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.
i'm gonna vote on yes, but really... w/e happened to maybe?
not to mention this is a two part question...
i dont' know. the Universe is beyond understanding. and what is God? God is something also beyond understanding. Humans feel that they are brilliant and good enough to understand the Universe or God... that just makes them arrogant. Both atheists and theists have so far proven themselves to be ignorant and arrogant of any form of wisdom.
But you yourself are human and subject to the same flaws you point out. Therefore, you are ignorant and have no more right to call them ignorant than I have the right to call you a slave to religion
they claim that there's no way there can be any thing supernatural. that's ignorant and arrogant since we haven't collected nearly enough data to make any sort of assumption like that.
agnostics admit they don't know. they admit we haven't learned enough about the complexity of the universe. they look to philosophy to tie into scientific theories, unlike atheists who make quick assertions claiming something doesn't exist.
theists on the other hand make up something based on nothing. although, theists tend to be more philosophical (and not on a large scale, just more than atheists).
Well the terms Atheist and Agnostic are fuzzy and overlapping. There's strong Atheism and weak Atheism. Also since it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, when an Atheist says "There's no God," they really mean "God is in the same class as fairies, etc., therefore we should behave as though he does not exist." That however, is kind of a mouthful.
Also you're wrong when you say Atheists don't look to philosophy. Atheism is strongly tied to philosophy. There's obviously a limit to how much we can prove through Science and that's where philosophy comes in. I do agree that due to their inherent skepticism, Atheists are less likely than Theists to take philosophical "leaps of faith."
"we should believe as theough he does not exist". see... that's saying there's no God.
although i do see why they wouldn't believe in something like Iejova or Allah, but the thought of a supernatural being... there's a difference. it could possibly be a mass for of energy that is able to bend the laws of science (scientific yet a "philosophical leap of faith").
actually, no. possible has a... possibility. a mass of energy itself is not supernatural. you're talking about mythical creatures that do.
as for behavior... so when people say "God doesn't exist" they really just mean "we should behave like he doesn't exist"? that sort of sounds like bullshit. what kind of atheism are you going by? i actually go to an atheist board, and i've thought of something like that. they will tell you flat out "no, God doesn't exist, there's no 'possibility'". and even the definition of atheist, they "disbelieve" God.
what you quoted seems more like a leaning agnostic who's sided with secular thinking. and atheist without balls really.
No, but a mass of energy that is "able to bend the laws of science" is.
As for whether or not Atheism allows for the possibility of God, well that's another debate, and not one that I really care about. To quote Einstein:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
he said from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest. Einstein was more of a pantheist, but on the agnostic side. he saw that the universe was beyond understanding, so that we can never really know the answer. he doesn't believe in a personal god at all, but in reality, that wouldn't make you an atheist. his views were very pantheistic/agnostic.
Well pantheism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. A pantheist believes god is nature. Since an atheist obviously believes in nature, he could simply refer to that as god, which seems to be what Einstein did.
But regardless of Einstein's views, I was simply using that quote to help you understand my position. And yes, my position can be called atheism.
pantheism can be split up in different ways. there's the arrogant (metaphorical) kind that says that the Universe might as well be God, but there is no God.
there's spiritual kind that says we're all part of something much bigger.
and then there's the philosophical kind that actually looks to the complications of the Universe to see that the Universe in theory is just as complicated as the concept of God (the kind that i go by).
"there's the arrogant (metaphorical) kind that says that the Universe might as well be God, but there is no God."
Here it seems to me you're willfully ignoring my previous argument. This kind of pantheism does not necessarily affirm the non-existence of God, just that it makes no sense believe in anything outside the bounds of nature. There's nothing arrogant about that.
"and then there's the philosophical kind that actually looks to the complications of the Universe to see that the Universe in theory is just as complicated as the concept of God"
So let me get this straight. You say:
1) The Universe is super complicated. (agreed)
2) People's concept of God is super complicated. (ok)
3) Therefore God exists and He = the Universe. (ok...)
4) But at the same time God is more than just Nature. (huh? why?)
5) Oh, and he also created the Universe. (how do you derive this?)
Looks like pretty crappy logic from where I'm sitting.
first, they were made up by people for stories. we're talking about something much more complex than just what's made up or not. we're talking science and philosophy.
this is the universe and how it works. not "o, flying spaghetti monster".
Well I think the concept of God, even this supernatural mass of energy that you've described, is like fairies in that they're both something people just made up.
Let me see here...
We both agree that God is possible.
However, I believe that without evidence, there's no reason to believe in him.
You say that the universe is complex and that the concept of God is complex, therefore we should not "rule him out."
yeah, i don't exactly believe in him, but i'm not ruling out the possibility. that is what separates atheism from agnosticism... that's what i've been saying the whole time.
not really, that term was probably created cause someone wanted to say "o, well, you're still an atheist". agnostics aren't atheists, despite what both theists and atheists say.
Let's Google the term "atheism". Here's the first five definitions:
1) Wikipedia: Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.
2) Infidels.org (clicking on the "About Atheism" link): Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
3) atheists.org (clicking on the atheism link): Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena...
4) answers.com:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
5) carm.org (clicking on the atheism link): Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god.
Clearly there is more than one definition for the term.
I think it's safe to say there really is a God. As to believing in any religion I think it's safe to say if you believe in your own, that would be sufficient. What other people believe as to their religions is fine as long as they too believe it!!! Most of us are "born" into our religions...we didn't choose them. As we get older and begin to think about such things we may not only ditch God, we may do away with religion altogether! But to what end?
We must believe in something and why not God? We must live by a code of some kind and why not the 10 Commandments? I can find nothing wrong with them at all. Whatever you believe in, believe it with all your heart and practice it. It can't make you a worse person for having tried.
We see so much wrong in the world and always blame God for the terrible wrongs that are perpetrated on people. Many people are angered by this and don't understand why these things happen. It is said that God gave us free dominion over ourselves. We continually make a mess of it and wish God to rescue us from the pain life and death brings. It is also said that God never gives us more than we can bear and I, for one, believe that is true. I've seen it in myself and in many others through the years. Where does this inner strength come from? I believe it comes from my faith and belief in God.
I agree with your last paragraph, especially with your point about inner strength.
However, I have to disagree with you on some things you said in the rest of your argument.
My first point is that it is entirely UNsafe to say there is a God. This is because through this, you are saying that you believe in God. This leaves you open to those who hate Christianity, God, or anything to do with either. Not just because you do, but also because you seem to only be saying that you believe this because there's no risk involved, which brings me to my second point.
The whole point of believing in God, is that it is unsafe to do so. This is related to the cry of (perhaps less learned) atheists, asking for proof of God existing. If we knew, there would be no point in believing, as we would know that he existed. The whole concept of our God is that although we have no concrete proof, we keep on believing.
I say no CONCRETE proof, because God gives us many things that atheists or others might scoff at. Often we overlook things in our lives, because they are there all the time. For example, many people in developed countries earn a decent living, can afford luxuries, and have clean, running water. Many more in third world countries do not have these things. We should therefore be grateful to God for our chance to live like we do. We should also remember that God loves everybody, more than we can imagine, and no matter what we do and say. This, I hope, provides a comforting thought to those who aren't sure about God, or maybe even currently hate him.
Hello gaidheal! For me it's OK to leave myself open to those who do not believe as I do. Of course there is a risk involved and it pertains to all you mentioned. I am at risk since it leaves me open to attack from those who cannot fathom or think it's just plain stupid to believe in someone or something you cannot prove or see. I must stand at the ready to field those attacks if I wish to.
I surely do not believe that the whole point of believing in God is unsafe. Saying that if we knew, there would be no point in believing is entirely untrue as I see it. If there were all the proof in the world that He does exist and I didn't happen to believe in His way of doing things I am certainly free to dissent and find something else I may agree with more than I do His presence in my life.
There are those who require CONCRETE proof of the existence of God while I do not need any such thing. I see and feel God in my life and all around me. I also do not require a particular religion to attach myself to. All religion is man made and subjective. I try to live my life through the Commandments as well as the "Alternatives" list by jessald. These are not new to me and reading them again serves only reminds me of the innate goodness in people.
I try very hard not to forget or overlook what has been given me, whether it is something that is beneficial or hurtful, for each has its lessons to be learned. I fully realize that some of us are truly blessed and some are not. I feel blessed by the opportunity to give of myself to others in great need on any given day.
Many people have faith in things other than Christianity. Some have faith every bit as strong as yours. How are we to decide who is right and who is wrong? This is why concrete proof is important.
Hi Jessald! To say we should only believe in things that are backed by evidence is to believe that nothing else can exist other than what you see.
Your comment pertaining to the 10 Commandments as far as there being better moral codes that exist is a bit unfair. The "Ten Commandment Alternatives" are wonderful but to say they are better is very cheeky. Can we not live by combining all that we see listed there including the 10 Commandments? Of course we can if we wish to.
If you are an Atheist, your inner strength may come from your beliefs grounded in rationality but that is not to say they cannot come from another source. You are entitled to your beliefs, as we all are. Please allow me to do the same.
"To say we should only believe in things that are backed by evidence is to believe that nothing else can exist other than what you see."
Negative. Take Helium, for example. Colorless, odorless, tasteless, yet we are to provide evidence of it's existence by taking scientific measurements.
Now there are many things about the universe that Science cannot explain as of yet, and that's where Philosophy comes in. But Philosophy is different than religion in that it's grounded in rational thought rather than faith.
Regarding the 10 Commandments, I have no real problem with them. Some of the rules, such as keeping Sundays holy, seem a bit unnecessary and inconvenient, but on the whole it's a decent set of rules. My point is that we should not dogmatically accept a set of rules, but should always work to determine what the best course of action is.
"You are entitled to your beliefs, as we all are. Please allow me to do the same."
Sure, you can have your beliefs. And if we were anywhere else I would stop bugging you. But this is a debate site, what do you expect? :) You could always just stop posting. ;)
Hello again Jess! I should hope we never accept any set of rules we cannot truly believe in. Besides that no one needs to accept anything in its totality. Take what you need and leave the rest for today or forever.
Nah, bad idea ;-). The only time I stop posting is when I'm too damned tired to think or when I see that I might just as well whistle up a Rhino's ass!
Wikipedia is cited in places where it's required and it's moderated. In fact, I remember a study recently claiming that it is just as reliable as any other encyclopedia.
Let's just put it this way... it's a hell of a lot more reliable than the bible.
All I'm saying with that link is that people have come up with better alternatives to the ten commandments. That's not a statement which requires hard scientific evidence. Go to the page. Read them yourself. They are clearly superior.
He is imaginary. At most he is a distant, uncaring being. Why not not believe in God? Many people do not, and yet they are still good people. Morals and the ability to know right and wrong I think are a natural part of human nature. As for me, I believe that if God exists, he is an asswhole who should step off his high throne and get his hands dirty. But oh wait, he is too good and loving to do that. F@#$k God man.
To the first part of the Q: Yes there is a deity but who/what that might be is entirely subjective.
To the second part of the Q: Yes, humans have an innate requirement to believe in the mystical, spiritual, and supernatural. At the same time, we are cynical, curious, and desiring of answers we CAN understand. It is this which keeps the former in balance... sometimes.
But what actually proof is there to say that there is no god?? there is no proof to say there is a god but the bibles etc, but my question to you is, what proof do you have that there is not god??
There is no proof that there isn't a god. There is also no proof that there isn't a walrus orbiting Saturn. Or Mars. Or Venus. Or Jupiter. Or that it's not an Elephant seal. Or a car. Or a fish. Or a book. Or a radio antenna. Or a flagon of ale.
Simply that there is absolutely no proof of him anywhere. The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Everything that religion has said about the world has been shown to be false through the scientific method.
God made man? Nope, it was evolution.
God made the universe and the earth? Nope, sorry, big bang.
The idea of god is so silly in this day and age. Sure, I could understand it when we needed some kind of intelligent being in order to answer questions that we didn't understand, like how the sun would rise and fall in the sky, why crops would grow at certain times of year, etc. But we're past that now.
I know everyone and their mother will moan about a straw man argument, but the fact of the matter is that I could make up any old crap about why we are here, without any proof, and then ask people to disprove it. That's not how the world works though. The religious need to start showing some proof, otherwise they can keep their religious beliefs to themselves; out of government policy, out of scientific innovation, out of people's person lives, etc.
Show me a single shred of proof for god?
But, for me, actual proof comes in the following form. Religion is completely based around the idea and concept that humans are special. The whole of the universe and the earth, according to the popular religions at least, is here for our benefit. The only problem is that the idea of evolution came along and totally bitchslapped religion's stance that we are somehow special. I believe it's something that religion has never fully recovered from. Sure, people can say that god started evolution, etc, etc, but the damage has been done. The divinity that religion once had has all but gone.
I agree. Perhaps I would give religions more credit if they accepted science. But the problem isn't science, it is religion. Science can accept the possibility of a divine being that caused the big bang or creation of the universe. Religion cannot accept proven facts, or things that we have strong evidence for. Why can it not be that God created evolution, and in that way, created man? It is a good compromise, but it cannot be accepted because holy books or prophets from the past do not say so.
Look sonny, you’ll find the proof you’re looking for to support almost any theory. A nice argument that you might want to argue’s right here: [ http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/1015#arg6888 ]. So when I tell you that scientists in lab coats got a theory that man = monkey and tons of proof to support it you’ll believe them with inconclusive evidence. And when I tell you this brainy dude had a bright idea that the world was created from nothingness, and put down a bunch of equations - that are still inconclusive - you’ll believe that too. Take a moment to dwell on the arguments in this debate: [ http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/1015#arg5856 ]. But when I tell you that the only way to comprehensively explain the universe and how it was created comes right back to a God, whatever that is or can possibly mean, you make a face. I think you only subscribe to the popular beliefs that the scientific community will ever let you, and forget that science is still very young compared to philosophy, and that the only science you know is the modern western chapter of this day and age. Many civilizations have come and gone, each with their own ‘proven’ theories and concepts. Even if we have evolved from the Neanderthal we don’t seem to have evolved any further in the last millennia, so I would like to argue that humans are really not much smarter than we ever used to be. Here’s another debate we can indulge in on that subject [ http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/1616#arg11732 ]. In that case what we’re left with is the oldest know science, or philosophy, known to mankind: religion, complete with its own documented texts and evidence. Of course, religious texts should not and cannot be taken at face value – if you’re going to compile the secrets of the universe from a divine source into a text format, you can be pretty sure it’ll be in code, the only way to unlock a spiritual evolution that brings you closer to the answers and hence to divinity and God rather than an instant CD-argument-that’ll-leave-you-convinced. Religion is a science in its own right - once you get into the philosophy and out of the mundane gross literal adulterated interpretations. For example, the Koran has numerous scientific facts unknown to the scientific body of knowledge at the time of its revelation, which means that the divine inspiration in the Koran is far above the limits of academic science. As far as I’m concerned science does not disprove the existence of God, it amplifies the belief, as one debater helped me realize: [ http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 1015#arg6757 ]. And the last thing I’d like to tell you is that chat rooms may be a nice place to discuss God and evidence of His existence, but it doesn’t get you very far. One of my beliefs is that it takes eons of spiritual evolution to make a human, and a careful process to develop into a being of light and wisdom. Maybe you should consider something that makes you realize that humanity, and you in particular, are indeed special – that there is a path from obscurity into the light and the fruits of paradise are luscious gems of knowledge.
Listen up, buddy. There are many theories in the world. Some of these are backed up by lots of evidence, and some are not. I won't go into specifics, but let's just say that evolution and god occupy the extreme ends of this scale respectively.
"So when I tell you that scientists in lab coats got a theory that man = monkey and tons of proof to support it you’ll believe them with inconclusive evidence."
I'm glad you chose evolution as your initial theory to question, seeing as it is one of the most complete theories backed up by so much empirical evidence that anyone doubting it can only realistically be considered as either uninformed, misinformed, or plain stupid.
Evolution is an absolute fact. Evolution, simply, is the changes in traits or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. This is obviously occurring around us. Let us consider, for a second, artificial selection. Artificial selection is a type of evolution that can occur. Domestic pets, for example, are artificially selected for certain traits, and the empirical and observational evidence for evolution working in this sense is quite apparent in the numerous different breeds of dogs and cats. So, let's for now assume that you accept that evolution, as I simply defined it above, is a fact. If you don't then what I am about to explain to you will probably be at a level way above your head.
Next, we'll talk about natural selection, and the fact that humans are evolved from apes (not monkeys, silly). There is so much overwhelming evidence for natural selection, common decent, and the evolution of homosapiens from a great ape ancestor.
A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. The best evidence for common decent comes from the study of genetics. If organisms were to have a common descendant, large sections of their DNA sequences would be identical, and most notably they will have inherited mutations unique to that ancestor. Phylogenetic reconstruction is the method used to reconstruct the evolutionary history of an organism, and these reconstruction show the exact kind of DNA matches between organisms that would be expected if they shared a common ancestor. For example, although camera-like eyes are believed to have evolved independently on many separate occasions, they share a common set of light-sensing proteins (opsins), suggesting a common point of origin for all sighted creatures. Then we have the fossil records which, unlike popular (read:religious) belief might have you believe, is not inconsistent and sketchy. Absolute millions of fossils have been collected from over 250,000 unique species. Considering the difficult conditions required for fossilisation to occur, this is a fantastic resource. The successions of animals and plants is clearly evidence from the fossil records, with these fossils being accurately dated using radiometric dating. For one example, we will look at the horse, as it has one of the most complete fossil records. This evolutionary sequence starts with a small animal called Hyracotherium (commonly referred to as Eohippus) which lived in North America about 54 million years ago, then spread across to Europe and Asia. Fossil remains of Hyracotherium show it to have differed from the modern horse in three important respects: it was a small animal (the size of a fox), lightly built and adapted for running; the limbs were short and slender, and the feet elongated so that the digits were almost vertical, with four digits in the forelimbs and three digits in the hindlimbs; and the incisors were small, the molars having low crowns with rounded cusps covered in enamel. The probable course of development of horses from Hyracotherium to Equus (the modern horse) involved at least 12 genera and several hundred species. There's also tons of evidence from comparative anatomies, geological distribution, etc.
So, let's move onto, as you put it, the inconclusive evidence that man is a monkey. What this should actually read is that humans are evolved for a great ape ancestor. Let's start with the fact that human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. Ardipithecus lives about 4.4 million years ago. Because Ardipithecus shares many traits with the African great ape genera it is considered be on the chimpanzee rather than human branch, but most consider it a proto-human because of a likeness in teeth with Australopithecus, which was to follow later. This is the point at which chimpanzees and humans split from a common descendant. This fossil was found in the Middle Awash. Next was Australopithecus, which shares many traits with both humans and modern apes. The earliest evidence of fundamentally bipedal hominids can be observed at the site of Laetoli in Tanzania. These hominid footprints are remarkably similar to modern humans and have been dated as 3.7 million years old. The fossil record seems to indicate that Australopithecus is the common ancestor of the distinct group of hominids, Paranthropus, and most likely the genus Homo which includes modern humans. Next up is Homo habilis, which lived from about 2.4 to 1.4 million years ago. H. habilis, the first species of the genus Homo, evolved in South and East Africa in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene when it diverged from the Australopithecines. Then homo erectus was discovered by Dutch physician Eugene Dubois in 1891 on the Indonesian island of Java. He considered them to be intermediate between that of humans and apes. Homo erectus lived from about 1.8 mya to 70,000 years ago. This is followed by Homo heidelbergensis, which lived from about 800,000 to about 300,000 years ago, and Homo rhodesiensis which lived 300,000–125,000 years ago. Then we have neanderthalensis, which from your post seems to be about where you understanding of human evolution started, followed by homosapein from about 250,00 years ago to the current day.
Now, this obviously isn't complete as I don't have time to properly explain just how vast the human fossil record is, but just as an overview, this is our evolution from ape (not monkey) to human:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus kadabba
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus bahrelghazali
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Kenyanthropus platyops
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo cepranensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens idaltu
Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo floresiensis
And the amazing thing is that it is all there, in the fossil records. If you want more evidence, you could look into human chromosome number 2, which explains precisely why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes compared to all other apes 24. Or you could look towards the chromosome similarities as a whole. Except for differences in non genetic heterochromatin, chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X have identical banding patterns in all four species of great ape. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and Y look the same in three of the four species (those three being gorilla, chimps, and humans), and chromosomes 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7 - 10, 12, and 16 are alike in two species. Chromosomes 4 and 17 are different among all 4 species.
There's so much more of you argument to completely debunk, so I'll leave this lecture with the following thought: If you think there is a lack of evidence for evolution and humans evolving from great apes, it is simply because you haven't looked at the evidence correctly.
"And when I tell you this brainy dude had a bright idea that the world was created from nothingness, and put down a bunch of equations - that are still inconclusive - you’ll believe that too."
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here? Can you please be more specific about the theory that you are attempting to debunk here with your well thought out argument, so I can actually show you that there is tons and tons of evidence for it, but you simply haven't looked for it or don't understand it.
"But when I tell you that the only way to comprehensively explain the universe and how it was created comes right back to a God, whatever that is or can possibly mean, you make a face."
Absolutely. That's my "where did you pull that from?" face. Because, and I want you to take note here because this is important, there is no evidence for god. There is, however, as I've shown, tons and tons of evidence for human evolution. It's the face of "how can people fall for this nonsense without any shred of evidence, yet they can't accept facts that would, in any way, contradict their view of god." Please don't even begin to compare religion with science. Religion begins to fall over at even the smallest hint of scrutiny. As yet, evolution, regardless of how much scrutiny is put upon it, stands up to it all.
"think you only subscribe to the popular beliefs that the scientific community will ever let you, and forget that science is still very young compared to philosophy, and that the only science you know is the modern western chapter of this day and age. Many civilizations have come and gone, each with their own ‘proven’ theories and concepts."
Uhm, science doesn't tell me when I should and shouldn't believe. Science simply says "here is the evidence, make up your own mind." I've looked into evolution. I've studied it. I've put it under my own scrutiny. I've compared it to any alternative theory that I can think of. The thing is though, it stands up to all this scrutiny. I'll say this again, because it's important; if you doubt evolution, it's because you either don't understand it, or your religious beliefs aren't compatible with it. And please don't compare philosophy and science. Philosophy is about applying a systematic approach and reason, not searching out empirical evidence to back up your claim as science does.
I'd love to hear about these "proved" theories and concepts you speak of as well. I'll bet that the majority of them are based on lack of understanding, rather than a gaining of understanding as the modern approach to science dictates.
"Even if we have evolved from the Neanderthal we don’t seem to have evolved any further in the last millennia, so I would like to argue that humans are really not much smarter than we ever used to be."
Please stop bringing up evolution in your arguments, as you always seem to mess it up. I would have thought that if you wanted your arguments to be taken seriously you'd make sure that the very few things you assert as facts (such as this statement) were actually true, which they are not. Here's a debate for you on the subject http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Do_staunch_creationists_understand_evolution . Regardless of your misunderstandings of whether or not our intelligence has increased or decreased and its correlation with science today, its actually down to discoveries made over time and our ability to objectively verify our theories through modern technology. For example, a Greek philosopher came up with the idea of atoms, but obviously didn't have the resources or technology to verify this. Now we do, and we found out that he was actually right.
What you're doing is trying to belittle science because, deep down, you know that your religious beliefs are not compatible. You know that science is answering the questions that religion long held dominion over. You know full well that subjects such as human evolution from great apes completely invalidates the religious connotations that humans are "special."
"In that case what we’re left with is the oldest know science, or philosophy, known to mankind: religion, complete with its own documented texts and evidence."
No. You're unwilling to agree with overwhelming evidence simply because it doesn't match your religious views, so this leaves you, not us, with religion. I'm perfectly happy with basing my world views on evidence.
Yes, religion, complete with its own documented contradictory, translated, interpreted texts and utter lack of empirical or verifiable evidence. Please show me some of this evidence you speak of. And by evidence, I mean verifiable and testable, not some wishy-washy nonsense that you and I both know is so abstract that it can not be disproved.
"Of course, religious texts should not and cannot be taken at face value – if you’re going to compile the secrets of the universe from a divine source into a text format, you can be pretty sure it’ll be in code, the only way to unlock a spiritual evolution that brings you closer to the answers and hence to divinity and God rather than an instant CD-argument-that’ll-leave-you-convinced."
Well, it's a good thing that these religious texts are actually metaphor and not literal, otherwise they would be completely debunked. So when abouts was it that people realised these texts were metaphor and not literal? Was it around about the time that scientific discoveries were being made that disproved religion? These good old times you speak of when philosophy ruled above science; was it metaphor then, or was it a literal and infallible account of the creation of earth and man?
And why can you be sure it would be in code? You just made that up. Making something up and writing it down doesn't make it so. Where is your evidence? I spent a lot of time showing my evidence of evolution to you (which you still won't accept), so where is your evidence for this?
"For example, the Koran has numerous scientific facts unknown to the scientific body of knowledge at the time of its revelation, which means that the divine inspiration in the Koran is far above the limits of academic science."
I've actually looked into this myself after an Islamic co-worker mentioned these "scientific facts." There are no scientific facts! What there is are some very abstract, open-to-interpretation and vague mentions of scientific principles, some of which were known before the time of the Koran's writing. Let's take, for example, the Greek doctor by the name of Galen who lived in 150AD and wrote about the stages of embryology long before the Koran ever did; not the mention the fact that the Koran gets it wrong. What about other scientific evidence in the Koran?
"Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh ..." (Al-Baqara 2:259) The Koran gives the impression that first the skeleton is formed, and then it is clothed with muscle. The muscles and the cartilage precursors of the bones start forming from the somite at the same time. At the end of the eighth week there are only a few centers of ossification started but the fetus is already capable of some muscular movement. Infact, the Quranic verses on embryology saying that "man is created from a drop of sperm which becomes a clot" were in perfect accord with the current scientific thought of the 1st century of the Hejira, of the time of the Koran. Seems to me like the people who wrote the Koran copied current scientific thought, and was wrong because of it. Where is the godly divinity in simply copying current thought and being wrong about it? This is only one of hundreds of examples.
"Maybe you should consider something that makes you realize that humanity, and you in particular, are indeed special – that there is a path from obscurity into the light and the fruits of paradise are luscious gems of knowledge."
This is the thing though. Because I understand and accept evolution, I believe that we are amazingly special. The beauty and sense of timelessness that comes from seeing how we evolved from microscopic life beats anything that religion could ever give me. I think we are amazingly special, just like all other life in the planet. It's so amazing that we are here, and I plan on making every minute of my tiny life count. Thank god I'm an Atheist.
P.S. Please have a read up on evolution before entering into debate about it with me again, sonny, because I hate having to explain simple evolutionary concepts to people who haven't taken the time to look into the subject before rejecting it.
Awesomely said, not sure there's anything else that can be added to this. Surely an effort such as a post of this magnitude is deserving of a CD prize?
I think you're looking at the question wrong, and your first answer tells me this.
Is there really a god? You said no.
You cannot know this, and I know that this has already been said a number of times, but let me explain. Someone mentions evolution and now it's a fight over god or evolution. Evolution cannot tell us how life came about from NON-life. It can explain life as it is now and how it came to be as it is now, but that's something entirely different.
The same goes for the origin of the Universe. There are many ways to explain the origin, but the best one for now is the "big bang" theory. This doesn't disprove god, in fact all it does is explain where everything originated... but where did it come from? It doesn't matter whether or not there is matter here in the universe, before the matter had to exist a place where there could be matter. There is a reality here that nothing can explain. The place beyond the edge of the universe and on forever is still REALITY.
Where did reality come from? Is it a product of the mind or is there something else? What is that something else? If matter cannot come from nothing, then where the hell did it come from? If this realm that allows existence, this void, is real and yet in most places it holds nothing the mind would consider "real". There is nothing out there, but there's something there that makes it real.
This "reality" can only be explained two ways, and neither make sense. Either, reality can come from nothing, can just spark from NOWHERE (When i say this I mean, the absolute form of nonexistance). No matter how you look at it, this means that in the unreal comes reality...
Then there's the belief that the universe didn't come from any place, that it has always existed... but still then, there is an absolute that we cannot comprehend. No matter how far you look out into the universe and try to explain it, there will always be something that you cannot know. In this case, god seems to fit the description of reality. INFINITE.
Religion's bullshit, I have to say that, but to say that there is no god when you cannot know... that's foolish.
Also, just because there could be a god doesn't mean that there are unicorns in my ass and flying spaghetti monsters orbiting saturn with their celestial tea pots. There are laws to the universe even if you don't believe in god.
"I think you're looking at the question wrong, and your first answer tells me this.
Is there really a god? You said no. "
The first question states "is there really a god," to which I replied no. I'm looking at the question exactly as it was posed, and I answered it.
"Someone mentions evolution and now it's a fight over god or evolution. Evolution cannot tell us how life came about from NON-life. It can explain life as it is now and how it came to be as it is now, but that's something entirely different."
You and I are going to disagree on this point, and I'll explain why. Let's imagine for a second that someone discovers exactly how the beginning of the universe was created. By this I mean the actual initial creation of all energy and matter, not simply its rapid expansion as described by the big bang. Now, what properties would this discovery need to contain in order for us to label it as god rather than a scientific natural process? There would have to be some immense differing quality about it in order for us to say "this isn't simply some scientific process that we previously didn't understand, this is god." The only properties I can think of is some kind of personal relationship with humanity or some kind of intelligent act.
What exactly is an intelligent act? How do we attribute something as being intelligently done rather than simply being science? Is there an example of anything intelligently designed in the universe so far as we know it? What about personal relationships between god and humanity. In fact, the origin of humanity is the perfect thing to argue against the existence of a god, due to the perceived intelligent design attributed to it and the notion of a personal relationship between god and humanity; the last point being one of the most important points of any religion.
The problem with religion and the idea of god is that the very fundamentals of evolution goes against it. Religions are all about the relationship between god and humanity. Evolution, on the other hand, is all about the random mutations and changes that, over time, diversify life in an unknown way. Put simply, religion tells us we're special, and evolution tells us we're not. It's a fundamental reason why I believe evolution and religion are not compatible, and the reason why I argue its case so strongly in religious debates.
We happen to be extremely intelligent (well, comparitively at the moment) creatures who have the mental capacity to make up concepts such as a god, and unsuprisingly we expect these made up gods to, in some way, care about us and love us, and demonstrate purely human qualities back upon us. Unfortunately though, if we evolved, you have to accept that we're not special. We're just what happens to be here in this place and this time. In millions of years time we may have evolved further, or we may still be here; but we evolved to this point, we're in no way special, and therefore the idea that evolution can occur as we know it whilst also having a god who is personally involved in the lives of humans are conflicting.
This actually goes on to answer most of your argument. You're arguing that we simply don't know, and I understand that, but in order to attribute the things we don't know to god rather than to science, it has to display some kind of personal involvement with humanity; otherwise it's simply science we don't yet understand. From this point of view, its reasonable to dismiss the very idea of a god and feel justified in doing so.
I hope you understand the point I'm making, and I hope it allows you to think clearly and feel more confident about being able to say "we don't know what's out there" whilst also being able to say "but I know for sure it wasn't god!"
The definition of a "god" goes beyond that of what popular religion suggests. The question was "is there really a god". You cannot know this, and that is why I think you're not looking at the question objectively. Sure being an atheist is ok because it makes sense... but you can't say that religion is so bad because it preaches what it doesn't know, and then go around saying that there is no god for sure. You would be making the same mistake. A thoughtful person would be more inclined to say that s/he just doesn't know, and perhaps will never know.
Even if we were to "discover" where matter and energy come from, it wouldn't explain the reality in which they exist. To me, knowing where matter and energy come from is a question of little importance. Where did the place come from that allows matter and energy? Matter and energy don't make up reality, there's a plain that allows reality, what is that and how did that come to be?
Look at it this way. We are the chess game, the whole game playing out. To understand the game, we look at the pieces at work, and the laws of each chess piece. Physics does this. There are rules to the game, and they figure them out... What are the chess pieces made of? Again, a physisist's questions.
What about the chess board? What about the table that it sits on, or whatever it is that it sits on? What about the game itself, where did the game come from, which is to say, what is life, where did it come from. We can study the peices and know that they are all made of wood, but what is wood? We would have to know the tree. The tree also has a lot of questions behind it... These are things that we'll never know. Studying evolution is like studying the game in action, the goals and how the game progresses. Studying the big bang is like looking for the point where the chess peices first came on to the board... we aren't learning much about the board are we? Even if we did, from the chess game's perspective, we cannot know what happened before the chess game. If we can somehow know that the peices at the board came from one moment when everything came from a box... what is the box, where did it come from? The trees? The ink? The forest? The planet? The solar system, the galaxy, the universe?
There are is simply too much to know from a chess games perspective... We can know more about the pieces and the board that we play on, that the laws or rules at work, but we'll never know of the tree, only what it's made of...
It's not justification for the belief in god, it's just that we cannot know and it doesn't seem wise to speak when you cannot prove your point beyond thought.
I understand what you're saying, but you've glossed over the actual point of what I was saying.
At what point do things fall outside the realm of science and enter the realm of god? Obviously, there is tons of stuff we don't know, some of which we never will know. That's not the point. The point is understanding at what point we would all agree that that something is the work of a god rather than a natural scientific process. I'm simply saying that whilst we cannot disprove an infinite set of possibilities (which is a tautology, so disproves itself really), we can disprove and logically work against the notion of an entity concerned in some way with the lives of humans (which in my view, and the view of every religion since we began inventing them, is the very definition of a god). I'm not trying to know the unknowable;
And remember, the people who say that god can be anything are just twisting the very definition of god to a point where it becomes irrelevant; don't let them skew your thinking. Remember that their gods are defined, and those definitions are disprovable. Random creation of energy is not god. An infinite universe is not god. Some scientific principle responsible for the creation of time, matter, etc, is not god; it's simply an unknown.
Unknowns are NOT what god is, and this is the point I'm trying to make. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that anything unknown or unknowable is god. Gods are supernatural, and so far 100% of all unknowns that have become known have had perfectly natural causes; we've had 0% with supernatural causes. Religious gods are defined, and those definitions are all provably incorrect.
I'll say it again; the unknown IS NOT god, it is simply the unknown.
Ok, first off, let me say that I don't believe in god, especially the popular understanding of it. I do however know that we as humans cannot know everything. We just can't know it all, in fact I would argue that we cannot know anything. This isn't the point. I am not placing god in the unknown sector of our comprehension of existence. I am simply saying that it seems foolish to say that there isn't something in that unknown area, when we would never dare say there is something...
Why can't you say that there is or could be something in the unknown, but you can say that there is not? What I mean by that is, you say "Obviously, there is tons of stuff we don't know". How can you say there is something that you don't know? You have to already have the idea that there is something that you don't know before you begin to look for it. You are saying that there is something in the unknown, but a god isn't one of those things.
Do you know anything about M Theory/String Theory/ The Theory of Everything? It all makes sense to math, and to physics, but to think about it with the human mind... it seems so incredibly alien. The idea that energy is nothing but vibrating "strings", and the universe like a symphony orchestra, with all of the hyper-dimensional membranes and what not colliding with each other and mixing dimensions...
This is all intelligible to the human mind... How much can the human mind know? How much can this instrument understand? We are evolved chimps, are we not? Do you think Chimps can know everything? We are essentially using the same hardware with some upgrades and a different operating system... We cannot know everything, and I know that you said this already, but what about then? Can you rightfully say that we cannot know everything if we come to a point were it appears to us that we finally know everything? Is there more? If so then you are making the same mistake that religious people are in believing in god.
Is there something beyond what we are physically capable of understanding? This is a hard concept to grasp because anything you can imagine is knowable. I mean, a point in research where nothing makes sense whatsoever... in fact, it's so elusive is appears to be nothing. Is there something beyond nothing? Can you answer that? If humanity came to a point where it seemed to know everything, is there something to keep looking for? If so, like I said, that is the same mistake. Allocating belief in something that we don't know even has an existance.
Well sonny, thanks for taking the time to post the long involved argument – you just hate it when some one calls you sonny, huh. You are obviously well versed in evolution, and while I respect its scientific observations that may or may not be valid, the only part that I disagree with is that humans gradually evolved physically from the great apes – which is still a matter of debate. I may not have had the opportunity to study it as closely as you - the same way as you may not have studied religion or the Koran as closely.
I am a traveler of time and space the same as you and am looking for the answer to the riddle of my existence, to which the answer I believe is simply not that we have no purpose and that there is nothing beyond dirt in our lives. No matter how sophisticated science or your understanding of it is, I believe that it is plain arrogant to dismiss the Creator on the basis of an understanding of a few mechanics of creation. I am not an authority on any subject by any means. Like you, I have a limited understanding of the universe around me and a limited capacity to learn. But I have decided on whom to trust as my fountain head of wisdom – which I do not claim is the whimsical science community nor religious fundamentalist dictates of unqualified preachers.
Regarding your comments on how ‘the Koran gets it wrong’ (a highly assertive statement) – I think it is you who gets it wrong. Not only does your English translation of the Arabic script lose the beauty of its words and the depth of its message, it can in fact be interpreted as a continuous, simultaneous process by the use of the word ‘and’ instead of ‘then’ as per your statement that ‘muscles and the cartilage precursors of the bones start forming from the somite at the same time’.
One of the few unadulterated divine texts available to this generation, the Koran has the following claim:
“The Qur'an itself says it holds the knowledge of everything! Everything in creation and beyond. If this fact is accepted, it is unimaginable that such colossal amounts of information could be put down in a few pages, except by divine intervention. Thus, knowledge exists in the Qur'an in everything, from its narrative and poetry to its script and sounds.” (- this excerpt is from an authenticated source)
The true religion of God is likely to be neither counter-productive nor a hindrance to ‘enjoying life’. In fact, the prophets who I believe conveyed the words of divinity to mankind through divine inspiration found a stairway to heaven, to evolve man from his animalistic existence into the eternal and divine. Having embraced this path, I have never felt that I am missing out on life – in fact I often reflect painfully on what I would have missed. As a rational human being with a healthy intelligence and understanding of how the world we live in, I am neither out to deceive myself or anyone else – and I want the same as you: to live a full, complete life in which I have made the best use of the little time that I have.
PS. I do consider you to be much better than any religious follower who blindly follows a religion without understanding and conviction. I especially love the part “Thank god I’m an atheist”, it really made me laugh. At least you’re thankful, I’m sure that counts.
Nice start to your post, sets the tone just right.
...you’ll find the proof you’re looking for to support almost any theory.
I don't get the point of this, you can't just say that "you can find proof anything, therefore your proof is incorrect", you have to discredit his proof. You're not saying anything otherwise.
So when I tell you that scientists in lab coats got a theory that man = monkey and tons of proof to support it you’ll believe them with inconclusive evidence. And when I tell you this brainy dude had a bright idea that the world was created from nothingness, and put down a bunch of equations - that are still inconclusive - you’ll believe that too.
PLEASE! No I don't just believe (that's what faith is). I read their theories and at the most basic level, see if they make sense, see what evidence they've got. Where proof is missing (as with the Big Bang) you have to look at other theoretical ways of proving/disproving it. I personally didn't agree with the big bang theory, it was only after doing a large amount of reading and digging, that I finally came to understand it, and came to the conclusion that the big bang theory is a better explanation than the say eternal universe argument (and a far better one than any of the many god hypotheses out there).
And the inconclusive evidence for evolution you mention (well I guess you're talking about evolution with the man = monkey) shows how little you have studied and understood the subject. Evolution is backed up by quite literally tons of physical corroborative evidence, it is beautiful in its simplicity, and has yet to be disproved despite the claim, by ignoramuses, of it's apparent flaws. "man = monkey" indeed.
Can you not see that your argument here applies so much better to god and religion: So some guy (note not necessarily even a brainy guy) says "my god told me so", you believe him. What "the guy" said has not been subject to the same rigorous proving that other contentious (big bang, evolution) theories have, and yet you believe. Faith sonny, faith, it's just not good enough for science. I'll come back to this in a minute as you fall further into this unfair "trust me I know god" argument.
You only subscribe to the popular beliefs.that the scientific community will ever let you, and forget that science is still very young compared to philosophy, and that the only science you know is the modern western chapter of this day and age.
Saying philosophy is older than science doesn't give it the extra gravitas that you wish it did, science basically came out of philosophy, and has now succeeded natural philosophy (as well as other branches). The scientific community doesn't have an agenda for what it will or won't allow people to believe, you again seem to be mistaking science for religion. If you have a theory, publish it, let it be put to the test, let others pick it apart. But don't suggest that those who are out there working their arses off in order to move our understanding forward have an ulterior motive; again that's religion (see the ID crowd).
Even if we have evolved from the Neanderthal
We didn't, this shows how little you have studied.
we don’t seem to have evolved any further in the last millennia,
Do you understand evolution at all? Have you not seen the evidence out there?
In that case what we’re left with is the oldest know science, or philosophy, known to mankind: religion.
Of course, religious texts should not and cannot be taken at face value if you’re going to compile the secrets of the universe from a divine source into a text format, you can be pretty sure it’ll be in code
What you're saying here is, in effect, a religious get out of jail free card for when it's shown to be false.
Religion is a science in its own right - once you get into the philosophy and out of the mundane gross literal adulterated interpretations. For example, the Koran has numerous scientific facts unknown to the scientific body of knowledge at the time of its revelation, which means that the divine inspiration in the Koran is far above the limits of academic science.
Religion is in no way science. Your example of the Koran doesn't, whether or not it relays such unknown facts (which I doubt), show that religion is scientific, it is not. Science would at least allow you to criticise what it's saying, the Koran does not (in fact this is the fundamental problem of the mosaic distinction).
You also appear to be cherry picking which parts of the Koran that you see as "literal" (the same ones that are mundane gross literal adulterated interpretations?) and the parts which you see as "philosophical". Metaphorical and literal meanings are mishmashed together to create whatever you want them to be, which you can't do with scientific texts.
Religious texts are flawed, and yet cannot be discussed as so without cries of blasphemy, or wishy washy spiritual arguments that we're not supposed to understand it (“in code” indeed). I can criticise the guy who came up with the big bang theory, I am even encouraged to promote counter arguments. To say the same of religion (the Abrahamics at least) is impossible.
I do not trust you, I do not trust the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, etc. I will not simply trust the people who wrote them, until it is verified that what they say is true. So far they have all failed. They are all flawed and fall down after only the smallest amount of critical scrutiny. But let's ignore for the moment the fact that they are flawed, and pretend that that is not a sticking point. Which one should I just trust? How can I pick one fairy tale story over any other, what makes yours better than puff the magic dragon? What criteria can you possible use to pick one? Just because you say so?
It is unfair of you to claim that scientific theories are inconclusive when you have not applied the same thinking to your own beliefs, which would show them to be far far more inconclusive and in no way “above the limits of academic science”. I would also point out (with that last statement) that you're trying, again, to elevate religious doctrine above the same scrutiny that science has to undergo.
...that there is a path from obscurity into the light and the fruits of paradise are luscious gems of knowledge
Look, phuqster, I understand your reservations. I shared a similar mindset to yours in the past. But before I indulge in any argumentation with you, let me brief you on some areas that many people, like you, are lacking:
1. Being a religious follower is not simply a have-blind-faith-you-silly-billy-or-you-roast-in-hell-muahahaha. It’s about finding goodness – which is a whole lot of things over and above worldly issues. But yes, like in most situations, most people abuse religious doctrine to become power-wielders who can push people around. Unfortunately, very few people will ever know religion for what it really is, since history has always had its wicked culprits.
A great deal of understanding religion takes place at various levels, much the same way as a formal educational system. How much you get out of it is up to you, no matter how bad your teachers are at their job and in some cases even then the whole damn institution’s just beginning to rot and the teachers don’t even know the most basic concepts for themselves.
Sometimes you figure it out for yourself or if you’re really lucky, you get into the right school or have a wonderful teacher and develop into a rational human being who can make the right choice based on a highly-ingrained ability to do so.
2. Scientific dictates are the modern religion. Every generation holds on desperately to its ‘proven’ scientific beliefs till a paradigm shift sets things straight. There are always volumes of ‘evidence’ for any claim. And for most claims, droves of people are ready to verify or vilify any claim based on their personal judgment or lack of. Even if science is so god damned sophisticated, it is not infallible. Please answer me this question: http://tinyurl.com/6e26fb
3. The word of God is and has to be infallible (He’s talking about His own creation, for God’s sake). Humans have a limited capacity to learn, and humans are prone to error. Ordinary humans may have one or a few meanings or contexts to any written lines. But if a guy like Shakespeare, (or Matt Gorening for that matter), can have so much depth to their message, we’re talking about God Himself here. And if people can dedicate their whole professional lives studying the works of Shakespeare, you can bet you can probably spend more than a few lifetimes trying to comprehend a single word of God in its entirety. To understand the word of God is a highly involved and dedicated process – in which your questions bring you closer to the answers, not away from them.
4. There is a difference between religion and pseudo-religion. You are certainly right about the fact that you can’t trust ‘any guy’ who claims to know God. There are in fact very few who have ever achieved that status and still exist in peoples’ hearts and minds by the power of their message. I guess in the end you have to do what you’ve always done – make a judgment on what you believe to be true. Since you are earnestly seeking the truth, hopefully you will find it for yourself. That’ll be your paradise (though your version of paradise is pretty boring with primates and a giant science lab thingy going on). But whether you’ll ever get there is simply the will of God.
5. For the followers of a successful religious belief, scientific theory and religion are perfectly compatible and only pave the way for progress. For example, I love science and all it has to offer. I love science-people, especially when they’re honest and not full of themselves because they’re more knowledgeable: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 1015#arg6757
Because the God that the Bible and any holy book describes is self contradictory. The notions of God being all powerful, all knowing, and all loving and forgiving only make sense to a simpleton. In reality, all of these traits can be used to show that if there is a divine being, it cannot be God, because he simply contradicts himself.
There is no way anyone can know weather or not there is a god. I think that the popular idea of god is bullshit, but that's just me. You cannot say though, without proof and you have none.
If there are gods, which ones are we supposed to believe in? There is no proof of any god, there is no proof of tooth fairies. So no, no god. And I can't see the point in believing in religion if there are no gods.
All right boys and girls, one more time, here's how it is:
Belief is God is irrational.
Why? Because there's no proof that he exists. It has been rightly said that believing in God is like believing in magic, like believing in fairies, unicorns, you name it. You can't disprove the existence of any of these things. The only difference between belief in God and belief in fairies is that the idea of God is very deeply entrenched in our society today. However, the fact that a lot of people believe in something does not mean that it's true.
Now, one thing a lot of people say is, "There's no way that the universe, in all of it's complexity, could exist without a creator." Well, it has been rightly said that the stuff beyond our universe is beyond our understanding. We can all agree on this, right? Yet if you say God created the universe, you are making a claim to understand this stuff that is inherently beyond our understanding. The very idea of "a creator" is a concept based on the rules and logic that exist within our own universe. By saying God created the universe you are attempting to force concepts from our own universe to apply to stuff we can know nothing about. This is a fundamentally flawed idea!
Couldn't the universe have been created by a non-intelligent force? Couldn't the universe have simply always existed? Why are you choosing the possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent designer over other possibilities that are just as likely?
Now, let's assume for a moment that the universe was intelligently designed by God. We now have a much bigger problem: How in the world can we understand anything about God? Why accept Christianity over Islam? The Bible says Christians are right and other religions are wrong. The Koran says the same thing about Islam. Who are you to say which is right? Thousands of religions have existed over the course of history, many of which differ wildly. Because all religions are equally unfounded, it makes no sense to accept one over the others.
There are a few religions that have ever gained widespread acceptance, especially among the intellectuals of its age and passed down to the present day.
Islam doesn't say that other religions are wrong.
Muslims believe that there have been 124,000 prophets and messengers sent down to mankind throughout the ages. All these prophets preached the oneness of God.
A messenger is someone chosen by God to call people to the worship of one God and was given a new book or source of revelation, ie, Moses was given the Torah [Jesus was given the Bible] and Muhammad was given the Qur'an.
However, the only scripture widely available to this generation in its original, unaltered form is the Koran.
Even the Koran has been taken apart by various forces since history, but it is the miracle that the original word still exists. The scripture was expressed by Muhammad through divine inspiration (enlightenment) and this was composed in everything from its narrative and poetry to its script and sounds. However, its meanings are beyond the understanding of ordinary people and very few have responsible, delegated authority to pass on this information - that is designed to guide humans towards this state of enlightenment, or heaven.
I believe a path to enlightenment does exist, and it is the only way to understand anything beyond our human cognition.
However, there are still important areas in which Islam and Christianity disagree, the divinity of Jesus for example. We need stronger evidence than old documents allegedly inspired by God in order to decide which is correct. Unless you can definitively show that Islam is right and all other religions are distortions, then it makes so sense to accept Islam over say, Christianity. If you think you can do this, I suggest challenging a staunch Christian apologist to a debate. I'll bring the popcorn. ;)
I’m glad to have piqued your interest. You have made a strong point as well.
All religions, including Islam, have been ravaged over time.
Few followers have been able to maintain a strong adherence to the faith, so all religions are mainly distortions. Here's some further discussion regarding this point: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 1401#arg10419
For most people, access to any original evidence is near impossible in the case of the old religions (predating Islam), including the original, unadulterated religious scriptures. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions of God to have been revealed to humanity, and claims to be the final and complete guide for all generations to come.
However, an integral part of the Islamic religion is that an authority will always be present on the face of the Earth as a living testament to the word of God, declared categorically to its followers by the prevailing authority.
In the case of Islam, the blood lineage of the messenger Muhammad and his rightful successor, Maulana Ali, established a succession that would carry forward the religion of God for all time to come, ensuring its relevance through the ages.
Mainstream Islam of today opposes this view, denying divine succession of a central authority by appointment.
So once you get the popcorn out of the microwave, you might want to consider changing the channel, since most of what you’ll hear is just drivel.
Perhaps the best way to figure it out for yourself is to be honest in your judgments, have good, benevolent intentions, and pray that God will guide you to the light.
God gave us free will to do as we please, if we destroy the earth then it is purely our own fault and no one elses. it is not gods fault people are killing each other and destroying the earth and what not, its called sin. maybe if adam and eve didnt bite the apple in first place then we wouldnt be killing etc..
then again, if the whole adam and eve thing were true then that would mean that we are all incest am i right?? think about this one... there are alot of things to be questioned in religion that can not be answered, so it has to make you think, what actually happens....
If there is a god, please explain why he allows little children to get cancer, and allows tornadoes, and hurricanes and earthquakes. Don't even TRY answering with the Adam and Eve b.s., because it is patently ridiculous, to begin with, and more importantly, even if Adam and Eve were TRUE, that would mean that god holds grudges, and punishes people today for something done by OTHER PEOPLE.
But if God is all powerful, can he not have made freewill that does not lead to evil? Can he be all forgiving if he punishes people for the Adam and Eve crap or if he sends people to hell? Can he be all knowing if we have freewill? Is he all powerful if he can make a rock that he cannot lift, yet he can still lift the rock? The answer is no. God at most is a divine energy that led to the creation of the universe. There is no thinking, loving, compassionate being up there in the clouds.
I agree. What better way to gain power than to tell a bunch of insecure, ignorant human beings that if they do not follow you, some divine being will punish them forever? God was made to explain things before science could explain things. God is outdated and useless. Just a tool that has outlived its purpose
I don't believe that there is A god. If there is a higher power out there, I'm more comfortable believing that there is more than one power in control of things...sort of a system of checks and balances. My main problem with organized religion is the "I'm right and you're wrong so you you're going to hell" mentality.
I'm of a respect-everyone-and-everything mindframe and things will turn out ok. If you have to defend yourself, by all means do so, but there's nothing wrong with just kicking back and observing the show.
