps it isn't improbable at all. There might be billions of universes and a universe manifesting could be quite common. There is no way to measure the probability of this.
We do not know what is possible because we don't know anything outside of this universe. It is pointless to talk about the probability of something happening when it has happened. Hence the anthropic principle. Perhaps there is some super powerful being out there. But there is no evidence of it. You can make up whatever you want outside of this universe, but until you can show that it is there, there is no point in believing in it.
Funny thing about God is no matter how much we discover, as long as there is something we don't know, somebody will say "god did it" until they are proven wrong. Just like lightning, the sun, earthquakes, disease, and so on and so on.
Perhaps there is some super powerful being out there. But there is no evidence of it.
I've provided you evidence. If you look you'll see that faith is reasonable and logical. If not, that says it all. It means you don't want any evidence, which is fine, but that's still reality.
You did not provide evidence. You cant just suggest a theory and call it evidence. You need an experiment or some sort of thing that can be measured. You need facts not assumptions. Just saying that god could be out there or pulling out a bible quote isn't evidence.
But these are things people thought before the bible. And there are definitely parts of the bible that are reinterpreted because we shouldn't take them literally. Unless you believe everything in the bible is a hard fact. My point is that when people don't know an answer, they say it is god. This happens in your religion just like all the others.
Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.
There were a few points brought up here. First, the universe manifesting is different from the conditions of the universe being finely tuned for life (aka the goldilocks principle). Have you heard of the anthropic principle? Basically it means if our universe wasn't finely tuned for life, we wouldn't be here. So there's no point in discussing it. We know we are here already. The chances of us being here are known to be possible because we are here.
So there's no point in discussing it. We know we are here already. The chances of us being here are known to be possible because we are here
If reality is finite, the probability of a universe that supports our existing is virtually impossible by random chance. If it's infinite, hmm... may be pandora's box for atheism.
There's no way to know if reality is finite or infinite. If it is finite, we know it isn't impossible because we are here. If it's infinite, our existence is inevitable. The size of the universe is so massive, that even the smallest probability is almost inevitable. Given the probability of life happening in this universe, most astrophysicists are confident that we are not alone. Even though life is rare, there are millions of opportunities for it to happen.
I am attaching a link of a talk on this by Stephen Hawking who is widely regarded as one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived. Here is his take on the probability of the universe, second law of thermodynamics and entropy, and even a touch on where we are headed. Very beautiful stuff.
I admit, I prefer the concept of an infinite reality. But I still find it hard to believe there is some sort of all knowing entity that made it. I think it is much more probable that we created the concept of a god than the other way around.
I wrote computer code most of my life, so I view it as an infinite reality can only exist within a medium with a programmed loop in the program. God would essentially be the "programmer" of sorts.
In simulation theory, it is easier to create simulated realities than real realities, so it is more probable that you are in a simulated reality.
I'm okay with the idea that the universe might be a simulation. I would even be okay with the idea that we might be created by something else. But I still think it's a big jump to say that we understand the nature of "the programmer". I wouldn't necessarily call him God. You can't jump from we are programmed to this programmer is an all knowing, all powerful being. And you can't say this being wasn't created himself. It's also highly unlikely that this being is the same person behind all of the books in the bible. That's too big of a jump.
We could start with that the universe is programmed as a theory. But that's still a vague theory, and we still know too little to understand anymore than that.
You can't jump from we are programmed to this programmer is an all knowing, all powerful being
Sure I can. If I showed you inner dimensional beings that were hive minded and had mental and telepathic capabilities beyond comprehension, you'd happily accept intellectualy that they were there. I'm simply proposing someone of such abilities who created our reality. They themselves could be a simulation based off of another version of themself that has the very abilities in the simulation that created our simulation of a god.
In order for me to accept them, you wild have to demonstrate their ability. Like if you showed me a painting and said there was a painter, i could agree. But if you showed me a painting and said the painter was telepathic, I would be skeptical of his ability based on the fact that all I saw was a painting.
I have the links to my sites on my profile. I made the sites so that I didn't have to produce hours of information to each person. It's very time consuming. You are welcome to check them out if you so choose.
Like if you showed me a painting and said there was a painter, i could agree
Darwinism, DNA, bodily functions, laws of physics, etc are systematic. You are looking at something much more systematic and complex than a painting just by looking at the plethera of systems all around you.
And you can't say this being wasn't created himself
For all we know he made infinite simululated realities and the realities are governed by a simulated version of himself that is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, and the programhas so many back ups and error correcting loops that it cannot ever end.
For all we know that child be possible. But you shouldn't assume its true just because you can imagine it happening. You have to first show there's a programmer. then show new evidence supporting his additional programs.
And the codes, loops and simulation replicate faster than they can be destroyed, and they repair the old simulations eternally and cannot end. It only gets bigger and bigger until it is unstoppable.
Theists propose a theory based on the Big Bang, the Kalam Cosmological argument, the fine tuned universe argument, the Fermi Paradox argument, and the historical account of a man named Jesus Christ, added with the prophecies that I provided you.
Those are 5 separate theories. Each of these I have an answer to, but I think that leads into a deeper debate. I would invite you to start that debate on a seperate channel.
If science began proving god, I would gladly accept. But fact of the matter is that there's nothing to show. Theres no modern day miracles that are verified. There's no real noahs ark. Not even a prediction of the future that isn't just vague enough to be questioned. I want the evidence. I crave it. Send me a real link and not a link to your Facebook page.
That's the beauty of science. It shows us what is real. That's also why the religious have made it their enemy. It exposes their lies. Then they toss and turn and try to use science and refute it at the same time instead of actually making a strong case for the god that should evidently be there.
Actually, you do need science to prove Jesus was correct. That is how logic and reason tends to work. For one, we know Jesus wouldn't look like his common depiction in the church, and two we don't even know if he was a real person. The only, and I repeat, the only documentation for Jesus is the Bible itself, and the books on Jesus were written by a man who had never even met him.
And if you want to know why James Gates finds a 'code' in nature, it's called Natural Selection. Animals with better traits tend to survive more than those with lesser traits. Thus creating a trend of common traits among all living things based on what helps them survive.
Natural selection has nothing to do with any code. It's simply whatever survives, survives, and whatever dies, dies. The offspring of the survivor continue on.
First of all, the bible is not a credible source for fact. So a site with a bunch of bible quotes does your claim no justice.
Second, James Gates is dope as hell. All he says is that he finds something resembling a code embedded into nature, and religious people want to make the jump that their god wrote the code. Mind you that this code says nothing about the nature of the designer or even if there is one. This proves nothing about atheism. In fact, the reference James Gates uses is "The Matrix".
Belief in the "Big Band" is not science. There is no need in any field of science to believe in the Big Bang. Believing in the Big Bang and all of the "science" used to support the hypothesis is a waste of time. Teaching the Big Bang is a waste of money.
Not only that, it's silly. The leading Big Pang proponents make the craziest statements like "everything came from nothing" and expect you to believe it. It is not possible for something to come from nothing. Nothing is nothing and can never be anything other than nothing.
What you refer to as "detailed scientific reports" are always full of conjecture and speculation and presumptuous declarations of "proof". The pushers of that stuff are only trying to justify their sins and they feel better if they can convince others to do the same thing.
detailed scientific reports.........hahahahah......they are detailed statements of belief, when you read those reports they clearly are stating their beliefs saying things like "this could have caused that". If what they say could have happened and did happen, why can't they make it happen and show us instead of doing nothing but telling us what they believe happened? They can't make it happen because it did not happen, life did not emerge from non-living things.
Public schools and television sure did a good job of mass brainwashing the public so they are numb to the evils of their leaders.
If we are the highest evolved species ever in the Earthly history of Darwinism, why did said Darwinism naturally select those exact traits as "the best selection"?
Have you ever heard of vestigial forms? These are the leftover parts in a species that were useful to its ancestors, but no longer serve a purpose. For instance, wisdom teeth made more sense when our jaws were larger and we lost more teeth by natural causes. Now that our jaws are smaller and we have less risk of losing teeth, wisdom teeth are still left over. There are many examples in the animal kingdom. There is no explanation for this without evolution.
Also, there is no such thing as a "best selection" necessarily. Its just whatever helps the species survive and multiply more. For example, let's say there is a fish with a colorful tail. The more colorful and bright the tail is, the more attractive it is to a potential mate. Lets say a large group of fish get separated. Half of the group swims north, another swims south. The group in the north are in a more hostile environment with predators while the southern group have few to worry about. The ones in the north with the slightly less colorful tails are able to hide from predators. These ones get eaten less frequently. The ones in the south with slightly more colorful tails have better chances at getting mates. Over thousands of generations, the ones in the north adapt to their environment and become darker in order to stay hidden from predators while the southern ones become brighter and more colorful. These eventually branch and become 2 separate species of fish.
So you can see, nature didn't necessarily think one was better than the other. It is just based on the circumstances and the environment of the animal. There is no "best selection". There are just many branches to a tree. Every species alive today is technically the "best selection".
Generally speaking, it is the belief that God created the system of Darwinian evolution as the mechanism for bringing randomness to his creation. It's like a created computer algorythm. Once it spewed out something to his liking, he went with it.
Another version is what we think we see is God deliberately making changes and extinctions until he got what he desired. To him it might have happened in an instance. We are simply seeing his craftsmanship and imagination on display and he's okay with that.
Lets say a large group of fish get separated. Half of the group swims north, another swims south. The group in the north are in a more hostile environment with predators while the southern group have few to worry about
It is possible that it is simply a variation within the species.
If only tall people could survive in a given environment, we'd only have tall people. No mutation happened. No change of kind happened. And if suddenly an environment where only short people survive appeared, the short people would be the survivors. This doesn't represent any metamorphic change or a "change of kind". In this example the kind would rotate back and forth from tall to short but never avert from being human. And if the shorts go north and the talls go south, still, no metamorphical change, they could still mate if they met up, and no change in "human-ness". Yes, they would look different, but the premise would still stand as reality. They are both humans. Neither became anything else.
Of course it is a variation within the species at first. The whole idea is that these small variations become greater as time goes on. And there are definitely examples of variations within the human species over time. That's pretty much what different races are. They come from different areas and were separated for long periods of time which made them very different.
The races that are closer to the equator have darker skin and have adapted to the hotter climate. The human races in colder, windier climates adapted with lighter skin and hairier bodies. People adapt to disease. There are taller races of people and shorter races of people. I honestly believe if given a longer timeline like millions of years, the human species would have separated into several different species. There are definitely many factors that can seperate parts of a species long enough to evolve separately. This could be geography or reproductive isolation. causes of speciation
There is a very grey area as to when a species branches into two seperate ones. In fact, there are many examples of when two species can breed with eachother. Look at Horses and Donkeys. They are seperate species but you can breed them into mules and hinneys. Or even Tigers and Lions. Its really just humans that classify when a species becomes different. Theres a whole science behind it call Taxonomy.
Of course it is a variation within the species at first. The whole idea is that these small variations become greater as time goes on
And if it simply rotated back around to being the original creature, what would that tell you? I say this because it happens with bacteria.
We falsely say "the bacteria got stronger". No. One of the bacteria that was different, simply was able to survive in the new environment. In another environment it doesn't survive and the originals do. It has nothing to with strength. And what happens if you keep changing the dosage is you can eventually rotate back around to the original strain type being the survivor again. That's not a metamorphical change. That's simply variations surviving. They never become non-bacteria.
It's all adaptation to an environment. If something did just rotate back around, we wouldn't know. It might be cyclical in some cases. But most cases aren't. The bacteria got stronger based on it's environment. If the environment changed back to its previous state, perhaps the new bacteria wouldn't be as strong as its older form. One is not better than the other. Its just a change to adapt. Part of being alive is a fight to survive. Inevitably, some will be better at it than others. When their surroundings change, so do they. That's the whole premise.
The races that are closer to the equator have darker skin and have adapted to the hotter climate. The human races in colder, windier climates adapted with lighter skin and hairier bodies
And we would both agree, I assume, that this wasn't a mystical metamorphical change. It's simply that hairy people survived and had kids. If you make the environment abnormally hot we are back to square one with "not hairy people".
Ideally yes. We can't really predict what will happen because we haven't been around long enough to see it and document it. But if the environment got a lot sunnier, I would definitely anticipate there would be more dark skinned people. Its really whoever dies the least and breeds the most.
I would accept the second part to your answer. Except if you take it a little further, you realize everything we have biologically is really about survival (or reproduction).
But because we would "look strange" is not satisfactory. There are many things that we have that do make us look strange anyway. You can't argue that god designed humans to look a certain way because of aesthetics when most of our other body parts don't follow the same logic.
The first part of your answer actually answers the second part. Fossils are rare occurrences. The perfect conditions have to be present. If it wasn't, then we would find fossils laying around all the time.
Negligentt SmellyBelly: even if it was very rare, the fact that 100% of the Kangeroo fossils (and many other unique animals) are ONLY found in Australia shows that they are very unlikely to have existed outside Australia.
People arguing for an intelligent designer, I have questions for you.
Riddle me this: Why did God make the place where we swallow the same place we need to breathe air? People choke to death all the time because of this poor design.
Saying "it's a poor design", then saying we were the creature that evolved to the highest level in the survival of the fittest model is a contradiction of terms.
I think if there was a designer, that is definitely a terrible design. I also don't believe we are the pinnacle of evolution. We may be at the top of the food chain, but we are a self important species. By no means are we a chosen creation above all others.
Animals do all kinds of incredible things that we can't do. There are hawks that see infinitely better than we do. There are ants and termites that form extremely intricate structures. There are dolphins that call each other by names and have communication. There are thousands of animals with better senses than our own. Dogs and cows can even sense the magnetic field to an extent. There are animals and plants that manage to live thousands of years or in extreme conditions that we could not survive.
We are the assholes of the planet. We think our skyscrapers are amazing, but we trample the land. We cut down thousands of homes and make entire species go extinct. Now we are ruining our own ecosystem. Humans are self important and we aren't as amazing and chosen as we like to think we are. We have no humility.
I think if there was a designer, that is definitely a terrible design
You live in a machine that is so advanced that a woman who fell from a cliff, broke both legs and many ribs and crawled miles to safety to get help. When she saw she was now safe, only then did the pain kick in. Her brain completely shut off all pain to keep her fighting for survival. You're welcome to try and create better.
There is no question that the human body is amazing. But so are the bodies of most of the animal kingdom. We are all adapting to our environment. Take any aspect of the human body, and I can show you an animal that does it better. The only thing we excel at is our frontal lobe intelligence. Yet we still act completely uncivilized. We are predators. We are slightly smarter monkeys that still fight over females and power. We are NOT the pinnacle.
You know scientifically why. They can do sexually whatever they can do. Eunichs are mentioned in the Bible.
You'll have to look up what Jesus said about people born with these issues. I'll give you an example as a hint. He was asked why a man was born blind. He responded, but you'll have to put in a little effort of your own to get the response. This stuff isn't free ya know. You are welcome to send me donations if you'd like.
Lmao nice try. There is no way I am giving you money to explain what Jesus thought of hermaphodites based on what a fictional book says. But if you send me a donation, Ill let you know what the Lorax thought about trees.
Riddle me this: Whats up with disease? Why did God design something that could kill off whole regions? And why did he allow us to make medicine to fix it?
1)To prove that mortal man will still find ways to maintain arrogance even though they are really weak and have no real control. They will still lust for wealth, power, and influence despite an environment that obviously will end in their demise.
2)Medicine? To prove some men are not those things. They look to heal and help others.
The variables that an omniscient being would be looking at to develope a true "why" are incalculable to a non-omniscient mind.
Why does God need to prove that at all? What kind of God kills off little kids and innocents to prove a point? Either God is a disgusting, demented person, or there is no God and bacteria are fighting for their place in this world just like we are.
Why does God need to prove that at all? What kind of God kills off little kids and innocents to prove a point
He doesn't need to prove it. You and I need for him to prove it.
Kids dying is a result of the human condition. We don't know the after effects of each death. Their ripple effect is incalculable. The entire world was shaped by the death of one man, Jesus Christ.
"Prove" was your word not mine. You said God created disease to prove man will find ways to maintain arrogance. My question was why would he do that? It's unnecessary and nonsensical. Plus we can fix it most of the time so it proves nothing anyway.
And apparently the only thing Jesus' death did was start a new movement. It's pretty much based off of an older movement that already existed. It didn't make the world better. In fact, it caused more wars and suffering than any of the other religions. More people are dying and sinning since the apparent death of Jesus than ever before. This has nothing to do with disease. We still get sick and die all the time. Jesus didn't save us.
My argument is that it is semantics. Defining what God wants or defining what is "moral" is a poor and bad argument. If God is God, then he defines what is good by his own opinion, not ours.
But if there is a God, he is ultimately the judge of your afterlife, and he decides what is good and evil, then it needs to be clarified. It is no longer semantics but integral to your well being. Defining what God wants and following it is the essence of religion. That is why there are so many branches in Christianity; there are many interpretations to what the nature of God is.
All Christian denominations agree that Jesus is the savior and that salvation only comes through him. They all agree we are flawed sinners in need of redemption. Christianity isn't a "be good" party. It's a "we accept and acknowledge" that we aren't good party.
They are similar in general. However it's the details that separate the denominations. There is a discrepancy as to what is considered sin and what isn't. Some denominations require you to do good works as penance for your sins, yet do not require you to believe in God in order to go to heaven. Others require only that you believe in God. Some say you are born with "original sin" on your soul. Some believe that there is penance after death in a place called "purgatory". So the difference matters if there is an objective reality.
In some christian circles, I have a ticket to heaven as long as I confess my sins before death. So I can live my entire life in disbelief along completely different moral guidelines and can still get to heaven as long as I change heart at the last minute. So it completely matters.
Christianity is definitely a "be good" party. Every one is a sinner and must obey the laws or be punished. That is the essence of christianity. Motivated with eternal reward and threatened with eternal torment.
Going back to the original question, I am assuming you believe God is against homosexuality due to your passion for scripture. So that fact that he would put a P-Spot in the anus is very confusing to say the least. We are not talking about semantics here. We are getting down to the nitty gritty and putting the idea of a designer to the test.
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
1)Now you know why most evangelicals are Conservative. God isn't a liberal. God isn't running a democracy here.
2)Looks like you've given a good argument for Pascal's Wager. It's suicide to reject and oppose an omnipotent God when he offers you everything with his hand out.
1) So you agree that this isn't semantics? Apparently God gives a hoot about your personal decisions. But he also puts disease on this planet as a sort of death lottery regardless of whether you are doing good or evil. This is irrational. Apparently God is an irresponsible parent that just watches as his kid plays with scissors. If we choke on them, its our fault. Should've known better. It's a stupid ideology.
2) Pascal's Wager is a wager of fear. I refuse to follow an idea just because someone tries to scare me into doing it. It worked on most people before we discovered The Scientific Method. It's called the Dark Ages for a reason. It's a shitty way to live your life.
Honestly if there really is a God, I don't like him at all. He is a psychopath and he obviously doesn't love everybody. He favors the people with money over the people without and he tortures innocents based on random circumstances.
So you agree that this isn't semantics? Apparently God gives a hoot about your personal decisions. But he also puts disease on this planet as a sort of death lottery regardless of whether you are doing good or evil. This is irrational
Not really. We were in a place with none of those things, he told us to stay away from this, and we still chose this.
Oh really? Are you talking about the garden of Eden? Where is this place? Oh right it's in that book that explains everything and not in the real world.
Apparently God is an irresponsible parent that just watches as his kid plays with scissors. If we choke on them, its our fault. Should've known better. It's a stupid ideology.
Humans were grown and chose this path as adults. He still has the light on at his home waiting for us to come back. He even offered us the keys to get back in.
I didn't choose this. So I am paying for my ancestor's mistakes before I was born? And if I choose right, the world will still be in a state of chaos but I shouldn't care?
And hey man this website doesn't update so you should really just send it to me in one response. Not like 5. What are you trying to rack up the points on here or something?
I know it isn't in the bible. I've read the bible. Well at least most of it. I was raised in a very religious family. I had a very difficult journey finding my way to the truth and I know religious apologetics to the T. I still stand by my statement that it is about fear mongering. These aren't the words of God trying to offer you a way into heaven. It's the words of men trying to get you to follow an ideology.
Sure it does, you just haven't truly considered it yet. There is beauty in this world, even without a god. You find purpose on your own, and you don't even necessarily need it. But you can't truly understand it until you make the jump yourself. It's not an easy jump. I honestly had a very hard time reconciling my faith with reality. It took me years to truly become an atheist. Honestly I find it incredibly liberating and beautiful. It has opened so many doors for me and allowed me to truly and confidently express myself in ways that I could not during the time I was religious. There is definitely optimism and hope on the other side. That is why atheists get so angry when someone doesn't acknowledge that. Because it's like a slap in the face.
Honestly, I have nothing against religion in the modern world. I have many beautiful memories from my church communities and youth groups growing up. But I really do feel like it prohibits people from discovering the truth to an extent. They are bound to reconcile anything they discover with their faith. But some people need their religion. It is healthy for drug addicts and prison inmates in order to truly overcome their challenges. But for someone who wants to know truth, I say it is an inhibitor because it is a system of manipulation.
it worked on most people before we discovered The Scientific Method
Not really. The scientific method existed at the height of Christianity in America and the West. Most of the world is religious today. There are 2.6 billion Christians alone.
I am specifically referring to the Age of Enlightenment. That is when the Scientific Method was officially born. Before that, people were mostly religious. In fact, Christianity dominated the Western World. It was called "The Dark Ages" because it sucked ass. The Catholic Church was the government and it was full of torture, war, and religious conflict.
Once the Age of Enlightenment happened, the world saw many beautiful revolutions. The Renaissance was the major boom in the field of the Arts and Music. The Age of Exploration was what allowed America to be discovered in the first place. It wouldn't have happened unless people broke their chains from their religious background.
it was called "The Dark Ages" because it sucked ass
Some might say right now is "the dark ages". It may have sucked, it may not. I don't know. I wasn't there. But sucky realities don't make God disappear by default.
It definitely sucked worse than today. There were witch hunts, horrible plagues of disease (black death), no modern medicine (in fact there were horrible practices like blood letting), famine, horrible torture, and relentless executions. We have it easy. Oh and it was under the rule of the Christians. You didn't have to be there.
And it is one thing to argue the existence of a God based on empirical evidence. If instead of showing me bible quotes, you pulled out some articles or discoveries of nature, I would take it more seriously. Like when we were talking about the code found by James Gates. I thoroughly enjoyed that discussion. I felt like I learned something. But when we talk about the bible, I find it dull and annoying. That book is fiction in my eyes. You would be equally annoyed if I started pulling quotes from the Bibliotheca.
the Catholic Church was the government and it was full of torture, war, and religious conflict.
The greatest warnings of Jesus in the Bible are about "religious people", "wolves in sheep's clothing", "false prophets", etc. We aren't surprised when the church does evil.
1)Everyone is evil on some level.
2)Some of Satan's closest allies are in the church itself according to the Bible.
But don't you follow the church? If the evil is written in their laws and is carried out by its leaders, wouldn't that make the ideology corrupt? By the way, which church do you follow?
Before that, people were mostly religious. In fact, Christianity dominated the Western World
The western world is still dominated by Christianity. The U.S. is 80% Christian right this second. Poland is nearly 100%. The U.S. was over 90% only a few decades back. Science has flourished during all of the periods in the West.
Yes but we are talking about the Middle Ages. This is when it began. Before that, people were torturing christians for their faith and were mostly under Roman Rule.
Isn't it ironic and fascinating that Jesus said the gospel would go to every nation (it has) and in the midst of the early persecution, it survived, then took over the region responsible for killing him, and now has more adherants today than the entire population of Earth in his day?
The same could be said for Islam. Why is Islam so prominent? They even have strict laws in certain islamic countries prohibiting the spread of Christianity. And you should also consider the increasing population of non religious people. In fact if it is measured with the spread of major religions, it is a close second to Christianity. If non religious belief was considered a religion, it would be the third largest religion in the world. And it is growing.
This is actually how the Bible said it would all go down in the end.
I give a strong argument that Islam is the beast system of Revelation.
The Bible also says that once the gospel goes to every nation, there will be a "falling away" and the beast system will begin to emerge. It's odd that all 3 happened in my lifetime. Nailing all 3 at a single point in future history is uncomprehendable and virtually impossible without divine intervention.
I find no consolation in prophecy. There are too many people who are shouting in the street with signs that Jesus will come back on such and such date. It never happens. I don't think the bible can predict the future. I think that revelation was a book that was describing the time when Romans were persecuting Christians. Just like the fish was a secret symbol for christians to identify each other at the time, there were many other uses of symbolism. This book is full of them and it is really a letter to urge Christians not to assimilate into Roman culture. It is not a prediction of the future as so many Christians hope to believe it is, but rather a historical account of the time it was written.
i find no consolation in prophecy. There are too many people who are shouting in the street with signs that Jesus will come back on such and such date. It never happens
I don't know your level of Biblical knowledge, but it does say that, that will be the appeal made by people as the end comes upon us. "Where is he?"
I would expect it to say that. If I was writing a prophecy, the first thing I would mention is that there will be people who will not believe it. There's going to be people in denial for everything. That isn't a prophecy in itself.
Fair enough. But what one must think upon is that the Bible gives a giant perspective of what the end will be like. It has to all fall into place to be reasoned to be true, highly likely, or even just possibly true. It doesn't make 3 or 4 claims. It gives hundreds of claims.
One thing that is intellectually appealing to me is that every nation the messiah comes against from the OT to the NT is Islamic today. There was no Islam when the Bible was written, nor would there be for 700 years from the last Biblical word.
Doesn't Islam worship the same god as Christianity? They have very similar origin stories such as Abraham and Noah and such. In fact, I think some forms of Islam regard Jesus as a prophet. It's just a more aggressive religion. Why would it be regarded as an enemy religion if it worships the same god in a different way? Is this solely based on your interpretation of Revelations?
I think that revelation was a book that was describing the time when Romans were persecuting Christians
This would be hard for me to believe because the Bible depicts a worldspread gospel, which wasn't even close to happening during the early church. They were closer to extinction than preaching to every nation on the planet. It also depicts a world leader who dominates all of Earth (the beast), not a fraction of it.
Well you have to remember that to the people of the time didn't have a concept of the entire world. They didn't know about America yet. So the Roman empire really did look like it could conquer the world. It was a massive and powerful empire. But I am not going to defend this point too strongly because like I said, my knowledge is limited on this subject. I am not entirely sure about the symbolism in Revelations. But I think it can be argued that you can interpret it in many different ways. So if one of your predictions didn't quite line up, you could easily just say that you were wrong in interpreting it instead of the text actually being wrong.
It is not a prediction of the future as so many Christians hope to believe it is, but rather a historical account of the time it was written
This would be hard for me to believe because the terms end of days, end of the world, end of the age, etc are prevalent in the Old Testament and in the New Testament outside of the book of Revelation. I can't imagine what Roman figure would have matched the false prophet or Satan literally manifesting in a human on Earth. It's also hard for me to believe because Islam matches the beast system description to a "T".
They literally are looking for a messianic figure, the Mahdi, to oppose the "king of kings", they literally look to have their forheads marked in the end, they literally behead Christians and in mass. They literally are genociding Christians across the Middle East. They literally imprison Christians. They literally look for "Jesus" to come back as a prophet, renounce his Son of Godness, and give authority to the Mahdi, a one world ruler who will rule the Earth by Sharia law. Jesus himself warned of a time when a convincing figure would come who claims to be him but to "not go after them". And if there is any doubt as to this being true, we are told in Genesis that Ishmael's seed (Muslims) are rejected by God in exchange for Isaac's seed, the Jews. We are told they will be violent with their hand against each other and against their neighbors. There are 2 covenants mentioned in the OT. There are 2 covenants mentioned in the NT. One is Hagar (The mother of Ishmael), the covenant of the slave. The other is Sara, (the mother of Isaac), the covenant of the free. Hagar is the mother of Islam to Muslims. Muslims also refer to themselves as "the slaves of Allah". The Book of Revelation pre-dates Islam by almost 700 years.
Honestly my knowledge of revelations is limited. I do not read into it like some do. I do know that there are those who support my argument, but I would have to ask them for more detail on the historical account. I will look into it.
Well I will have to do some more research on this subject and get back to you on it. Perhaps we could start a seperate debate on it since it is irrelevant to the topic at this point.
Here is the Islamic dome of the rock inscription. It is an "antichrist" repudiation of "the son of god" which is antichrist by Biblical definition. The dome also sits in an interesting position. It sits in the exact spot where the Antichrist "beast" declares himself to be God. It also sits in the exact spot that the messiah sees from the Mount of Olives at his final coming to destroy the beast.
And as if that wasn't enough, Muhammad's wet nurse said he was demon possessed as a child, in the Quran. Muhammad claimed that the "angelic guest" that gave him his revelation at Medina was a demon. Also in the Quran. His own words, not mine. And finally, Muhammad was "tricked" by Satan into writing "Satanic verses" of which he had to repudiate. And these are Islam's own claims. You are welcome to google my argument.
Yet the Quran is another book of which I find no credibility in. I do not know as much about the Quran as the bible, but I find no solace in reading its text. This book is fictional as well in my opinion.
The Renaissance was the major boom in the field of the Arts and Music. The Age of Exploration was what allowed America to be discovered in the first place
During the Renaissance the West was heavily Catholic. When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, the U.S. was over 90% Christian.
Christianity wasn't the motivator behind the Renaissance. In fact, art used to be all about religious icons and idols. Artists were not permitted to put their names on their artwork and were prohibited from using certain materials because the work was under religious scrutiny and had to represent God and the saints. It wasn't until the Renaissance where people found new hope in exploring art for it's aesthetics alone. They studied the techniques and played with colors. Mind you, there was still religious influence in the art, but it was motivated by new movements in philosophy such as Humanism and reviving the styles of the ancient greeks. Christianity was no longer the driving factor of the art.
Landing on the moon was a scientific achievement. It wasn't motivated by religious ideology at all. The religious population during that time is irrelevant. It was science (and a little bit of politics) that got us there.
Is that a book? And I am referring to living your life under the idea that there is an omnipotent person who will punish you if you don't follow his rules.
The bible does say "Love thy enemy". It also says "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Turn the other Cheek". Shouldn't that apply to God or does he get to fill his heart with hatred if he wants to? And apparently "God IS Love" in the bible as well so this is a paradox anyway.
God is an anthropomorphized idea. It is this person we created so that we can always feel loved. God has human emotions. He thinks like a human. He reacts to things like a human would. He gets angry and jealous. He kills and hates. He even changes his mind. That is another reason why I am confident that he was created by humans. Because we put our own characteristics into the things we create. We made ghosts, aliens, and fictional AI in our image as well.
There's only one word for love in English. In Hebrew there are 3 types. It depends on the context in the Hebrew Bible.
No one said God is or isn't love. God can speak for himself. I offer theories by a flawed human mind. I'm not God. If he is he is. If he is not, then my or your getting flummixed about it changes nothing.
I offer the idea that these theories are flawed. How can you look at what is happening in the world and honestly think that there is a God who truly cares about us? The book says one thing, but the reality says another. Its contradictory. God says he loves those who trust in him and yet allows horrible things to befall them regardless of their faith. Or he doesn't. There is no correlation. Plus he provides no real way to verify what he is saying is true. There is no way to know that if you listen to the bible, it is right. He doesn't come down and check up on you. He doesn't grant amazing miracles to anyone (unless it's in the bible). If he does exist, he doesn't care about you. He will let horrible things happen to you and expect you to deal with it. That's why I think he is made up.
Well if you want to get technical, I think God was created by people in power during the time to control you. They offer incentive if you follow him, and punishment if you don't. It's a psychological play on your mind. The church took money for it. In fact, you used to be able to literally pay for your salvation. You could give the church money and get your sins washed away. It was called "Indulgences". A god that is always there and loves you is more appealing than the other wrathful gods you could be following. Saying God love you no matter what was a conversion tactic. Would you rather believe in a pagan god, or a god that always loves you?
But this ideology is contradictory because that god that supposedly loves you will torture you if you don't love him back. That's the point. It doesn't make sense. It was used to force people's obedience. The pope was the government and was "chosen by god". If you acknowledge this god exists, you also acknowledge that the governing laws come from this god. But there never was any god. Just a group of men who did horrible things to people who didn't agree with them.
Not even just Jesus. God has emotions. God has wrath and envy and impatience. Even before Jesus there are passages about God doing things based on how he feels. God told Abraham to kill his son, and then changed his mind. God kills Lot just for looking at something he didn't want him to. God allows Job to be punished and tormented by the devil just to see if he will still follow him. He is anthropomorphized. He has hands and feet like a human (in all of his depictions). He has thoughts like a human. In fact, most people make him and older white man so it's not just one level of bias. We even think of God like a human person. We talk to him in a human language, we ask him to make human decisions about our lives.
There is a difference between jealousy and envy. Envy wants what is not yours. Jealousy is manifested when something is yours. To have aprehension that someone is on your property without permission is rather normal.
Ok fine. Following the philosophy I guess he would only get jealous because technically he owns everything. But this is still a human emotion regardless. An omnipotent being who has total control and power, and no physical human brain or chemicals, should get jealous of something small and physical in our simple little realm. It is the rational of a human mind to think god would care about human things.
Defending your own from someone actually is based in love.
The Canaanites were destroyed, yes. They also were sacrificing babies to Baal (who is Satan. Baal- prefix to baal-zebub in the Jewish encyclopedia.) by cooking them alive.
I loved my cousin. He came into my yard drunk and came after my mother. I punched him propbably 80 times to subdue him. I loved him. I loved her.
It's not just in defense of people he loves. He kills Job's family to test him. He kills the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Pretty much the whole world in Noah's Ark story. Lot's wife, all the innocent first-born Egyptian children for a plague, a bunch of the Israelites (his own people) in the desert, a baby boy to punish David for adultery (I think this is in Samuel), he kills several people with lions, foreigners for not worshipping him, and even Ezekiel's wife just because (Ezekiel 24:15-18).
But if you are going to make the Old Testament argument, I would bring up Ananais and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10) and King Herod. This is just the killing portion. I didn't bring up God's hatred which is definitely a wicked emotion. It's literally the opposite of love.
Says one thing, does another. The rich flourish in this world. They are unaffected by the disease and struggles of the poor. If you happen to be born poor, you are screwed. God doesn't have anything for you until after you die.
What does mercy have to do with God sending people to hell? Or God allowing innocent children to be born into disgusting, horrible situations? I'm basically talking about the "Problem of Evil". No bible quotes answer that.
I have no idea who "goes to hell" or what hell even literally is. One verse says "can destroy a soul in hell." "Hell" is the same as love in Hebrew. We have one word for "hell". Hebrew has many with different meanings and conceptualizations.
No, I mean it has multiple meanings in Hebrew, making translation sketchy. It's like the Cherokee language. There is no word for love in Cherokee, so it gets interesting trying to translate the Bible into Cherokee. To the Jews"Hell" meant many different things, many of which have nothing to do with judgement, punishment, nor being "eternal".
Thats pretty cool. I did not know that. But I am fairly convinced that when most christians talk about Hell, they are referring to a place of eternal torment.
You might know how Christians who read English theoretically might think on the issue. We don't know what transalatory issues there are in hundreds of other languages. They might have a different take on the topic. What we do know is that Jesus was a Jew in the Bible, and the Jews used the other conceptualizations of hell that I provided.
Or God allowing innocent children to be born into disgusting, horrible situations? I'm basically talking about the "Problem of Evil"
1)The Bible says that some of those who we entertain are angels. Perhaps God wants to see what you do in a situation. He already knows what He would do. If you or I haven't done anything to help these kids, this argument wouldn't be a good one to present to God IMO.
I could see if you mean a random person is like some sort of angel or something, but that is definitely not the case for everyone. I know people personally who have been brought up and tormented. These people are human. They have lives just like me. There are entire regions of people who are brought up in turmoil. To say that they are all probably angels testing us is callus. There are real people who suffer for no good cause. There are real people who have to witness a loved one die of horrible circumstances and they lose their faith because they cannot reconcile a just god who would put them through that. I agree with those people.
there are real people who suffer for no good cause.
You're making an assumption here based on an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual appeal IMO. We don't know the cause or the ripple effect of an event that leads into another event, which leads to another event. These effects are incalculable to a human mind. We have no way to know if the end justifies the means.
Well my assumption is based on what I can see around me. I may not know exactly how every situation ends up, but I do know that innocents suffer. Some of which are so devastated that it affects them for the rest of their lives. There's no justification for that. There's no rule of Karma for these people. This is definitely an appeal to intellect. I can't see any rational in a God who would do these things to people.
I may not know exactly how every situation ends up, but I do know that innocents suffer
Everyone "suffers" if they live to any age at all. This sounds like an appeal to different levels of suffering. Different people have different levels to their suffering. An omniscient being would know if your faith would collapse even without much suffering. If suffering causes good somewhere, somehow, is God obligated to the complex web of equations that get to this "good" or is he obligated to stop all suffering. It's semantics to me. Example? My grandfather loved God. In his last days he loved and praised God even in tremendous suffering. That is a trophy on my grandfather's life. Is God obligated to allow it, or does he have the right to take away the suffering and not allow my grandfather to prove his metal? It's subjective in terms of the "moral thing to do". Life isn't black and white. Sometimes the greatest beauty is painted with dark colors.
I think that was elegantly put. "Sometimes the greatest beauty is painted with dark colors". Although these are just ponderings of what could be the mind of God. Is it really all just a test of faith? And if this omniscient being knows the strength of your faith, why would he collapse one's while mildly testing another's? Theres no consistency for it. If you are born into a rich family in a good country, your faith will be tested lightly for the most part. You will know little suffering. But if you are born in a third world country, you might live your entire life in a state of suffering and not know god at all.
I find that there is beauty in people who overcome their suffering with no appeal to a god at all. When religious people suffer, they will pray. When they overcome it, they tend to attribute their triumph to their god. Yet when an atheist suffers, and then overcomes their suffering, they can truly rejoice in oneself. Or in a person that comes to them out of the goodness of their heart.
From a purely intellectual point of view, he may not find one "basking in their own glory" to be what he hopes to obtain from an individual. Omnipotent Field studies may show that this mindset isn't congruent with his plan or goal. He may be simply looking for the one who deflects glory. In the Bible, this was Satan's named flaw arrogance/self glorification, basking in his own beauty, and judgemental towards others. When Christ came he was poor, washed peoples' feet and sacrificed himself for others. He even disallowed a person from calling him "good".
This is yet another issue I take with Christianity. It focuses so much on the rejection of self. It focuses on the idea that you are a sinner and are unworthy from the beginning of your existence. You must reject any "pride" and reach out to God in order to be saved. You cannot save yourself. God must save you.
Although some regard this as a virtue, I don't agree with that view. Perhaps it's because I was raised in a country that takes pride in its individualism. You must make your own worth and the harder you work, the more money you make. Everything I have in my life I earned myself. Yet there is no consolation for me in Christianity. I must submit myself to an idea on my knees and sacrifice all that I am. And there is little evidence or reason to show why I should believe this is the truth. I am expected to just do it.
This is yet another issue I take with Christianity. It focuses so much on the rejection of self. It focuses on the idea that you are a sinner and are unworthy from the beginning of your existence
Maybe we are. Maybe we won't remember any of this and what we gravitate towards here is simply a personal reference to God of your nature when temptation and struggles arrive. But where we will be there is no temptation or struggle, but he still knows what we would do. That gives you value even in a utopian world. He knows who you are in a non-utopian world. He knows you inside and out by having witnessed you in real time. Thebook of Job is an illustration of this concept. Satan tells God "of course he loves you. You give him everything". So now God knows how Job is when you take away everything. This enhances Job's personal value and relationship to God.
Well you can maybe all day, but before we get to that point, there needs to be a way to know if there even is a god or afterlife in the first place. If there isn't even that, then it's pointless to try and figure out the rest.
And if this omniscient being knows the strength of your faith, why would he collapse one's while mildly testing another's?
For all we know he has seen us in every position possible, and some people have no versions where they remain faithful or accept him. And this is simply just another version where said person doesn't remain faithful.
Lol yes I wish life was more like Bruce Almighty. Unfortunately, this is just a movie. Here is a movie with a contrary example. Someone who does not deserve the torment they are subject to.
Everybody wants "God to do something". He already knows what he'd do. Die for all who can accept it and face torment and crucifixion. He's looking to see what you will do about it. If we hear about starving children, will you try to feed them? Will we blame him ? If we see a hurting person, will we have empathy? Will we care? He's not the one taking the test. That already happened. We are taking the test now. He showed his metal. Now it is our turn.
There is some wisdom in your thinking. However, you don't need a God to get to this point. You can have empathy and care for one another based on the person that you are inside. You can do good for somebody without the threat of eternal torment or promise of salvation. It doesn't need to be a test. It can just be that we are all here and nobody really knows what is going on. But we all want this to be a beautiful place and to have a better world. There's no dogma telling us that. It can just come from yourself. In fact, that's where it is coming from anyway. There is no god hovering over your every action. You do good things on your own.
There are real people who have to witness a loved one die of horrible circumstances and they lose their faith because they cannot reconcile a just god who would put them through that. I agree with those people
I have no legs. I still have faith. And I disagree with those people. I accept it and go on.
Well that really comes down to experiences in life. My experience with religion was a struggle. I tried very hard to reconcile it, especially in difficult circumstances. When I called out to God, I got no answer. When I fought for my belief, I was beaten down and broken. When I had questions, there were no solid answers. I came to a point where I decided to start from scratch.
I said if there really is a God, he will find me. I decided to look at the world with new eyes. When I started fresh, I kept a very open mind and took nothing for granted. I truly explored all kinds of different philosophies and answered so many questions for myself. I found that for me, atheism resonated the best, although I do agree with a few bits and pieces from other religions.
I don't believe my journey is done and I am still exploring with open eyes. In fact, I probably wouldn't be on this website if I thought I had everything figured out. I like debating and hammering it out with people because I learn things that I wouldn't have if I would've just stayed out of it. Some people are afraid to talk religion, but it is intriguing to me (Probably because of my background).
But honestly, I find a lot more beauty in the world where I am at now than where I was with my catholic background. I still find God in different ways, but I wouldn't say it's anything near to what the God I used to believe in is like, so I continue to say I am an atheist, although I am probably more of an agnostic taoist or something.
I read the bible and that is not where I found god. But perhaps it resonates more with you. For me, it's the little things in nature and people. I think if anything, we are all god, but I have nothing to prove it. I reject the idea that we are all sinners because to me that ideology is ugly. I really do think that the Christian god was invented to control people and it looks nothing like a real god would.
When I called out to God, I got no answer. When I fought for my belief, I was beaten down and broken. When I had questions, there were no solid answers
Understood. And it sounds familiar. The Psalmist questions God and calls out. He is even angry at God. Jesus himself cried out "why". The Bible definately does not depict a reality any different than what you describe.
Here are a couple of somewhat short videos you might find interesting to watch if you get the time to do so.
I watched these videos. Although the first one makes a convincing argument, I think it's an appeal to emotion to need a god to justify the purpose of one's suffering. I do believe that this world tends to be cold in its nature. There is no good answer to give that person for their suffering. Sometimes horrible things happen to people just because and there is literally nothing we can do about it. Hence why I don't totally deny people their religions. Some people need to find this comfort and this hope. They couldn't stand the thought of suffering and dying for no reason at all. It's scary to think that nobody is in control of everything and it is comforting to think there is an ultimate plan for everything.
Yet for me it still begs the question. If your suffering did have some good effect somehow in the future, isn't it unjust to judge individuals based on their personal choices yet subject them to torment for some overall good? Shouldn't a person of good faith see some benefit of it in their lifetime? Shouldn't the one who rejects God feel the torment? Why does the innocent have to suffer in order for the sinner to benefit? It doesn't answer my question. It leaves a hole for my intellect.
Some people need to find this comfort and this hope. They couldn't stand the thought of suffering and dying for no reason at all.
I have already come to grips that "I might be wrong". It doesn't bother me. I'm not a highly emotional person, thus I tend to find emotional appeals unconvincing and pointless. I have many tough questions for the atheist, and I find faith to be quite reasonable and actually rather intellectualy stimulating.
Well I respect you for that. I am not an emotional person either and I can find common ground with you in this. I embrace the tough questions that you have to offer because I think it is important to challenge my own world view. If there are flaws in my thinking, I would like to iron them out. I also find religion to be intellectually stimulating, but probably for slightly different reasons than you. I find that it is similar to an arms race for the mind. When one side comes up with a point to refute the other, there is often a strong rebuttal. We could easily go back and forth for days on these subjects.
Yet for me it still begs the question. If your suffering did have some good effect somehow in the future, isn't it unjust to judge individuals based on their personal choices yet subject them to torment for some overall good
I yield back to the "define hell", "Jewish concepts of hell", and Jesus being a figurative and allegorical speaking person. We really have no good definition of any eternal hell that you are referring to. For all we know many unbelievers simply die, are judged, and then their end comences. Any concepts of an eternal hell would need examined on an individual verse basis and an examination of the context.
I would probably guess that the hell many christians beliefs flock to may be in reference to "Dante's Inferno". This literature was quite famous for its time and many people took it to heart. I know that in the Catholic church, the accounts of Saints are taken literally. For instance, there is a saint who claims to have been shown Hell in a vision. The church accepted this as truth and an apparation from God himself. I'm still not quite sure which denomination you subscribe to, but I was raised in a very strict catholic environment and have some good knowlegde of this branch in Christianity.
Honestly if Hell was not this torturous dimension that many seem to make it out to be, the idea that God would send people there wouldn't bother me as much. I think that is one of the biggest factors in why I reject Christianity in general. I don't like the idea of a God that would punish his people that severely in such a confusing and misleading world.
I interpret it to mean that you should fear God. Its a warning meant to scare those who do not believe and keep those with belief in the church. Your soul is apparently the most intimate part of yourself. It's an idea created that is abstract enough for people to think they have something to lose in the spiritual dimension. Yet there is no real reason to believe there is one. At least I haven't come across it. What I would call my soul is merely consciousness.
Shouldn't a person of good faith see some benefit of it in their lifetime
I see this as a subjective appeal. If this person has eternal life in a utopian reality of happiness, reward and bliss, I wouldn't find that it really matters.
See it makes more sense to me that you should be punished in your life now. That is what the jewish faith believes (at least they used to. It's more complicated in modern times). There should be some sort of evidence of God's influence in your life. If not, what is the point of prayer? God is just going to sit back and let it all play out and then grade you on your test later? I find that unjust. There need to be signs and affirmations of God in this life. If you try really hard to follow god's laws, is there no reward for that? You just have to wait and see?
Why does the innocent have to suffer in order for the sinner to benefit
Pain is a highly educational device. So are many other negative reinforcements. So is reward to be fair.
If we are to live eternally, less than 100 years seems a small price to endure. Perhaps the pain and suffering educates one to handle eternal life well.
One theory suggests that this is all for God's benefit, quoting the verse that says "all things were created by him, for him."
It suggests that believers do not remember any of this in Heaven, but God does.
Imagine yourself waking up as a child in Heaven one day. You have no memory of this life. God/Christ calls you to him. You run to him. You climb on his lap. You both laugh. You look into his eyes in awe just enjoying with no fear or pain and a naive disposition. He looks into your eyes. You don't remember clutching faith to the death, to the bitter end... but he does, and it resides in his mind and heart for eternity. He knows the depth of your love for him in the darkness, thus your love for him in the light isn't pointless, but treasured by him.
That's a nice theory, but how can we know this to be true? It doesn't say anything about that in the bible. Honestly, if this life was just a big trial of suffering in order to prove love to god, it would be nice to have some sort of evidence or proof instead of just being left to wander around with all this other confusing stuff. There's no way for anyone to get it right except for a small percentage. Even if one form of Christianity was right, the majority of the world would be in sin and confusion. It doesn't make sense to me that a God would expect anyone to really understand what to do with so little evidence of it being true. It seems more likely that it's a trap. Like a creepy guy luring a child into a van with the promise of candy once he gets in. Im supposed to just hop into the van because he said? Thats not a very good reason.
Honestly, if this life was just a big trial of suffering in order to prove love to god, it would be nice to have some sort of evidence or proof instead of just being left to wander around with all this other confusing stuff
Giving people all of the answers isn't very "test like". Giving them a plethera of options and seeing what they gravitate towards is a better test.
There's no way for anyone to get it right except for a small percentage
1)2.6 billion adherants is quite a lot of people actually. And that's just the Christians who are currently alive.
2)You were presented the gospel from your youth and rejected it. If it is true "I didn't know" might not be a logical or correct answer.
3)In theory if someone gravitates away from the gospel, it might expose something about the person that God is looking to correct or even reject. It's an unknowable variable.
1) You have to take into account the different denominations. In some, other christians would definitely be eligible for Hell. So it depends on which version of the bible is correct as well as which interpretation.
2) I was also presented many other religious texts. How am I to know which one is verifiably from the one true god?
3) It might be. Another theory is that it might be something flawed in the gospel. The person might have noticed it isn't from the real god.
You have to take into account the different denominations. In some, other christians would definitely be eligible for Hell. So it depends on which version of the bible is correct as well as which interpretation
It still wouldn't change the true truth either way.
Exactly. There has to be an objective reality. So talking semantics is pointless. There needs to be some way to verify what is real. I think it's all the same. They are all fake.
I was also presented many other religious texts. How am I to know which one is verifiably from the one true god
This a completely different debate. Buddhism isn't theistic and makes no claims on God, so it is out.
Hinduism is bat crazy and it would be a lengthy debate to crawl through its panthera, but I will if need be.
Judaism had no messiah ever come and its prophecies stalled at Jesus birth. Islam is easy to dismantle. If you want those arguments, I'll provide them on request.
Buddhism may not be theistic, but it's moral structure is definitely different than the one in christianity. There's a different perspective entirely as to what is truly right and wrong.
Hinduism is bat crazy, but so is Christianity. They both have exactly the same appeal in my eyes. Everything you would say to show that Hindu gods do not exist, I would say the same for the Christian god.
Judaism is the foundation for Christianity. In fact, I think it makes more sense than Christianity. It's literally the same God so in proving the Jewish God to exist, you would be doing half the work for your own religion.
Islam is also the same god at its core. If you say it is easy to dismantle, I would like to see you do it. If you are suggesting dismantling it with the bible, I wouldn't take this as evidence. I could dismantle it the same way I would Christianity.
Hinduism is bat crazy, but so is Christianity. They both have exactly the same appeal in my eyes. Everything you would say to show that Hindu gods do not exist, I would say the same for the Christian god
I believe they do exist, so it wouldn't prove an easy argument for you.
Judaism is the foundation for Christianity. In fact, I think it makes more sense than Christianity. It's literally the same God so in proving the Jewish God to exist, you would be doing half the work for your own religion.
Judaism is dead without its messiah. Its prophecies also stopped just before Jesus' birth. If not Jesus, then it simply never happened, and the timing of their stoppage is hard for my opponent to explain away.
What do you mean their stoppage? They are still a very prevalent religion today. There are synagogues all over. They are still waiting for the messiah.
Christianity has a stoppage point as well. There are no new texts in the bible. They are still waiting on Revelations just like the Jews are waiting on the Messiah.
Well if you are going to credit my argument in the case of the Jews, it should hold credit when refuting Christianity as well.
Christianity has a stoppage point as well. There are no new texts in the bible. They are still waiting on Revelations just like the Jews are waiting on the Messiah
Revelation says there will be no more prophecies and no more words added.
Ah how convenient. So it's okay for Christianity to stop it's predictions since somebody wrote it in the text itself. I see no difference in a book that has "The End" written in it. They both are just going to take their time waiting.
If you're going to use it, you might as well agree with it. Otherwise, it does you know justice. I agree with it so basically you are just making my point for me.
Not really. I don't have to convince me. I have to convince you, and you already see it this way.
Nevertheless, if I avert from this course, I can hold to my no propecies, timing of the cutoof, and the God using a Jewish Christian alliance to protect the Jews through the course of history.
You don't have to convince me of the fallacy in the Jewish philosophy. We agree on that. You have to convince me why Judaism is not valid while Christianity is. My argument is that both ideologies are equally false. So using God to prove a religion wrong means nothing to me. They are both wrong for the same reasons.
I think they are both right. If Judaism is wrong, Christianity is as well by default. The only difference is we think Christ has come and they are not sure. There are 2 covenants in the Bible. They would be saved the same way OT people were. Faith in God and that he would provide salvation.
"They offered sacrifices to demons, which are not God, to gods they had not known before, to new gods only recently arrived, to gods their ancestors had never feared." Deuteronomy 32:17
You just sent me a bunch of links showing me that people worship Baal and other gods. There is no argument for any of the Hindu gods in any of these links, nor do they show that they exist whatsoever. Plus, I have no idea what the clocktower or images of piercings are supposed to prove. This all comes from man.
The Bible is clear that there literaly are other gods who aren't the omnipotent creator. That's the main point. And seeing Islam, Hinduism and Baal worship all use the exact same style crescent symbol, and even all 3 practice blood rituals, I can use basic logic to say that if the God of the Bible exists, so do these, and that if he exists, these are demonic.
So you are saying that these Hindu gods are actually demons or are you saying that they are gods as well? Also, just because there is a crescent symbol in several of the religions, doesn't mean its the same god. There is a fish in many religions also. That doesn't mean they all worship Jesus. There are crosses all over the place too.
I was hoping you were going to show me evidence, but I should have known better. Showing me parallels between religions doesn't say anything about the actual existence of these beings. It just shows me something about the culture and their symbolism. There's nothing at all to say that these beings literally exist at all. In fact, I believe it just weakens your argument for the existence of your God in the first place.
So you are saying that these Hindu gods are actually demons or are you saying that they are gods as well? Also, just because there is a crescent symbol in several of the religions, doesn't mean its the same god. There is a fish in many religions also
Demons being worshipped as gods.
They share official symbols , official practices, and official modes of worship.
The Jesus fish isn't an official or ancient symbol. It's a bumper emblem.
The Jesus fish is definitely a symbol for Christianity. It's not just something we came up with for a bumper. It has a history with the church. So does the cross obviously. Just because cultures share a symbol doesn't mean they are referring to the same thing. People see the same shape and like to draw conclusions. Just like how everybody thinks the triangle means people are involved in the illuminati. You are making connections to things that aren't necessarily connected.
It still says nothing about whether they exist or not. Just because people worship them doesn't mean they're there. What about native american spirituality or the aztec gods? What about the Egyptian gods? They all are just people trying to make sense of this world. They all got it wrong.
There's nothing at all to say that these beings literally exist at all. In fact, I believe it just weakens your argument for the existence of your God in the first place
Not really. At the pace the world religions are headed, the God of Abraham will have consumed the entire theistic world soon as was predicted. Hinduism is quickly being replaced by Islam. It won't be long. That's quite a show of power for someone whodoesn't exist.
You know what else is spreading rapidly? Non belief. People are getting smarter and rejecting these archaic ideas. Christianity is a more advanced religion than the pagan ones. It makes more sense for a modern world. So does Islam, but I think they have other techniques for indoctrination. Atheism is also growing. People are willing to leave this stuff behind because it doesn't make sense and there is no evidence for it. Im pretty sure that the more people get educated, the less likely they are to participate in religion.
Like I said before, that is an easy prediction to make. Of course you would predict people would reject the belief. Thats what happens with literally every belief system. There's always a group of people who don't agree. Shoot we don't even have a consensus that the world is round or that people landed on the moon.
And Jesus himself asked the question, "will there be faith left on the Earth when I return?" It's quite an odd question for someone to ask who earlier told us the gospel would go worldwide.
The Bible also says specifically that there will be a "falling away" from the faith before his return.
Because that's an easy prediction. That's what happens over time. People lose interest. People will lose interest in the secular view as well. We have already come up with new ways to express spirituality in this generation alone. Have you heard of the new meme religion? What about all the yoga, chakra, eastern philosophy stuff that is popular? Change always happens. No surprise there.
I don't know if that's true. I need to see an article or something. I would guess it's more that Neo spirituality with the alternative medicine, yoga, palm reading, and chakras.
People are willing to leave this stuff behind because it doesn't make sense
It makes sense to me. Of course, I'm not a literalist. If I were, it'd be harder to swallow.
Im pretty sure that the more people get educated, the less likely they are to participate in religion.
I wouldn't count on it. Most people in the world are religious, and the idea of a purposeless world doesn't work for most people. Also, Islam is spreading in the West, and it is less tolerant of atheism than Christianity.
Everybody does look for different things. That's why I don't mind having a few religions around. But for me, this works. Usually people who think like me gravitate toward atheism. You are right, some people hate the idea of a world without a god. They will believe in god because it's comfortable and not because it makes perfect sense. But I do think that as time goes on, it doesn't bother people as much to think there isn't a god in the world. It's not so bad. There's so many other beautiful aspects to life. We don't need to have an afterlife to look forward to or some being to love us forever.
Exactly. So as long as people want to rule the world, they will use religion to control people instead of educate them to think for themselves. The more people think for themselves, the less they fall for these crowd controlling systems.
You can't prove something DOES NOT exist. It's an intellectual fallacy. You can only show there is no evidence for it. The person making the claim of something existing has the burden of proof. You have to prove God exists to me, not the other way around. And the antichrist means nothing to me. Before you can spout the bible or the antichrist or anything, you need to show a foundation for all of it. That foundation is any shred of evidence in the known universe that there is a supreme being involved in the world. You have NONE.
You can't prove something DOES NOT exist. It's an intellectual fallacy.
I know. That's why Atheism doesn't seem an option to me.
You can only show there is no evidence for it.
I've offered you several things, including my site. If you ever want to see my sites, they are provided on my profile on this site.
You have NONE.
I do have some. That's why I provided you my sites. If you fully reject what I offer with no sense of hmmm..., it simply means you reject God from a nonintellectual position, such as hurt, disappointment, other.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Is not believing in the tooth fairy an option for you?
And I started looking at your profile and couldn't find anything other than bible quotes and theories which I have made clear, mean nothing to me until the bible is shown as a credible source.
When I say evidence, I mean anything outside of speculation. Like in this world. One shred of proof. Some sort of miracle perhaps? Some kind of correlation between prayer and god responding? Any commonality between god appearing in visions to people? There's gotta be something in this world that shows he exists. I mean it was pretty apparent that god existed in the bible with all the talking to people and miracles he performed. Even Jesus confirmed he was God during his lifetime (in the story).
Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Is not believing in the tooth fairy an option for you?
In infinite space and time, there might be one per some sort of Darwinian means somewhere in deep space. It'd simply be a small humanoid who had evolved wings.
And I started looking at your profile and couldn't find anything other than bible quotes and theories which I have made clear, mean nothing to me until the bible is shown as a credible source
Most atheists are white males. It's a cultural thing, not an intellectual thing. 8 of the 10 highest IQs on Earth are provablyy theist. The other 2 are just unknown. Prove me wrong.
White males have the greatest access to education. They are the most likely to study sciences like physics and mathematics. People who study physics and mathematics see a clearer picture of the universe and see the inherent flaws in religious thinking. Here is a list of people with extremely high IQs. There are several known atheists on this list. I would guess most of the physicists and mathematicians on this list will gravitate toward a secular world view due to their education and environment. I do not see any highly religious people on this list. No Dalai Lama, No Jewish Rabbi, and definitely no Christian pastors or preachers. But there are leading atheistic minds on there.
Ah I didn't see this earlier so my apologies. However it's funny how all of the sources for this particlular article don't exist. There is no web page for Examiner.com If you try to click on the links leading to the sources, it either goes to a ticketing service, or to some weird error page. I guess the author of the article doesn't expect his readers to check on his sources.
Did you read that? It definitely mentions the correlation between intelligence and atheism. It also shows a bunch of interesting stats like how most atheists don't confidently deny the possibility or a spiritual being or God and how most atheists don't discuss their belief with religious people.
I have no idea. I can't get to that part of the debate without weeding through a mile of our dialogue. You'll need to provide the link or I'll have no way to know or rebuttal.
That's a blanket statement. I know the US welcomes foreigners with high IQs but you can't say that there the highest IQs don't come from the United States. In fact, most of the foreigners prefer to study here. They get benefits if they do.
It would also be a contradiction of alliances for God to ally Jews with Christianity and use Christians to defend the Jews if we were wrong. WW2 for example. If Jesus is correct, the alliances and protection makes sense.
It's easy to dismantle because it takes stories and concepts from Judaism and Christianity. In claiming the god of Abraham it is held to the Jewish account in the Torah that Ishmael's seed is not chosen. They claim to be, and are, Ishmael's seed. They also reject Jesus as the Son of God, so referencing Jesus' NT teachings and claiming he is a prophet of God becomes a contradiction of terms. It's why Muslims are the easiest group on Earth to convert to Christianity.
Okay but that all means nothing to me. I don't take the account of Abraham to be true anyway. Whether or not the fictional story verifies whose seed is "chosen" is irrelevant to me. They reject Jesus as god and follow the teachings of Muhammed. Both of these figures are equal in my eyes. I find no verification of Jesus being the true son of God anywhere. So in my eyes, they have an edge on Christianity in that sense. Christianity took its stories and concepts from Judaism so they are comparable in that sense. I am not sure about how easy it is to convert a Muslim, but I would assume if they are susceptible to one story, it wouldn't be difficult to fall for another.
So what you are saying is that in order to verify that the gospel is true, you need to speak a specific language? That's a pretty hefty challenge from a God who intentionally split up all the languages of people on purpose. Especially for those without access to education. Yet another example where God favors those with money in this life.
Lol well I would like to be. I don't subscribe because there is nothing to subscribe to for an atheist. There's no laws or dogmas to follow. Christians on the other hand believe in a person who will judge them in the afterlife. So the nature of this person is very important because it will determine the state of their soul.
There has to be an objective reality. Either something is real or it isn't. Either you should go to church or you shouldn't. You have to follow some set of laws in order to call yourself a Christian. I mean you study the bible so there's definitely something in there that tells you what you believe. I mean maybe you don't have to go to church, but you still need to have some sort of standards.
Christians on the other hand believe in a person who will judge them in the afterlife. So the nature of this person is very important because it will determine the state of their soul
So how would you say the thief on the cross went about getting saved in the NT?
Well if Jesus is right there it'd be nice to ask him to get to heaven. He's a lucky guy. If I met Jesus in person, I would ask to head straight to heaven too. Im sure there were plenty of other crucified thieves that weren't so lucky.
But you know my real answer is why should I believe the story is real in the first place? You might as well ask me why I think the tortoise really beat the hare.
But you know my real answer is why should I believe the story is real in the first place?
Aaaah... Want a little adult psychology?
Faith is really optimism. Lack of faith is really pesimisism.
Pesismism causes anxiety and depression. Anxiety and depression kills people. You can choose your focus and alter your entire reality just by making a choice.
Faith is not optimism. The two are not necessarily correlated at all. Faith is belief without evidence. You could have faith in the devil or Baal or whatever you want. Lack of faith is not pessimism. I am not a pessimist. Nor am I depressed or anxious. In fact, I am quite content. That also has nothing to do with psychology. No psychologist would agree with you.
It can be. It depends on what you have faith in. I specifically mean faith that God exists, he loves me, and that I will live eternally.
Faith is belief without evidence.
I can have faith in the bridge because it has never fallen through before. This contradicts your claim.
I am not a pessimist. Nor am I depressed or anxious
You spoke earlier about calling out to God and getting no answer, etc. You didn't sound particularly happy or at peace. And now you appear anti god. I assume that wasn't brought on by peace, tranquilty, joy and/or happiness.
That also has nothing to do with psychology. No psychologist would agree with you
A psychologist would agree with me as to what it takes to fulfill the hierarchy of psychological needs.
Just because faith can give you optimism, doesn't mean it is optimism. If it makes you happy, that's fine. But believing that I am loved and that I will live forever without any good reason is not good enough for me.
You can have faith in a crappy bridge. Just because it hasn't fallen yet, doesn't mean it won't fall.
It was actually the faith that brought me to my pessimism initially. I had faith and it was not reconciled. My experience contradicts your claim. It wasn't until I lost my faith, that I found my joy. Plus I wouldn't say I am anti god. I have nothing against a god if he exists. I just want some proof. I have nothing against leprechauns either.
And no they wouldn't. I'm not sure where you got those needs you mentioned, but it isn't from science. They might agree that those things make you feel more content, but I doubt they would agree that everyone needs them. But if you can find one that verifies that, you can prove me wrong. I just haven't been able to find it.
It wasn't until I lost my faith, that I found my joy
I've heard this somewhere before...
And as he got older and closer to his expiration, that claim got tested, and his rhetoric kept morphing. I keep wondering if Christopher Hitchens (Atheist debate specialist) became the Prodigal Son.
It's called realism. I don't want to walk across a bridge that looks like it'll fall. That's stupidity. Based on what I can see, there's no good evidence that the bridge will hold up.
And I can't seem to find the paragraph in the debate where you brought up the needs, but I remember yours was quite different. It mentioned hope as one of them which is not on the list. Your list also mentioned nothing about physiological needs or safety. The list in your link is not the one I am refuting.
I've seen that video before. Hitchens died an atheist as far as I can tell. Just because he mentions that he wouldn't remove religion from the world doesn't mean he's a convert. In fact if you remember, I agree with him. I think religion has it's place for certain people. I wouldn't want just one world view to dominate. I would want several because thats part of the beauty of culture. It doesn't mean I am a believer nor does it mean Hitchens is.
I've seen that video before. Hitchens died an atheist as far as I can tell. Just because he mentions that he wouldn't remove religion from the world doesn't mean he's a convert. In fact if you remember, I agree with him. I think religion has it's place for certain people. I wouldn't want just one world view to dominate. I would want several because thats part of the beauty of culture. It doesn't mean I am a believer nor does it mean Hitchens is
The fine tuning argument will keep your thinking cap on, as it did his. It's what always nags in the back of the mind of the well informed Atheist.
It brings up a good point, but it doesn't answer the question. It's suggesting the universe was made so that we could be here. But it doesn't address all the things working against us being here. In fact, most of the universe is uninhabitable by us and wouldn't be suitable for life at all. Also, since we have adapted to our environment through evolution, I would argue that if the earth was 1 foot closer to the sun, we would've adapted to a world that is 1 foot closer and not to the world we are on today. Of course the people alive today wouldn't survive on that 1 foot closer planet. They adapted to THIS planet.
So you should really argue that we were fine tuned for the universe and not the other way around.
It brings up a good point, but it doesn't answer the question. It's suggesting the universe was made so that we could be here. But it doesn't address all the things working against us being here. In fact, most of the universe is uninhabitable by us and wouldn't be suitable for life at all.
I just watched you give a statement saying that what we see in outer space is history. It no longer exists. By that assessment all of that may simply be the past.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying all of the stars don't exist anymore and our solar system is all that's left? Like that's how we know the universe was designed for us?
Also, I never said it doesn't exist. I did say it is light from millions of years ago. Most of those stars still exist because they live for millions of years. We've only been here for a few thousand as human beings. We haven't even had a chance to look at the sky.
1) You have no idea how difficult it is to get a universe. You know nothing of what makes a universe happen. I already made the point that atheists don't believe it came from "nothing".
2) Actually the odds are 100% that we get planets and stars. We only have one universe to go off of and it happened 1/1.
3) Life is a bit trickier to talk about. We could bring up the Drake equation which shows that it is very probable that there is more than one instance of life in this very universe. But I'll make the same argument I did in point 2. You only know of 1 instance of life so you don't know how difficult it is to make. So far it's 1/1.
4) Life on earth adapted to Earth as I mentioned in the last argument. Life could easily have adapted to other environments. In fact we know of life that exists today that is adapted to extremely harsh environments. There's even life on Mars.
It's called realism. I don't want to walk across a bridge that looks like it'll fall. That's stupidity. Based on what I can see, there's no good evidence that the bridge will hold up
In this case you don't think there is a bridge. And if you did see a bridge, the fact you saw a bridge in the first place would be a refutation of your claim.
The bridge isn't supposed to represent God. It was supposed to represent your claim being reality. Faith is walking across the bridge. I can see the bridge because I can hear your idea, not because I can see your idea is true or that god exists.
I have cast the bible aside, but I am still intrigued with intellectual conversation. I debate about it because it strengthens my world view and brings up points that I haven't thought of before. It challenges me and tests what I think I know about this world. Although I still find no convincing evidence for a god, I still keep my eyes open. I wouldn't want to miss it if it came my way.
It's not just God that I enjoy debating either. I like thinking about all kinds of things. But it all really does come down to that religious question for everybody. The core of who you are is what you believe about this world. Everything is built off of that. In debating people on religion, I feel like I get a chance to see who they really are and challenge it.
In this case you were sitting on a bench at a bus stop. The bus came by. You didn't hop on. Now you are keeping your eyes peeled just in case the bus comes back by.
No. The bus never came. That's my whole point. I was waiting for a bus and there is no bus stop. You keep trying to change the metaphors to make a point. You can't just add tornadoes or buses or bridges as you please. The point is there's no reason for me to believe it. I'm still waiting for any evidence at all. You haven't shown me anything except bible quotes and the symbol of the moon.
Some forms of christianity are very strict. You might not make it to heaven with just a simple belief that Jesus is God. You must do good works, go to the correct church regularly, confess your sins, and interpret the text correctly. I believe this is called separatist although I may need to look it up. So it depends on the true nature of God's judgement.
it seems more likely that it's a trap. Like a creepy guy luring a child into a van with the promise of candy once he gets in
This statement is the equivalent of saying I'll jump out of the airplane without a parachute because there is a chance that the parachute is booby trapped. If reason enters into your mind, you grab the parachute.
Not really. It is very apparent that falling out of an airplane will kill you. Life is not so obvious. There is nothing telling me that there is an afterlife except a book that is verified by a bunch of like minded thinkers. I've jumped out of an airplane before. You know you want that parachute. But if someone walked up to me right now and told me I needed a parachute because I was falling, I would need a pretty good explanation.
Im supposed to just hop into the van because he said? Thats not a very good reason.
You jump into the van because there is a tornado behind you closing in and use logic to assume that getting sucked up by the tornado isn't a logical option. If you get candy all is well. If you get in the van and die, you are no worse off.
Lol well in that case, why not just get sucked up by the tornado if Im going to die in the van? But there is no massive tornado behind me. A tornado implies it is an obvious threat. I do not see a threat. Where is the threat?
There is no reason to assume you die in the van. You can see the tornado. Earlier you were convinced of an eternal torment. That would be the allegorical tornado.
The point of the analogy was that the van is the danger. The religious people are "the man", the candy is heaven, and subscribing to religion is the van. The argument to get into the van is not convincing enough. I see no candy, and I see no tornado. All I have to go off of is the man's word that it's true. It's a bad bet. Im not getting in the van unless someone shows me the tornado. It's not there as far as I can see.
Okay. Possible reward in the van, and if no candy there is no van or man to hurt you anyway. In this scenario candy, van and man in van must all exist or none of the three exist. Not getting in the van yields a possible tornado and most certainly doesn't lead to any candy.
"The man" isn't god. The man is the people trying to convince me of god. Religion is the van. I know both to exist. Whether or no the man is lying is the real question. Ill take my risk with the invisible tornado rather than the creepy man.
In this case I am not creepy, I also have no van, do have possible candy, and am more amusing than any possible tornado. I also offer meaning and purpose in said "candy" as opposed to random chaos and disorder that is simply filled with pitiless indifference.
Well I don't regard you as creepy. You are not the one who is truly behind the ideology. You are simply one of those who is choosing to take the ride. I find more meaning and purpose in my own ideology. The universe makes much more sense to me without a god. If it's not the same for you that's fine. In my ideology, there is penalty for believing otherwise. If yours works for you, I will not try to take that away from you. But I am always open for discussion. I find that I have answers to many of the questions some may still be struggling with like I was. I don't mind the random chaos and disorder. There's a beauty to it just like the dark colors you so elegantly described earlier in our discussion. I have accepted the indifference to the universe and I enjoy my place in it.
The universe makes much more sense to me without a god. If it's not the same for you that's fine
I'm the opposite.
I find it hard to believe that nothing manifested something. Theoretical quantum fields leave me in the same intellectual flummix. So do other theoretical concepts I have heard and read.
The infinite regress of causality. The Fermi Paradox. The Drake Equation. The double slit experiment. Quantum entanglement. The space time continuim. Consciousness. Etc etc make me doubt an atheist view.
Ah now you are talking more of my language. It's not that we think something came from nothing. That's never been the argument. We just don't have a way to know what came before this universe. There is no reason to assume it's a person. We could be in a universe that oscillates. It expands until a certain point, collapses on itself, and then expands again as a new one. We could be in a continuous cycle forever and ever. There could be a multiverse. The big bang might be what happens on the other side of a black hole. Each black hole could be creating a separate universe. But there is no evidence for any of these claims. They are all equally unknowable until we find some sort of hint. There is nothing to tell us what caused the big bang. Only that there was a bang. If you hear a bump in the night, you don't assume it's a ghost. There are many things that could've caused that bump even though you can't see them.
And I would be willing to discuss any of those said topics in greater detail. Take your pick. Fermi Paradox? Drake Equation? Quantum Entanglement? My personal favorite is the Double Slit Experiment.
We could be in a universe that oscillates. It expands until a certain point, collapses on itself, and then expands again as a new one. We could be in a continuous cycle forever and ever
Okay. Now explain how something "the oscilating universe) can exist inside of nothing. What's outside of said univrse? Can I escape if I jump off the edge?
Well first you are picturing the universe as a ball inside of nothing. That's your first mistake. If space and time don't exist outside of the universe, then this is illogical. I don't have an answer for you because we haven't been to the edge yet so there's no way to know. I have two theories.
1)There really is no edge. Everything we call the edge is really just the edge of what we can observe. Perhaps it goes on forever and ever?
2) Maybe it's like the pacman simulation where if you go to one edge, you pop in on the other side. I know you are personally intrigued with the idea of the universe being a simulation. If you try to think of the universe in this sense, how could pacman ever concieve of the machine his program is running on? It wouldn't make sense to him. He would try to visualize the external world as pixels on a 2D plane because he is part of the program. there would be no way for him to ever cross over to our dimension. In the same way, we subscribe to space and time. We cannot concieve of what something would look like that isn't in space or time.
Why not? Who's to say it doesn't? That could be what this whole thing is. Why would it have to be finite? Scientists only talk about what they can observe, but if you look at the observable universe, we tend to be pretty much in the center. Why? It's not that we are in the center of the universe, but we are the point of observation.
Not so fast, Bronto. I know where this is going. I was just using the idea of pacman going from one side to another. I am not saying that it is a perfect metaphor for reality.
Oh? This whole is reality finite or infinite thing is beyond perplexing. It will twist the mind. It is boggling. It is flummixing... Not really. Bronto can tell you how you get either one realistically if one asks....
It's just a theory. It doesn't boggle my mind. I have no reason to believe anything about whether the universe is infinite or finite. I only know what I have evidence for. And a designer I have no evidence for.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”- Epicurus
I don't understand why you keep sending me bible quotes. It isn't going to do anything for me. Before I agree with the bible, you need to show that the bible is a credible source.
Through my eyes, you are referencing a book that random people wrote throughout history. It was also translated several times into different languages and there may be a barrier. I would be more intrigued if you pulled a quote from a science book than the bible.
Negligentt SmellyBelly: Are you admitting that Christians dont know what good is? That is extremely dangerous dont you think? Maybe we should ban them coming to the US, especially considering they believe everyone who is not with them deserves to burn for all eternity.
So not only do we have life after death, but life before? Extraordinary claim.
If animals have souls, that opens up a whole new line of questions. Do animals have sin? Is killing an animal against the commandments? What if an animal kills another animal? I would probably stay away from that concept if I was religious because that is a pandora's box.
Also I didn't know about the flash of light during conception. That is pretty fascinating.
Variation within kinds. Think of an avatar. There are thousand ofeyes, legs, arms, ears, etc that you can use. Your avatar has almost zero chance of looking like my avatar, yet you cannot give your avatar any characteristics that aren't available in the program.
If paleantologists found my skull, Mini Me's skull, and Andre the Giant's skull, they'd say we were different species. They'd also be wrong.
Paleontologists would not say you are different species based on size alone. There is an in depth study of fossil structure in order to identify the species. If they find bone, they can look at the genetic material. If all they have is the form, they can create a mold or replica and study all of its small characteristics. They don't just eyeball it and say what they think it is.
Also, humans are the ones that mix the breeds, not God. We have created our own breeds that never existed prior. And there is pretty much a 100% chance that the child will look like its parents. There isn't a random selection process like in the sims. You literally get your parent's genes. And there can be new characteristics that weren't found before. It's called mutation.
Paleontologists would not say you are different species based on size alone. There is an in depth study of fossil structure in order to identify the species
You literally get your parent's genes. And there can be new characteristics that weren't found before
The available traits are obviously more vast in reality than the sims. Same principal though. Bacteria do all kinds of things. Never become non bacteria though, and sometimes they rotate back to the original strain. Proof of variation, not a change of kind.
Riddle me this: What is up with DID (multiple personalities)? Do these people have multiple souls? Do they go to heaven? When their other personality hurts someone, does it count as a sin?
1)Prove they aren't faking for attention. Notice, peope with terets (spelling?) scream out curse words yet never scream out abstract words like "cake". They might even do it because they think the meds are fun or have the desire to be coddled in a mental health facility. Sometimes convicts commit a crime on purpose to go back to jail and be fed and sheltered.
2)Demon possession? Parasite aliens are very possible. If I showed you one, you'd accept it as true. If I showed you evidence of one, the same. "Visitors" that don't take physical form could be parasites.
3)If it's even real, perhaps each personality is accountable only for itself.
It's virtaully impossible to prove someone does or doesn't have a mental disorder. Brain damage is another debate.
So your argument is basically that they might be faking? But you would accept demonic possession as true? Really? I would say flip the script buddy. Prove that demonic parasites or possessors exist by any evidence whatsoever.
DID is definitely accepted as a psychological disorder by specialists and experts in the field. There is no discrepancy on this. It is NOT impossible to show someone has a mental disorder. That one is obvious and I won't go through the trouble proving it because I think you are in the minority on that one. There are ways to tell if someone is faking a disorder. There are also commonalities between patients. The disorder can even be overcome.
And if it is real, which it is, then what about souls? If they each have souls, what happens when they disappear?
Well I know parasites exist. But an invisible parasite? It is a lot more likely that it is a mental disorder than some invisible creature. There is no evidence whatsoever to say it is external.
Prove you wrong with science huh? Well if you do just a little research on actual cases of DID you could easily find the answers you are looking for. There are literally real cases of mental disorders. DID is a bit complex and can take 7 years to diagnose. So if someone is faking it for some reason, they better be really dedicated and consistent.
DID is definitely accepted as a psychological disorder by specialists and experts in the field
So was spontaneous generation because maggots just appeared in cow pies. It was false. At least that wasn't abstract. It was physically provably false. A mental disorder is not.
Blind faith is belief without evidence. Faith is belief with little evidence. Accepting the Big Bang theory is coming to the logical conclusion of the most likely way the universe began based on all the evidence.
So there was a burst of light, expansion, Earth, plants, water creatures, land creatures, and finally humans. Ancient Jews must be tremendous guessers...
Believing in what you think is the most likely way is blind faith. Claiming to have evidence for your belief when it is still only what you think is "the most likely way" is blind faith. People only cling to that kind of belief because they know God ruling over them means they are in trouble and they hope to be exonerated in death and get out of trouble by dying.
No, faith is what's left in the absence of evidence. When you have some evidence, then you have some insight.
"People only cling to that kind of belief because they know God ruling over them means they are in trouble and they hope to be exonerated in death and get out of trouble by dying."
No, faith is what we act upon. You have faith that you have the right to exist outside of Hell, correct? So by faith, you continue in counting your time down to zero believing you will not fry like an eternal sausage in the fire of Hell.
If you are given a check, you have faith that it is worth money even though you do not have proof until you cash the check and get the money in your hand. Your faith in the validity of the check is what you act upon in receiving the check and in waiting to get the cash.
When you move to take a seat, you have faith that the chair will hold you based on the fact that it looks strong enough or that you saw another person sitting in that chair before you moved toward it. By faith you sat down, believing that the evidence indicated the chair would hold you.
When you try to obscure the meaning of faith to imply it is a word by which you are empowered to insult anybody who believes God created them and wants them to be in Heaven with Him, you are just being obtuse.
The title of the debate here is "Is this universe created by solely natural processes?". Apparently you believe that it is created by solely natural processes in complete violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Do you have evidence that it is possible for something to create itself, or do you have faith with no real evidence? If you are acting on faith with insufficient evidence, one day the chair you go to sit in will crash to the floor under you and you will accept a bad check and payment will be refused.
Tell me...do you hope to be exonerated in death? Is it hearsay for me to say that you hope to be exonerated in death? Do you know the meaning of the word "exonerated"?
Do you believe you are exonerated now while your time is counting down in this world, dying all the way to zero whenever that may be for you?
Why did you avoid addressing the first half of the post you responded too? Here it is again for you, take another look and see if you can come up with something:
Believing in what you think is the most likely way is blind faith. Claiming to have evidence for your belief when it is still only what you think is "the most likely way" is blind faith.
I have faith that when I am done typing these words and I hit "enter", they will be posted....and further faith that you will read them. I believe you are not burning in Hell and are still here able to read these words. I do not have evidence of that belief being correct until I see that you are actually here and able to read, but even then my faith is limited so I cannot know for sure that you did not wake up in Hell after you posted evidence of being here and able to read after I posted these words.
You put your faith in evolution, and you hope in death to be exonerated and exempt from accountability for how you spent your time. You have no evidence that you get out of accountability for your time, yet you believe you get out in death. That is as blind as faith can be.
Accepting the big bang theory is dumb. The scientific method shows the "theory" is nothing but a hypothesis preferred according to the faith of people who think they can get away without God. Evolution and the big bang are nothing but religious hypothesis which do not belong in science. Religious people just can't resist inserting their religion of naturalism into science, ascribing supernatural power to non-living things believing that non-living things cause life to emerge. It's a useless waste of time belief system.
Negligentt SmellyBella: how many times do people have to say it to you: it is not a religion! If someone came up with a better theory than the big bang theory then I'd gladly change my viewpoint - as would most atheists. It isnt that important.
First and foremost, "natural" (or physical) processes are fundamentally incapable of creating the Universe. Why? Because natural processes follow the laws of physics (specifically the first law of Thermodynamics), which prohibit the creation or destruction of energy (and, as proven by Einstein's famous equation, "E = MC^2", matter), an inherent prerequisite to the Universe's creation.
As for Darwinian Evolution, I'm forced to disagree: not only is there no evidence to substantiate Abiogenesis (in fact, experiments attempting to credit it, such as the Miller experiment, failed to do so, thus having the opposite effect), but that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely has no basis whatsoever, in either observation or experimentation.
First and foremost, E=MC^2 states a relationship between matter and energy and does not state in any way that matter can neither be created nor destroy. Secondly, it is the first law of Thermodynamics that makes it all possible. Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God. Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were.
Lastly, there is very clear evidence for abiogenesis. Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur. From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve.
Lastly, there is very clear evidence for abiogenesis. Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur. From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve.
There's a reason we cite our claims. Blind theoretical assertions make you no different than the god botherers that you oppose. Faith isn't a good atheist argument.
-FACT! Pre Earth was struck by lightning, which manifested life by mere magic, and then Darwinian evolution just took over! Believe me. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
"First and foremost, E=MC^2 states a relationship between matter and energy and does not state in any way that matter can neither be created nor destroy."
I was simply pointing out that, as shown by that equation, matter and energy are interchangeable in regards to the first law of Thermodynamics.
"Secondly, it is the first law of Thermodynamics that makes it all possible."
I explicitly stated as much.
"Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God."
God, by definition (specifically possessing the quality of "supernaturality", or non-physicality), is not bound by the laws of physics, including Thermodynamics.
"Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were."
Impossible. Due to the second law of Thermodynamics (if you're not familiar with its implications, just Google "heat death of the Universe"), the Universe cannot have simply always existed. Entropy can only ever increase (and does), and, as the Universe definitionally possesses a finite amount of energy (and thus capacity for entropy), therefore, after some finite period of time, the Universe will be saturated with entropy. As this has not yet occurred (life does indeed exist), it follows that the Universe has existed for a finite period of time.
"Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur."
The simple acids you're referring to may be (incomplete) components of organisms, but tossing a few planks into your backyard and building a shed are two entirely different things. In other words, life is inherently much more than the sum of its parts, therefore a simple mixture of its components (assuming you even have all of them; no experiment, even under ideal Darwinian conditions, has been able to produce all necessary amino acids to create life) is not equivalent to it.
"From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve."
To reiterate, there's no evidence that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely.
God, by definition (specifically possessing the quality of "supernaturality", or non-physicality), is not bound by the laws of physics, including Thermodynamics.
There existing definitions of imaginary entities does not lead to their existence. (If you're confused on how I could say that, search ontological arguments.)
To reiterate, there's no evidence that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely.
Really? Not "indefinitely", of course, because even matter is not eternal. It certainly can not keep accumulating, and thus can have no evidence.
Impossible. Due to the second law of Thermodynamics
Ah, yes, that's a conclusion I agree with. Only this much, however.
Entropy can only ever increase (and does)
What about searching about some matter-wave functions rather than jumping to heat death? Nothing is there such that "only it can" happen.
but tossing a few planks into your backyard and building a shed are two entirely different things.
Nothing "inherently" different, still. They're just different structures.
In other words, life is inherently much more than the sum of its parts,
"In other words"? Your best example is a structural difference? How does that make something "inherently much more"?
After having read your arguments, I'm compelled to ponder whether you're actually interested in a rational discussion. Ignoring my statement with vague assertions, then baselessly claiming God to be "imaginary"? Disputing my statements based on nothing but slight ambiguities? Much as I love debate, I'll pass on this one. There's no possible productive outcome to be had here.
Considering that most of your claim here is generic fluff, and the only specific one is what I answered already... unless you can read better than that, you shall get your pass.
Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were
So in infinite space and time, Darwinism would have manifested the highest possible being which would be immortal, omniscient, and omnipotent... As a matter of fact, it would have manifested every single thing that is possible. Getting around God is tough sledding either way you slice it.
if so why couldnt these beings be regularly surpassing one another in terms of who is currently most powerful? With infinite opportunity for gains in knowledge and power how can anyone be all powerful or all knowing? "all" could only apply to a finite domain..wouldnt you agree?
1)They are of a collective conscience or hive mind.
2)No two things are ever 100% identical. Thus, one has to be the greatest. That subtle difference would be what makes them indestructable.
3)They replicate and repair faster than they can be destroyed and keep spreading the collective consciousness until they are replicating and repairing faster than is comprehendable.
Not really. If reality is not infinite in history, then it just popped into existance one day. That would be called magic.
If it is infinite, then that explains how a consciousness that is all powerful and eternal would exist. It would have never not been replicating or never not existing in the construct of infinity, and if it continues to spread throughout infinity, it only grows more powerful and faster by pure numbers of replications. And since it is the greatest nothing can catch it or defeat it. It would also destroy anything that might later pose any threat to it before it grows into anything substantial. Thus, only it is like itself or even close.
Working from the assumption that reality is infinite, no being could completely spread throughout it or control it in a complete manner. It might be more powerful than any other being in its vicinity, but there would be no way of knowing if even greater beings might exist beyond the scope of its domain.
It would if its alter ego conscience doubles were spreading across all other infinte parts of the universe and hive minding infinitely with each other.
And if there was in theory, something beyond the "scope of its domain", there is no gurantee that anything else exists or can exist in said domain.
a being can't be all powerful or all knowing in an infinite reality, only most powerful or knowledgeable within its specific domain.However powerful a being may be, in an infinite really, they couldnt even imagine a fraction of whats possible, because there isnt a totality.
If evolution is true, Science is proving every day how impossible it is for Earth to be the only planet with intelligent life on it.
They are discovering many millions of solar systems that are billions of years older than our own, and never one sign of life from any of them.
Can you imagine no evolution occurring on billions of planets that are billions of years advanced to our own.... WITH NO INTELLIGENT LIFE SENDING RADIO WAVES THROUGH OUR GALAXIES?
Science is disproving their own evolutionary theories as they keep discovering how large our universe is.
So, out of those millions of planets, why would God choose to populate only one of them?
It IS true that we haven't discovered life out there yet.. But, that's NOT cause it isn't there.. It's cause we haven't yet developed the technology to find it.. But, we will.. It was only a few years ago that we discovered there were other galaxies than ours.
Look.. There may NOT be other life out there besides our own.. But, it's a little too early to come to that conclusion.
let me repeat..... it would be IMPOSSIBLE out of billions of planets and solar systems, that are billions of years older than our own, to not have intelligent life evolve as you say happened here on Earth.
We would be bombarded with radio sgnals from life on other planets for the past billions of years flying through space. These people would be far more advanced then us and would have figured out space travel to our solar systems.
Yes, God could have created life on other planets but if he did they would probably be around the same age as our own and it would take many milleniums for any signal to reach Earth.
I'm telling you that of the two scenarios, God makes much more sense than the impossibility of no other life evolving on billions of planets and us not detecting some sort of signals from space by now.
You can't say with certainty that it would be impossible. There is too much that we don't understand for us to jump to that conclusion. The universe is way too vast and large for us to assume anything. There might be intelligent life here now, but we do not recognize it's intelligence. Look at the vastly different forms of life on earth. We don't even know what is in our own oceans. We discover new animals all the time to this day. We haven't even uncovered what is on this planet. To say that life would've already contacted us by now or learned space travel is arrogant. We don't know what life can do because we don't even understand what life is at all.
We are talking billions of years. They say we evolved in a few million years. To say that your magical missing link of the first single cell did not occur on billions of other planets billions of years ago IS IMPOSSIBLE IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE.
Out of billions of planets and solar systems, do you actually think Earth would have been the only planet that could have evolved intelligent life?
Of course I don't think we are the only intelligent life out there. There's nothing to sell on that point. But theres definitely more evidence for evolution than the alternative. We dont fully understand life. We dont know how to create it. We dont really know what death means. The line between what we consider to be a living creature and not is blurry. There's definitely grey areas. We havent even discovered all of the life on this planet. We also don't understand intelligence. We act like we are special and chosen in this universe. That is so arrogant. We might not even recognize intelligence on another planet. It would be so foreign. We have barely had the chance to look. Do you know how much space there is?
Hi there, I know I'm sort of intruding in your argument with ex. I apologize. I will be quick.
The theory of evolution doesn't ensure the emergence of "intelligent" life. It doesn't ensure that humans will eventually be smart enough to do space travel. The theory says that life ( anything that can die ) has the capacity to do physical and behavioral changes in response to environmental change in order to survive.
And I might be saying something incredibly stupid: why is it that the possible existence of God and the possible validity of evolution cannot coexist?. I understand that the Bible was written by God through Man. But I heard, some Bibles are considered more close the God's words than others.
The Holy Spirit revealed to the prophets the messages of Scripture. The writers of the Bible wrote not according to their own will or whim, but only as they were moved, or controlled, by the Spirit of God. The Bible is God's own book! Or it should be. It is possible for Man to pretend to hear God's voice.
If that is possible, then it is also possible that every Bible could contain incorrect statements. I mean if the Bible was wrong it doesn't prove the non existence of God. Could it just mean that there were some idiots who thought or pretended to hear the voice of God?
Christians are not the arrogant elites trying to separate any symbol of God on public land while indoctrinating our chidren in every public school with their evolution theory.
ARE YOU STARTING TO GET THE DEIFFERENCE?
I'm not trying to force you to believe in God. I'm trying to get the Left from ridiculing anyone who believes in God, and forcing their never ending changing theories onto our Americans. Theories are great, science is great, but until you have proof of something, SPARE US ALL YOUR THEORIES. Our children deserve better then being told that evolution is fact.
Again, we are talking billions of planets!!!!!! How on Earth could you believe we would be the only intelligent life after many billions of years.
So, out of those millions of planets, why would God choose to populate only one of them
Who says they even exist? With the time it takes for their light to get to Earth, there is no guarantee that much of what we see isn't simply remnants of old experiments, God's former creations, or simply a designed loop. And for all we know they are inhabited by entities that are invisible to human eyes.
So, out of those millions of planets, why would God choose to populate only one of them
This was actually a point in the theory i promised earlier.
Has to do with age of earth, age of man evolution and adam(maths), condusiveness of earth comparing to other planets like mars: in terms of size, men will over populate it, amount of gravity there very poor transport unless extra speed many drivers may not be able to handle, Then mercury, venus hot temperatures, jupiter has hurricanes in the middle of the planet (It may contain us but we wont last), saturn and others pluto either cold or small or incondusive by other ways, good vegetation lands for food we eat. and many more only to prove man's existence on earth was planned.
Then later attack evolution but all not worth it now.
In order to say this, you need to make a lot of assumptions about life. First of all, our own radio waves have only gone out about 110 light years out. They have barely reached the closest stars to us. How could something detect we are here unless it is within 100 light years? Even if they could see the light coming from our planet, that light would be millions of years old. The earth would look like a planet with very primitive life on it to any intelligent species. Perhaps some of the planets we can see already have intelligent life, but we are millions of light years away and can only see what they looked like then.
You also have to assume these aliens have the same exact ears as us. They would need to hear at the same frequency and sound range in order to interpret the waves as anything intelligent. Otherwise it would literally just be noise. We don't even try to decode every radiation wave that comes toward our planet. Perhaps there are aliens trying to communicate, but we are too stupid to interpret it at our level.
You also have to assume that we would recognize life elsewhere. We haven't even discovered what is in our own oceans here on planet earth. We discover new species all the time on our own planet. There was a recent experiment where a scientist discovered that the bacteria in every person's belly button is completely unique. They even discovered new species there! So if we don't even know what is in our own belly buttons, how can we possibly say we know anything about life on other planets.
Lol that's a big claim. But this isn't the climate change debate. It's the universe by natural processes debate. I would gladly take you on that one though.
Are you starting to get it now? You are so quick to believe scientific theories that you yourself say we have no clue of what we are seeing.
Yet when it comes to the possibility of God, you call it all fairy tales and myths.
Maybe if scientists also spent a little time exploring the possibility of God instead of trying to disprove God's existence with their predetermined theories, they might learn something.
They are doing what scientists are not suppose to do. They are suppose to explore all possibilities with no preconceived opinions or theories.
First, I never said with certainty that there is no god. But I have no god reason to believe in one. I look at evidence first and then make my decision. There is good evidence for natural processes. There's fossils, a migration record, DNA, vestigial forms, an explanation for each and every element on the periodic table, etc.
What is the evidence for a designer? The goldilocks argument? Bible quotes? The Fermi paradox? How come I can go to a museum and see hundreds of fossils showing ancient dinosaurs, million year old creatures, and transitional forms? But if I ask for evidence for a designer, I get handed a bible? Or i get a speech on how everything is a lie? There should be more than that.
Scientists don't just make stuff up and then try to prove it. That's what religion does.
If it was true, then we would have obvious clues around the world. But there arent. There's unanswered questions. Like where are the miracles today that used to be so abundant? Or when you look at the DNA of all creatures, why does it make a giant tree? Why are there dinosaurs that died off? If Adam and Eve are real, how did genetics make different races? Why do we breathe out of the same place we swallow food? Why do men have nipples? Why do we have an appendix? What is mutation? Why do monkeys look just like us?
One side has a pretty good explanation for all of these questions. The other side says idk god works in mysterious ways.
You sit there asking a thousand questions why God made men and animals the way he did? Who on Earth cares why he did what he did. Someday you can ask him. Why would you find it so strange that God made man with traits similar to women or the animals he created?
There is much evidence out their to God's word being true. Do you ever watch the Smithonian channel? They just recently did an entire show with much scientific evidence that the plagues from God upon Egypt actually happened during the exact historic Biblical time frame. They even have trees that are thousands of years old, and when you look at the growth rings during the time of the plagues, you could see much smaller ring growth.
They went into depth on each plague and evidence to it happening during that time.
The Bible does speak to God creating different races of people with different languages.
Funny, these are not the non answers from Christians you eluded to but I'm sure it matters not to you.
Ask the same thousands of questions to scientists and evolutionists.
Why did one cat evolve with speed to catch his prey while other cats developed stealth, camoflaug, teamwork, etc. to catch their prey.
Why did only Girraffes evolve long necks to reach the higher branches to survive while other animals survived without long necks.
Why are we not swimming in missing links since there should be entire civilizations of those missing links.
If dinosaurs evolved before the supposed meteorite that killed them off, why did they not evolve once more afterwards?
How did the unbelievable complexity of man's DNA just randomly evolve in such a short time while being stopped in it's tracks from killer asteroids many times.
Why did apes stop evolving while other apes supposedly became man.
WHERE IS THIS LIFE FROM BILLIONS OF GALAXIES, BILLIONS OF YEARS OLDER THAN US! Your answer is that evolution works in mysterious ways. LOL, you just can't see your own bias against the possibiity of a God, and the lack of evidence proving your beliefs of where we came from.
I think its funny that you say "who cares" when faced with legitimate questions. All of these questions have evidence based answers. The evidence just doesn't align withyour world view. But ya who cares?
And a few of those questions you asked do have answers. Giraffe necks
Also, no animals stop evolving. And we didn't come from the apes that are here already. We share a common ancestor.
And we have plenty of links to look at. You can't expect for every single fossil from every species that's existed to be found. First, we haven't even studied all of the animals currently on the planet. Second, fossils are extremely rare and difficult to form. It has to be the perfect conditions to make a fossil. Some animals can't even be fossilized due to their chemical make up.
How many stars and galaxies do you think we've actually had the chance to look at? Think we've pretty much checked everything out by now? We just got started this century.
You can't rely on a god of the gaps. Just because we don't have the answer yet doesn't mean "god did it".
I will say for the last time......WE HAVE NOT RECEIED ONE SIGNAL, RADIO WAVE, OR ANY OTHER SIGNS OF LIFE FROM THESE BILLIONS OF SOLAR SYSTEMS!!!!!!!
You don't have to study or look at any galaxy. The proof of life woud be in the radio waves traveling the speed of light for billions of years from our closest galaxies as well as further our galaxies.
We would be swimming in radio waves and other signals of life from the universe. We have the technology to listen to signals whether they be on our frequency or not. We know the difference between noise and a signal.
I REPEAT... it is impossible not to have listened to evidence of life in these billions of galaxies. I've got bridge to sell you and it is real nice.
Nahhhh... Our radio signals haven't reached even the nearest galaxy. So, if there's life there, and they made the same assessment you did, they'd be WRONG.. How do you explain that?
These galaxies are billions of years older than we are. Their signals have been traveling for billions of years. Morons are trying to say that the signals from millions of our nearest galaxies would not have reached us yet? LOL
We have all kinds of cosmic rays coming at us. You act like you already know these aliens. Like you know exactly what to look for. Just think of how many radio stations we have on planet earth. You have to tune to an exact frequency to hear any of them. You assume aliens would actually use radio waves for
Communication. Why is that a given? Radio waves are a small part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Who is to say which part these particular aliens use for communication if any at all?
You have to assume they hear sound, that sound has to be at the same frequency, range, and speed as ours. They have to communicate like we do, or have some sort of audible language. So not only would they have to have ears, but brains like ours as well. And we have to recognize it as a language. We have to find the frequency, range, and scale. Mind you that radio waves are on the same spectrum as light. And we know light stretches as it travels long distances (its called redshift). So by time any signals at a certain range travel far enough, the signal would be distorted. Plus we know the majority of stars are billions of light years away. Anything we pick up is from a long time in rhe past. There would be no back and forth conversation to confirm their existence. And to top it all off, we have been looking for it for less than 100 years. You think its impossible not to? Do you even know what that process looks like? Who does the searching? What instruments do we use? Where is the funding for these projects?
You are incredibly arrogant. You come from a self important species that thinks it is the pinnacle of life. How many species are on this planet? How many of them would you consider intelligent? Look at the plethora of ways life has developed in this planet alone. We find that there are different forms of life in each individual's belly button. In fact, weve discovered new life forms there. Do you think you know what is here? You think you understand this reality? Have we answered most the big questions in science and got it all figured out? Well Ive got a bridge to sell you. Its incredibly naive to think we know what lies out there in the universe. It is unfathomable to us as a species. We are nothing. We are not chosen by a god to be special amongst all other life. We are mold.
I told you science can discern the difference between noise and an intelligent signal. It does not have to be a signal we have ever seen or understand. A signal has a repeating pattern that distinguishes it from noise.
LOL You're right it is a waste of time. You have a thick skull. Even with the explanation, you still cling to an argument like you know everything about aliens. You will never grow until you listen with open ears.
There is good evidence for natural processes. There's fossils...
When I was younger, I always asked "where are the billions of transitional intermediaries in the fossil record that it would take to get from simple to human"? It was a fair question, but Richard Dawkins gave the best response I had heard, and it stuck with me. He said there aren't giant strings of intemediaries because getting fossilized is like hitting the lottery. It's nearly impossible but does happen. That made me realize that if the process only happened on rare occassion if almost never, all the fossils are probably from one, maybe 2, or perhaps 3 events that caused fossilization. If this is true the illustrations of chains of intermediaries must be false per deductive reasoning, and the fossil record is useless to give any chain of intermediaries.
The other point is that if it took billions of intermediary changes to get from Cambrian simple organisms to humans, the Cambrian was "300 million years ago", and darwinism is a "slow process", how did we get billions of intermediary changes in 300 million years? It would take a plethera of mutations and bodily enhancements every single year to get from simple to human with that math.
The third point is, if the fossil record IS meaningful in any way, the Cambrian explosion is quite a puzzling mystery if darwinism is:
1)True.
2)Is a slow process.
3)Rarely happens but happens slowly over hundred of millions of years.
4)If the time models of "prehistoric creatures" is correct, after the "mass extinction event"(comet, ice age, etc), Darwinism now has to start over and begin the process with even less time than 300 million years to get billions of intermediary changes neccessary to get from simple to human, which only confounds the probelm intellectually.
Perhaps some of the planets we can see already have intelligent life, but we are millions of light years away and can only see what they looked like then
It's possible that almost nothing we view that is far away is current or even exists anymore.
It's definitely evident that everything we see far away is a glimpse of the past. However based on our knowledge of how long stars and planets hang around, I would say most of the stuff we see is still there but not all of it. It's not that things don't exist anymore, but we could definitely be seeing the light from a star that has already gone supernova.
For me, and I would assume countless millions of others, the glaring flaw is the, so far, unsatisfactory explanation of how the so called, 'big bang' occurred.
From where did the energy source originate to create this gargantuan explosion which is still sufficiently strong to continue to expand the universe into a conveniently existing space.
From where did this space come?
We're being asked to believe that this eruption of epic proportions came from nothing.
Nothing from nothing = nothing.
Nothing plus nothing=nothing, and so forth.
When we are provided with indisputable and understandable scientific evidence which proves conclusively how and why the 'big bang' happened then all reasonable people will accept what the scientists have proven to us.
In the meantime there will be, at best scepticism surrounding the 'big bang' claims, and at worst, total disbelief.
If you found pieces of, let's say, an oil tank scattered over a couple square miles, you could extrapolate from that evidence, that the tank EXPLODED..
By observing the galaxies moving AWAY from each other, one can extrapolate from that evidence, that the universe EXPLODED..
Ok because I utterly curious about odd things......what kind of scone and coffee?
I'm hungry.
BUT. I do agree with you. The debris, oil residue, scorch marks and so on would lead one to speculate an explosion which could be a logical conclusion. The next step would be to wonder why it was there, what caused the explosion and how it all originated to begin with. Which, I think, are questions many religious persons believe are answered with the existence of a Creator or God.
Well, today I had a heated walnut and date scone with butter melting through it and an exceptionally good Americano coffee whilst I enjoyed ''the craic'' with my gym buddies.
Yes, your analogy of the oil tank is quite good, but has one weakness.
We all know what an oil tank is. It's scattered fragments would cause some curiosity and speculation but in Northern Ireland the reason for an exploding oil tank would be attributed to the I.R.A.
Hey, do you think the 'Big Bang'' may have been the work of rival celestial terrorist groups warring over an interplanetary turf dispute? ha. Only a wee joke.
Seriously though, I feel that religion is a non starter and the ''jury is still out'' on the big bag theory.
''Maybe some day all will be made clear, but I doubt it will in my lifetime.
My skepticism is based on the a number of flaws in the whole concept of the big bang theory.
1) And here I repeat myself, from where did the energy originate that generated such an enormous explosion?
2) Who or what created the micro sized dot from which all the immense cosmos materialized?
3) What was the entity which engineered this speck of colossal energy doing prior to the wonderment of all we see around us and in the heavens?
4) How can something spontaneously materialize from nothing?
5) No one has ever disproved the scientific fact that something can come from nothing.
So, once again, until there is crystal clear, indisputable evidence of how the ''big bang' occurred I will not accept the scientist's assertion as a rational theory to explain the existence of the cosmos.
We criticise the religious freaks for their mindless blind faith then the scientists ask us to do the same with their, so far, unproven theory.
The whole point, Frijole, isn't about where the oil tank came from. Its about the explosion. If you saw an oil tank in fragments, you couldn't know what the cause of the explosion was. You would only know that it exploded. Thats the analogy.
So if two oil tankers are traveling in opposite directions away from each other, it proves they were touching each other back to back before they were traveling away from each other?
If I extrapolate that the two tankers were touching each other, isn't that a leap of faith?
From where did the energy source originate to create this gargantuan explosion which is still sufficiently strong to continue to expand the universe into a conveniently existing space.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. It didn't "originate" anywhere. The big bang was a change in form, that's all. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The antrhopic principle. When energy is compacted into smaller and smaller areas, its properties fundamentally change. What we know as the universe, is a form of stuff. Stuff can have other forms under other circumstances, and asking us to know exactly what they were like, is like asking the question: "what would another existence be like if it wasn't like this existence?"
There are an infinitesimally small number of stupid questions, but this is one of them.
From where did this space come?
Space is just a way of saying "distance between objects". The distance between objects increases as time goes by.
We're being asked to believe that this eruption of epic proportions came from nothing.
Nothing from nothing = nothing.
Nothing plus nothing=nothing, and so forth.
Preposterous. No scientist will speak about the big bang in these terms. We already know nothing doesn't come form nothing. See my first point.
Most people fell out of the pram whilst learning about your juvenile quote of energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.
Even the dog's in the street knew that since they were pups.
This scientific fact only goes to strengthen the case against ''the big bang theory. What was the original energy source which changed to
cause the ''big bang''?
You really are an embarrassingly naive twit who contributes nothing to such a debate.
The points raised by me were legitimate weaknesses in the arguments for the big bang theory.
If what you say is correct and scientists know that nothing comes from nothing then let them explain the composition and location of the original energy source.
Even give us all a clue.
You're the typical shithead who knows nothing and wants to share your ignorance with everyone else.
You do a really good job of acting like a cunt of fantastic verbage, without actually saying anything, you substance-less, frail, flimsy little fruitcake.
Lol you think you sound smart but everybody else looking at this thinks you are a dumbass. The points you raise are backed by no evidence whatsoever. Scientists don't know what happened before the big bang. That doesn't mean anything. NOBODY knows what happened before the big bang. You can't ask somebody to prove they understand every aspect of the universe and think that if they don't it proves your point right. You don't have a leg to stand on.
There is also this to consider. Space and time cannot exist without the universe. In fact, Einstein proved that they are part of the fabric of the universe. Having said that. Where and when did the Big Bang happen, if there was no time or space?
There are very well thought out, well substantiated, explanations how our universe came into existence. How the Big Bang might have occurred, how evolution works, how this all came to be and it all makes sense and is backed by tonnes of evidence.
Two opinions from science? Do you also know there are two sides to the big bang ?
You just proved these are mere speculations and common opinions one can easilly conjure after getting knocked over by a mad horse.
Whenever i eat piccadilly biscuit while watching a scary movie i get a lot of theories in ma head.
I will soon bring up the big slap, i will get a good number of idiots to promote it and then you will buy it.
untill then...
And then there are people that wave their hands and say 'God did it'. What do you think?
It is an undisputed fact that nature is incapable of creating information. DNA contains information. Random processes cannot account for this. Information requires language. Language comes only from a mind. Don't believe me? Name one language that did not.
This is very much disputable. Information is interpreted but doesn't necessarily need to be created. You can get information from all kinds of things in nature. Humans organize patterns they see and our minds interpret it. God didn't assign letters to the nucleotide bases in DNA. We did. We noticed a pattern in nature and interpreted it ourselves. There was no secret code.
We do this for all sorts of things to make sense of the world. We count tree rings and layers in rock, we organized frequencies of sound according to our own auditory range, and we have assigned names to frequencies of light that apply only to our own eyes.
DNA is a pattern. When people use the word "code" it gets confused with computer code but it is not the same thing at all. It's a process in nature.
You are completely clueless about this. I have done much research on information theory and related fields of study. DNA is a language. Each living cell takes in information, processes it, then issues instructions that are acted upon by the cells many components. DNA has all the aspects of a language, such as an alphabet, and grammar. The instructions in DNA have meaning. This requires language since there can be no meaning without it. And language is the result of a mind. Therefore, DNA was created. A language can not evolve on its own. Nature is incompetent in this regard.
I would have to say that the universe was not created by solely natural processes mainly because nature could not have created itself. I have certain evidences that I think prove that it was the Christian God that I'm willing to present if anyone asks
It is fools who wave their hands and say "God did not create me, the universe did". To believe life is caused by non-living energy or matter is to ascribe supernatural powers to inanimate things.
Are you real? Are you really you, or are you only an apparition caused by chemical fizzes which is not really a person but rather is a hologram generated by chance without real meaning or purpose?
Why do so many people wave their hands claiming to have them full of evidence when in reality they are full of nonsense?
While science can explain, or try to explain, many many things there are some that just don't make sense. Where did the very first living organism come from and how it was created is huge. We might've evolved from monkeys, cool, but that seems a little far fetched as it is itself. Monkeys are far far far away from being able to speak and do the things we humans do. There are just a lot of things that don't make sense even if science tries to explain it
