Is there a god?

[Duo_Maxwell]

osiris:
Nature was created simply by environemental factors. Science can explain this.

Can you imagine trying to explain shadows proved the world wasn't flat after many lives had already been lost trying to prove the unprovable.

Yeah, fustrating. The simple path to "understanding" is to simply let organization tell you, with no proof and no logic what is happening. Often they are wrong, but impatience is a motivator in belief. Religion is impatience.

cpwill: There is finite amount of knowledge and truthp, not universe. Get it straight.

I don't know, but you can't prove in any way, with any amount of time, and with anyone's help, that God created physics. You're simply letting religion state what you are too impatience to wait for. The truth is comming, give it time.

i would love to see this evidence against God's existance (not that we can't identify His presence, mind you, but his complete absense). since religion is not God, but rather the worship of God, no, discrediting of religion does not mean there is no God. athiesm requires faith that all the other evidence in existance (that we do not know about) conforms to your beliefs; if you want to be someone who has faith only in what is decidedly proven, then you belong with the agnostics, not the atheists.

First of all, I said there is plenty of evidence aganist religion, not God. Get it straight. Your post has been putting words into my posts that clearly aren't there. How would we know of a God without religion? How would we know what he/she/it does without religion? How could you state, not explain, what is happening as the hand of God without religion? :) Without religion, god is nothing. And religion has numerous parts of it discreited. :)

my argument is that taken overall, religion has proven to be a positive force in society.

I never said that it wasn't. Things that are used as tools can be good and bad.

i'll give you one: mendel (the father of genetics) was a priest. nd if copernicus didn't give out any of his findings, how do we know about him.


He also didn't publish his findings until later on, while the wrath of the Church wasn't as close. :)
Copernicus left notes and books, of course, AFTER he died. The man wasn't a fool. He had no intention of being ostrized by the chruch for helping to destroy aristolain physics.

You really need a history brush up. :)

Did i say ALL religion is violent fundementalism ALL the time?

Your post has been adding words and meaning that clearly weren't in the post you were responding to. Try not to do this next time.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by gopman
"My God, Jesus, said He is the only way to heaven."

The Pope has freely stated that it is the policy of the Catholic Church that any religion (if it promotes morality) can ultimately lead to God. That doesn't mean that they are correct, it just means that good people who are mistaken in their views about God can still go to heaven.

As for the Pope's edicts:
John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Jesus' words are the final authority to me. If He, Himself, says there's no other way except through Him, who I am to argue?

As for "good people":
Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Isaiah 64:6 - "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

So, you see, even the very best among us, in all their "goodness" are nothing more than filthiness when compared to the perfection that God is.

But, do not despair, for Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day so that those "who confess Him as Lord and believe in their hearts that God has raised Him from the dead, will be saved." (Romans 10:9) When we do this, we are clothed in His perfection. Because of Him, not us, we who have accepted His marvelous gift can stand before God without fear in that final day.

As Ephesians 2:8,9 says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

It's not about who lives a "good" life or who adheres to a "good" religion. Everything, in this life and the next, revolves around our confession of Jesus Christ. Either we confess He is Lord and are saved, or we don't and suffer the eternal consequences.

Like I alluded to before, I didn't make this stuff up.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
cpwill: There is finite amount of knowledge and truthp, not universe. Get it straight.

as i recall, you claimed that eventually we would be able to discover all truth and knowledge, despite the fact that everything we learn tends to simply teach us that there is more we do not know. how would it be possible to contain all knowledge if you are not aware of the entire universe?

I don't know, but you can't prove in any way, with any amount of time, and with anyone's help, that God created physics. You're simply letting religion state what you are too impatience to wait for. The truth is comming, give it time.

you seem to somehow put God and science at odds, that is my point; that they are not: God set up Creation and typically He did so along certain lines, "rules of nature", if you will.

First of all, I said there is plenty of evidence aganist religion, not God. Get it straight. Your post has been putting words into my posts that clearly aren't there. How would we know of a God without religion? How would we know what he/she/it does without religion? How could you state, not explain, what is happening as the hand of God without religion? :) Without religion, god is nothing. And religion has numerous parts of it discreited. :)

as religion is our joint understanding of God, of course it is fallible, it has been many times in the past and will be many times in the future. do you think that for one moment God is changed because our knowledge changes? that's like saying that the moon was only made out of rock once a man stepped on it; instead of being made of rock for millenia. how would i know what God was doing in my life without religion? heck, i don't need some priest or bishop to tell me that; i can witness it with my own eyes.

I never said that it wasn't. Things that are used as tools can be good and bad.

no, but you argued that this fact somehow deligitimized religion; that is where my counter comes from.

He also didn't publish his findings until later on, while the wrath of the Church wasn't as close. :)
Copernicus left notes and books, of course, AFTER he died. The man wasn't a fool. He had no intention of being ostrized by the chruch for helping to destroy aristolain physics.

You really need a history brush up. :)

that and i need to start sleeping, i apologize that my thoughts are hardly lucid tonite.

Did i say ALL religion is violent fundementalism ALL the time?

of course you didn't, you simply insinuated;) again, the existance of fundamentalism within religion in no way deligitimizes it any more than anything else; religion is largely a human created thing.

Your post has been adding words and meaning that clearly weren't in the post you were responding to. Try not to do this next time.

i apologize if this has been the case, but methinks perhaps some of the meanings have been changed on me;)

[Duo_Maxwell]

Originally posted by cpwill
as i recall, you claimed that eventually we would be able to discover all truth and knowledge, despite the fact that everything we learn tends to simply teach us that there is more we do not know. how would it be possible to contain all knowledge if you are not aware of the entire universe?

you seem to somehow put God and science at odds, that is my point; that they are not: God set up Creation and typically He did so along certain lines, "rules of nature", if you will.

as religion is our joint understanding of God, of course it is fallible, it has been many times in the past and will be many times in the future. do you think that for one moment God is changed because our knowledge changes? that's like saying that the moon was only made out of rock once a man stepped on it; instead of being made of rock for millenia. how would i know what God was doing in my life without religion? heck, i don't need some priest or bishop to tell me that; i can witness it with my own eyes.

no, but you argued that this fact somehow deligitimized religion; that is where my counter comes from.

of course you didn't, you simply insinuated;) again, the existance of fundamentalism within religion in no way deligitimizes it any more than anything else; religion is largely a human created thing.


The entire universe is the natural world. There is a finite amount of knowledge. We are simply starting on the path to finding it. Don't let your impatience cloud your judgement.

God & religion are at odds with Science. You can't prove God created every species at the same time, science disproves that. You can't prove that God help make Ham's desdecendents black, sience has proved Africans were the first race of humans. You cannot prove God makes the sun and moon rise and set.

How can you accept a organization that has clearly been harmful to us in the past, as well as preach lies? Religion is the path to God, and it is falliable. Does that not mean God isn't falliable? Personnal evidence is useless in logical debates.

Ah, religion IS a human created tool. But how does one explain God without religion? If man created religion, and religion explains God, did man not create God?

[osiris]

Originally posted by cpwill
ah, you are reffering to the second and third century heresies (splits, whatever you want to call them), i thought you were reffering to the first-generation.

Heresies is the best choice of word (which is why it was chosen), as it's emotive. When you are trying to eliminate an opponent emotional language has been found to be the best.

Regarding organised religion those words are blasphemer, heretic and infidel.


[quote]
actually, it was the bishops, and pretty much what they did was take the books already in circulation the most (the ones that people found most usefull) and cannonize those.


It was the books that were omitted (and those that were buried), which point to the manipulation of Christianity.

Your own Founding Fathers, recognised the influence of empires on religion. The Society of Friends, the Amish for example were allowed to express their beliefs freely.

The impirical force marches on . Even though you overthrew Britain, the memories (financial rewards) of empire were embedded.


A) i would argue that this is against everything i've ever learned about how romans solved problems ("They make a desert and call it peace.")


You're being supercillious here.*


B) Christianity was hardly a threat; if you wanted a palestinian/religious threat for the time period, check out the Jews who were repeatedly revolting (up through the destruction of the temple in 70AD)*


The message of Christianity was the threat. How can you build an empire by turning the other cheek and loving your enemy?


ah, we have differing definitions. i would define you (as you have described yourself here) as a good and moral man.


See above sentence for other examples as to why I class myself as a Christian.

You define yourself as a Christian because?

[cpwill]

Originally posted by osiris
It was the books that were omitted (and those that were buried), which point to the manipulation of Christianity.

what, you want me to explain to you why each book was cannonized, and why specific others weren't? some were found by the councils of bishops to be cannon-worthy, and others were found to be merely inspirational; sort of like reading C.S. Lewis today.


Your own Founding Fathers, recognised the influence of empires on religion.

of course, that's one of the reasons the first amendment is there.

You're being supercillious here.*

no, i'm raising the point that it is unlikely the romans would ever consciously adopt this course of action

The message of Christianity was the threat. How can you build an empire by turning the other cheek and loving your enemy?

and how are people who don't even fight back but allow you to slaughter them a threat, again? to ROME?

You define yourself as a Christian because?

to me being a christian is not defined by the moral behavior (that is more of a side-affect) but rather it is defined by one's relationship with Jesus Christ (Jesus Christ, Christianity, etc.); has one accepted the forgiveness offered by Jesus Christ for their sins?

[cpwill]

aie the two of you are keeping me busy;)

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
The entire universe is the natural world. There is a finite amount of knowledge. We are simply starting on the path to finding it. Don't let your impatience cloud your judgement.

don't let your optimism cloud your ability to judge the limitations of the Human Mind.

God & religion are at odds with Science. You can't prove God created every species at the same time, science disproves that. You can't prove that God help make Ham's desdecendents black, sience has proved Africans were the first race of humans. You cannot prove God makes the sun and moon rise and set.

you haven't argued that God and religion are at odds with science; you have argued that they are two entirely unconnected things.

How can you accept a organization that has clearly been harmful to us in the past

i dunno, didn't you once mention that you live in america, that land of slavery and indian genocide?

as well as preach lies?

when i find lies, i don't believe em;)

Religion is the path to God, and it is falliable. Does that not mean God isn't falliable?

God is infallible; our ability to understand God is extremely fallible. have i made that clear, or do i need to try to state it some other way? (not being sarcastic here, just want to make sure we're both on the same wavelength)

Personnal evidence is useless in logical debates.

why? you callin me a liar?

Ah, religion IS a human created tool. But how does one explain God without religion? If man created religion, and religion explains God, did man not create God?

no more than Newton created gravity:rolleyes:

[KG20]

There is no god, but I'm glad others believe there is because there would be chaos, and that is what the people who created this belief knew.

Keep believing, but it's just us...all on our own.

[Propwash]

POSTED BY DUO_MAXWELL:

The entire universe is the natural world. There is a finite amount of knowledge.

At least, so you assume. As you are unfamiliar with the vast majority of existent information in the universe, that assumption is rather large (read baseless).

We are simply starting on the path to finding it. Don't let your impatience cloud your judgement.

...or cause you to jump to premature conclusions.

God & religion are at odds with Science.

At least, so you assume.

You can't prove God created every species at the same time, science disproves that.

How?

You can't prove that God help make Ham's desdecendents black, sience has proved Africans were the first race of humans.

Of course he never claimed to either.

You cannot prove God makes the sun and moon rise and set.

How can you accept a organization that has clearly been harmful to us in the past, as well as preach lies? Religion is the path to God, and it is falliable. Does that not mean God isn't falliable? Personnal evidence is useless in logical debates.

You're right. The organization is fallible. That is why the focus is on personal relationship, not religion. You are discrediting an infallible being based on the failures of His very fallible subjects. You are applying the wrong measure.

Ah, religion IS a human created tool.

Yep.

But how does one explain God without religion? If man created religion, and religion explains God, did man not create God?

Of course not. A text book may describe the principles of fluid dynamics. But that hardly equates to creating the physical laws governing the principles.

[foxroaddaddy]

Italics posted by Propwash
Bold posted by Duo_Maxwell

The entire universe is the natural world. There is a finite amount of knowledge.

At least, so you assume. As you are unfamiliar with the vast majority of existent information in the universe, that assumption is rather large (read baseless).

We are simply starting on the path to finding it. Don't let your impatience cloud your judgement.

...or cause you to jump to premature conclusions.

God & religion are at odds with Science.

At least, so you assume.

You can't prove God created every species at the same time, science disproves that.

How?

You can't prove that God help make Ham's desdecendents black, sience has proved Africans were the first race of humans.

Of course he never claimed to either.

You cannot prove God makes the sun and moon rise and set.

How can you accept a organization that has clearly been harmful to us in the past, as well as preach lies? Religion is the path to God, and it is falliable. Does that not mean God isn't falliable? Personnal evidence is useless in logical debates.

You're right. The organization is fallible. That is why the focus is on personal relationship, not religion. You are discrediting an infallible being based on the failures of His very fallible subjects. You are applying the wrong measure.

Ah, religion IS a human created tool.

Yep.

But how does one explain God without religion? If man created religion, and religion explains God, did man not create God?

Of course not. A text book may describe the principles of fluid dynamics. But that hardly equates to creating the physical laws governing the principles.

Exactly! Well said, propwash. :clap:

[Duo_Maxwell]

It seems almost everyone who questions the discrediment of religion has little or no background in biology, chemistry, geology, archelogy, physics or other natural sciences

cpwill: What is your background in history and science? It appears to be severely lacking.

don't let your optimism cloud your ability to judge the limitations of the Human Mind.

On the contrary, the human mind has produced the ability to the start on interplanetary travel, not to mention computers so powerful they can predict enviromental changes. I understand the power of the mind to deduce the logical, I don't run to religion to explain what I don't understand at the moment. That's impatience and a lack of motivation to broaded your mind.

Religion is the preaching of God. Religion and science are CLEARLY at odds over life, the universe, etc.

i dunno, didn't you once mention that you live in america, that land of slavery and indian genocide?

America and Religion are two different things. And slavery got us where we are, that is without a doubt to good historians. Indian genocide let us reap the riches of their land. You make that is bad....(:devil:)

God is infallible; our ability to understand God is extremely fallible. have i made that clear, or do i need to try to state it some other way? (not being sarcastic here, just want to make sure we're both on the same wavelength)

Then it is entirely possible that our belief in God IS completely falliable and false? :) After all, our ability to understand it is extremely falliable.

why? you callin me a liar?

I'm calling your personnal, circumantial evidence useless.

Gravity can be tested, Gravity can be measured. Gravity exists in the natural world independent of our meddeling. Gravity can be produced in theory artifically. In that sense, Gravity is man made, but in every pratical sense, Gravity is not man made.

Now, God and religion cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be logically reasoned, cannot exist in a rational process. As we all know, Humans are irrational. It seems only logical that irrational humans would create the idea of a irrational God.

Propwash:
At least, so you assume. As you are unfamiliar with the vast majority of existent information in the universe, that assumption is rather large (read baseless).

Baseless? Oh really? Truth exists out there. Physical factors manipulate the universe. Superstrings underly everything. Other demensions exist. There cannot simply a infinite amount of physical factors.

However religion is completely basless. No proof, no evidence, nothing but irrational faith.

or cause you to jump to premature conclusions

Premature perhaps, but impatient no, neither is it immature, or weak minded. Science has a track record of success. Religion has a track record of failure. Now who will you throw your support behind?

Propwash: Do you need a science lesson as well?

Does human evolution backed by archeological, DNA, and geological evidence mean ANYTHING to you?
Does the history of Horses, shellfish, lower primates mean anything to you?
Does the DNA sequenceing and patterns mean anything to you?
It seems the religious have forsaken logical methods in return for impatience, weak mindness, and immaturity.

Of course he never claimed to either.

But religion claims it. And it is clearly wrong.

You're right. The organization is fallible. That is why the focus is on personal relationship, not religion. You are discrediting an infallible being based on the failures of His very fallible subjects. You are applying the wrong measure.

And the idea is falliable, as well as irrational. Personnal relationships cannot prove God in a logical method. Without his subjects, God and religion are no more.

Of course not. A text book may describe the principles of fluid dynamics. But that hardly equates to creating the physical laws governing the principles.

But in there your analogy falls flat on it's face and fails to aid you in any argument. A text book on chemistry is not proving chemistry. Yet with it you can clearly test, prove, and understand in a logical and rational method chemistry. The book doesn't create the laws of chemistry, but it allows them to be proved by methods within the text.

Religion fails to do even the simplist of that. Without religion there is no God.

I highly doubt any of you would hold your irrational beliefs if you weren't indocrtrinated in it at a young age. If you understood and held scientific methods and laws up as fundemental blocks of the universe, as well as the concept of reason, and logic, none of you would be arguing with no proof.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
It seems almost everyone who questions the discrediment of religion has little or no background in biology, chemistry, geology, archelogy, physics or other natural sciences

cpwill: What is your background in history and science? It appears to be severely lacking.

by science is lacking, my history is pretty good.
it seems you prefer to simply announce that anyone who is questioning you is stupid or illinformed without showing how;)

On the contrary, the human mind has produced the ability to the start on interplanetary travel, not to mention computers so powerful they can predict enviromental changes. I understand the power of the mind to deduce the logical, I don't run to religion to explain what I don't understand at the moment. That's impatience and a lack of motivation to broaded your mind.

LOL, from the puny amount of knowledge that we've been able to produce you assume we are capable of becoming omniscent?

Religion is the preaching of God. Religion and science are CLEARLY at odds over life, the universe, etc.

no, the historical details presented in the bible and science are at odds in many ways over the creation of life and the universe, and at others they are not.

America and Religion are two different things. And slavery got us where we are, that is without a doubt to good historians. Indian genocide let us reap the riches of their land. You make that is bad....(:devil: )

yes, i consider both to be immoral (hope you don't mind i fixed your devil face) the point was that you clearly have no problem being part of an organization that has commited atrocities in the past due to human error, but you try to discredit my points here because i am in an organization that has commited atrocities in the past due to human error. trying to say that the will of a christian is the will of god is similar to claiming that i can slam dunk when i'm wearing a shaquille oniel jersey.

Then it is entirely possible that our belief in God IS completely falliable and false? :) After all, our ability to understand it is extremely falliable.

of course it is possible my personal beliefs about God are fallible. in fact, many of them probably are (if not completely wrong) then definitely incorrectly shaded. my ability to understand something beyond understand is...shall we say... .limited. i' am simply sharing the Truth i have been given and the truth that i have tried to deduce from it. however, whether my particular beliefs about God are correct or not don't affect the fact that he exists any more than the incorrect impressions of (say) Arafat means he doesn't exist.


b]I'm calling your personnal, circumantial evidence useless.[/b]

and how so.

Gravity can be tested, Gravity can be measured. Gravity exists in the natural world independent of our meddeling. Gravity can be produced in theory artifically. In that sense, Gravity is man made, but in every pratical sense, Gravity is not man made.

:rolleyes: you're deliberately misinterpreting. the point was that the study of something does not create that thing. religion no more creates God than newtons' study of gravity created it. (btw; newton was prouder of his religious treatise than he ever was of anything he did with physics, kind of like how einstein prefered the violin;))

Now, God and religion cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be logically reasoned, cannot exist in a rational process.

no, you have just refused to test them.

[Duo_Maxwell]

by science is lacking, my history is pretty good.
it seems you prefer to simply announce that anyone who is questioning you is stupid or illinformed without showing how

Not everyone. I have come across a guy who knew his biology and archeology, as well as the new DNA stuff i didn't know down cold. He was pretty good. Then again, he was a evolutionist convertist to creationism. But you my friend, are no legend (that was his SN).

LOL, from the puny amount of knowledge that we've been able to produce you assume we are capable of becoming omniscent?

With enough biological tinkering and enough time, yes. We could become living immortals. With a understanding of pysch genetics, and more genetic tinkering, it could be done. Just give it time.

and at others they are not.

Like....

yes, i consider both to be immoral (hope you don't mind i fixed your devil face) the point was that you clearly have no problem being part of an organization that has commited atrocities in the past due to human error, but you try to discredit my points here because i am in an organization that has commited atrocities in the past due to human error. trying to say that the will of a christian is the will of god is similar to claiming that i can slam dunk when i'm wearing a shaquille oniel jersey.

The difference is the atroicites in America have helped us. The atrocities with religion have not. Big difference. Yet the will of a christian is influenced by the will of God. Should one falter, it does not look good for the other.

whether my particular beliefs about God are correct or not don't affect the fact that he exists

That was never my issue. Something probably exists upstairs, what I don't know. However, the fact is, belief in that is irrational. I can accept that. Can you?

and how so.

Because it is illogical, irrational, and completely unscientific. Now, do you use those in a formal debate at your college? :)

the point was that the study of something does not create that thing.

On the contrary, the study of religious astronomy created the aristolian physics concept. Which was accepted by the church. We all know that was as true as that this world is in the center of the universe. LOL.

Many physicists proclaimed their religious beliefs to escape persecution. After all, who wants to end up like Galileo? :)

no, you have just refused to test them.

How can I test something that doesn't exist in the natural world and cannot be logically deduced, nor scientifically tested? :)
After all, only the proven can be seriously taken for truth :)

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
Not everyone. I have come across a guy who knew his biology and archeology, as well as the new DNA stuff i didn't know down cold. He was pretty good. Then again, he was a evolutionist convertist to creationism. But you my friend, are no legend (that was his SN).

cts, indeed, i am neither a legend nor a Legend. but you are assuming i don't believe in evolution?

With enough biological tinkering and enough time, yes. We could become living immortals. With a understanding of pysch genetics, and more genetic tinkering, it could be done. Just give it time.

my friend, if this is not faith, then i don't know what is.

Like....

i have seen little scientific evidence to disprove that God loves us, or that God creates us (although i have seen scientific evidence that contradicts the methods He chose to use as presented in the bible; well, i suppose you cant exactly explain bio-genetics to a bunch of illiterate sheep-herders in the desert)

The difference is the atroicites in America have helped us. The atrocities with religion have not. Big difference. Yet the will of a christian is influenced by the will of God. Should one falter, it does not look good for the other.

what in the world makes you think the atrocities haven't helped the church? the inquisition both helped the catholic church maintain control, and later helped the catholic church spiritually as it began to realize the extent of it's error.

That was never my issue. Something probably exists upstairs, what I don't know. However, the fact is, belief in that is irrational. I can accept that. Can you?

i can accept that for you, no problem. my personal faith, however, i do not see as irrational as i have seen within my life both faith tested and faith proven (however, you've already declared that my experiences don't count;))

Because it is illogical, irrational, and completely unscientific. Now, do you use those in a formal debate at your college? :)

of course i would use case-studies in any debate i chose to get into at my college;)

On the contrary, the study of religious astronomy created the aristolian physics concept. Which was accepted by the church. We all know that was as true as that this world is in the center of the universe. LOL.

LOL, as i recall even the catholics have said this isn't true; are you holding the current church responsible for 12th century science?

Many physicists proclaimed their religious beliefs to escape persecution. After all, who wants to end up like Galileo? :)

newsflash, the church knew galileo was right (:shock: );), however, if a physicist wants to proclaim his religious beliefs then all he has to do is do so and get on with his work; i find it highly doubtful that a christian who is pretending will spend a whole lot of time and thought mired in theology.

How can I test something that doesn't exist in the natural world and cannot be logically deduced, nor scientifically tested? :)
After all, only the proven can be seriously taken for truth :)

give her a test run, see what you find out;)

[Duo_Maxwell]

cts, indeed, i am neither a legend nor a Legend. but you are assuming i don't believe in evolution?

No one believes in it. They simply understand it.
We know nothing, but belief much. :)

my friend, if this is not faith, then i don't know what is.

Not quite. Faith requires the absence of proof. Given the fact that we are upon the ability to rudementary mess with our genes, it isn't pure faith. There is a track record of evidence for this to stand on.

i have seen little scientific evidence to disprove that God loves us, or that God creates us

I have seen no scientific or reliable religious evidence to prove that God loves us, or that he created us.

the inquisition both helped the catholic church maintain control, and later helped the catholic church spiritually as it began to realize the extent of it's error.

Luther caused reform without murdering millions. :)

Your expireneces don't count because they don't use any reason or rationality.

course i would use case-studies in any debate i chose to get into at my college

Yet you choose not to do this here?

LOL, as i recall even the catholics have said this isn't true; are you holding the current church responsible for 12th century science?

you simply stated that studying doesn't create something, so I gave you an example. Time frame was irrevelant.

newsflash, the church knew galileo was right ( ), however, if a physicist wants to proclaim his religious beliefs then all he has to do is do so and get on with his work; i find it highly doubtful that a christian who is pretending will spend a whole lot of time and thought mired in theology.

200+ years later. Forgot about that haven't we? When compared to their scientific time and the consequences of not doing it, it's a small price to pay. No one wants to end up like Galileo. Nor have to hide like Copernicus. The Church's wrath is worse then a Woman's scorn.

give her a test run, see what you find out

Your evidence and belief will not work in a scientific study. You cannot test it logically. Only irrationaly.

[gopman]

"Your expireneces don't count because they don't use any reason or rationality."

According to your thus far empiricist logic, his experiences count more than any reason or rationality.

[Duo_Maxwell]

According to your thus far empiricist logic, his experiences count more than any reason or rationality.

To me? Yeah, they count more because I don't accept them. They count more because they aren't proven! Yeah, they are count more because they are illogical?

You crack me up sometimes.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
No one believes in it. They simply understand it.
We know nothing, but belief much. :)

you're beginning to sound like me;)

Not quite. Faith requires the absence of proof. Given the fact that we are upon the ability to rudementary mess with our genes, it isn't pure faith. There is a track record of evidence for this to stand on.

you are basing a mighty large claim on a very small amount of evidence; i cannot think of a better way to claim that you are using intuition/faith/etc.

I have seen no scientific or reliable religious evidence to prove that God loves us, or that he created us.

and you haven't seen any against it; thereby lies my point.

Luther caused reform without murdering millions. :)

and you accuse me of not knowing history? check out the 30 Years War.

Your expireneces don't count because they don't use any reason or rationality.

you having not actually seen or heard any of my experiences are ill-qualified to make this judgement.

Yet you choose not to do this here?

you haven't asked:)

you simply stated that studying doesn't create something, so I gave you an example. Time frame was irrevelant.

are you, then, arguing that the study of something does create it? i don't think you are, it just sounds like it.

200+ years later. Forgot about that haven't we? When compared to their scientific time and the consequences of not doing it, it's a small price to pay. No one wants to end up like Galileo. Nor have to hide like Copernicus. The Church's wrath is worse then a Woman's scorn.

actually no, the church had the results of other monks/priests who had discovered pretty similar results, and had repressed them; they knew at the time.
and the church's wrath was hardly similar for Newton (about whom this part started)

Your evidence and belief will not work in a scientific study. You cannot test it logically. Only irrationaly.

actually i can; you just won't accept the results.

[Duo_Maxwell]

you're beginning to sound like me

Philosophy ruins your mind. It corrupts it with the truth

you are basing a mighty large claim on a very small amount of evidence; i cannot think of a better way to claim that you are using intuition/faith/etc.

Well, it's more evidence then religion has. You're floating, I'm standing on a small rock. :)

and you haven't seen any against it; thereby lies my point.

And you haven't seen any for it, thereby lies my point

you having not actually seen or heard any of my experiences are ill-qualified to make this judgement.

Circumstantial evidence will not hold up in a court. Neither will personal evidence.

you haven't asked

*bangs head aganist the wall* I think i mention logic over 50 times....

are you, then, arguing that the study of something does create it? i don't think you are, it just sounds like it.

Doesn't mean what it creates is true.

actually no, the church had the results of other monks/priests who had discovered pretty similar results, and had repressed them; they knew at the time.

Just because they found the same results doesn't mean they accepted them as truths. Religion has a Nasty tendency not to acknowledge scientific evidence.

actually i can; you just won't accept the results.

Because they won't sustain a scrutiny of logic, reason and scientific method. :)

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
Philosophy ruins your mind. It corrupts it with the truth

along with half of it being made up, and 90% of the other half being bs, that's correct.:D

Well, it's more evidence then religion has. You're floating, I'm standing on a small rock. :)

billions of people around the world have to be clued into something to be getting that much out of it; i'd say we have some evidence.

And you haven't seen any for it, thereby lies my point

correction; I've seen plenty; you haven't seen any you're willing to acknowledge.

Circumstantial evidence will not hold up in a court. Neither will personal evidence.

silly me and here i thought eyewitness accounts were used all the time in courts:rolleyes:

*bangs head aganist the wall* I think i mention logic over 50 times....

you know i think they have a smiley for that. and logic isn't everything. are you interested?

Doesn't mean what it creates is true.

doesn't mean how it describes is necessarily accurate; it in no way changes the actual form of the thing it's describing.

Just because they found the same results doesn't mean they accepted them as truths. Religion has a Nasty tendency not to acknowledge scientific evidence.

nah, in this case it was just arrogance combined with stubbornness; the church was unwilling to admit that it had been wrong.

Because they won't sustain a scrutiny of logic, reason and scientific method. :)

no, because it will be impossible for my words to truly describe the situation to you; and you will read everything i say with attempts to deligitimize instead of actually listening.;):)

[osiris]

Originally posted by cpwill
what, you want me to explain to you why each book was cannonized, and why specific others weren't? some were found by the councils of bishops to be cannon-worthy, and others were found to be merely inspirational; sort of like reading C.S. Lewis today.


I was asking why some books were cannonised and was also alluding to which fitted the staus quo. You gave me C.S. Lewis , I give you seven omitted books as far as we know and the Dead Sea Scrolls.




of course, that's one of the reasons the first amendment is there.


You've cut my words but I mentioned the Quakers and the Amish.
Please explain Waco?



no, i'm raising the point that it is unlikely the romans would ever consciously adopt this course of action


The Romans didn't persecute the Christians moreso than the Jews?



and how are people who don't even fight back but allow you to slaughter them a threat, again? to ROME?


A philosophy that leaves another redundant is ofcourse a theat.

Did we just emerge from a cold war?

Does China still threaten Tibet?

Does the US still threaten Cuba?



to me being a christian is not defined by the moral behavior (that is more of a side-affect) but rather it is defined by one's relationship with Jesus Christ (Jesus Christ, Christianity, etc.); has one accepted the forgiveness offered by Jesus Christ for their sins?


I'll need this explaining to me again, but I'll have a go.

The forgiveness of God is a given which is why the vengefulness spouted by empires is lost on me.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by osiris
I was asking why some books were cannonised and was also alluding to which fitted the staus quo. You gave me C.S. Lewis , I give you seven omitted books as far as we know and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

we had to pick some and leave others; so the ones that we felt were the best were chosen; no doubt a lot of prayer and thought went in to it, but if you prefer the other books you are more than welcome to read them; we just think they aren't as good.

You've cut my words but I mentioned the Quakers and the Amish.
Please explain Waco?

religious group or not, civilians aren't supposed to be owning machine guns and hand grenades. the law is the law.

The Romans didn't persecute the Christians moreso than the Jews?

they were both persecuted, but christians were generally done so on less of an active scale; as shown in the letters of pompey the younger. now, some emperors did seem to get a big of a bug under their bonnet (nero in particular was a bit of a nutcase, i believe he once lit christians on fire to use them as torches for night games in the colloseum), but the jews also had their homeland invaded and their chief city razed, as well as their population forcibly kicked out, so i'd say both groups got kicked around. jews, of course, were a bit different in that they tended to start the fights:D plucky zealots, taking on the empire.

A philosophy that leaves another redundant is ofcourse a theat.

and a philosophy which tells it's members to obey the government is not.

Did we just emerge from a cold war?

Does China still threaten Tibet?

Does the US still threaten Cuba?

was tibet a threat to china?
is Cuba a threat to the US?
are both of those countries? (perhaps a better question would be: does the US threaten buddhism?)

I'll need this explaining to me again, but I'll have a go.

in order to be a Christian (a follower of christ) you have to recieve Christs' forgiveness and develop that relationship with him. (actually follow him)

The forgiveness of God is a given which is why the vengefulness spouted by empires is lost on me.

perhaps it's because empires are made of men, while God is so good as to be beyond our understanding.

[righteous]

Originally posted by JD3
U2D and gopman expressed my opinion pretty well, but I wouldn't say any "cult" will do. Not by a long shot. I suspect any group that prefers you not to think is probably not a wise group to join. Jonestown and Waco are examples of movemenmts that lacked some logic.

Still, if we look at the age of enlightenment, something I heard about in world religions many years ago, within a certain span much of the world had leaders rise who taught ways of living and behaving that was more peaceful and civil than before. This may well be how God reached all of us.

Truth, I have no idea. I do know that the three -- Chritians, Jews, and Muslims -- all worship the same God in a different way. Now I don't rule out the possiblity that is because we messed it up, but I also don't rule out that it may be bigger than a narrow concept. Those that teach compassion and encourage a standard of living that betters the world are worth giving the benefit of the doubt. after you punch in 52761 for david's web site what do you click. dale

[Propwash]

Bold by DUO
Truth exists out there. Physical factors manipulate the universe. Superstrings underly everything. Other demensions exist. There cannot simply a infinite amount of physical factors.

The acknowledgement of the existence of truth is a good starting point. Superstrings -hmmm. Other dimensions -how do you know? You herald the use of logic as prime in investigating the universe yet apparently refuse to use it. These superstrings and other dimensions evolved by chance? The existence of organization, according to logic, demands an organizer.

However religion is completely basless. No proof, no evidence, nothing but irrational faith.

I find the evidence in the physical world supports creation, and thereby a creator, far more readily than the theory of evolution. Speaking of irrational faith: matter just appeared and with no outside influence evolved into an organized system, that stretches from the vast expanse of the Universe to the detailed code of DNA? A code so complex that we are just now starting to break into it? All is an accident? That is irrational faith. How many cars funtion better after an accident than before...?

Premature perhaps, but impatient no, neither is it immature, or weak minded. Science has a track record of success. Religion has a track record of failure. Now who will you throw your support behind?

We're not debating the existence of religion, but the existence of God.

Does human evolution backed by archeological, DNA, and geological evidence mean ANYTHING to you?

Yes. It means bad science, bolstered by ever changing, unsupported suppositions.

Does the history of Horses, shellfish, lower primates mean anything to you?
Does the DNA sequenceing and patterns mean anything to you?

Yes. It clearly means that random, mutational accidents in no way could lead to the complexity of life we see today. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

It seems the religious have forsaken logical methods in return for impatience, weak mindness, and immaturity.

That sentence is correct except for one word. Exchange 'humanists' for 'religious' and you got it.

But religion claims it. And it is clearly wrong. [God's cursing of Ham gave him dark skin.]

Again, we're not debating the existence of religion, but the existence of God. As God didn't say it, this is a straw horse.

And the idea [of God] is falliable, as well as irrational. Personnal relationships cannot prove God in a logical method.

And yet in a court of law personal evidence is some of the best. Furthermore, if you discount personal evidence, and discount physical evidence by the irrational assumption that design came about without designer, you have no base for any argument.

Without his subjects, God and religion are no more.

God's existence is not determined by man's belief or disbelief. His existence/nonexistence is independent of man. Either He does or doesn't exist. What we think doesn't change that.

If you understood and held scientific methods and laws up as fundemental blocks of the universe, as well as the concept of reason, and logic, none of you would be arguing with no proof.

It's interesting that you bring up the scientific method. Here it is for the other folks who haven't reviewed it recently:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Formulate a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.

Apply that to evolution and see what you come up with. Start by testing the Big Bang. How do you intend to test Macro evolution with this method, when it can't be observed? You take evolution and the non-existence of a creator by irrational faith.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Propwash
It's interesting that you bring up the scientific method. Here it is for the other folks who haven't reviewed it recently:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Formulate a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.

Apply that to evolution and see what you come up with. Start by testing the Big Bang. How do you intend to test Macro evolution with this method, when it can't be observed? You take evolution and the non-existence of a creator by irrational faith.

As propwash has so effectively illustrated, evolution is one theory that can never be tested using the scientific method. In fact, this theory is simply an observation of how things might have come into being. It assumes knowledge of the distant path by the evidence of today. It is inherently risky to make such assumptions because we don't know how the mechanics have changed over time.

As an example, some baseball records will never be broken. Did you know that the most wins for a pitcher in a season is 59! In fact, the top 100 best seasons in terms of wins for a pitcher ALL happened before 1916! Does that mean that some pitchers were more dominant than today? No, they just pitched much more often. We know this because someone was there to record how this happened. Evolutionists don't have the benefits of such documentation. They rely on purely current evidence. There's no way to know if our current paradigms jive with those of the distant past - and you're talking about BILLIONS of years in the mind of evolutionists. That takes faith!!!

As I've said before, it takes faith to believe in God and it takes faith to be an atheist. Only agnostics don't require faith because they make no conclusions about the existence of God. If you say you don't believe in God, and you say your position is not based largely on the faith that our mental powers can correctly characterize and extrapolate the infinite and the unknown, you, my friend, are irrational.

I can understand the belief in God and the fact that His existence cannot be proven. I also understanding the rationale behind deciding not to believe in God - though my heart breaks for those who make that eternally consequential mistake. What I can't understand is the ridiculous notion that one can prove God doesn't exist.

[Dave]

Originally posted by righteous
after you punch in 52761 for david's web site what do you click. dale

Send me a pm and I'll tell you.

[gopman]

"And slavery got us where we are"

Incorrect, the slave economy of the South was totally destroyed. "Good historians" know that there is no question there.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by KG20
There is no god, but I'm glad others believe there is because there would be chaos, and that is what the people who created this belief knew.

Keep believing, but it's just us...all on our own.

Are you sure???

[Duo_Maxwell]

along with half of it being made up, and 90% of the other half being bs, that's correct

Just like religion and God. However, philosophy loves reason and logic. Religion and god love irrationality.

billions of people around the world have to be clued into something to be getting that much out of it; i'd say we have some evidence.

Humans are falliable subjects and the majority has been wrong numerous times.

correction; I've seen plenty; you haven't seen any you're willing to acknowledge.[/quote

I haven't seen any that cannot be explained by science.

[quote]silly me and here i thought eyewitness accounts were used all the time in courts

But eyewitness accounts should not not convict a person on their own. Often those that do are found to be wrong. :)

you know i think they have a smiley for that. and logic isn't everything. are you interested?

Logic is everything in a intelligent debate.

nah, in this case it was just arrogance combined with stubbornness; the church was unwilling to admit that it had been wrong.

Just like most religious folk. :)

no, because it will be impossible for my words to truly describe the situation to you; and you will read everything i say with attempts to deligitimize instead of actually listening.

When you bring clear logic, reasonable, and scientific proof to back you up, I'll actually listen. Not bloody likely.

Propwash: You are a perfect example of the impatience, immaturity, and weakmindness that religion loves to manipulate

Just because I cannot explain it now, doesn't mean that a diety created it. We didn't know how the sun rose, or why plants grew, or how people got their physical traits, and we originally thought that some ORGANIZER did it all. We now know that is all false.

Yet you still cling to the same concept. I'm too immature, too weak and too impatience, religion state, not explain, everything because I can't wait and am to weak to look at your faulty history.

We're not debating the existence of religion, but the existence of God.

Since when? I never said there wasn't any God. Just the idea it is irrational. We are debateing the irrationality of the idea of a God and it's basis.

Yes. It means bad science, bolstered by ever changing, unsupported suppositions.

Typical response from a Deacon too impatience to realize truth will come in a rational form. TELL ME NOW, I"M TOO IMPATIENT TO WAIT!

Yes. It clearly means that random, mutational accidents in no way could lead to the complexity of life we see today. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

As the rest of the scientific and mathetmatical community laugh at your ignorance and arrogance. :)

That sentence is correct except for one word. Exchange 'humanists' for 'religious' and you got it.


No, it is correct as it is. Religion is a tool for controlling the masses. Who doesn't seek to study and learn the truth? Religious, Who doesn't seek to think for themselves? The religious. Who simply lets the church tell them everything and not question? The religious. No, it is correct as it is.

And yet in a court of law personal evidence is some of the best. Furthermore, if you discount personal evidence, and discount physical evidence by the irrational assumption that design came about without designer, you have no base for any argument.

Off the LSD. First of all, eye witness accounts have accounted for many wrong setencings as well as multiple innocents murdered under capital punuishment. Yeah, that;s great evidence.
Physical evidence can be scientifically proven. It is irrevelevent of any creator. Personnal cannot be proven logically or scientifically. Design came about from the natural factors of the physical prinipals underlying this universe. Whether or not there is a designer is irrevelant.

What we think doesn't change that.

And again you are wrong. We stopped believing in the Greek Gods. Do you see any major changes?

gopman: Do you understand what started the industrial boom in the North or will you be ignorant once again? This country was built on the backs of slaves whether you like it or not. Nothing can change that.

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he perfers to be true, rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible, has always astounded me. We long for a caring universe to save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of the mountains of evidence to the contrary, we will pin all our hopes on the slimest of doubts. God has not be proven not to exist, therefore he must exist! -- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

[osiris]

Originally posted by cpwill
we had to pick some and leave others; so the ones that we felt were the best were chosen; no doubt a lot of prayer and thought went in to it, but if you prefer the other books you are more than welcome to read them; we just think they aren't as good.


Who is this "we" you talk about? If your answer is Christians remember I am one.

I am talking about information being recorded by the victors.


they were both persecuted, but christians were generally done so on less of an active scale; as shown in the letters of pompey the younger. now, some emperors did seem to get a big of a bug under their bonnet (nero in particular was a bit of a nutcase, i believe he once lit christians on fire to use them as torches for night games in the colloseum), but the jews also had their homeland invaded and their chief city razed, as well as their population forcibly kicked out, so i'd say both groups got kicked around. jews, of course, were a bit different in that they tended to start the fights:D plucky zealots, taking on the empire.


Numerically speaking you are correct, as a pecentage of membership the Christians had it much worse.

The Jews had their homeland invaded correct, it was also Christ's and his followers was it not?

In todays terms "plucky zealots" translates as terrorists, Christianity on the other hand would translate a cult gaining membership and credibity daily.


and a philosophy which tells it's members to obey the government is not.


That was the Hebrew philosphy, Jesus spoke out against Govt. many times.

One of the major players in Govt. at the time were the Pharisees, He did much to upset them and the Romans.

Originally posted by Luke
Luke 16
12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?
13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

You cannot serve both God and Money.

The Pharisees (politicians and organised religion), who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.



[quote]
was tibet a threat to china?
is Cuba a threat to the US?
are both of those countries? (perhaps a better question would be: does the US threaten buddhism?)


Are you serious?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Buddhism is a threat to the Chinese doctrine, Cuba to the USs'.

Why else would such militarily weak opponents be seen as a threat.



in order to be a Christian (a follower of christ) you have to recieve Christs' forgiveness and develop that relationship with him. (actually follow him)


I try my best, and also try to follow His path, through His words.

[osiris]

originally posted by Duo_Maxwell

I highly doubt any of you would hold your irrational beliefs if you weren't indocrtrinated in it at a young age. If you understood and held scientific methods and laws up as fundemental blocks of the universe, as well as the concept of reason, and logic, none of you would be arguing with no proof.


Trying to come to terms with our environment has led to many theories, when they begin to align we will attain more knowledge not less.

The O.T. is a mostly a history book about pre-history showing us where we went wrong guiding us towards the right path, the N.T. takes it a step further and lays down the way forward;

Show respect to others, swallow your pride, love one another etc., and as science grows so does the potential to harm ourselves and without these basic truths we are lost.

We weren't indoctrinated to begin with but the message came through, and stayed there.

[Larry James]

I believe if you study exodus you will see that there are far too many contridictions to come to the conclussion that god is as the bible wants the reader to believe it is . ( a supreme being )

Example the ten comandments were given and the promise land was promissed , but after this , god commanded the massacre of 72 intire nations . The men the wemon the boy infints the girl infints , the pets the animals were all ordered killed in all these nations .

First the " thou shall not kill , then this ? And we are supposed to believe god is all knowing and all powerful , then he could not have not known he would order his chosen people to break his first commandment , unless he was stupid or just plain evil .

You don't give a law , and then order the law be broken after that . This shows me , he did not know the future , or it was not a god which gave these laws . It was Moses who called the shots .

And where was the promissed promise land ?

Most of the stories in the bible seem to have been writen for non thinking people ( children ) those who have no experience to judge truth or fiction .

I believe it is always valid to use the superior brain god supposedly gave mankind . My logic for this is simple , fi there is a god he is the one who gave man his mighty brain . And if god gave man his mighty brain , it was intended for us to use it for the good of all life on earth .

So If there is a god , or if there is not a god , our mission should be the same .

[mahayana]

LJ and Osiris- I think you both make some excellent points. Many Christians make an Idol of the Book, and cannot make the intellectual leap to sift out the truths and philosophy that actually make sense (even to themselves, if pressed).

"I will seek to become enlightened, for the sake of all living things" is Buddhist, not Christian.

I know that some think that the Bible makes no sense, but this is not true. Thanks to more universal literacy, and Luther ( for publishing in vernacular) everyone can judge for themselves. Western culture and much of our way of thinking clearly comes from this Book.

Seeking to understand nature and seeking religious truth are not necessarily exclusive.

[Propwash]

Bold by DUO
When you bring clear logic, reasonable, and scientific proof to back you up, I'll actually listen.

You keep saying that you'll listen to logic. You say we should look at the cosmos and draw logical conclusions. We see an incredibly complex system. We see detail, order, and organization. Your conclusion is that it all is an accident. How illogical. We see that nowhere in nature. Nowhere are things accidentally improving. Organization needs an organizer. My conclusion is that there is a creator/organizer, in keeping with logic. No one believes a super computer throws itself together, and they're pretty basic compared to the systems in nature.

Just because I cannot explain it now, doesn't mean that a diety created it.

Right. Instead you jump to the unsupported conclusion that it is all accidental.

We didn't know how the sun rose, or why plants grew, or how people got their physical traits, and we originally thought that some ORGANIZER did it all. We now know that is all false.

You have given no proof.

Yet you still cling to the same concept. I'm too immature, too weak and too impatience, religion state, not explain, everything because I can't wait and am to weak to look at your faulty history.

Why so condescending? Is a debate showing a different point of view so dangerous to you? I've noticed you do that with many. Why not debate the merits of your arguement rather than pretend your inteligence outweighs all others' who hold a differing opinion?

Since when? I never said there wasn't any God. Just the idea it is irrational. We are debateing the irrationality of the idea of a God and it's basis.

So you're saying there might be?

As the rest of the scientific and mathetmatical community laugh at your ignorance and arrogance.

Really? You still taut all this science without giving any examples?

Off the LSD.

That from someone who concludes that design exists without a designer, order comes from disorder without outside influence, that there are laws and 'super strings' underlying all nature but they evolved from nothing, that matter appeared out of nowhere and fashioned itself into everywhere, and that the existence of this incredible ongoing process, which can't be witnessed happening today, and for which he has given no evidence, is the logical conclusion to all things. WOW!

[Duo_Maxwell]

Propwash: You are commenting on science when you clearly don't understand it as proven in the Evolution thread? :Laughter:

Well, let's take it this way.

We assume these posulates

1) God is perfect
2) What is perfect cannot create what isn't perfect, if they do, they taint themselves and are no longer perfect

What would a perfect god create a imperfect universe?

We see an incredibly complex system. We see detail, order, and organization. Your conclusion is that it all is an accident. How illogical. We see that nowhere in nature. Nowhere are things accidentally improving. Organization needs an organizer. My conclusion is that there is a creator/organizer, in keeping with logic. No one believes a super computer throws itself together, and they're pretty basic compared to the systems in nature.

Once again you are placing words in my mouth. I never said it was an accident. I stated it didn't know what created it, but that science will eventually figure out what did. I NEVER said it was an accident. The religious need to stop lying to prove their points.

Just because we don't understand it now means there MUST be a God? That's rather childish as well as impatience. Not to mention illogical.

Right. Instead you jump to the unsupported conclusion that it is all accidental.

Stop lying.

You have given no proof.

So according to you, the sun rises because god command it? Cells grow because god commands them? That genes produce phenotypes because god commands them? I don't see the point in debating science with someone who clearly has no idea how it works.

Why not debate the merits of your arguement rather than pretend your inteligence outweighs all others' who hold a differing opinion?

Your argument revolves around impatience and childish natures. My arguemnt revolves around a concept and method that has proven itself. Now, which will you believe in, something that has not been proven, cannot be proven, cannot be scientifically, and thus reasonably deduced, or something that has a track record of finding the unbiased truth?

So you're saying there might be?

Let my quote myself.
Originally posted by Duo_maxwellHowever, that doesn't mean there isn't a God. I personnally believe there is SOMETHING up there. Whether it be a Man, Women or Huge speaking rubber chicken who will condemn all KFC workers and customers to eternal damnation, i don't know.
Besides that, all I think "it" wants is simply for us to live compassationate lives. When asked what religion the Dali Lama followed, all he replied with was, "Compassion." I think that's pretty reasonable. I don't exactly like organized religion, Voltarish you could say. (bottom of page 11)

It is a irrational belief, but I am irrational, but so is the rest of the human race.

"I believe in a God, there is no other logical process. How can there be any other? After all, while science has a track record of finding truths that were previously falsified by the Church and religion, and while science will go on and find more things falsified by religion, and while science may ultimtely prove the origin of the universe, and while religion itself has been discreited, and while there is abosolutely no evidence for a God, and while there is no way to prove God created anything, and while there is nothing that can lead a rational person who believes in evidence and records to believe that God created everything, and while I am too impatient to accept that truth will come, maybe not in my time, but it will come, and while I do not question that God may not exist on the grounds of no evidence, I simply accept like a child that what I do not understand must be the hand of God."

WOW!

[osiris]

[quote]Originally posted by mahayana
"I will seek to become enlightened, for the sake of all living things" is Buddhist, not Christian.

Tut tut, you know that sort of language upsets the fundamentalists.

This will upset them further I'm a Christian because I was shown that path.

Peace Through Awareness.

[mahayana]

"I'm a Christian because I was shown that path."

I once bought a book entitled "Imitation of Christ", which proved to be largely incomprehensible. But the impulse behind the title is one I still have. I don't worship Jesus, but I love Him, honor Him, and and try to emulate Him. Would that more Christians did not despise me for that.

But Jesus warned me, I forget the passage...

[gopman]

"What is perfect cannot create what isn't perfect, if they do, they taint themselves and are no longer perfect"

You can't assume that at all. Even if you can, then who's to say that all the imperfect things in our universe don't form a perfect system?

[osiris]

Originally posted by cpwill
and a philosophy which tells it's members to obey the government is not.

I urge you to read Matthew 23, the Seven Woes speech and think of it in a modern context.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by mahayana
"I'm a Christian because I was shown that path."

I once bought a book entitled "Imitation of Christ", which proved to be largely incomprehensible. But the impulse behind the title is one I still have. I don't worship Jesus, but I love Him, honor Him, and and try to emulate Him. Would that more Christians did not despise me for that. I'm a Christian, and I don't despise you. Far from despising you, I long for you to complete the journey you've obviously started. You love, honor, and emulate Him - that is great! Unfortunately, unless you've accepted Him as savior by confessing that He is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead, these things profit you nothing beyond this life on earth. Since you are willing to love and honor Him, why not finish the deal as He asks each of us to do? Ask Him to forgive your sins, make Him Lord of your life and worship Him as God. I pray the Holy Spirit will draw you to this saving encounter with Him so you can experience eternity with Him when you die.

[gopman]

"unless you've accepted Him as savior by confessing that He is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead, these things profit you nothing beyond this life on earth."

That's not exactly true according to the Catholic Church. All faiths can ultimately lead to God. Having knowledge of the savior and denying it is certainly sinful or at least misguided, but it will serve him well when he stands tall before God, much moreso than many who call themselves Christians.

[Propwash]

Well, let's take it this way.

We assume these posulates

1) God is perfect
2) What is perfect cannot create what isn't perfect, if they do, they taint themselves and are no longer perfect

What would a perfect god create a imperfect universe?

You're right, He didn't.

I never said it was an accident. I stated it didn't know what created it, but that science will eventually figure out what did. I NEVER said it was an accident.

Sorry. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. The majority position of evolutionsts, and evolution history, is that evolution generated the universe apart from God. I assumed that is where you stood as well. My apologies.

Just because we don't understand it now means there MUST be a God?

Not at all. Now you're putting words in my mouth.

So according to you, the sun rises because god command it? Cells grow because god commands them? That genes produce phenotypes because god commands them? I don't see the point in debating science with someone who clearly has no idea how it works.

Yes, that is what I believe. Tell us how science works. Prove that He doesn't cause these systems to function.

Your argument revolves around impatience and childish natures. My arguemnt revolves around a concept and method that has proven itself. Now, which will you believe in, something that has not been proven, cannot be proven, cannot be scientifically, and thus reasonably deduced, or something that has a track record of finding the unbiased truth?

You have yet to prove evolution. My arguement rests on solid evidence that evolution did not, does not, and could not occur, especially without the existence of a creator. But that is not all. In the end neither evolution or creation can be completely proved. In the absence of absolute proof I accept creation and thereby the creator by faith, as I see all evidence in keeping with that model. You see the incomplete evidence and take evolution by faith.

I personnally believe there is SOMETHING up there. Whether it be a Man, Women or Huge speaking rubber chicken who will condemn all KFC workers and customers to eternal damnation, i don't know.

That is a fair answer. We now know your position on this thread. Is there a God? DUO believes there is, but is not sure what form He takes. He is waiting on more answers from science. That's a great starting point. As He made you, He is very interested that you know Him. I hope you don't wait too long. You're on the right track.

[Duo_Maxwell]

You're right, He didn't.

Then why is life so imperfect? Why are their abnormalities? Why does everything just fit together perfectly? :)

Yes, that is what I believe. Tell us how science works. Prove that He doesn't cause these systems to function.

Let me ask first, what do you know of these "pheneomna?" :)

You have yet to prove evolution. My arguement rests on solid evidence that evolution did not, does not, and could not occur, especially without the existence of a creator. But that is not all. In the end neither evolution or creation can be completely proved. In the absence of absolute proof I accept creation and thereby the creator by faith, as I see all evidence in keeping with that model. You see the incomplete evidence and take evolution by faith.

You have yet to disprove evolution. The evidence aganist evolution is scant. While everyday the evidence for evolution builds. You have yet to prove any evidence that evolution is false? After all, if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? (if you believe that I'm going to cry). What evidence lends itself towards creation? The fact that we don't know everything? That's impatient and immature. I see holes in the theory, but the heart of it is true. While evolution has gaps and holes, they are nothing like the gaping maws of dieties.

He is waiting on more answers from science. That's a great starting point. As He made you, He is very interested that you know Him. I hope you don't wait too long. You're on the right track.

He couldn't have made me. That's impossible. A perfect god cannot create a imperfect creation. If he did, he is not a perfect god. God(s) by definition are perfect beings. A perfect being cannot taint him/her/itself with the act of imperfection. He may have created the two blackholes in the beginning and let math and science sort themselves out, but it is impossible that he created me. I, like you and the rest of the non-tinkered with human race are imperfect.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by gopman
"unless you've accepted Him as savior by confessing that He is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead, these things profit you nothing beyond this life on earth."

That's not exactly true according to the Catholic Church. All faiths can ultimately lead to God. Having knowledge of the savior and denying it is certainly sinful or at least misguided, but it will serve him well when he stands tall before God, much moreso than many who call themselves Christians. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Catholic Church holds many flawed beliefs - this is but one.

[Propwash]

Then why is life so imperfect? Why are their abnormalities? Why does everything just fit together perfectly?

According to the biblical account, which I believe, God created a perfect universe. In that perfect universe he gave man the will to choose between doing it God's way, or trying it on his own. Man disobeyed and broke that perfect bond to God. Consequently he lost the benefits of communion with God and the perfection of creation.

Let me ask first, what do you know of these "pheneomna?"

Of sunrise and sunset? And phenotypes? Probably not more than the next guy.

You have yet to disprove evolution.

Run over to the evolution sight. I haven't disproved it, but there is some stuff to think about.

The evidence aganist evolution is scant.

That is a debate in itself.

While everyday the evidence for evolution builds.

So is that.

You have yet to prove any evidence that evolution is false? After all, if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? (if you believe that I'm going to cry).

Me, too. It's straw horse.

What evidence lends itself towards creation?

Check the evolution string.

The fact that we don't know everything? That's impatient and immature.

Another straw horse. I haven't ever said that.

He couldn't have made me. That's impossible. A perfect god cannot create a imperfect creation. If he did, he is not a perfect god. God(s) by definition are perfect beings. A perfect being cannot taint him/her/itself with the act of imperfection. He may have created the two blackholes in the beginning and let math and science sort themselves out, but it is impossible that he created me. I, like you and the rest of the non-tinkered with human race are imperfect.

Boy you are not kidding about me being imperfect! : ) I think I addressed what I believe on this up in the first line. Just a quick question, if God created the beginnings and the laws that would eventually create you, didn't He create you?

And a side bar: I want you to know that I harbor no animosity toward you. If I come across as harsh, it is accidental. Please call me on it. I enjoy the opportunity to debate with you and I don't want to abuse your generosity in the time you're giving our discussion.

[Duo_Maxwell]

If this was a perfect universe, why do good people die? Why do things just suddenly, illogical, and irrationally happen that are clearly aganist what they were meant to do? What do machines create imperfections? Why are diamonds created with impurities? Why do creatures not suited to the changing environment die out? Aren't they perfect creautures? Why did they fail to surivive if they were perfect?

Probably not more than the next guy

Make that more then the next religious guy. Do some research and then we'll talk.

So is that.

Discovery has a show of humans doing abnormal things. :)

Check the evolution string.

Did. nothing there.

if God created the beginnings and the laws that would eventually create you, didn't He create you?

Perhaps, but I am clearly imperfect by genetics. How can a perfect god create a imperfect creation? How can a perfect god create imperfection? If God is perfect, and good, and everything that comes from something perfect and good must be perfect and good, it clearly shows that I CANNOT be created by god, and neither can the rest of the human race and life in general.

I want you to know that I harbor no animosity toward you

I just see religion as a impatient quest to state what science will eventually prove. I have the patience to accept that science's track record will reveal the truth. Not in my time nor the next 50 mellinum, but it will.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Originally posted by gopman
"And slavery got us where we are"

Incorrect, the slave economy of the South was totally destroyed. "Good historians" know that there is no question there.

You're funny. Simply ignore the basis for the northern industrial boom.

The slave economy of the South allowed the North to get where it was before the war. it was the calayst. Without it, we wouldn't be here. It was estimated that slave labor pushed us ahead 50 years. Where do you think the North got the material push to grow and export to Europe?

Good Historians go back and look at the fundemental basis for industrial boom.

You're good historians igniore it.

There is no question. This country's economy was built on the backs of slaves.

[osiris]

Originally posted by mahayana


I once bought a book entitled "Imitation of Christ", which proved to be largely incomprehensible. But the impulse behind the title is one I still have. I don't worship Jesus, but I love Him, honor Him, and and try to emulate Him. Would that more Christians did not despise me for that.

But Jesus warned me, I forget the passage...

Jesus warned us about many things, but the most relevant one I can think of at the moment is when He warns us about following the majority.

Luke 13 : 24-30:

"24He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'
"But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'
26"Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'
27"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'
28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

[mahayana]

Apologies to those who dislike being preached to.

I reread the four gospels last night, and there is a version of "the world will hate you because of me" in each of them. It is always amazing how deeply touching is this character Jesus.

John 15 has a lot of this pathos. To paraphrase, " if you are of the world, the world will love you...be in the world, but not of the world...keep my commandments...the world hated me before it hated you; it will hate you on my account...they despise me because they reject my Father."

This chapter also has the famous phrase "a man has no greater love than to lay down his life for others."

[Propwash]

DUO
If this was a perfect universe, why do good people die? Why do things just suddenly, illogical, and irrationally happen that are clearly aganist what they were meant to do? What do machines create imperfections? Why are diamonds created with impurities? Why do creatures not suited to the changing environment die out? Aren't they perfect creautures? Why did they fail to surivive if they were perfect?



According to the Bible, man's sin led to led to a contamination/fall of not just his own being, but the entire natural world as well. When God was done creating, it was all perfect. Man's rebellion tainted that perfection, and without God's intervention that is how it will stay.

Make that more then the next religious guy. Do some research and then we'll talk.

I don't think so. I don't have time to do your homework for you. If you have an argument, make it. Otherwise it's just empty posturing.

Perhaps, but I am clearly imperfect by genetics. How can a perfect god create a imperfect creation? How can a perfect god create imperfection? If God is perfect, and good, and everything that comes from something perfect and good must be perfect and good, it clearly shows that I CANNOT be created by god, and neither can the rest of the human race and life in general.

Asked and answered, your honor. God created perfection. Man messed it up.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Propwash: USE THE FRICKEN QUOTE BUTTON WILL YA?

Independent of man, if animals are not tainted by the rebelliouness of man, why are they not perfect? Why do species fail to survive indepdent on man? Why do species perish of their own accord?

I don't think so. I don't have time to do your homework for you. If you have an argument, make it. Otherwise it's just empty posturing.

Translation: I don't understand natural science, I don't understand science in general, and i'm too lazy to research and learn. Thus i accept religion for these reasons. :)

God created perfection. Man messed it up.

I clearly didn't mess it up. Neither did anyone else. Everyone has some genetic imperfection. None was their choice. If God created viruses, and even the first, strongest, healtest, most perfect human caught it, the translation of viral DNA into human DNA created imperfections in our lingeage, independent of the first human's choice. Not to mention that constant bombardment of radition produces more imperfections, independent of our actions. Now, how did man mess up perfection if he had no hand in tainting it?

We are not genetically imperfect by our accord. If God created perfection, and we did not change our genetics by choice, or any actions, God could not have produced man or any life.

[Antipathy]

I've assiduously read through this interesting thread and I'm firmly in the "don't know" camp.

I agree with the earlier posts which state: Logic proves that belief in god is irrational. But I suppose my catholic indoctrination won't let me make the final step to certainty. I'd like to be certain and in my efforts to find evidence to convince me one way or the other I have tried to read impenetrable philosophical books and articles which have ultimately left me more uncertain than I was before I read them.

I've come to the conclusion that no matter which side of the argument you stand on, doubt is normal and certainty is arrogance.

I am also convinced that for many people, their certainty is false. It is either a front to hide their own doubts, which they are uncomfortable admitting to, or else it is based on experiences which they use as affirmations of what they want to believe.

One of the most compelling arguments that believers have (and I have the most trouble denying) is: "How can all this (humanity, nature, the universe etc.) be just an accident?" The idea being that something this wonderful can't have just come into being from nothing, therefore there must have been a creator.

But just a minute, isn't God perfect? And where did God come from? Surely something as wonderful as God must have been created! And if so, who created God? And who created Gods' creator? etc. etc. etc...

The answer believers will give is that God is infinite and eternal. Two thing that current science denies the possibility of. I truly believe that the current level of human knowledge is only scratching the surface of what there is to be known. So, from my point of view it is a bit pointless using current science as a yardstick against the probability of God existing. This is why I will probably be forever agnostic.

[xexon]

I have no negative feelings towards agnostics or atheists. It simply isn't their time yet. People are like flowers, they bloom when they're ready.

True religion, is an individual journey, not a group effort.



x

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Antipathy
I've assiduously read through this interesting thread and I'm firmly in the "don't know" camp.

I agree with the earlier posts which state: Logic proves that belief in god is irrational.I don't understand how you can say it is illogical to believe something up there created all this. I mean, how did it get here? It seems much less logical to believe it just, poof, came into existence out of thin air...er...vacuum. To me there are only two possibilities that are even remotely logical - either it's always been here, or something created it. This idea of a 'Big Bang' that doesn't include something lighting the fuse is completely illogical to me.
I've come to the conclusion that no matter which side of the argument you stand on, doubt is normal and certainty is arrogance. This I TOTALLY agree with!! I know, for myself, even though I'm willing to suffer greatly and die for my beliefs, there's no way I can be absolutely certain what I believe is true. I'm flabbergasted by some on this forum who would claim they are certain God doesn't exist - and then claim that belief takes no faith. Talk about illogical and irrational! :)

One of the most compelling arguments that believers have (and I have the most trouble denying) is: "How can all this (humanity, nature, the universe etc.) be just an accident?" Exactly.

But just a minute, isn't God perfect? And where did God come from? Surely something as wonderful as God must have been created! And if so, who created God? And who created Gods' creator? etc. etc. etc...At some point, the proverbial buck has to stop. In other words, even if, as you question, something created God and something created that something, somewhere it has to end. Or, even if that creative chain goes on for infinity, we're assuming the existence of a higher being and the debate is already over.
The answer believers will give is that God is infinite and eternal. Two thing that current science denies the possibility of.Actually, infinity is proven every instant of time - we pass through an infinite number of infinitely small pieces of time constantly. And inifinity is confirmed by simple number theory - you can never reach a number to which '1' can't be added to make a larger number - for what that's worth. :)
So, from my point of view it is a bit pointless using current science as a yardstick against the probability of God existing. This is why I will probably be forever agnostic. I salute you for the clear self-examination you've displayed in the post - except for the illogical description of what's logical. :) I still can't get over those atheists who won't even acknowledge their belief that there is no God is a matter of faith. I do hope, though, that somehow, somewhere, sometime God will grant you the faith to accept Him through His son Jesus. I'd hate for your well-thought-out agnosticism to find you separated from Him for all eternity.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Originally posted by xexon
I have no negative feelings towards agnostics or atheists.


agreed.

Humans are irrational and impatient. You cannot fault people for choosing the easiest path. We all do sometimes. However, you can attempt to show them that they have chosen the easiest path.


I don't understand how you can say it is illogical to believe something up there created all this. I mean, how did it get here?

I don't know how you can say it is logical to believe there is something in the form of a God that created this. I mean, don't you know that science will disprove organized religion and eventually find the origin on everything? After all, science has proven itself time and time again.

I'm flabbergasted by some on this forum who would claim they are certain God doesn't exist - and then claim that belief takes no faith. Talk about illogical and irrational!

I never said (and I believe no one else did either), that God doesn't exist. We were simply argueing that the IDEA of a GOD is irrational.

So, from my point of view it is a bit pointless using current science as a yardstick against the probability of God existing.

EXACTLY. However, current science can disprove religion which (in theory) is the voice of God.

[VoiceofReason]

I do know this !

If I buy a bad car (lemon)- that decision can be fixed.

If I invest in the wrong stocks - that decision can be fixed.

If I choose the wrong career- that decision can be fixed.

If I decide there IS NO GOD- and I die- and I'm wrong- that is the ONE DECISION that can't be fixed.

It's an eternal decision. Don't make the wrong one.

:angel:

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
I don't know how you can say it is logical to believe there is something in the form of a God that created this. I mean, don't you know that science will disprove organized religion and eventually find the origin on everything?No, I absolutely don't know this - neither do you. You just have faith that it will.
After all, science has proven itself time and time again. What if science eventually proves the existence of a god? What if science proves the "origin on everything" can be traced back to God? Does that mean it will have disproven itself?? Why do science and god have to be mutually exclusive?

[Duo_Maxwell]

As VOR crudely put it there are options.

However, there are more then one.

1) I believe in God and there is no god. Oh well, i wasted alot of time
2) I believe in God and there is a God. Hot damn!

3) I do not believe in God and there isn't a God. Well, no skin off my back

4) I don't believe in God and there is a God. Does the phrase royally shafted mean anything to you?

However, there is a subclause to this. I find it hard to believe that a perfect God, merciful one as well, would condemn you to hell for simply not believing. If you lived a virtuous and generous life, could a merciful one do that? And yet would someone who has used God's name in atrocities be allowed into Heaven? Doesn't exactly make alot of sense.

You just have faith that it will.

Yet there is a difference between our faiths. Your faith is based on the absence of any evidence. My faith is based on a track record of success and truth. Rather large glaring difference isn't it?

What if science eventually proves the existence of a god? What if science proves the "origin on everything" can be traced back to God? Does that mean it will have disproven itself?? Why do science and god have to be mutually exclusive?

And this is why i'm agonist. That may happen some umpteeth millenium from now. I was contemplating that during my last post. It may actually happen. Science may prove a mathematical and scientific method for the proof of God. Clearly we can't do that now, but i'm not ruling out it's possibility.

However, current science has proven itself time and time again.

Science and God must be exclusive in several fields, such as astronomy, and life.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
Yet there is a difference between our faiths. Your faith is based on the absence of any evidence.See, this is a matter of perspective. I say the earth, trees, humans, animals, stars are all undeniable evidence of a creator. You disagree. Yet, all the evidence you note is to support....evolution, I guess. Tell me how evidence that supports evolution, weak as it always is, is necessarily evidence to disprove God. I say the only thing that makes your evidence "evidence" is that that's what you want it to be.

My faith is based on a track record of success and truth. Rather large glaring difference isn't it? Your evidence to support that there is no god is as flimsy and minute as the evidence to support that there is no other life in the universe. We can't make that conclusion simply on the basis that we haven't seen any aliens lately. In fact, we can't see any sign of other worldly life at all. Yet which intelligent person among us would say he or she has enough evidence to feel comfortable claiming we are definitely alone? And you're trying to say because you don't see the evidence of a Grand Designer that you feel comfortable making that claim about God? Dude, God makes the universe seem like a speck of dust in comparison.

I'm actually curious what evidence you would submit that makes you doubt God's existence. And I'm especially curious about what track record you're referring to as it pertains to disproving His existence.

[Duo_Maxwell]

foxroaddaddy: Let's get this straight. You cannot prove God. I cannot disprove God. The ONLY way to settle this dispute with a winner is if God Itself comes down and says what's really going on.

I myself am agnonstic. I'm not trying to disprove God, I'm simply saying that the belief in a God is irrational. (yes I am irrational too)

[osiris]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
Science and God must be exclusive in several fields, such as astronomy, and life.

WHY?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Because the idea of creationism goes counter to evolution.

Evolution holds that life slowly evolved from a common ancestor to fill each niche with the strongest and most adapable creature suriving to pass its genes on.

Geology tells us that fossils of difference creatures are of different ages, leading to that different species existed at different times.

Creationism states that God created all creatures at the same time.

Not gonna work.

As for astronomy, aristolian physics went directly aganist newtonian and einstienian.

[osiris]

Only fundamentalists take creationism as read. Lots of Christians see much of Genesis as allegorical.

As for time scale how long is a God day?

Surely Aristotles scientific musings had more to do with the information/theories he had at hand than his religious beliefs.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Even if a day is billions of years, why is there no mention of predessor animals? Why is there no mention of animals dying out? If all of the animals were perfect, what happened to the fossils that were previously animals?

Only fundamentalists take creationism as read

Don't know about that.

Surely Aristotles scientific musings had more to do with the information/theories he had at hand than his religious beliefs.

The church accepted this long after he was dead.

[osiris]

I am a Christian and believe evolution is the most likely answer to how life came about.

Who said that evolution isn't Divine machinations?

The church and religion are not always the same thing.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Originally posted by osiris
I am a Christian and believe evolution is the most likely answer to how life came about.

Who said that evolution isn't Divine machinations?

The church and religion are not always the same thing.

Glad some religious folk see science for what it is.

I don't think evolution is the hand of God. God is perfect, and can only create perfect things. Now evolution is littered with the corpes of imperfect animals. How could a perfect god taint himself with the creation of imperfect organisms?

Perhaps. Not everyone feels that way.

[Ronnieraygun]

Originally posted by up2date
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the power of evolution and its ability to find solutions. But you're right, it all comes down to faith. Personally, I believe all the complexity around us can be explained through evolutionary theory, but that and God aren't mutually exclusive.


Your on the right track...An interesting premise about this subject is posed in the book, "Inherit The Wind".

However, to answer the original question as to whether god exists or not. It DOES come down to faith. personally I do believe.

[osiris]

Maybe things are evolving to perfection, and the wolf and the lamb will feed together etc.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I can accept that God created evolution if this postulate is wrong:

That God is perfect.

Not bloody likely.

Yet I don't feel too bad about having a imperfect God.

[Vanessa]

Originally posted by VoiceofReason
I do know this !

If I decide there IS NO GOD- and I die- and I'm wrong- that is the ONE DECISION that can't be fixed.



VOR, if there is a god, which i, just incidently ,don't believe - when you die if god is so wonderful and forgiving of sins why would he not accept you and banish you to eternal hell just because you didn't beleive in him. why would he not say, "oh he/she didn't believe in me but otherwise they were a good person during life, now that they know i do exist i'll let them in to heaven anyway because they were good and respected their fellow man."

[osiris]

All remains to be seen, as I said earlier you believe creation was accidental, I on the other hand believe it was pre-ordained.

I just wish that some of those who claim to be religious ( what ever their chosen/inborn faith ) would start getting some spirituality, and stop listening to the greedy manipulating their beliefs.

Regarding perfection not tainting, like lots of pre-conceived ideas I'm sure that future nano-science ( the more we reduce things the more we'll find ) will show something we already know:

There's always an exception to prove the rule.

[Duo_Maxwell]

whoa whoa whoa. I never said creation was an accident. I simply said I do not know what caused it at this moment.

There's always an exception to prove the rule.

LOL.

The whole God is perfect thing doesn't seem to work when applied to the world.

An imperfect God would fit rather nicely though.

[osiris]

I apologise I was editing while you where posting.

[osiris]

"The whole God is perfect thing doesn't seem to work when applied to the world."

Time will tell, don't be so impatient.

[osiris]

Nano-science is new and has already rocked some provens.

Timescale is VERY important.If the imperfections happened in a God nano-second (not a human one )?

Eventually a perfect creator will perfect a perfect world, hopefully our free-will ( human language.. sins/mistakes ), won't pause it yet again.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
foxroaddaddy: Let's get this straight. You cannot prove God. I cannot disprove God. The ONLY way to settle this dispute with a winner is if God Itself comes down and says what's really going on.

I myself am agnonstic. I'm not trying to disprove God, I'm simply saying that the belief in a God is irrational. (yes I am irrational too) OK, well that's good enough for me! I'm glad we're straight. I accept that you believe we're both irrational, and I'm content to leave it at that. :)

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Vanessa
VOR, if there is a god, which i, just incidently ,don't believe - when you die if god is so wonderful and forgiving of sins why would he not accept you and banish you to eternal hell just because you didn't beleive in him. why would he not say, "oh he/she didn't believe in me but otherwise they were a good person during life, now that they know i do exist i'll let them in to heaven anyway because they were good and respected their fellow man." This is one of the most difficult questions with which anybody looking in depth at the gospel of Jesus has to come to terms. I've been a Christian, an intellectual one I might add, for over 30 years, and I still have problems with this one.

I see it like this. God is perfect and all-powerful, yet, even in His perfection, He is bound by His nature. That nature demands that He not be in communion with sin. I believe He literally can't look on sin outside the shell of this physical world. Therefore, since we've all sinned and fallen short of His glory, once we've left this physical realm, He cannot commune with us. Thus, we are banished from His presence. By the way, He created us, and that's His prerogative.

Now, He could have left it at that. But, He loved us so much that He didn't want to. So, in keeping with His nature, He came to earth in the form of Jesus to sacrifice Himself as a way of imputing perfection to us. As the Bible states, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Jesus' perfect life and sacrificial death were enough to pay the debt our sins create. I don't know why He decided that's the way it should be, but He did. As He is the absolute power in the universe, who am I to say He should have done it a different way?

The last step then is to receive what He has done for us. His sacrifice is like a bridge that will only save those who are willing to walk across it. To be clothed in His righteousness so that we can stand unafraid in the Father's presence when we die, we must put on those clothes. That is, as the Bible states, we must confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord - ie: absolute, unquestioned ruler and power over EVERYTHING - and believe that God has raised Him from the dead.

Ok, that's it. Now for the catch...and this one may be even more difficult to swallow...the faith required to believe this gospel comes from God. The Bible says we are not saved through works but through faith. It goes on to say that the faith necessary to accept His gift of salvation comes not from ourselves but from God, so that no man can boast.

So this question remains: Why doesn't God just give the faith to everyone? I can't answer except to say again when the creator of matter say or does something or sets something up in a particlar way, who am I to question His judgement? I'm just so grateful to Him for giving me this faith that I hold so dear. I'll pray He'll grant you the same.

[VoiceofReason]

You're trying to argue the point of why God won't allow a non believer into heaven. The point is - if you're make the wrong decision, it's not reversible.

That's the ONE DECISION that you just can't get wrong !!:angel:

[mahayana]

So death is a fact, eternal life is a hope, heaven is a carrot, hell is a stick? Life is a morality play God set up for His amusement?

Just checking...

[VoiceofReason]

Originally posted by mahayana
So death is a fact, eternal life is a hope, heaven is a carrot, hell is a stick? Life is a morality play God set up for His amusement?

Just checking...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure that when God sent his Son to die on the cross for YOUR sins, he wasn't doing it for his amusement.
Now that YOU HAVE HEARD the reason for his death and your attonement, you will have to make a decision. That decision is one OF FAITH.
Yes we all have 100's of questions about why this or that happens but there is no question about the reason for Christs death on the cross.

:angel:

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by cpwill
[B]actually belief in God is logical for several reasons, one of them being that we are having this debate. we are not debating events in the 16th dimension because humans, as a rule, are completely unaware of the 16th dimension, it does not ever enter into our lives or thoughts. if there were no God, no spiritual existance, then it stands to reason that human beings would not be aware of one, hence it would not be an issue. as humans seem to be extremely aware of spirituality; i would argue that there must be Something There.

<snip>

santa claus doesn't exist either, but there are references and debates and discussions about him.

i hardly see the presence of debate as basis for a logical reason to accept god.

[VoiceofReason]

Originally posted by ronin_asano
<snip>

santa claus doesn't exist either, but there are references and debates and discussions about him.

i hardly see the presence of debate as basis for a logical reason to accept god.


And you are correct. NO ONE should accept God based on logic.
You accept him "as a little child" based on Faith.
As scary as it may seem, accepting God means you also have to accept the fact that there is a Heaven and there is a Hell and it's not for you or me to decides who spends eternity there based on their religion or what good or bad they've done with their lives.
It all boils down to YOUR HEART and whether you can a